The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2021 was +0.08 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2021 value of +0.37 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 23 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
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 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
On another note, the next New Moon is December 4 02:43 EST and it’s a Super Moon, as it is near perigee (04:57:42 EST) and it’s also going to produce a solar eclipse. The result is near maximum tidal stress, which may (or may not) produce interesting results. Some researchers claim that earthquakes are influenced by Lunar tides. If so, things might get interesting in a couple of days.
Glad I don’t live in California!
There’s not been much earthquake activity today, accept for the massive eruption of Mt Semeru in Indonesia. Early media reports suggest it happened at about the time of the Solar Eclipse and Lunar perigee, about 14:30 local time (07:30 GMT) according to the BBC.
There may be some climate impact from the eruption, depending on the volume of sulfate lofted into the Stratosphere.
Here’s some coverage:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/indonesias-semeru-volcano-erupts-spews-huge-ash-cloud-81554692
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59532251
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/asia/indonesia-mount-semeru-eruption-intl/index.html
The event at Semeru was a pyroclastic flow – NOT an eruption.
Deep sea Anglerfish just washed up San Diego beach. Harbinger of big earthquake.. they say. Soon we’ll find out.
But hey Roy, thank you for the update. We are freezing up here in Finland and lakes are already frozen (neighbours are icefishing) one month earlier than normal.
SQ: PHILIPPINES PLATE IS BANGING ON THE PACIFIC PLATE TWISTING IT SO THAT IT IS DRIVING THE PACIFIC PLATE DEEPER INTO THE SUBDUCTION ZONE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PLATE IN THE CASCADIA
Yeah, definitely something is going on.. watch out for this.
Sorry if this is a dumb rookie question but is the underlying data set that UHA derives its anomaly data from available? I presume there must be at least 12 monthly absolute temperatures from some year in the past.
UAH (apologies for the typo)
“LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020)” The anomaly data is derived from the UAH data itself – the last 30 years.
Yes I see the “LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020)”, but surely there must be some absolute temperature data somewhere in the system.
Anomalies (which are a comparison to a similar period covering 30 years previously) do not require any absolute data as such. They just compare the differences, now to then.
Occasionally Roy does produce an absolute data series as a reference which can be added to the Anomaly set if required.
Thanks, RLH, that’s exactly what I’m after. Do you have a link to any absolute data series Roy has made available in the past?
Blinny has published one recently
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYWNHBLQFRetPEJ-83c1Oeh-n8PbERt0/view
Maybe Binny could link me to the actual numbers as I can’t do much with a graph. But many thanks for posting that link, RLH.
Just a quick follow up, RLH. Is it not odd that Binnys graph shows the Earth is warmest when it is farthest from the sun?
Consider that warming is going to occur over land faster than it does over ocean. When Earth is closest to the sun it is summer in the Antarctic. Most of SH is ocean. So no its not odd that earth is warmest when it is farthest from the sun.
“Is it not odd that Binnys graph shows the Earth is warmest when it is farthest from the sun?”
You would have to do a land/ocean correction first/as well as there is more in one hemisphere than the other.
Ken says:
December 2, 2021 at 2:07 PM
"Consider that warming is going to occur over land faster than it does over ocean. When Earth is closest to the sun it is summer in the Antarctic. Most of SH is ocean. So no its not odd that earth is warmest when it is farthest from the sun."
That land warms faster than the ocean doesn't really hold water (sorry) in that hand-wavey argument as land will also cool faster. Surely therefore, on average, one would expect an increased insolation (when Earth is closest to the sun) to cause an increased average temperature irrespective of land/ocean ratio. I'm more inclined to think the difference in albedo, influenced by clouds and ice, between the hemispheres could explain why the NH is warmest even though it is farthest from the sun during its summertime. In that respect the land/ocean differences will have an effect. This would seem to fit with the Dubal and Vahrenholt (2021) paper that's discussed at length elsewhere in this discussion thread. In that paper it notes that the NH has 64% cloud cover, while the SH has 70%. I suspect the SH also has more ice cover than the NH during their respective summertimes.
I don’t think the absolute values are publicly available. But if it helps I think the absolute baseline is around -10 C.
Phil Harrison
” Maybe Binny could link me to the actual numbers as I can’t do much with a graph. ”
You are right! Coming soon, I’ll generate the time series anew.
I’m not aware of an official UAH baseline. However, there are gridded monthly absolute temperatures at this link:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
A couple months back, I computed a monthly global baseline temperature for the UAH TLT period 1990-2020 from that dataset as follows:
Month 1 : 263.179
Month 2 : 263.268
Month 3 : 263.427
Month 4 : 263.843
Month 5 : 264.448
Month 6 : 265.099
Month 7 : 265.418
Month 8 : 265.233
Month 9 : 264.637
Month 10 : 263.945
Month 11 : 263.406
Month 12 : 263.191
Here’s an example with the UAH December gridded baseline.
Oh…that’s nice. I’m not sure how I missed that file. I think that is the absolute 1991-2020 baseline right?
I believe so. There is file documentation further up in the directory tree, but it doesn’t give code to read the tltmonagc files per se.
From context I believe the block identification line prior to each grid block (e.g.”1 9101 12012 LT” in the first line of the file) is saying
1 – month of year averaged
9101 – year 91 / month 01 is the start of averaged months
12012 – year 120 (from 1900 baseline) / month 12 is the end of averaged months
LT – Lower Troposphere product
Mark B
Many thanks for that info on tltmonacg_6.0. I've managed to import it into a spreadsheet so I can try to reproduce your monthly global baseline temperatures. In your post you get:
Month 1 : 263.179
However I can't reproduce that. I get:
Month 1 : 258.547
I just did a simple average across the 16 columns and 594 rows for month 1, obviously ignoring the pre and post blocks of '-9999's. Doing the 4th root, mean, 4th power gets a mean temperature slightly higher but still nowhere near your 263K. I'm obviously doing something wrong. I'd be very grateful for some guidance.
I think I realise my mistake. The surface area will reduce as latitudes head towards the poles so I need to adjust the averaging to accommodate that.
Success. I get a very slightly different value for month 1 by averaging the temperatures:-
Month 1 : 263.12
But close enough to think I’m doing the same calculation as Mark B.
However, I suspect averaging temperatures is not ideal since radiated energy is proportional to temperature to the 4th power (as per S-B). Converting the temperatures to radiated energy, then averaging, then back to temperature gives:-
Month 1 : 263.84
i.e slightly warmer. Maybe that is more accurate.
Mark B
Thanks a lot.
Could you repost the link to your wonderful graphics representing the UAH 6.0 LT grid for, if I well remember, August 2021?
Here’s November: uahTltNovember2021AnomalyGrid.png
Thank you very much, Mark B. Perfect work mixing a run over UAH’s grid data and its graphical representation.
Merci beaucoup – Vielen Dank.
That plot is done in Python using the free and open source “cartopy” package originally developed by the UK Met office, so the hard work is mostly done by others who have been generous enough to share the fruits of their labor.
Mollweide projections, being equal area, are much more ‘correct’ that Mercator.
Mark B
With reference to your computed monthly global baseline temperature I see month 7 (July) is the warmest. Isn’t that when the Earth is farthest from the Sun? I’m probably missing something that’s going to make me look spectacularly dumb!
My understanding is that July is the warmest because land temperatures have much larger seasonal swings than oceans and there is much more land area in the northern hemisphere. Thus the warmest absolute global temperature is in the middle of northern hemisphere summer.
You’ll notice from the December gridded baseline graphic that land area in the northern hemisphere is cool relative to the ocean at the same latitude and the reverse for the southern hemisphere.
Thanks for that, Mark B. I guess I didn’t expect land would have such a significant effect. I’m trying to understand the seasonal shape of the CO2 curve and it’s relationship with Earth’s orbit.
The annual CO2 cycle is related to seasonal vegetation growth, not to the Earth’s orbit. If it were related to apogee/perigee of the orbit there would be two cycles per year.
As I understand it, the annual CO2 cycle is related to sea surface temperature as well as land temperature and plant life. Given that 70 percent of Earths surface is sea, I would expect a signal in the CO2 cycle that is associated with sea temperature changing with the distance of the Earth from the sun. I guess it may be easier to see in SH sea temperature data. I presume that can be extracted from the UAH absolute temperature data.
“Given that 70 percent of Earths surface is sea, I would expect a signal in the CO2 cycle that is associated with sea temperature changing with the distance of the Earth from the sun.”
The annual outgassing signal:
https://i.postimg.cc/kGgnSb7S/Annual-CO2-Cycle-driven-by-Sun-and-Ocean.jpg
Thanks, Bob. Your link to an annual outgassing signal is very interesting. Are there any references to the data for that?
Normalized annual cycles derived from monthly averages:
Insolation (daily adj-obs flux):
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/F107_1947_1996.txt
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/F107_1996_2007.txt
ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Coral Sea:
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/sst/0112/cor/latest.txt
Niño3:
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino3.long.data
CO2:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
I can’t open those ftp links, Bob. Maybe access to those files isn’t enabled for a guest login to the ftp server.
Phil you’re going to need an ftp client like FileZilla to obtain files from an ftp site, as several browsers stopped supporting ftp transfers last year.
https://www.filezilla-project.net
Bob, still no luck using the FileZilla. No worries, I’ll see if I can find that data somewhere else.
Bob, I found the data at CelesTrak.com instead. Their ftp works fine in my browser.
Just in case its of use, the CelesTrak.com page with the insolation data is
http://celestrak.com/SpaceData/SpaceWx-format.php
In a Mercator projection which distorts the poles as contributing as mush effect as the much larger area that the tropics do.
Mollweide projections ush as Roy uses, being equal area, do not do that.
Phil Harrison
From RLH:
” Anomalies (which are a comparison to a similar period covering 30 years previously) do not require any absolute data as such. They just compare the differences, now to then. ”
*
RLH told you a lot of nonsense.
*
Roy Spencer does not publish absolute data, only anomalies wrt to the mean of the current reference period.
Anomalies exist in two different variants:
– monthly latitudinal and regional averages (the files you see on top of each monthly report thread)
– a monthly 2.5 degree grid containing the monthly anomaly for each grid cell, together with a 12-month 2.5 degree grid containing the climatology, i.e. for each grid cell the 30-month average according to the reference period.
To obtain absolute data is easy: like anomalies are computed as the subtraction of the climatology data from the original absolute values, these in turn can be obtained back by adding to each anomaly, cell after cell, the cell’s climatology data of the corresponding month.
The grid data for the lower troposphere (lt) is in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
– anomalies
the files ‘tltmonamg.1978_6.0’ till (currently) tltmonamg.2021_6.0
– climatology
the file ‘tltmonacg_6.0’
The same structure as above is present for the three other atmospheric layers:
– mid troposphere (mt)
– tropopause (tp)
– lower stratosphere (ls).
“RLH told you a lot of nonsense”
And yet you post an absolute series for UAH monthly absolute (see below) and then claim it is not possible.
Not unusual for you.
RLH
” And yet you post an absolute series for UAH monthly absolute (see below) and then claim it is not possible. ”
Could you manage to exactly what you mean?
What is not possible?
Such comments claiming about what I wrote, but carefully avoiding any real reference to where I wrote it: that is indeed not unusual for you.
“Here is the UAH 6.0 LT time series for Dec 1978-Oct 2021, in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TyfZM5OM4JJI-wh-6hHZby-cnt-gmTHD/view”
Now you see it.
“‘Anomalies (which are a comparison to a similar period covering 30 years previously) do not require any absolute data as such. They just compare the differences, now to then.’
RLH told you a lot of nonsense.”
Now you don’t.
Tell me how the anomalies are not a comparison to previous data then.
RLH, if you are not able to correctly, unequivocally formulate you insinuations, I will have to ignore them.
Tell me how anomalies are not comparisons to previous data, absolute or not.
RLH
” Tell me how anomalies are not comparisons to previous data, absolute or not. ”
I never wrote anything about that.
Why should I? The first time I had to do with anomalies was in 2008, and the first time I generate anomalies out of absolute data was 2015.
*
Look at your completely useless, nonsensical answer, in which Phil Harrison asks about absolute values, not about teaching him what he may have known longer than you:
” Phil Harrison says:
December 2, 2021 at 9:55 AM
Sorry if this is a dumb rookie question but is the underlying data set that UHA derives its anomaly data from available? I presume there must be at least 12 monthly absolute temperatures from some year in the past.
RLH says:
December 2, 2021 at 11:20 AM
Anomalies (which are a comparison to a similar period covering 30 years previously) do not require any absolute data as such. ”
But… you never admit anything.
“Anomalies (which are a comparison to a similar period covering 30 years previously) do not require any absolute data as such”
As many have pointed out before anomalies, like all differences, can be created without any reference to absolute data.
RLH
I forgot that you wrote another nonsense:
” And yet you post an absolute series for UAH monthly absolute (see below) and then claim it is not possible. ”
1. Where did I claim what ‘is not possible’ ?
*
” Not unusual for you. ”
2. Thanks for your subtle, insinuating polemic based on nothing valuable.
Blinny one of theses days you will admit that you cannot calculate averages accurately from already rounded data, but then again maybe you won’t.
Bindidon says:
December 2, 2021 at 12:50 PM
"Anomalies exist in two different variants:
– monthly latitudinal and regional averages (the files you see on top of each monthly report thread)
– a monthly 2.5 degree grid containing the monthly anomaly for each grid cell, together with a 12-month 2.5 degree grid containing the climatology, i.e. for each grid cell the 30-month average according to the reference period.
To obtain absolute data is easy: like anomalies are computed as the subtraction of the climatology data from the original absolute values, these in turn can be obtained back by adding to each anomaly, cell after cell, the cell’s climatology data of the corresponding month."
Many thanks, Bindidon, for that guidance. It's definitely helping me get off the ground with all this fabulous data provided by Dr Roy.
I'm not quite getting the relationship between the 2.5 degree segments across the globe and the 648×16 arrangement of the cells in the climatology and anomaly files. 648×16 corresponds to (I'm presuming) the sun facing half of the Earth which has 10368 x 2.5 degree segments. But where in 648×16 is, say, the tropics, or NH etc? I'd much appreciate any help on that.
Phil Harrison says:
December 23, 2021 at 8:56 AM
"I'm not quite getting the relationship between the 2.5 degree segments across the globe and the 648×16 arrangement of the cells in the climatology and anomaly files."
Update on that – I found a file that explains the format albeit for v5.6 but I presume it has not changed in v6.0.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
So the first block of '-9999's, 27 rows by 16 columns = 432 values. Each 72 values read in sequence 16+16+16+16+8 is the first 2.5 degree row. 8+16+16+16+16 is the second 2.5 degree row. 432 values in the '-9999' block is therefore 6 rows (15 degrees) where measurements are out of range of the satellite. If that all sounds like gobble-de-gook, apologies! If it's wrong, please put me right.
Correction – its 144 values, or 9 rows of 16, that represent each 2.5 degree of latitude I believe.
Phil Harrison
Sorry, I didn’t see this message.
You should move downthread with such news so we all can see them.
*
Your thoughts about this card puncher-like format are correct.
Each month consists of a 2.5 degree grid (72 * 144 data units: anomalies in anomaly files tltmonamg.xxxx_6.0, or absolute data in the climatology file tltmonacg_6.0).
Data units are 5 characters long.
The three southernmost resp. northernmost latitude bands do not contain valuable data in UAH6.0 (they did in UAH5.6).
Hence these 432 unit long series of ‘undefined’ i.e. ‘-9999’ at the beginning resp. the end of each month.
The climatology file has exactly the same layout as a complete year (12 month grids).
This format is valid for UAH5.6
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
and for all four atmospheric layers below
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
so you can generate time series for all five corners using the same software.
And that is how the absolute data for UAH 6.0 LT looks like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j7EXbsXowdUvNz0BAZfBvG41PfFdVXeV/view
and the same data shown relative to its mean, allowing a comparison with the anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ifspSttvKBu240iBi_ErhtABhVv1XsV7/view
I can’t recall any absolute time series showing not only nearly the same trend as the anomalies derived out of it, but a trend even a tick higher…
Many thanks indeed, Bindidon, for providing that absolute data graph. I need access to open the second link but it looks like the first link is what I’m after if I can get at the actual numbers. I’m guessing the absolute data must have come from tltmonacg_6.0 which is in some format that I can’t open (I’m using a Mac – hopefully that isn’t the reason why). Could you link me to those absolute numbers in a csv or txt form?
Phil Harrison
No :- ( I can’t.
This is, as far as I know, the only available source. It reminds me the good old IBM card punchers we used 50 years ago :- )
I wrote 5 years ago some software reading and processing that data, and it is evident that Mark B must have done the same ugly job.
Apologies, I forgot to open access by everybody for the second link. Updated.
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters.
Here is the UAH 6.0 LT time series for Dec 1978-Oct 2021, in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TyfZM5OM4JJI-wh-6hHZby-cnt-gmTHD/view
Many thanks, Bindidon. That’s just what I’m after.
Dr. Spencer: Have you and Dr. Christy been able to determine the size of the error bars on your observed warming trend (i.e. the red trendline)? If not, isn’t your satellite data technically still compatible with a ‘true’ warming trend substantially less than +0.14 C/decade, perhaps even zero?
Dr Spencer, i have a stupid question (yes, questions can be stupid).
The terms “stupid”, “dumb”, etc. seem too vague and lack distinct meaning. All too often “stupid” and “dumb” are used as a pejorative judgment of the asker. I prefer these: appropriate, naïve, whimsical, rhetorical, hypothetical, and inappropriate.
(That odd “naA-ve” is “naive”. It seems this site doesn’t do extended characters.)
Actually I find that the extended character set works sometimes. And then when I look again it doesn’t.
WizGeeker
” It seems this site doesnt do extended characters. ”
You are right: these are never represented. Whenever you see them in a comment, that is then due to the person posting having managed to make them visible.
I use a somewhat tedious method:
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
transforms the spec chars into UTF8 sequences, like here:
é à ô ä ö ü ß ± °C
etc etc etc
“You are right: these are never represented”
Half of the time I see the umlaut, the rest of the time I see garbage.
” Whenever you see them in a comment, that is then due to the person posting having managed to make them visible. “
That would be fine except I have seen the umlaut in the post above. Both there and not.
Currently it is naïve but I also seen it as naïve.
You still didn’t manage to understand.
And behave exactly as… Robertson.
You still wont accept that I have seen both on the same exact post at different times with my own eyes.
I can confirm that the very same post can show umlauts and other special characters on one viewing, and then show gobbledygook on the next. I have no idea what the mechanism is (Roy just logging in and visiting the site is the only think I can think of?) but the same post can show the 2 different character sets (normal and gobbledygook) many times after each refresh of the page.
I owe an apology: I did not understand RLH’s words correctly.
But now, looking at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1054624
I confirm too that these dumb Russian comments appear sometimes suddenly in correct Cyrillic alphabet.
https://mothereff.in/html-entities as recommended by Bindidon works a treat for me. I find it a breeze to use.
Cheers
I’m glad to help with such little tricks.
oops, pressed the wrong button.
First, let’s do some back of the envelope estimation. Say, a characteristic wavelength for a thermal radiation at the typical earthly temperatures is around 15 micron=15e-6m~=1.5e-3cm. Then the typical distance between molecules would be given as, for 22.6L/mol=22600cm3/mol for a gas at the typical earthly conditions, hence the density is 6.02e23/22600=2.67e19 molecules/cm3, for approx 3e6 molecules per cm of linear density. This gives, for a typical thermal radiation, the 3e6(m/cm)*1.5e-3(cm)/2~=2.25e3 molecules per half-wavelength, or 11.4e9 = eleven billion molecules per one cubic half-wavelength of the typical thermal radiation. Interesting, the molecules in the gas are pretty close together it seems! Of course, in the real atmosphere, the major radiatively-active aka greenhouse gases only constitute a small fraction of the total gases, typically varying between 1 in 10000 for co2 or wv at the tropopause to 1 in 100 (or even down to 1 in 25) for wv at the surface, thus the actual number of GHG molecules located within the half-wavelength of each other ranges from roughly 1 to 100 millions, and +- 2 order of magnitude if we account for the fact that the thermal radiation covers the range of wavelengths, for a total range thus being roughly in the range of 10000 to 10 billion molecules at any time within the near-field of any emitting or =gnibrosba= molecule.
From the simple estimation above, it seems fair to say that even in a fairly diluted greenhouse gasses at the earth surface conditions, the individual molecules cannot possibly be thought of as “radiatively” isolated from one another, yet all the explanations of the radiative processes in atmospheric gasses presented to the ‘common’ people who are not smart enough to delve into the intricacies of the quantum electrodynamics, always treat the radiating gasses as a set of material points radiatively interacting among themselves only through the far-fields. I understand that at least some of the non-far-field interaction is taken into account as the effects of line pressure-broadening and collisional-narrowing, as well as collision-induced =noitprosba=, yet it seems to me that all these effects try to account for the influence of the electromagnetically-finite size of the gas molecules on their interaction with far-fields only.
And now for the stupid question: how certain are ‘the scientits’ that the near-field interaction among molecules of radiative gasses is fully accounted for, and that it does not have any subtle yet nontrivial and significant effect on the radiative properties of the atmospheres??
regardless of whether i get any useful answer to the question, I sure hope that this comment of mine will flame-up the mindless discussion that the denizens of this blog are known for ^-^
coturnix
You speak about ‘near surface’.
What concerns
– the influence of trace gases on radiation
and
– the molecule density around them
it is evident that H2O aka WV is there of interest.
But if I understand well a French paper
https://tinyurl.com/mwew486v
I read about the {of course, non existing} GHE, CO2’s effect begins above the tropopause, when H2O disappears due to precipitation.
Is your computation above then still correct, when you move up to the lower stratosphere?
>> You speak about near surface.
to put it into context, i’m not asking about very high or low pressures or temperatures, just of what is found in the troposphere
>> the influence of trace gases on radiation
all gasses are important, even nitrogen, but indeed i’m asking about something different
>> the molecule density around them
i’m pointing out that even in the relatively rarified dry air at the top o the ptroposphere there tonnes of molecules of the GHG in the near-field zone of each other. In the tropical lower troposphere that number goes up into billions.
>> it is evident that H2O aka WV is there of interest.
yes, because it is most important and misunderstoon GHG
>> But if I understand well a French paper
well, I don’t for obvious reasons.
>> I read about the {of course, non existing} GHE
why not existing?
>> CO2s effect begins above the tropopause, when H2O disappears due to precipitation.
irrelevant
>> Is your computation above then still correct, when you move up to the lower stratosphere?
I just did a simple order-of-magnitude back of the envelope calculations of the numbers of GHG molecules in air under the typical tropospheric conditions, and noted that even in the very dry winter air there would still be ALOT of them located close enough to one another to be in the near-field zone of each other.
The question of the tropopause however is interesting…. at the tropopause the air density is typically 5 to 10 times lower than at the surface, and co2 is typically 1 in 2500 molecules, thus the 11e9 molecules per cubic half-wavelength need to be divide by 2500 and then by 125 to 1000 to get the numbers for the co2 at the TOTT, which gives between 4.5 and 35 thousand molecules of co2 adjacent to any given co2 molecules under those conditions.
For the WV using the https://www.processsensing.com/en-us/humidity-calculator/ we get that at 10% of atmospheric pressure and -60C, the partial pressure of the saturated WV is at the meager 1pa, or around 100,000 molecules per set volume. At -80, that falls by 20 more times, bringing the number to around 5000-6000 molecules of wv within the near-field region of any emitting or absorbing molecule at any given time. Still a very large number, though.
>> I read about the {of course, non existing} GHE
why not existing?
That was sarcasm.
Absolutely right. In fact global temperature in the first half of 20th century (1900-1950) was not less than at least 30% warmer than 2nd half of the 20 th century and early 21st century (1950-2021), which is evident from IPCC observed data at table 13.1 & 13.2 and figure 13.7b & 13.4d of chapter 13 (Sea Level Changes) WG1AR5 , besides EPA published data of heat wave index of USA ( from 1896-2021).
@ Sanjib Dutta Roy says:
“In fact global temperature in the first half of 20th century (1900-1950) was not less than at least 30% warmer than 2nd half of the 20 th century and early 21st century (1950-2021)”
_____________________________________________
No. First half of the 20th century temperatur was much COLDER.
“30% warmer” is a meaningless value.
Measured in the Kelvin scale or Fahrenheit you will get a different result. And you’re talking about anomalies. The baseline is semi-arbitrary.
Percentage values don’t work for this metric.
Finally, the 5-month La Nina lag kicks in.
The current La Nina cycle is a very weak one which seems to have already peaked, so well have another 4~5 months of global cooling to around -0..2~-0.3C and then global temps will start to rise again from around April May as a new El Nino cycle develops towards the end of next year.
Itll be interesting to see if we get another weak El Nino cycle, to be likely followed followed by a strong La Nia cycle, which we havent had since 2010 (on average, there is a strong La Nia cycle every 10:years or so)..
The AMO will likely start its 30-year cool cycle in a few years, and the PDO seems to have already entered its 30-year cool cycle, so long-term global temp trends for the next next 30 years should soon gradually start cooling as thy did from 1880~1913 and 1945~1979 during past PDO/AMO cool ocean cycles
Leftists will have some serious explaining to do in about 5~8 years from now brrrr.
In November of last you predicted -0.2 to -0.3 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. Now you are predicting -0.2 to -0.3 C on the 1991-2020 baseline which is equivalent to about -0.32 to -0.42 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. How confident are you about an even lower prediction given a weaker La Nina than you predicted last year especially given that your prediction from last year ended up being wrong?
Bdgwx, since we now know the warming of the 21st century was due to increased solar energy and the oceans have warmed to a deeper level as a result, I tend to agree that it will be more difficult to achieve low anomalies during La Nina years.
Assuming the clouds have returned back to normal, it will take a few years for the oceans to cool. Maybe if we see a La Nina in the mid 2020s it will be cooler.
BDGWX-san:
As you said, in November 2020, I predicted that the back-to-back La Nina cycles would likely cause the UAH6.0 temp anomalies to fall to -0.2C~-0.3C, which is most likely will happen by March or April of 2022.
CMIP6 mean global temp anomaly projections by March 2022 will be around 1.39C and increasing at a trend of around 0.30C/decade…
Well, CMIP6 will be hilariously devoid from reality by about 4 or 5 standard deviations by March of next year, and I will likely be spot on…
So whose projections closer reflect reality? CMIP6 projections of 1.37C or my projections -0.20C~-0.30C?
BTW, for everyone’s edification, please post Dr. Spencer’s explanation that changing UAH 6.0’s baseline has caused UAH6 global warming data to be cooler by 0.12C compared to the previous baseline…. I don’t recall Dr. Spencer ever saying that..
Cheers..
Dr. Spencer informed readers of the change here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
You can average the 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 periods yourself and confirm the difference.
We are scoring your original prediction as it was made at the time from the 1981-2010 baseline.
Bdgwx-san:
Nowhere in the link you posted did Dr. Spencer say UAH 6.0 is -0.12C cooler than the precious trend-year base UAH 5.0
Simply repeating a lie doesnt magically make it true
BTW, who is the We in We are scoring.. are you referring to?
Are you King of some country Im not aware of?
Several contributors here took the data and worked out the difference per month, between the old baseline and the new.
If you look at the anomaly update prior to the update with the new baseline, you can see how the anomalies in the table are quite different.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2020-0-27-deg-c/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
If you compare all the months from 2020, this is how they changed between Dr Spencer’s January and February updates.
January update:
2020 01 +0.56
2020 02 +0.75
2020 03 +0.47
2020 04 +0.38
2020 05 +0.54
2020 06 +0.43
2020 07 +0.44
2020 08 +0.43
2020 09 +0.57
2020 10 +0.54
2020 11 +0.53
2020 12 +0.27
February update:
2020 01 +0.42
2020 02 +0.59
2020 03 +0.35
2020 04 +0.26
2020 05 +0.42
2020 06 +0.30
2020 07 +0.31
2020 08 +0.30
2020 09 +0.40
2020 10 +0.38
2020 11 +0.40
2020 12 +0.15
See how every anomaly is at least 0.1 C cooler in the February update? That’s because the baseline changed.
Each month has a slightly different baseline change (because they are worked out month by month). There is a brief discussion and monthly offset values given (by averaging and subtracting) here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-605685
“some serious explaining to do in about 5~8 years from now brrrr.”
Yep. It is always 5-8 years away. Has been for at least 20 y.
Nate-san:
Climate changes are already happening: Greenland Ice mass loss is decreasing, Arctic Summer Minimums are increasing, Atlantic SSTs are falling, Pacific SSTs are falling, severe winters are becoming more common, there as a 19-year Hiatus from 1996~2025 savedminkynbynthe 2015/16 Suoer El NIno event, Antarctic Land Ice Mass has, until recently, been gain8g mass (Zwally 2021), no global increasing trends for 100:years for: Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hail, subs tropical storms (IPCC AR5 Report), SLR stuck at around 10” per century, etc.
The only place CAGW currently exists is in failed CMIPS 6 model outputs…
It’s CAGW advocates that always say climate Armageddon is in 5 years, but recently these wild predictions have been extended to 30~50 years so these crazy grant-mongers will have ling retired before their laughable and failed predictions crash and burn…
Nate, the AMO and PDO have been mostly positive for the last 25 years. They will eventually cycle back.
How large are each of their effects on global temperature?
We will see won’t we.
Nate, it appears the AMO and PDO may provide almost all of the variability seen over decades. NASA CERES shows a strong correlation of the PDO with cloud variation which would explain how it’s phases influence the temperature.
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g003-550.jpg
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/31d00f80-62b9-4aff-8fb0-6d857fa2171a/grl62546-fig-0004-m.png
Nothing left for poor little CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
“almost all of the variability seen over decades. NASA”
Can you show the claimed strong correlation of either one or both to the last 50 y of T rise? I dont think so.
You have only shown the short term correlation to ENSO, which is well known. That is not the 50 y T rise.
“We will see wont we”
Indeed confirmation of this ‘certain’ mechanism is always coming in the near future.
And if the conjunction of AMO and PDO together does indeed show some decrease, what then?
“Mark B says:
On NCEP surface data I expect November UAH TLT to come in a bit below September but above August, say 0.22 +/-0.05C”
No decrease there then.
Nate asks, “Can you show the claimed strong correlation of either one or both to the last 50 y of T rise?”
Yes, it is more than obvious.
1) The latest warming starts in 1977 when the PDO goes positive.
2) Additional warming in mid 1990 associated with AMO going positive.
3) PDO goes negative in 2006 leading to an extended hiatus in warming.
4) PDO goes positive again in 2014 ending the hiatus and leading to additional warming.
That takes care of about 45 of your 50 years. Of course, you can also go back further and see the mid 20th century cooling occurred when both the AMO and PDO were negative and the early 20th century warming when they were positive.
Keep in mind the long term warming started back in the 17th century which implies there is a small underlying effect. I call it the millennial cycle. One possible cause of this effect is salinity variability.
Richard M,
“Nate asks, ‘Can you show the claimed strong correlation of either one or both to the last 50 y of T rise?’
Yes, it is more than obvious.
1) The latest warming starts in 1977 when the PDO goes positive.
2) Additional warming in mid 1990 associated with AMO going positive.
3) PDO goes negative in 2006 leading to an extended hiatus in warming.
4) PDO goes positive again in 2014 ending the hiatus and leading to additional warming.
That takes care of about 45 of your 50 years.”
Not sure why you can’t show that visually.
Here are T (SH), T(NH) and AMO.
https://tinyurl.com/yxh328vy
We can see there is little correlation between T(SH) which always rises, and AMO.
There is a strong correlation between T(NH) and AMO.
Naturally because AMO is derived from a large region of the NH.
But notice, that while T(NH) and AMO match to 1960, throughout the century they separate more and more as time goes on.
The AMO cannot account for the rise of the last half century.
Does PDO account for it?
https://tinyurl.com/4hs7rapn
Nope. I don’t see how.
We can scale PDO to match some short-duration correlated features, such as 1875-1980, and 2015-2020, but it cannot account the rise of the last 50 y.
This match to short-term features is due to ENSO, and because PDO and ENSO are connected.
Arggh
‘such as 1875-1980’ should be ‘such as 1975-1980’
in fact both PDO and AMO appear to contribute to that one.
I think this scaling of PDO produces a better match to short term features such as rise 75-80 and down-up from 2005-2020
https://tinyurl.com/2p8t72p2
but again, cannot account for the 50 y rise.
Nate, you missed the part about the underlying warming. Since it is also ocean based, you need to detrend the AMO and PDO to see their specific effects. Here’s a reference for the AMO.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
Yep, that seems reasonable given that AMO is a regional mode, cyclic, and the amplitude is known. Its effect is not even evident in the SH.
That is exactly what is done for ENSO.
Here’s the rationale:
“The increasing human influence on climate, mainly through changes in atmospheric composition, produce global warming. Many variables and climate indices are therefore influenced by associated climate changes and any analysis of variance can be dominated by the recent trends. It is therefore desirable to remove the trends to examine the underlying variability and associated patterns. One approach has been to fit a linear trend to a time series of an index, but this is a seriously flawed procedure because (i) it depends on the length of the time series; (ii) it implies the trend goes on indefinitely into the future and into the past; and (iii) there is no such trend evident in the earlier part of the 20th Century. A relatively simple approach instead is to use the global mean time series as a primary indicator of the non-stationary component, and remove that from each grid point prior to carrying out an analysis. This approach has been shown to work effectively by using model results, where the cause of the non-stationarity is known. A good example is the AMO, which is based on an index of area average SST over the North Atlantic from 0 to 60N (see Trenberth and Shea (2006)).”
“Nate, you missed the part about the underlying warming. Since it is also ocean based, you need to detrend the AMO and PDO to see their specific effects.”
I think the point is this, Richard, if two things are correlated we don’t know which one is the driver.
But if a REGIONAL warm-cool cycle is the driver, it only makes sense that it should be much larger than the response of the entire Globe.
This is certainly the case for ENSO. The warming and cooling cycle of the central Pacific is up to +- 2 C, while the Globes response is +- 0.2 C.
Thus if we subtract the smaller ‘response’ of the whole globe from the regional cycle, the ‘driver’, it should not remove the ‘driver’ signal. At most, it should remove a small fraction of it.
“And if the conjunction of AMO and PDO together does indeed show some decrease, what then?”
What then, indeed?
The rise in global temp, and its spatial pattern, of the last 40 y was quantitatively predicted 40 y ago, as a consequence of expected CO2 rise over that period, and indeed has agreed with that prediction in many respects quite closely.
This doesnt convince you.
So if there is a brief cooling episode, (it will obviously have to be << 40 y long for any of us to observe it) and it seems to correlate to some arbitrary mix of AMO and PDO, then THAT will convince you?
Of what?
Why the latter but not the former?
You will need to predict beforehand, quantitatively, the magnitude of cooling per unit of AMO and per unit of PDO.
I will let the actual measurements speak for themselves. It looks like the models for predicting the future and sadly amiss.
Nate, prediction of a 50-50 odds event is hardly convincing. Especially since there are other possible causes as I outlined above. More to the point, the CERES data shows all the 21st century warming is explained by natural causes. There’s nothing left for anything else.
This is not some other theory. This is empirical data captured over the past 20 years. It’s not up for debate. You are denying scientific fact.
“{More to the point, the CERES data shows all the 21st century warming is explained by natural causes. ”
Nope. Doubling down on an already debunked claim.
“I will let the actual measurements speak for themselves. It looks like the models for predicting the future and sadly amiss.”
?? Yes the evidence is always in the future.
You offer no alternative quantitative prediction for AMO or PDO. That means whatever happens can fit your prediction.
Quite lame.
If you maintain an infinite barrier to acceptance of evidence in favor of AGW, but then have little or no barrier to acceptance of alternatives, then isnt that revealing a strong bias?
Nate, hardly a “debunked claim”. The data is very clear.
the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux. – Hans-Rolf Dbal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 20012020.
Denial is not the same as debunking.
Yes it has been debunked, and you had no answers.
“The point is this, the EEI is NOT Global warming. It is simply the IMBALANCE in outgoing and incoming flux.
Even if it remained CONSTANT the Earth would still be warming.
It could be constant if the GHE was increasing and the temperature was increasing exactly enough to balance out the added GHE.
And he notes that ‘a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor’, IOW the increasing GHE, is still happening.”
And this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1047960
“Hans-Rolf Dbal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001 – 2020”
Yes, that’s the paper being discussed. Always was. For some reason certain commenters keep trying to introduce Loeb et al.
The reason Nate quotes the Loeb paper is because Loeb et al made up some numbers based on a model and uses them in an unscientific deflection of the facts.
Nate then references EEI which again is just a computation and not really related to the key measurements. This is typical of the unscientific alarmist cult. The data was clear.
“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020)’
Yup, an actual measurement and MORE THAN ENOUGH ENERGY TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE WARMING. In fact, using IPCC claims it would account for about 1.2 C of warming (40% of the 3.7 W/m2 claimed to cause 3.2 C).
That 1.2 C was reduced to about .3 C by an increase in outgoing IR and the fact the IPCC number is not real to begin with, but Nate wants to claim even more warming was produced by GHGs (around .4 C) that was also eliminated by some mystical, unknown feedback.
Nate is simply ignoring the actual measured data and hanging onto words from his priests. Typical cultist.
“The reason Nate quotes the Loeb paper is because Loeb et al made up some numbers based on a model and uses them in an unscientific deflection of the facts.”
Hilarious.
https://terra.nasa.gov/people/dr-norman-g-loeb
Norman Loeb is the lead scientist on the CERES project. He is THE expert on all things CERES.
While Richard M. is ….not.
Richard,
You reference EEI here:
“Nate, EEI is a measure of the energy changes that could produce warming (or cooling if negative).”
Now you say:
“Nate then references EEI which again is just a computation and not really related to the key measurements. This is typical of the unscientific alarmist cult. The data was clear.”
So???
Nate once again ignores the real, measured data and resorts to deflection.
It doesn’t matter where Loeb works. You really are digging deep. The data doesn’t care. Are you saying he intentionally misreported the data? Or do you agree the data is valid? If so, why are you ignoring it?
And, it’s not me who is claiming to be an expert. I’m simply repeating what the data shows. Why do you continue to ignore the data?
Finally, Nate pulls two different comments by me out of two different contests. Hilarious nonsense just to avoid discussing the real issue … the data. Once again, why do you continue to ignore the data?
I think everyone sees what is happening. Nate has no defense for his continued “oh look there’s a squirrel” comments.
“I’m simply repeating what the data shows.”
Incorrectly, Richard, since you simply make up words in your comments that the authors of the CERES data analyses do not write. Quote them verbatim and learn about the earthen GHE, the EEI, and that the authors:
“could identify the effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from 2001 to 2020 in the “Clear Sky” LW”.
“Are you saying he intentionally misreported the data?”
Nope. But you are claiming he “made up some numbers”
and is doing an “unscientific deflection of the facts”
Yeah, riiiiight.
I’ll let readers decide who (you or Loeb) is more likely to be making up stuff and being unscientific here.
Ball4, learn that the authors state
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux.”
Ball4, I quoted the data. Here it is again.
“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020)”
I should add the other important data.
“It is almost compensated by the growing chilling TOA LW (out) (−1.1 W/m2).”
Keep in mind the time period of the D/V paper is different than the Loeb et al paper. You seem to be confused which I have been quoting. Not surprised.
I can’t help Loeb understand basic physics. His claim is incorrect. He got some numbers from a model. That isn’t an “effect”. Although, it wouldn’t surprise me he needed to add this nonsense into the paper to get it published. He was sloppy. Typical of many climate papers.
My point remains unchanged. The actual measured increase in energy from the sun (+1.42 W/m2) is far more than necessary to cause the warming seen over this period. So far I haven’t seen you or Nate address this. All you do is deflect.
Furthermore, the cooling IR (-1.1 W/m2) is supposed to contain the greenhouse effect increase from almost 50 PPM increase in CO2. Where did it go?
Of course, once you accept this reality, there is nothing left to cause warming from increases in CO2/CH4. The climate field is left with 25 years with no evidence of any man made warming.
Nate,
“Nope. But you are claiming he “made up some numbers””
I said the numbers came out of a model. As such they are in a sense “made up”. And, since the model is only part of a larger system which he incorrectly ignores, he is ultimately responsible for the fact those numbers have no physical meaning.
“and is doing an “unscientific deflection of the facts””
Yup, I was right on the money. By adding in incomplete model results and claiming that demonstrates GHGs were part of the reason we warmed, Loeb et al was deflecting from the real story behind the data. The measured data only supports solar energy as the cause of the warming.
“Ill let readers decide who (you or Loeb) is more likely to be making up stuff and being unscientific here.”
I have already shown everything I stated is factual. All the data I used is quoted from the D/V 2021 published paper. Loeb et al admit they used a “radiative transfer model” to “compute” the GHG claims.
So, let’s stick to the actual data. We can discuss the problems with radiative transfer models at another time.
Good job DREMT, quoting verbatim the authors. Your summary clip is consistent with the internal variability authors write being shown in CERES data:
“Anthropogenic forcing, internal variability, and climate feedbacks all contribute to the positive trend in EEI (Earth’s Energy Imbalance).”
Authors go on to tell DREMT enthalpy changes show: “a possible correlation of cloud cover shifts such as the one around the millennium with the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)…As shown in Figure 13, the heating phases coincide with the AMO change from negative to positive.”
There are something like 9 listed drivers of climate change AGW being only one of them and “”cloud thinning”, as discussed by several other authors [36–38] should be understood, because it could accelerate the warming trend.”
—–
Bad job writing misinformation Richard M by simply making up “The actual measured increase in energy from the sun (+1.42 W/m^2)” when authors actually write: “The ASR trend cannot be explained by changes in incoming solar radiation, as the trend in incoming solar flux is negligible (-0.053 W m-2 decade-1)
& even in Richard’s own clip authors write: “The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m^2 from 2001 to 2020)” and “Most of the ASR trend is associated with cloud and surface albedo changes.” i.e. internal variability.
Ball4, I do get a good laugh when I see such ignorance on display. I didn’t make anything up.
Oh, it appears you think the solar radiation absorbed by Earth is different when it increases due to a reduction in clouds? That is truly hilarious.
It’s still “from the sun”, bumpkin. Yes, it still originated at the sun. It is not LW energy produced on earth and supposedly reduced by the greenhouse effect.
The author’s differentiate between incoming solar energy and outgoing solar energy for a reason. And they make it clear the sun itself is not radiating more energy. But they aren’t claiming there is any difference in the energy level or the place of origin. The energy is “from the sun”. That you thought there was a difference is quite telling.
Fact is, I’ve been promoting internal variability for over a decade. I’ve even mentioned it previously in other comments under this article. So, it appears we are in agreement. The changes in clouds (likely driven by major ocean cycles), “i.e. internal variability”, are driving the climate.
“I cant help Loeb understand basic physics. His claim is incorrect. He got some numbers from a model. That isnt an ‘effect’. Although, it wouldnt surprise me he needed to add this nonsense into the paper to get it published. He was sloppy.”
Here we go again with random blog poster, Richard, accusing the CERES lead scientist of not understanding basic physics, doing CERES data analysis wrong, and being sloppy, without evidence.
Which one understands basic physics, CERES data and its proper analysis?
And which one is posting unsubstantiated BS?
What say you dear readers?
Richard M, Dr. Loeb’s radiative physics demonstrated understanding is much superior to yours thus Richard is correct writing “I can’t help Loeb understand basic physics.” as Nate’s comment points out.
“…it appears you think the solar radiation absorbed by Earth is different when it increases due to a reduction in clouds?”
What I commented demonstrates Richard does a bad job commenting due to writing Richard’s own words of misinformation on earthen radiative physics: “The actual measured increase in energy from the sun (+1.42 W/m^2)” vs. Dr. Loeb and co-authors good job of writing: “The ASR trend cannot be explained by changes in incoming solar radiation, as the trend in incoming solar flux is negligible (-0.053 W m-2 decade-1)”.
The changes in clouds (likely driven by major ocean cycles), “i.e. internal variability”, are in part driving the climate in the period(s) observed along with “a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.”
They’re just going to keep repeating themselves until they get the last word, Richard M. It’s what they do (for a living).
People here who post science errors, distortions, cherry-picks, false claims, should expect rebuttals and corrections.
When they double-down and triple down with more science errors, distortions, cherry picks, and false claims, they should not be at all surprised to get further rebuttals and corrections.
When they stop posting BS, there will be no need for rebuttals and corrections.
Its that simple.
“I said the numbers came out of a model. As such they are in a sense ‘made up’. And, since the model is only part of a larger system which he incorrectly ignores, he is ultimately responsible for the fact those numbers have no physical meaning.”
So you KNOW that the modeling they did was not an appropriate part of the analysis? You KNOW that he is incorrectly ignoring something? What? You KNOW that these numbers have no physical meaning?
Many observational papers incorporate models.
Roy Spencer uses models to correct his satellite data for things like orbital decay, diurnal variation, and ocean/ice reflections, altitude temperature profiles, in order to determine LT and MT temperatures?
They’re just going to keep repeating themselves, and falsely accusing others of what they do themselves, until they get the last word, Richard M. It’s what they do (for a living).
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux.”
I looked up the paper by the people responsible for that cloudiness data. They do not trust that the trends seen in it are real.
“Thus, both datasets indicate a negative global temporal trend (although with different magnitudes) in CFC over the period. However, if we compare with results from all
15 available surface stations (synoptic observations) we see only a trend in the difference
between the two datasets meaning that only satellite results have a negative trend in
Fig. 14 (bias trend shown in lower panel).”
They put various other caveats on the data, that are not mentioned by Dubal and Var..
“Thus,
results in Fig. 14 are more representative for the Northern Hemisphere than for the
entire globe. Nevertheless, we do not see signs of a large negative trend in cloudiness
for this restricted surface observation dataset. Another interesting fact is that if looking exclusively at daytime and night-time results from CLARA-A1 (not shown here), no
25 trends are seen as opposed to results for the total satellite-based dataset. However,
it must be noted that CFC values are considerably lower at night pointing at different cloud detection efficiency day and night. Consequently, we might suspect that the
trend seen for both satellite datasets in Fig. 13 might at least partly be explained by
changes in the temporal sampling of observations throughout the period.
The introduction of morning-evening satellites in the 90s, and even a slight dominance
of morning-evening satellites during the last ten years, could be responsible for creating this trend in global cloud amounts. Future editions of the CLARA dataset need to
address these limitations, through either solving the temporal sampling differences or
5 by the use of mitigation methods.”
cloudiness data paper https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/13/935/2013/acpd-13-935-2013.pdf
It is hilarious to watch Nate and especially Ball4 deny science. Both of them cannot understand these two very simple papers and what they are telling us.
” the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux.” – Hans-Rolf Dbal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 20012020.
” the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 0.22 W m−2 decade−1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a -0.24 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR ” – Loeb et al, Geophysical Research Letters, June 2021, Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earths Heating Rate
Both the them are clearly pointing to solar energy as the cause of warming in the 21st century. Both specifically state it is not an increase in LWIR (the carrier of the greenhouse effect) that increase in energy content.
“not a retained LW flux” and “-0.24 0.13 W/m2”
There is it. Right in the abstracts of both papers. Now, I don’t expect either Nate or Ball4 to stop their rampant science denial. It’s part of their belief system. IOW, it’s their religion.
So I am going to rebut what Richard just posted because it is not correct.
DREMT will whine that this is just getting the last word, but that is of course idiotic.
“not a retained LW flux. Hans-Rolf Dbal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 20012020.
SO first of all, Richard, that part of the statement is NOT DATA and just unsupported opinion.
You want us to look at and understand the DATA in these papers. Here is the key data in Loeb that is worthwhile to try to understand.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5655c3cb-e0d2-4f20-aadd-b26cb466ae36/grl62546-fig-0003-m.png
And its caption:
“Attribution of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 2002/092020/03. Shown are trends due to changes in (a) clouds, (b) surface, (c) temperature, (d) combined contributions from trace gases and solar irradiance (labeled as ‘Other’), (e) water vapor, and (f) aerosols. Positive trends correspond to heat gain and negative to loss. Stippled areas fall outside the 5%95% confidence interval. Numbers in parentheses correspond to global trends and 5%95% confidence intervals in W m−2 decade−1.
This shows the TRENDs for the various components of the fluxes. Positive number means the Earth is gaining energy.
All are GAINS except TEMPERATURE. The WATER VAPOR and OTHER include gains due to the GHE of water vapor and trace gases including CO2. OTHER also includes a (-.05 W/m^2/dec) due to a slight reduction in solar irradiance.
Notice in the absence of the GHE the TEMPERATURE would be causing a NET loss in LW output due to warming of the surface and atmosphere, of
“-0.56 W/dec.”
But the total LW loss was stated in the paper:
“−0.24 0.13 W m−2 decade−1”.
Clearly there was LW flux retained by the GHE to have decreased the total LW loss due to warming.
This CONFIRMS the statement in the abstract that:
“This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor.”
Thus the statement in the other paper, “not a retained LW flux.” is misleading at best.
Richard,
This selected period of time also happens to be dominated by a shift from strong La Nina in the middle to strong El Nino at the end. As Loeb discussed, this explains several features of the data, including warmer water and reduced clouds over the Eastern Pacific, which results in > ASR but also > OLR.
This particular pattern would not be repeated over a longer stretch of time, eg 50 y.
“An additional factor that explains the trend in net TOA flux is the shift from a negative to a positive PDO index in 2014 (Figure 4a). The PDO is a large-scale climate pattern associated with substantial shifts in sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and clouds and has been previously linked to variability in the EEI as estimated at the TOA by satellite data (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018). Following the shift in the sign of the PDO index in 2014, the Nio3.4 index peaked during the winter of 2015/2016, reflecting a major El Nio event (Figure 4b). SSTs started to rise in 2012 and have remained above average through 2020 (Figure 4c). Variations in SST closely track both the PDO and Nio3.4 indices, with correlation coefficients 0.80 and 0.72, respectively. In the positive phase of the PDO, SST increases are pronounced over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which causes a decrease in low cloud amount and an increase in ASR along the eastern Pacific Ocean (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018). After 2014, the ASR trend shows a factor of 4 increase over that prior to 2014. An increase in thermal infrared emission to space slightly offsets the increase in ASR, so that the trend in net flux after 2014 is reduced to 2.5 times that prior to 2014.”
Richard’s 8:10am opinion is yet more misinformation since that comment continues to be clearly not based on all the CERES data as the authors show in the paper(s) clips I’ve already provided.
NB: To better learn about SW and LW wavelengths in microns, Richard should read, understand, comment according to Sec. 2 of the Dubal paper since: “it is of some importance to realize the wavelength channels in CERES” and find “..stretching vibrations of H2O and CH4 including their overtone and combination band spectra fall into SW. Even the asymmetric stretching vibration of carbon dioxide falls into the SW.” Thus:
“..increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.”
Ball4 quotes something from one paper and then says “Thus:” and puts in a quote from the other paper!
Keep actually reading the paper(s) DREMT you will understand climate physics better with each read.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1054607
Dubal and Vahrenholt state that the role of the GHE over the period is “certainly not dominating”.
Good job DREMT; good practice to quote the authors verbatim.
Bad practice for you to mangle quotes together from two different papers, without stating which quote comes from which paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1054607
Good job reading both DREMT.
#2
Bad practice for you to mangle quotes together from two different papers, without stating which quote comes from which paper.
Ball4,
Looks like he’s ‘just going to keep repeating himself, and falsely accusing others of what he does himself, until he gets the last word”
I wonder why it’s alright for Ball4 to mangle quotes together from two different papers, without stating which quote comes from which paper? Is there a science reason for that, do you think, dear readers?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1058772
I see DREMT figured out which one; most other readers can too but I am doubtful about Clint R and Gordon, they don’t appear capable. I’ll let DREMT inform them.
Troll.
I see this thread has gone completely off the rails. Neither Ball4 or Nate can make even close to an intelligent comment on the papers. They are simply grasping at straws.
What’s funny is, even if you accept the model based numbers from the Loeb et al paper, you still have the problem of what happened to all that solar energy from the decrease in clouds. Why didn’t it warm a lot more than it has?
In addition, why did the solar warming correlate almost perfectly with the PDO switch in 2014. The warming only occurred during the 2014-2020 time frame. Total greenhouse gas warming would have been stronger during the 2x longer 2001-2014 period.
On top of that, models were already running way too hot and now this means they are running even hotter. In fact, they are clearly now outside the 5-95% bounds when you adjust the data for the cloud changes.
Bottom line is climate science itself has been shown to be working off a false premise.
What false premise would that be Richard M? DREMT does drive a lot of threads off the rails.
“Why didn’t it warm a lot more than it has?”
You don’t specify “it” Richard. Should help figure “it” out reading Loeb discussion in “3 .2. Attribution of EEI Trends” and then in conclusions: “The positive trend in EEI is a result of combined changes in clouds, water vapor, trace gases, surface albedo, and aerosols, which exceed a negative contribution from increasing global mean temperatures.”
In Loeb 2018, for the period July 2005 – June 2015, mean net TOA flux is 0.71 +/- 0.10W m-2. The uptake of solar energy by Earth for this period in W/m^2 (uncertainties at the 95% confidence level):
1) 0.61 +/- 0.09 Argo ocean data to depth 1800m
2) 0.07 +/- 0.04 ocean depths below 1800m, and
3) 0.03 +/- 0.01 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming.
“I see this thread has gone completely off the rails. Neither Ball4 or Nate can make even close to an intelligent comment on the papers. They are simply grasping at straws.”
I made specific science-based points, so not sure what your problem is, Richard. Did you not understand them?
“What’s funny is, even if you accept the model based numbers from the Loeb et al paper, you still have the problem of what happened to all that solar energy from the decrease in clouds. Why didn’t it warm a lot more than it has?”
How do you know how much it ‘should have’ warmed?
“In addition, why did the solar warming correlate almost perfectly with the PDO switch in 2014. The warming only occurred during the 2014-2020 time frame.”
It is well known that super El Ninos cause extra warming, and strong La Nina’s like prior to 2014, cause cool episodes.
As Loeb explained, and I discussed, this causes changes to clouds and sea surface temperature over the Pacific, that increased SW solar input, and increased LW output.
“Total greenhouse gas warming would have been stronger during the 2x longer 2001-2014 period.”
There are natural T variations, like ENSO, that don’t go away with AGW, Richard.
It is really a strawman to assume that only GHG warming should be operating.
Nate and Ball4 continue to use guesses, models and estimates in an attempt to rescue their faltering climate pseudo-science.
The Loeb et al 2021 paper even admits most of their paper is guess work.
“the ocean heating rate estimate centered at mid-2005 is the estimate of ocean heat content anomaly”
“net heat uptake rate is estimated”
“the 02,000 m ocean heat uptake is from an estimate”
“the 02,000 m ocean volume for which the first-guess estimate”
“as a first guess at ocean heat content”
“The input variables are those used in the surface flux calculations in the CERES EBAF Ed4.1 (Kato et al., 2018) consisting of adjusted input values provided in the CERES SYN1deg Ed4.1 product that are ‘tuned’ to force a match”
They then use this data to “create” imaginary energy flows. Even then they have high error temperature based radiation estimates. Only fools would accept this kind of obvious pseudo-science.
This is why the D/V 2021 paper is far better. They stick with the actual CERES measurements when discussing energy flows. For example,
“The outgoing TOA LW flux shows a different trend. Figure 6 reveals the increasing LW flux which is much steeper over the clouds (0.35 + or – 0.13 W/m2 per decade) than over the clear sky (0.04 + or – 0.1 W/m2 per decade) which is essentially constant.”
This and several NH/SH variations demonstrate that Loeb et al produced nonsense when they claimed GHGs produced a consistent forcing. Why would GHGs produce differences between hemispheres? What’s clear is almost all of the changes were related to cloud changes. Here’s the bottom line:
“Hence, the rise of the greenhouse gas concentration from 2001 to 2020 had a measurable effect on the LW flux in the Clear Sky, covering about 1/3rd of the Earth surface. In the cloudy part, about 2/3rd, this effect was much smaller, if significant at all.”
How could GHGs have no effect in cloudy areas? Simple, the only GHG that matters is water vapor and there is very little above clouds. However, there is plenty in the clear sky areas and the amount increased over the measured time period.
So, once again the actual, measured data from multiple CERES satellites demonstrate no evidence of any increasing energy gain from non-condensing greenhouse gases.
The Loeb et al 2021 paper even admits to readers their estimates are such that the readers can be 95% confident the true natural value lies within the range shown in the paper.
“(Loeb et. al 2021) claimed GHGs produced a consistent forcing.”
Search paper on “consistent forcing” = 0 hits. Richard M needs to show where this claim is made by the paper’s authors.
Richard M writes: “What’s clear is almost all of the changes were related to cloud changes.”
Almost? All actual changes in EEI in the period would be:
“The positive trend in EEI is a result of combined changes in clouds, water vapor, trace gases, surface albedo, and aerosols, which exceed a negative contribution from increasing global mean temperatures”.
“How could GHGs have no effect in cloudy areas?”
Richard changes the paper’s words from “this effect was much smaller” in his own clip from the paper to Richard’s words “no effect” and later writes “no evidence” when the paper presents the evidence from data with 95% confidence.
As Richard writes, only fools would accept Richard’s kind of obvious pseudo-science.
Richard,
We get it. You have a certain belief, and thus you read any paper with the aim of confirming that belief, and all else is just noise and can be ignored.
You see quotes you like, and you ignore other ones that don’t fit your beliefs.
If instead you read papers with the aim of understanding the science of climate and finding out what is actually happening, then you would do much better and be acting like a scientist.
There are several problems.
1. The system being studied is COMPLEX.
2. Collecting this kind of data is hard.
3. It requires analysis, modeling, and interpretation, which is not simple.
4. It has error bars.
You would like it all to be simple.
You see an increasing OLR and an increasing SW input and say Aha! That disproves the GHE!
1. No, because the increase in OLR was hardly as big as the error on the measurement.
2. No, because the question is how much would it rise in the absence of increasing GHG.
3. No because, Temperature rose which produces an increasing OLR, so we need to know how much it would have risen without GHG.
4. When T rise is accounted for, we see that some of the LW output must have been blocked by GHG.
5. No, Short term measurements have big variability. There is natural warming and cooling going on.
6. An increasing SW input is not a problem for AGW. It is supposed to happen with ice-albedo feedbacks, and is a consequence of El Nino.
You can’t ignore all of that, and just pretend that the only thing that should be happening is GW due to the GHE.
Ball4 once again demonstrates his inability to understand the papers under discussion. Here’s the latest nonsense.
“Search paper on “consistent forcing” = 0 hits. Richard M needs to show where this claim is made by the paper’s authors.”
OK, here’s what the authors’ said.
“Contributions from trace gases are uniform everywhere”
I can only shake my head that anyone could be this dense. I often use general words that describe what the authors found. Maybe you should learn how to read and understand simple English.
Nate also comes back with some anti-science excuses.
“You have a certain belief, and thus you read any paper with the aim of confirming that belief, and all else is just noise and can be ignored.”
Nice projection. We see it in all your comments.
“You would like it all to be simple.”
Not at all. I do however, like to net out what the paper is showing us in as simple a way as possible.
You dont like what that analysis shows so you look for anything that you can take out of context to confirm your beliefs. The rest of your comment is just excuses to allow you to ignore what the data is clearly showing.
Richard’s words of course have a different meaning than the authors words since “Contributions from trace gases are uniform everywhere” as Fig.3(d) shows uniform trend from “well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG)” & “In addition to anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG, EEI is influenced by…”
“This and several NH/SH variations demonstrate that Loeb et al produced nonsense when they claimed GHGs produced a consistent forcing. Why would GHGs produce differences between hemispheres?”
Why not? NH and SH have very different land/water distribution. Land warms faster than ocean. Again, you want the Earth to behave in a simpler way than it does.
Heres the bottom line:
“Hence, the rise of the greenhouse gas concentration from 2001 to 2020 had a measurable effect on the LW flux in the Clear Sky, covering about 1/3rd of the Earth surface. In the cloudy part, about 2/3rd, this effect was much smaller, if significant at all.”
“How could GHGs have no effect in cloudy areas? Simple, the only GHG that matters is water vapor and there is very little above clouds. However, there is plenty in the clear sky areas and the amount increased over the measured time period.”
Again Richard you are assuming YOU understand how clouds should behave and it should be simple, when in reality their behavior wrt to LW radiation is complicated and a topic of research.
Some types of clouds cause cooling, others warming. Clouds at night block LW output. Clouds in the day ALSO reflect sunlight.
Climate science wants to understand better what clouds are doing, thats the purpose of the satellite measurements.
“So, once again the actual, measured data from multiple CERES satellites demonstrate no evidence of any increasing energy gain from non-condensing greenhouse gases.”
Uhhh, now who’s over-interpreting the data to confirm one’s beliefs.
Ball4 claims “Richard’s words of course have a different meaning than the authors words”.
Say what? What is the difference between “uniform” and “consistent”? They both are saying the exact same thing. And, it is different than what was found in the D/V paper where there was a big difference between the hemispheres.
The point (once again and I’ll type slowly for Ball4) is that Loeb et al used a model to produce their data and that’s why they found uniform/consistent results. There is no actual data that shows the non-condensing GHGs.
Unlike climate cultists like Ball4, I base my views on real data, not on made up data such as found in Loeb et al.
Nate states, “Again Richard you are assuming YOU understand how clouds should behave and it should be simple”
I’m simply interpreting the data. Since there was little change in the LWIR in cloudy areas while we know CO2 levels increased significantly, what other interpretation makes sense?
Clouds are near blackbody absorbers. They already absorb almost all the LWIR so it makes no difference what the gases below them do. In addition, we know the surface radiation is 100% absorbed within 100 meters. Hence, there’s nothing for any additional GHGs to do at lower altitudes.
It was always higher altitudes that were supposed to drive the increases in the GHE. But, in the actual data we find no evidence it exists. The clouds do a nice job of showing this. If non-condensing GHGs had an effect it would show up above the clouds.
What this also means is the increase in the GHE found by D/V in the clear sky areas was due to an increase in water vapor. There really is a positive feedback to warming, there just isn’t any warming induced by CO2.
I probably went too far in saying this was evidence of no warming produced by CO2. For the reduced LWIR above clouds found in the D/V paper there’s another explanation as well. Dr. William Gray proposed that any kind of increased DWIR will increase convection which drives cloud tops higher in the atmosphere and extracts more water vapor.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Both of these would reduce LWIR. Higher cloud tops would build into colder air and hence radiate at a colder temperature. Less water vapor would also absorb/radiate less LWIR. Hence, you could have these compensating for increased LWIR in the non-condensing GHGs such as CO2.
The net effect is the same. No warming. It also fits better since we know there’s more CO2 at higher altitudes. Also keep in mind the higher winds at these altitudes will tend to lower the water vapor in the clear sky areas thus producing a negative feedback there.
Put together this would lead to no warming effect over 2/3 of the planet and a reduced warming over the other 1/3. Climate sensitivity to CO2 would be at most .2-.3 C and this may be reduced even further by other negative feedback.
“It was always higher altitudes that were supposed to drive the increases in the GHE. But, in the actual data we find no evidence it exists. The clouds do a nice job of showing this. If non-condensing GHGs had an effect it would show up above the clouds.”
But how would you know it is there or not with the multiple effects clouds have?
Since clouds have complicated behavior, it makes perfect sense that the GHE can be observed most clearly in clear sky situations.
“What this also means is the increase in the GHE found by D/V in the clear sky areas was due to an increase in water vapor.”
Unfounded assumptions in here, Richard, thst are not in the data. This some sort of feeling of yours that fits your beliefs. Why is that OK?
” There really is a positive feedback to warming, there just isnt any warming induced by CO2.”
And again more assumptions.
“Loeb et al used a model to produce their data…There is no actual data that shows the non-condensing GHGs.”
No Richard, you are wrong. Look at Fig. 3d.
Loeb et. al.:”Contributions from trace gases are uniform everywhere (Figure 3d)” is data shown from instruments (CERES radiometers) over time and space “Attribution of Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System net top-of-atmosphere flux trends for 2002/09-2020/03.”
Loeb’s use of “Uniform everywhere” = the trend in trace WMGG (non-condensing GHG) warming was observed & measured (note: NOT modeled) to be the same spatially across the globe in the period.
Richard’s use of “consistent” = unchanging in nature is wrong because there WAS a data driven change in nature i.e. a warming trend observed in CERES data from “(d) combined contributions from trace gases of 0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2 during the observation period with 95% confidence the true natural value is in the interval range.
Unlike Loeb et. al., Richard M bases views on opinions by writing his own words instead of the authors words from the data hence Richard M simply ignores instrumentally measured data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System.
“I probably went too far in saying this was evidence of no warming produced by CO2. ”
Thanks for that, Richard.
Clouds are indeed complicated.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Richard M writes an opinion: “What this also means is the increase in the GHE found by D/V in the clear sky areas was due to an increase in water vapor. There really is a positive feedback to warming, there just isn’t any warming induced by CO2.”
Loeb et. al. 2021 Figure 3 shows Richard’s opinions are wrong since the data measured over time and space from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System shows net top-of-atmosphere has flux trends for 2002/09-2020/03 with 95% confidence nature’s true value lies in the range for the period observed and measured:
Water vapor trend Fig. 3(e): +0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2
Trace gases trend Fig. 3(d): +0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2
Richard M’s written opinions on EEI changes cannot be relied upon.
NB: For EEI trend changes, the figures show contributions from trace gases are uniform everywhere globally and global contributions from water vapor trends are predominantly positive, particularly over land.
Ball4 still hasn’t caught on. The CERES data is only divided into LW and SW buckets. There is no way to determine which part of the LW bucket is due to water vapor or other GHGs.
The breakdown into different buckets for water vapor and other GHGs by Loeb et al is nothing more than a conjecture based on other information. To their credit they specify where they get the information. However, that conjecture may or may not be valid. As I’ve already indicated, part of that conjecture is based on a model.
As a result, any published result that uses this conjecture is not empirical evidence. Hence, it is not all that useful. It still could be right but would need some real experimental evidence.
OTOH, the D/V paper sticks with the empirical data broken down into two buckets. That is why their results are so much more important.
It’s nice that Nate admits that “clouds are complicated”. That doesn’t change the results where the most obvious ‘solution’ is that the effect of CO2 is very small.
It certainly doesn’t fit with the media representation that global warming from our emissions is “unequivocal”.
I realize true believers like Nate and Ball4 will hold on to their 5% chance. I’ll go with the 95% likelihood that a true atmospheric scientist such as Dr. Gray was right. He theorized both a mechanism and the result. The EMPIRICAL data demonstrates that result is happening. This is known as experimental verification.
In Richard’s unsupported opinion: “As I’ve already indicated, part of that conjecture is based on a model.”
Part of? A conjecture? No. To have any credibility at all, Richard will have to show where the authors use the word “conjecture” (he can’t) and show using the authors words that only “part of” the CERES results are based on instrumental data.
The D/V paper and Loeb et. al. results are the same, from the same Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System instrumental data (but immaterial slightly different periods) so one paper cannot possibly be “so much more important” than the other – that’s just Richard M’s opinion as everyone has one & to which he is entitled – but Richard’s not entitled to his own facts or words different than the authors when discussing their paper.
Ball4 asks “Part of? A conjecture? No. To have any credibility at all, Richard will have to show where the authors use the word “conjecture” (he can’t) and show using the authors words that only “part of” the CERES results are based on instrumental data.”
I already explained it to you. Clearly, you don’t understand the scientific method.
Now, I’ll highlight a major difference between the 2 papers since you obviously haven’t read (or understood) either one.
“The TOA net fluxes over the “Clear Sky” and “Cloudy Areas” exhibit, as expected, a striking difference (Figure 8). The former has a strongly positive (“heating”) net flux whereas the latter has a large negative (“cooling”) value.” – D/V 2021
Yup, the clouds are acting exactly as Dr. Gray explained it in the link I posted previously.
Richard shows a clip from D&V 2021 then fails to follow-up with a clip from Loeb 2021 showing any “major difference”.
Btw, Dr. Gray’s paper only “hypothesizes that it is variations in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) that are the primary driver of climate change over the last few thousand years’ which is a very different period than either of these two papers covering the satellite era observed climate data. Dr. Gray’s paper is entirely silent on CERES data which include nature’s actual hydrological cycle not any hypothesis.
Dr. Gray’s paper criticizes GCMs Richard, where the two papers which use CERES data under discussion here are not about GCMs. Richard should pick a paper using satellite era data on the same subject in the same period so no “hypothesizing” over thousands of years is necessary in any criticism.
Richard has selected an inappropriate period & hypothetical paper to factually conclude: “Yup, the clouds are acting exactly as Dr. Gray explained it in the link I posted previously.”
Not sure why some words got bolded, my text didn’t use tags on some of those words, this site does have its text editor issues.
“What this also means is the increase in the GHE found by D/V in the clear sky areas was due to an increase in water vapor.”
“There is no way to determine which part of the LW bucket is due to water vapor or other GHGs.”
Which is it, Richard?
“I realize true believers like Nate and Ball4 will hold on to their 5% chance.”
Not sure where you get 5% from?
I am not a ‘true believer’.
Science is about the evidence, not beliefs.
I do find many consistent pieces of evidence that are convincing to me that AGW is happening.
But there a rea lot of unknowns about the strength of feedbacks, about clouds, about tipping points, about ocean cycles.
“Yup, the clouds are acting exactly as Dr. Gray explained it in the link I posted previously.”
Richard, interesting. But I would caution that this is just one idea. There are many papers w different cloud models. Eg Lindzen’s is well known and debated. Read some more.
Still responding! Exactly as I predicted.
Apparently it is not ok to debate a topic for more than a couple of days, unless you are DREMT, who keeps them going for years!
Yes, DREMT runs in circles chasing his tail often repeating already debunked comments along with his mind reading results.
Spending time understanding relativity could correct a lot of DREMT’s mistaken science but running in circles is easier, less work, while a very entertaining benefit for more astute blog readers.
Exactly as I predicted. Paid to lie on blogs to their intellectual and moral superiors, getting the last word is part of their job description. That’s why beating them at their own game is so satisfying. Every time I get the last word, it’s killing them.
Ball4 obviously didn’t read or understand Dr. Gray’s work. He mentions parts of the paper completely unrelated to our current discussion. He completely missed the relevant sections. It is obvious Ball4 didn’t even notice the paper was from a decade ago.
Once again this highlights how useless it is to debate someone who has no understanding of science.
Nate is correct that Dr. Gray’s ideas are only one possible explanation of the CERES results. I also stated another explanation which is CO2 has no warming capability at all because its radiation is part of a much larger atmospheric energy flow that is self regulating.
The biggest problem for climate alarmists is still the fact that the solar energy gain, caused mainly by the cloud reduction, was sufficient to cause all of the warming over the 20 year period. If someone were to take UAH data and correct it for the warming potential of that energy it would likely end up showing a cooling trend.
With no evidence of any increase in greenhouse warming despite significant increases in CO2 and CH4, the entire theory is at best incomplete and at worst completely wrong.
So, Richard M, fill us in on which parts of the 2012 paper hypotheses over thousands of prior years you claim IS completely relevant to the measured satellite era data discussion in the 2 papers.
Unfortunately for Richard now there IS measured evidence for the increase in trace gases causing greenhouse warming in the satellite era in the two papers. In fact, there was enough measured evidence in 1938 that the then prediction for increase in global temperature due increase in CO2 ppm was proven accurate by 2013 so Dr. Gray could have noticed and reported on that but he didn’t.
Im going to step over the paranoid-delusional person, who is sharing that his main purpose for being here is… to troll his many perceived enemies.
Now, back to the science discussion with someone who wants to continue discussing science,
Richard,
“The biggest problem for climate alarmists is still the fact that the solar energy gain, caused mainly by the cloud reduction, was sufficient to cause all of the warming over the 20 year period.”
How do you know it was sufficient? How do you know how much warming should have occurred?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/982cfcbf-43f4-49dd-be20-2ab9758e2b95/grl62546-fig-0002-m.png
We can see in fig a and b that all the gain in ASR and reduction of downwelling LW happened during the 5 y transition from the La Nina period to the El Nino period.
It is already well known that during strong El Ninos (2015-16) there is a burst of global warming.
Clearly what we can learn from this paper is that extra solar gain is part of an El Nino. The other part is warmer water and heating of the troposphere. With warmer water, warmer troposphere, and less clouds there is greater OLR.
In the La Nina period of 2008-13, presumably the opposite should have been happening. Extra cooling, more clouds, less OLR.
So this is explaining pretty well the figure and why ASR jumps and downwelling LW decreases during a short period.
Richard,
Found this paper discussing the Tropics CERES results for the period 2003-2013, leading up to the La Ninas.
They see a decreasing trend in OLR during the period, and explain it in terms of El Nino and La Nina.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027002
“Trends of tropical (30°N–30°S) mean daytime and nighttime outgoing longwave radiations (OLRs) from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) and the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) are analyzed using data from 2003 to 2013. Both the daytime and nighttime OLRs from these instruments show decreasing trends because of El Niño conditions early in the period and La Niña conditions at the end. However, the daytime and nighttime OLRs decrease at different rates with the OLR decreasing faster during daytime than nighttime. The daytime-nighttime OLR trend is consistent across CERES Terra, Aqua observations, and computed OLR based upon AIRS and Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) retrievals. To understand the cause of the differing decreasing rates of daytime and nighttime OLRs, high cloud fraction and effective temperature are examined using cloud retrievals from MODIS and AIRS. Unlike the very consistent OLR trends between CERES and AIRS, the trends in cloud properties are not as consistent, which are likely due to the different cloud retrieval methods used. When MODIS and AIRS cloud properties are used to compute OLR, the daytime and nighttime OLR trends based upon MODIS cloud properties are approximately half as large as the trends from AIRS cloud properties, but their daytime-nighttime OLR trends are in agreement. This demonstrates that though the current cloud retrieval algorithms lack the accuracy to pinpoint the changes of daytime and nighttime clouds in the tropics, they do provide a radiatively consistent view for daytime and nighttime OLR changes. The causes for the larger decreasing daytime OLR trend than that for nighttime OLR are not clear and further studies are needed.”
“Leftists will have some serious explaining to do in about 5~8 years from now brrrr.”
Physics doesn’t care about politics. The fact that you infect your mind with these associations shows that you don’t care about physics.
Barry-san:
You’re correct that true science should not care about politics, however, CAGW is a polical phenomenon, and not a physical one…
In about 5~8 years, the PDO/AMO ocean cool cycles should finally drive a stake through the heart of this CAGW political hoax, which has sucked so much blood out of taxpayers since this myth was started in 1988…
It’s amazing what lies Leftists are willing to subsidize and promote for the goal of stealing $10’s of trillions and usurping control and power over virtually every aspect of our daily lives…
The acronym CAGW is a political construct made by critics of AGW. Pure rhetoric.
Your protestation that science should be free of politics is made hollow by the term you chose.
What follows in your comments is yet more politics. That increased atmospheric CO2 should increase surface temperatures is a matter of physics, not politics, and the science for that well predates 1988.
Barry-san:
The silly Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult that preaches higher CO2 levels will destroy the world has always been a politicalconstruct, not a physical one..
CAGW simply clarifies the death cults failed prophesy
Do you believe in climate change? LOL! What a jokeas if climate is a god
“Do you believe in climate change?”
What has ‘belief’ got to do with it?
I note the changing of the seasons. Summer and Winter provide two different climates where I live.
The science on ice ages and long-term global climate change is robust. I accept the current state of understanding.
The greenhouse effect is real and demonstrated and the physics behind it is sound.
You wish to talk about qualitative statements and belief. That is your choice, not mine.
The acronym “CAGW” is a political construct made by critics of AGW. An acronymic straw man. Pure rhetoric.
Your protestation that science should be free of politics is made hollow by the term you chose.
What follows in your comments is yet more politics.
That increased atmospheric CO2 should increase surface temperatures is a matter of physics, not politics, and the science for that well predates 1988.
Looks like the cold air is locked up in the Arctic. Maybe backradiation is taking a break.
RWT
Backradiation very certainly is not the source of Arctic warming.
Maybe the Arctic oceans cooled down a bit, or the advection streams moving in the lower troposphere poleward from the Tropics weakened accordingly.
RWT, back-radiation never takes a break. It is always confusing climate cultists. They still seem to deny the obvious reaction that eliminates any effect.
From what I can see most of them are in total denial of the latest CERES data showing all the 21st century warming (and then some) was due to an increase in solar energy.
… due to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.
Ref. Loeb et. al. in GRL 10/2021.
Ball4, did you see how they came up with the “well-mixed greenhouse gases”?
“… F is the flux calculated using the NASA Langley Fu-Liou radiative transfer model ”
Oh, they used a model. They did not “find” any evidence of warming from greenhouse gases, they used models to produce a value.
But the measured data shows the following.
the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 0.22 W m−2 decade−1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR
IOW, outgoing IR cooled the planet.
The model is used for constraining radiative transfer calculations to instantaneous observations of irradiance (and radiance) from the CERES instruments.
Your limited clip in part shows the measured data.
Assessing all calibrated CERES measured data for planetary heat uptake leads to the key point of the paper:
Anthropogenic forcing, internal variability, and climate feedbacks
all contribute to the positive trend in EEI.
Ball4, you obviously didn’t understand what you wrote. They used the model to redefine (“constraining”) what the data meant. LOL. That is not a measurement. The model tells you nothing about the data. It only gives you a small window into one atmospheric process while ignoring everything else.
What the data tells you is two-fold.
1) More solar energy was added to the atmosphere than was required to produce the warming measured over the 20 year period.
2) Some of the warming was reduced by an increase in outgoing LW radiation. This is the very radiation that is supposed to be “trapped” by increasing CO2.
The claim that greenhouse gases produced some of the warming is pure nonsense. There is zero evidence that supports that claim. Want to know what really happened?
Increases in greenhouse gases did produce more downwelling radiation as the model indicates. However, this was quickly countered by increases in all of the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms. Something the model ignores. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Newton may not have known about radiation, but he knew science. The same types of forces that apply to his Laws of Motion also apply within the atmosphere.
As a result the energy radiated to space was based on the temperature of the upward radiation from greenhouse gases. It increased because the temperature increased. The downward radiation was irrelevant.
Richard, your debate fails because you can’t even agree with yourself let alone the CERES data.
You claim: “Increases in greenhouse gases did produce more downwelling radiation as the model indicates” with you having been told (by the paper’s authors) the model is constrained to the CERES data.
which contradicts your own claim:
“that greenhouse gases produced some of the warming is pure nonsense.”
Any reply should make consistent factual scientific sense finding something wrong with the Oct. paper in GRL so that Richard can publish a rebuttal to:
“Increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) have led to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.”
“Anthropogenic forcing, internal variability, and climate feedbacks all contribute to the positive trend in EEI.”
Ball4, I must apologize for assuming you had at least a basic understanding of physics. My mistake. I should have specified when my comment was referring to basic physics vs. the paper. Clearly, you could not tell the difference.
When I stated that “Increases in greenhouse gases did produce more downwelling radiation” I was referring to well known radiation physics. Hence, whatever the author’s stated had nothing to do with this statement of fact and could hardly contradict my claim.
BTW, “the Oct. paper in GRL” you mentioned doesn’t exist. I suspect you meant the June paper by Loeb et al. The Oct. paper is in the journal Atmosphere. The comments in Loeb et al are not my problem. They are words unsupported by any data. I have no idea why you would repeat them.
Since Richard admits having “no idea” about the data writing “words unsupported”, he can find the data supporting Loeb et. al. words which contradict Richard’s claims – from the Geophysical:
“10.1029/2021GL093047 RESEARCH LETTER
Data Availability Statement
CERES_EBAF Ed4.1 was obtained from the CERES ordering page at http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data. php. PDO index data were obtained from https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipdo.dat and accessed on November 3, 2020. Nino3.4 index data are from ESRL/NOAA obtained from https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/nina34.data. Ocean heat content anomaly data used to determine the in situ EEI were obtained from https://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov. Partial radiative perturbation anomalies were obtained from https://ceres. larc.nasa.gov/ceres-prp-anomalies.php.”
The GRL paper author’s have already done the work to show Richard the CERES data in total does in fact support the author’s words:
“Increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) have led to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.”
“Anthropogenic forcing, internal variability, and climate feedbacks all contribute to the positive trend in EEI.”
Again, trying to make it about Loeb et al rather than Dubal and Vahrenholt. Very odd.
Yes, the Loeb paper, which is the originator of the data being discussed, was introduced by Ball4.
from the Dubal paper they interestingly indicate:
“At this point, we describe the direct observation of the greenhouse effect, namely by comparing the ‘Clear Sky’ LW upwelling radiation (Figure 11d) and the outgoing TOA LW flux (Figure 6a, left side). The first is rising with +1.22 ± 0.22 W/m2 per decade, the latter trend is literally flat with +0.04 ± 0.10 W/m2 per decade. Hence, in the absence of clouds, a large portion of this additional upwelling LW radiation is absorbed by the increasing greenhouse gas concentration (CO2 has increased from 371 to 414 ppm obtained from https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt (accessed on 29 July 2021), water from 10.44 to 10.71 g/kg at 1000 mbar from 2001 to 2020 obtained from https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl, (accessed on 29 July 2021). We have applied the Lambert–Beer’s law and correlated the logarithmic ratio of the outgoing TOA LW flux and the ‘Clear Sky’ LW upwelling flux with the rising greenhouse gas concentrations and found a very good linear correlations for CO2 (R2 = 0.92) and water vapor (R2 = 0.72).”
Basically what they are saying here is that at least in the clear sky, the GHE is very real, can be observed, and agrees with theoretical expectations.
All the deniers of the GHE should perhaps read this paper that Richard and DREMT like so much.
Another very good & rare if not unique feature of that paper, Nate, is they define their words SW and LW bands in terms of actual frequency.
Another interesting part of the paper, Ball4, is that they state:
"The data shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 suggest that the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux. The dominating influence of a declining TOA outgoing SW is not in line with the assumption that the global warming in the last 20 years is primarily caused by holding back the LW due to the greenhouse effect. As discussed below, the greenhouse effect plays a role, however, for the period 2001–2020 at TOA it was certainly not dominating.”
You have to remember that the GHE is supposedly a warming effect. In other words, warming has to occur as a result of any changes in the LW flux. What evidence is there that the observed changes in the LW flux contributed to the warming? It’s just assumed that it must have had some effect. Yet we know from experiment (eg. Seim & Olsen) that changes in LW flux do not necessarily result in any warming!
Decent (near enough) verbatim quote from the paper in quotation marks DREMT, not vague there.
However, DREMT’s last paragraph again shows DREMT admitting to being misinformed and vague – this time by not using verbatim words from yet another paper. Quote any and all paper(s) verbatim DREMT.
No valid criticism from Ball4 means my comment remains successfully unchallenged.
Seim & Olsen:
“The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.”
Good job DREMT uses a verbatim quote from a paper.
In order to avoid being misinformed & vague, DREMT must use words verbatim from any paper so find DREMT’s latest paper investigates a lab GHE w/verbatim quote “The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup” where the optical depth of the apparatus is shown on the order of 100cm.
However, the published paper being discussed in this thread uses the actual earthen optical depth for the real earthen GHE as observed from CERES and its authors do show with data according to DREMT’s verbatim clip the earthen “greenhouse effect plays a role” to prevent DREMT from being misinformed by a lab GHE investigation.
It is particularly interesting that the S&O authors DREMT seemingly relies upon have not made a fortune manufacturing the world’s very first actual physical black body as the authors claim to have measured a black body (if this site displays quote verbatim):
“We are in an advantageous situation since we can measure the IR radiation and the temperature of Styrofoam when it is heated! This was done and we found that, in our experimental setup, the value of ε was measured to be 1.0 +/- 0.025”
Sure, Ball4’s a skillful sophist. That’s why he’s been employed for so long, polluting climate threads all over the internet with his drivel, under various pseudonyms. But beneath all the bluster, he has no comment on S & O worth responding to. Ultimately, does he dispute this:
"In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found"?
We will likely never know, as a direct answer from Ball4 is the last thing we’re ever going to get.
The sophists congregate at an appropriately named DREMT website, not me. Thanks for admitting you have no proper rebuttal here DREMT.
I don’t dispute the 2.4-4 numbers are just announced as a “should”: “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law” – DREMT just accepts 2.4-4C is correct on faith.
Not interested in a lab GHE paper, back to the regularly scheduled earthen GHE paper(s).
You made no argument to rebut, sophist.
Some people here are claiming, without evidence, that the papers showed that the GW that occurred in this period could be attributed only to SW radiation.
That is False.
The globe warmed in the period, and the papers showed an increasing abs*orp*tion of LW and SW radiation, thus by 1LOT, it can be surmised that both SW and LW led to warming.
To assume that only SW radiation obeys 1LOT is of course quite silly.
Ball4, did you bother to go look at https://ceres. larc.nasa.gov/ceres-prp-anomalies.php?
It the results of an analysis. It is not measured data. They told you that in the paper as well.
“For non-cloud contributions, the effect on the flux (δF) due to some perturbation Δx of variable x is computed using a centered finite difference by averaging the backward finite difference:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl62546:grl62546-math-0001
(1)
with the forward finite difference:
urn:x-wiley:00948276:media:grl62546:grl62546-math-0002
(2)
where x, y1,,yN are gridded monthly mean input variables to radiative transfer model calculations …”
“F is the flux calculated using the NASA Langley Fu-Liou radiative transfer model …”
Do you know what the words “computed”, “calculated” and “model” mean? It’s obvious you have no clue.
Guess what? The entire problem with climate science lies in misunderstanding the output of radiative transfer models. Using them to “adjust” the data simply applies the same misunderstanding to these results. And, from a scientific point of view it is meaningless.
Like Nate, you are ignoring the actual measured data and it’s obvious why you are doing it. The data does not support AGW.
“Like Nate, you are ignoring the actual measured data”
No Richard, we are not.
All data requires analysis and interpretation. Thats what papers are for.
You need to understand what that analysis and interpretation is saying.
The CERES data is not adjusted to the model Richard, the authors tell you that: “The model is used for constraining radiative transfer calculations to instantaneous observations of irradiance (and radiance) from the CERES instruments.”
It is only Richard M ignoring some of the CERES data in that the authors use all of it to “identify the effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from 2001 to 2020 in the “Clear Sky” LW”.
Ball4 is now openly mangling together discussion of the Loeb paper with a quote from the Dubal & Vahrenholt paper. He also leaves out part of the quote:
“We could identify the effect of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from 2001 to 2020 in the “Clear Sky” LW part but not in the “Cloudy Areas” and not in the SW. At the same time, we find, in accordance with the analysis of Loeb et al. [14] and Ollila [18], that the major changes for the TOA energy budget during this period of time stemmed from the clouds for SW and LW, as well as the ground temperature in the LW.”
Good job DREMT by quoting authors verbatim, you should advocate Richard M do the same. The CERES data papers discussed use the same data and complement each other though they use such slightly different periods that it is immaterial.
The “Clear Sky” LW part covers only about 1/3 of the Earth’s surface and the “cloudy areas” 2/3. You’d think it would be noteworthy that they only found a “measurable effect on the LW flux” by greenhouse gas emissions for 1/3 of the planet…and even then there is no evidence that this “measurable effect on the LW flux” led to any of the observed warming over the period, and some evidence (e.g. Seim & Olsen) that it would not lead to warming.
Some people here would really like us to stop paying attention to the paper authored by the CERES Principal Investigator, Loeb, discussing the very same CERES data set as the others.
Why?
Is there a science reason for that?
“and even then there is no evidence that the ‘measurable effect on the SW flux’ led to any of the observed warming.”
Some people like to cherry pick and spin..
Thanks for admitting you have no proper rebuttal here Ball4.
“Maybe backradiation is taking a break.”
Maybe weather is not taking a break from being variable.
Global warming is the greatest thread to mankind. Despite la nina and low solar activity a +0,08C anomaly. In the upcoming years we will probably see a significant increase in the warming trend
Markus, humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere for about 120 years, and the global average temperature has changed +1 degree if you trust the VERY rough estimates for 1880.
NO ONE WAS HARMED.
You have no idea what will happen in the upcoming years.
Nor does anyone else.
But even if the upcoming 45 years have just as much global warming as the past 45 years, it will be completely harmless.
People who predict the future climate and, imagine bad news should be ignored. You are one of them.
Temperatures plummeted by 3C in a decade at the start of the Little Ice Age 1300 – 1850. Europe lost half its population.
Any cooling scenario would be much worse than any warming scenario.
Recall too that Holocene has mostly been warmer than now.
3C is way higher than anything I’ve seen. I believe the Tambora eruption only yielded a 1 C drop. Can you post a link to the global temperature reconstruction that you are referring to here?
I’ve seen claims varying from 1C to 4C cooling. Here is Easterbrook stating its 4C: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
Easterbrook uses Dr. Alley’s data. It’s only for one site in Greenland so it’s no where close to be a global temperature reconstruction. The change in temperature from 1300-1850 AD is confined to a 0.5 C range. If you go back to around 1000 AD that range expands to 1.5 C.
“But even if the upcoming 45 years have just as much global warming as the past 45 years, it will be completely harmless.”
Its safe to say it will do little harm to RG..
Nate
Please provide a list of people harmed in any way by the mild global warming in the past 45 years.
If you can’t name any people harmed, because there were none, please provide a list of the damage done to our planet you believe was caused by the mild warming in the past 45 years that was unlike damage in any prior 45 year period.
There is evidence that Hurricane Harvey was a record rain and deadlier flooding event as a result of AGW. There is evidence that the western US is warmer and drier, and therefore making forest fires much worse, and deadlier, as a result. There is evidence that the Himalayan glacier, a primary water source for Asia is receding as a result. On and on.
How are you certain these things are NOT related to AGW?
Ken, Europe’s population loss in the 14th century was the result of the arrival of the PLAGUE, not the Little Ice Age. The same thing happened in Iceland, though later in the century.
Cooling causes crop failure and famine.
Famine results in weakened immune systems. People are more vulnerable to pandemics such as Plague.
Plague wiped out people from every strata of society. Social unrest results.
Social Unrest for long periods will trigger wars.
Europe lost half its population directly due to crop failure and indirectly to the fall out effects.
Ken
You are a bit too superficial here.
Ireland for example lost at least a million inhabitants, but that was not due to cooling.
” 1847 famine in Ireland
From 1845 to 1849 there were many bad harvests in Europe due to the potato blight, which led to famine. In 1847 Ireland was particularly hard hit. In the face of hunger, the Brodverein was founded in Germany, the forerunner of the later Raiffeisen cooperatives.
The years 1845 to 1849 were difficult times for a large part of Europe’s population, who mostly lived in poor conditions. The potato rot pathogen, which was previously unknown in this country, was introduced from North America around 1840.
In continental Europe it led to some bad harvests during the years mentioned. The rural population in particular suffered from it. However, several periods of drought followed, which quickly put an end to the fungus on the continent. Because the mushroom needs a cold and humid climate to thrive. ”
*
Another example is the giant eruption of Mount Samalas on Lombok island, Indonesia in 1257, VEI 7/8.
It had hard consequences on year later in Europe: London for example lost 1/3 of its population due to hunger.
*
Thus, a deeper investigation is needed.
I am sure you can find any number of examples similar to the potato blight and Mount Salmas.
The famine that occurred at the start of the little ice age was due to heavy rain, shorter growing seasons, and extreme weather events, (kinda sorta like what has been happening Europe, China, and British Columbia) Places like Greenland got too cold to sustain any crops. Places like Norway lost acres of cropland that became too marginal to sustain crops. Places like most of Europe had many years of low returns on any grain crop you might care to mention.
Crops like Potatoes were adopted in Ireland precisely because they provide a more certain crop outcome. UK in particular proved a lot more ready to adapt to root crops and new agricultural methods while places like France suffered.
Ken
In the sum I agree, that’s evident.
@Ken
“Any cooling scenario would be much worse than any warming scenario.”
___________________________________
It doesnt matter, what would be worse, since we have no choice between both of them.
The coming warming will be bad enough, to slow it down.
Markus, you appear to be unaware of the latest NASA CERES data which did not detect any increase in greenhouse warming over the last two decades. Man made global warming appears to be nothing but pseudo-science.
The warming we have seen was most likely due to the positive phases of the AMO and PDO which will likely now turn negative. No warming is likely for decades.
The has been an slight underlying ocean warming which is now about 400 years long. That should help keep the global temperature up for awhile. Once again, humans were not the cause.
From CERES data in GRL key points:
Anthropogenic forcing, internal variability, and climate feedbacks
all contribute to the positive trend in EEI (Earth’s Energy Imbalance)
Richard,
You are misunderstanding what the paper is about.
“Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system’s response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.”
The point is this, the EEI is NOT Global warming. It is simply the IMBALANCE in outgoing and incoming flux.
Even if it remained CONSTANT the Earth would still be warming.
It could be constant if the GHE was increasing and the temperature was increasing exactly enough to balance out the added GHE.
And he notes that “a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor”, IOW the increasing GHE, is still happening.
All nonsense! The EEI is just more of the AGW nonsense, on steroids. It starts with violations of the laws of physics, and ends up with estimates, assumptions, and guesses.
Nate,
Maybe you deny the obvious fact that the Earth no longer has a molten surface.
You are in good company. It escaped the notice of intelligent people such as Carl Sagan, James Hansen, Gavin Scmidt and other climate crackpots.
They somehow managed to convince themselves that a formula giving the Earth’s surface temperature as 255 K was not a denial of reality.
For example, before the first liquid water formed, the average surface temperature was above 373 K. The climate crank “formula” gives – 255 K! When the surface was molten, once again the stupid “formula” gives – 255 K!
And now, when the surface temperature is manifestly about 288 K, the ridiculous “formula” gives, once again, 255 K.
No EEI, you fool – at least none that creates “global warming”. Don’t believe me?
Put a pot of hot water in direct sunlight. Come back in a year, or a decade, or a century, and see how much it has warmed up due to your imaginary EEI.
It doesn’t really matter, does it? You can’t even say where this “GHE” may be observed, measured, or documented. A mystical “effect” that can’t be demonstrated indoors, at night, or reproduced in a laboratory! Must be a “climate science” effect, hidden from normal science.
Carry on.
[laughing]
Nate, EEI is a measure of the energy changes that could produce warming (or cooling if negative).
“an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.”
What they found is the energy imbalance during the years investigated was due to an increase in SW (solar energy) which was somewhat compensated for by an increase in IR. Both of these are in direct conflict with greenhouse warming.
Greenhouse warming occurs when solar energy stays constant and outgoing IR decreases.
The biggest problem is the solar warming energy was more than enough to account for ALL of the warming. What happened to the greenhouse warming? If it was still happening in parallel it should have added even more to the warming seen. However, what actually happened was increased outgoing IR to reduce the solar warming.
There was no decrease in outgoing IR. It went up.
The outgoing terrestrial LW IR is going back up to equilibrium with the incoming system absorbed solar SW IR:
“Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere.”
From all imbalance causes, calibrated CERES data show: “a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.”
“There was no decrease in outgoing IR. It went up.”
Nope, that is not what the paper says, Richard. Quote it.
You are misinterpreting the paper in several ways.
EEI is simply the imbalance between incoming and outgoing.
Example, my oven is on with the door open. Lots of heat is escaping out the open door, so it reaches only 250F inside when the incoming and outflowing heat reaches balance. EEI is 0.
Then I close the door. The closed door is now blocking more of the outflow. Now there is large EEI and the temperature rises.
But now, as the temperature continues to rise, the EEI is going down! T keeps rising until the EEI reaches 0.
For Earth, the EEI does not need to be RISING for GW to be happening. In fact, it could remain constant or even DECREASE while global temps continue to rise.
The equivalent of closing the oven door for Earth is the GHE, which is slowly increasing. If its increase is matched by the increase in temperature, the EEI could be constant.
“There was no decrease in outgoing IR. It went up.”
Yes, total OLR has been increasing since at least 1985:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf
“In this paper, decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analysed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature.”
From the paper:
“It can be expected that the OLR rises with increasing global temperature. This is a mechanism
by which earth can return to a climate equilibrium after an initial perturbation by an external
radiative forcing. Our measured value of dOLT/dT can be compared with the model values
from [15]. If earth were a blackbody without an atmosphere, the derivation of the Planck curve yields
dOLT/dT = 3.3 W/m2K. Inclusion of the water vapour feedbackif earth warms, its atmosphere
contains more water vapour, which strengthens the greenhouse effect and yields a clear-sky
dOLT/dT = 2.2 W/m2K. dOLT/dT is determined for 19 General Circulation Models (GCMs) in
Table 10 of [15].”
And??
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now).
Yet another DREMT red-herring appeal to authority.
#2
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now).
Its quite simple, if you don’t want to respond to my posts, the stop responding to my posts!
#3
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now).
“Dont believe me?
Put a pot of hot water in direct sunlight. Come back in a year, or a decade, or a century, and see how much it has warmed up due to your imaginary EEI.”
No one believes your strawmen have anything to do with this discussion.
“What they found is the energy imbalance during the years investigated was due to an increase in SW (solar energy) which was somewhat compensated for by an increase in IR. Both of these are in direct conflict with greenhouse warming.
Greenhouse warming occurs when solar energy stays constant and outgoing IR decreases.
The biggest problem is the solar warming energy was more than enough to account for ALL of the warming. What happened to the greenhouse warming? If it was still happening in parallel it should have added even more to the warming seen. However, what actually happened was increased outgoing IR to reduce the solar warming.
There was no decrease in outgoing IR. It went up.”
Well…that’s that.
“…solar warming energy…”
Unfortunately for DREMT in the recent report: “Radiative energy flux data, downloaded from CERES, are evaluated with respect to their variations from 2001 to 2020…This leads together with a reduced incoming solar of -0.17 W/m^2 to a small growth of imbalance of 0.15 W/m^2 .”
That IS that. DREMT admits to remaining misinformed on the period’s CERES data.
I was just quoting Richard M, Ball4. That’s what the quotation marks were for. According to the paper itself:
“Radiative energy flux data, downloaded from CERES, are evaluated with respect to their variations from 2001 to 2020. We found the declining outgoing shortwave radiation to be the most important contributor for a positive TOA (top of the atmosphere) net flux of 0.8 W/m2 in this time frame. We compare clear sky with cloudy areas and find that changes in the cloud structure should be the root cause for the shortwave trend.”
…and:
“The TOA net flux was +0.75 W/m2 in 2020. The data shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 suggest that the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux. The dominating influence of a declining TOA outgoing SW is not in line with the assumption that the global warming in the last 20 years is primarily caused by holding back the LW due to the greenhouse effect. As discussed below, the greenhouse effect plays a role, however, for the period 2001–2020 at TOA it was certainly not dominating.”
DREMT admits being misinformed since per the paper quotation incoming solar went down in the period, so DREMT should go and argue with Richard M.
It would help DREMT to read & quote from the paper at first (like DREMT did at 6:28 pm) – a practice which would have helped Richard M comment correctly also.
Paper: “the greenhouse effect plays a role”.
So DREMT’s Well…that’s that. was misinformed as DREMT has admitted.
Good to see DREMT actually reading and quoting the paper though, keep up that best practice.
Richard M did not say incoming solar went up, so there is nothing for me to argue with Richard M about. What Richard M said was that there was an “increase in SW (solar energy). There was indeed an increase in ASR (Absorbed Solar Radiation) since there was less SW out at TOA. Thus Richard M is correct and Ball4 attacks a straw man.
Richard M’s “solar warming” meant in context same as increased incoming solar, DREMT, but incoming solar decreased per the paper. DREMT doesn’t even understand the climate lingo.
Go argue with Richard M not me, as I quoted from the paper. Correctly quote from the paper not Richard M who DREMT already admitted misinformed DREMT.
Ball4 will not be able to quote Richard M as saying that incoming solar increased because Richard M did not say that incoming solar increased. Ball4 continues to attack the same straw man even when it is brought to his attention.
In fact, if Ball4 searches further upthread, he will find Richard M writing correctly:
“the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux”
DREMT, your clip is the paper’s authors writing and Richard M’s verbatim quoting so of course Richard M’s quote is correct.
Right. So you will stop bashing your straw man about increased incoming solar?
I did not start. Go argue with Richard M being incorrect about “solar warming” per the paper’s data and admittedly misinforming DREMT with words unsupported by that data.
“Solar warming” as in “warming due to an increase in ASR”, Ball4. Nowhere did Richard M write that incoming solar radiation increased, so I do not need to argue with Richard M.
That’s wrong DREMT. Go argue with Richard M vs. the paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1042419
Nowhere did Richard M write that incoming solar radiation increased, so I do not need to argue with Richard M.
DREMT again claims he is not responding to me, while again responding to me!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1051696
Clearly he is obsessed and cannot look away.
“which was somewhat compensated for by an increase in IR. Both of these are in direct conflict with greenhouse warming.”
FALSE.
“It can be expected that the OLR rises with increasing global temperature. This is a mechanism
by which earth can return to a climate equilibrium after an initial perturbation by an external
radiative forcing. Our measured value of dOLT/dT can be compared with the model values
from [15].”
“Paper: “the greenhouse effect plays a role”.
So DREMT’s Well…that’s that. was misinformed as DREMT has admitted.”
No, Ball4, DREMT was not misinformed. As the paper makes clear:
“The dominating influence of a declining TOA outgoing SW is not in line with the assumption that the global warming in the last 20 years is primarily caused by holding back the LW due to the greenhouse effect. As discussed below, the greenhouse effect plays a role, however, for the period 2001–2020 at TOA it was certainly not dominating.”
In other words, according to the authors the GHE plays only a minor role…and even then, from their discussion of the GHE, they conclude:
“Hence, the rise of the greenhouse gas concentration from 2001 to 2020 had a measurable effect on the LW flux in the “Clear Sky”, covering about 1/3rd of the Earth surface. In the cloudy part, about 2/3rd, this effect was much smaller, if significant at all.”
Barely an effect for 2/3 of the Earth’s surface.
So they are concluding that the GHE plays only a minor role, for about 1/3 of the Earth’s surface!
Once again any enhanced GHE warming was only hypothetical, since although they claim to have observed some “measurable effect on the LW flux in the “Clear Sky”, covering about 1/3 of the Earth surface”, they cannot demonstrate that this change in the LW flux led to any warming. Think of the Seim and Olsen experiment. Change in LW flux measured, but no warming as a result!
“a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.”
Yep,
So one of the predicted feedback mechanisms of AGW, reduced sea-ice and increase in albedo is observed in the 2000s, and the deniers think this is somehow evidence against AGW.
…and Ball4, just in case you get “confused” and start quoting Loeb et al, the paper being discussed is this one:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
Dubal and Vahrenholt.
Before someone butted into the discussion, Richard M, Ball4, etc and I were discussing the Loeb paper. All of Richards comments refer to this paper.
My stalker, typically, has no idea what was even being discussed…that is just one of the many reasons I eventually had to put him on ignore. His obsessive “last-worder” trolling is another one, as he will surely continue to demonstrate…
DREMT admitted being misinformed but has corrected understanding on own by quoting verbatim from a published paper. Good job DREMT, stick with that practice of verbatim quoting and you will better understand the measured GHE and the measured EEI.
Note: in some written comment stuff DREMT just makes up stuff that isn’t in the published paper proving again DREMT is misinformed.
“DREMT admitted being misinformed”
No such event occurred.
“Note: in some written comment stuff DREMT just makes up stuff that isn’t in the published paper proving again DREMT is misinformed.”
Example?
Examples:
“in other words…”
“GHE warming was only hypothetical”
And that’s not anywhere near all examples. DREMT routinely makes up words not found in the paper(s) under discussion thus admitting DREMT has been misinformed that DREMT’s (or other commenter) written made up words were actually in the papers.
To write a good, well-informed comment when discussing paper(s), quote the paper’s words verbatim DREMT, don’t make up ANY words on your own.
Explain how you would interpret the paper any differently than how I did. What do you actually disagree with? Or are you just deliberately keeping your criticism as vague as possible?
I noticed that when DREMT butted into the conversation, he introduced yet another paper to back up his claims,
“Yes, total OLR has been increasing since at least 1985:
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf”
and that was fine.
while when Ball4 had, prior to that, introduced the Loeb paper which is the origin of all the data and analysis being discussed, THAT was somehow violating the law.
“Yes, thats the paper being discussed. Always was. For some reason certain commenters keep trying to introduce Loeb et al.”
As ever, DREMT’s hypocrisy is on full display.
No interpretation is ever necessary DREMT when you use the author’s verbatim words. I disagree when DREMT just makes up words the authors do not write – that’s when DREMT admits to being misinformed.
Quote any and all paper(s) verbatim DREMT. I reasonably agree with the paper’s authors words not necessarily DREMT’s made up, unquoted words.
Ah, so you are just deliberately keeping your criticism as vague as possible.
Nothing deliberately vague since I use the paper(s) words (and DREMT uses when quoting verbatim) which are not vague DREMT; they are precise enough if you bother to pay attention.
Ball4, you seem to have no valid criticisms of my interpretation of the paper. In fact your only criticism seems to be that I used my own words to express my own interpretation! Typically bizarre Ball4 behavior. I expect you will keep responding for several hours though, as you tend to be quite a relentless troll.
“The dominating influence of a declining TOA outgoing SW is not in line with the assumption that the global warming in the last 20 years is primarily caused by holding back the LW due to the greenhouse effect. As discussed below, the greenhouse effect plays a role, however, for the period 20012020 at TOA it was certainly not dominating.”
thanks DREMT, quite interesting, will have to delve into that one further
The paper(s) authors have valid criticisms of DREMT’s interpretation of the paper (as I’ve verbatim quoted the authors) along with even Richard M. Go argue with those folks DREMT (2:44 pm) & try to learn more about earthen radiative physics in the process since:
driving the climate in the period(s) observed are “a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.”
You’re welcome, td.
OK so the paper clearly indicates that this statement
“the latest NASA CERES data which did not detect any increase in greenhouse warming over the last two decades. Man made global warming appears to be nothing but pseudo-science.”
is FALSE.
“Markus, you appear to be unaware of the latest NASA CERES data which did not detect any increase in greenhouse warming over the last two decades.”
True, Richard M. No warming can be attributed to an enhanced GHE without making some assumptions. They claim to have observed some “measurable effect on the LW flux in the “Clear Sky”, covering about 1/3 of the Earth surface”, but they cannot demonstrate that this change in the LW flux led to any warming. Think of the Seim and Olsen experiment. Change in LW flux measured, but no warming as a result!
AGAIN, DREMT is following me around and responding to my posts wherever they are. Looks like he is becoming my stalker!
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now).
“I have put Nate on ignore” but apparently that is simply not true, since quite obviously DREMT is still following me around and responding to my posts.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now, but it hasn’t stopped him from following me around and responding to my posts over all that time).
“No warming can be attributed to an enhanced GHE without making some assumptions. They claim to have observed some measurable effect on the LW flux in the ‘Clear Sky’, covering about 1/3 of the Earth surface”, but they cannot demonstrate that this change in the LW flux led to any warming. ”
Oh really? But they can demonstrate the increased abs*orbed solar led to warming?
Nope.
There simply was warming during the same period that abs*orbed solar and the LW flux both changed.
And somehow the fact of ‘clear sky’ LW flux somehow means it doesnt count!
This is the famous cherry pick what you like/dismiss what you don’t two-step.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now, but it hasn’t stopped him from following me around and responding to my posts over all that time, posting his usual mix of false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults).
As DREMT tries vainly to keep up the pretense that he is not responding to me, by following me around and responding to me!
Hilarious!
#2
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now, but it hasnt stopped him from following me around and responding to my posts over all that time, posting his usual mix of false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults).
“I have put Nate on ignore” as DREMT again fails to ignore me and does respond to me, because he simply MUST get the last word!
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now, but it hasnt stopped him from following me around and responding to my posts over all that time, posting his usual mix of false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, desperate to get the last word wherever he can).
And there we have it.
It is quite astonishing that DREMT accuses other people of trying to get the ‘last word’ when in fact HE is the poster who literally works overtime, to get in the last word, more often than all others, mostly to say nothing!
What is the best word for that tendency to accuse others of what you yourself do more than anyone?
Hypocrisy? Being an asshole? Readers, you decide.
So go ahead, DREMT, use your not at-all-automatic response to satisfy your weird need to have the last word.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Nate on ignore (for the last two years now, but it hasnt stopped him from following me around and responding to my posts over all that time, posting his usual mix of false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, desperate to get the last word in wherever he can, always the biggest hypocrite on this blog).
Here is a quote from
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
“As shown in references 1-10 above, the anthropogenic CO2 Radiative Forcing concept on which the climate models’ dangerous warming forecasts are based is inappropriate for analyzing atmospheric temperature changes. Solar sourced energy flows in and out of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone provide the net negative feedback which has kept the earth within a narrow temperature range for the last 600 million years. The effects on temperature and climate of major meteorite strikes, periods of flood basalt outpourings and major volcanic eruptions are superposed on this solar sourced background. The sample lengths in the IPCC reported model studies are too short. The models retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, “solar activity” cycle is millennial. The relevant system for comparison should include the entire Holocene.
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/11 was + 0.08 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 18 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts.”
We are having a 1980s type winter in the UK, they can huff and puff all they like, but the planet is cooling. The sun is the driver.
Winter’s only 2 days old – it’s a bit early to be comparing it to the 1980s. In the mean time we’ve just had one of the warmest autumns in the MET Office record.
I am guessing you believe Covid19 has been isolated as well. Oh dear and voted to remain the EU.
” I am guessing you believe Covid19 has been isolated as well. ”
Aha. One more denialist, who should visit the Robert-Koch-Institute in Germany, and from there continue to these many many hospitals in the country who try to keep these stoopid nonvaccinated denialist people alive.
Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
Steven R Gundry
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Ken
” COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers… ”
Nice to inform us.
The use of Moderna by young men under 30 in Germany is no longer advised due to heart muscle inflammation.
*
But … why do you mention vaccination problems, but not the other way around: the problems that result from no vaccination?
How many people, do you think, are suffering of long term post-COVID diseases, and how many die?
My age cohort is 99.43% recovery once infected with COVID.
The risk is clearly higher with older people.
99.43% versus unproven 14% increase in heart attack risk.
UK has 10000 excess deaths not due to COVID; mostly heart and stroke.
Censorship is rampant making it difficult to know whether I am getting good information or not.
Lots of rumors that people who are vaccinated are getting just as sick as unvaccinated.
One such rumor is that Vaccines are destroying natural immunity and not just to COVID.
To Vaccinate or not is a tough call.
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/over-42000-adverse-reaction-reports-revealed-first-batch-pfizer-vax-docs
Yeah, and abandoning human rights is the “final solution” , Endlsung?
“99.43% versus unproven 14% increase in heart attack risk.”
Uhh, this is Im sure a case study in how to lie with statistics.
How bout the number of heart attacks vs the number of Covid deaths?
“Lots of rumors that people who are vaccinated are getting just as sick as unvaccinated.
One such rumor is that Vaccines are destroying natural immunity and not just to COVID.
To Vaccinate or not is a tough call.”
Really, gonna make your health decisions based on rumors?
Particularly with the internet, misinformation, ie rumors are rampant.
Yes Tim, I do and did. Thanks for crediting me with some intelligence.
” The sun is the driver. ”
Aha.
And… how do you explain why Had-CRUT and the AMO give such poor correlation with the Sun Spot Number?
https://i.postimg.cc/j5Zkmxfm/SSN-AMO-undetr-Had-CRUT4-6-1880-2019.png
The graph is a bit outdated, but a revision couldn’t change anything.
The Sun is Earth’s one and only energy source, but that does not mean it drives the climate.
It would do so if there were neither oceans nor an atmosphere.
“The Sun is Earth’s one and only energy source, but that does not mean it drives the climate”
Well it does supply the energy for sure.
Watch Carl Otto Weiss. He describes how climate is the result of cycles that, similar to any other waves, add up when on positive phase and add down when on negative phase. Its not just solar; its AMO, PDO, and a host of other cycles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAELGs1kKsQ
tim wells…”We are having a 1980s type winter in the UK, they can huff and puff all they like, but the planet is cooling. The sun is the driver.”
***
Of course the Sun is the driver, ask anyone on an Arctic (or Antarctic) winter’s day when there is no Sun. It will likely be about -50C.
I have experience -50C on the Canadian Prairies, and except for the fact the oil in my car had frozen (no block heater) and it would not start, it was bearable as long as the Sun was shining. The minute the Sun went down, you had better get indoors real quick.
BTW…solved the no start problem by taking the battery indoors at night and not letting the car sit around too long during the day without warming it up.
Tim Wells,
“We are having a 1980s type winter in the UK, they can huff and puff all they like, but the planet is cooling. The sun is the driver.”
One month into Winter, and mean December temperature for the UK is 5.3C, 1.05C warmer than the 1980s average. Only one December in the 80s was warmer than 2021.
USCRN for Nov 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg
“On NCEP surface data I expect November UAH TLT to come in a bit below September but above August, say 0.22 +/-0.05C.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1037929
“UAH Global Temperature Update for November, 2021: +0.08 deg. C.”
That didn’t age well.
rlh…”That didnt age well”.
***
Close enough.
0.22 +/-0.05C is close to +0.08 deg. C?
Not even to the 0.1C if rounded.
La Nina.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_45ns.gif
Proof that the warm water headed toward the Pacific coast near Vancouver, Canada is causing the rain and warm weather up here.
Polar vortex blockage in the lower stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/qWX5qmx/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/12/06/0200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-2.33,98.44,340
Arctic air attack in Europe.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Very high levels of galactic radiation indicative of a very weak solar wind.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Wooooaah!
https://tinyurl.com/477yxf7e
(‘coldest’ night around Germoney’s Berlin for the next 2 weeks)
You might be surprised.
https://i.ibb.co/CbvChpP/hgt300.webp
Give it up, ren.
All the time you post such pictures you yourself can’t correctly interpret, but nothing of what you think they mean does happen here around us.
Maybe in Poland, Belarus, Russia, North of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Northern America?
binny…”Give it up, ren.
All the time you post such pictures you yourself cant correctly interpret…”
***
ren is light years ahead of you and the rest of us with his understanding of meteorology.
Coldest November since 2013, equal 10th warmest overall.
Equal 3rd biggest month to month drop in anomaly, biggest October to November drop.
For true believers of the Monckton Pause, it has returned to starting in January 2015, making it 6 years 11 months old.
Wonder if there will be as much skepticism of UAH this month.
bellman…”For true believers of the Monckton Pause, it has returned to starting in January 2015, making it 6 years 11 months old”.
***
I don’t see why it has to begin anew. The initial flat trend was from 1998 – 2015, and that included the 1998 extreme. Why can’t we just add on to the 18 years flat trend and call it a 21 year flat trend?
Because it’s not a flat trend. Trend since the start of the old pause is 1.1C / decade. Not much different to the overall trend.
What will Australia’s summer be like?
https://i.ibb.co/XY1mz5D/gfs-T2ma-aus-27.png
As usual Ren. Beautiful one day, perfect the next.
Heavy snowfall in the UK tonight. The children will get their snow before Christmas.
Arctic air…dropping to -4C in northern Scotland. Down on the south coast, in the Plymouth/Cornwall areas it is 11C and 13C respectively.
Snow Pillow Data for Wolf River BC is showing way above normal snow for November 2021. https://aqrt.nrs.gov.bc.ca/Report/Show/Snow.3B17P.Automated%20Snow%20Weather%20Station%20Graph/
This just in: Winter heat wave sets December records in four U.S. states, Canada
swannie…”This just in: Winter heat wave sets December records in four U.S. states, Canada…”
***
You have already made a fool of yourself claiming heat can be transferred from cold to hot by its own means. Why add to it by calling temperatures in the range of 10C warming? Although the Vancouver temperature for December is listed as 7C, it varies from freezing (occasionally…when Arctic air descends) to 12C.
Every year in winter (late Autumn to late Winter) we have balmy days in the Pacific Northwest. We live on the Pacific Ocean and it moderates our temperatures. The reason it has been warmer than average is the rain storm produced by La Nina. It has forced warmer air from the warmer Pacific regions into our area. We call it the Pineapple Express because the rain produced always brings warmer temperatures.
Same last summer. NOAA has blamed our mini heat wave on a forming La Nina.
BTW…in the same region, it is currently 4C at 7:30 in the evening. Is that global cooling?
Yes, Ken…
… but in Northern Germany, our snow is way below normal since 10 years.
Suddenly , that zero line doesn’t look so far does it ?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1037607
Remember that the zero line you were convinced would be cross was based on the 1981-2010 baseline which is about 0.13 lower than the 1991-2020 baseline.
bdg…alarmist propaganda. When it cools, you alarmists always have an excuse.
Ha ha ha…
For ignoramus Robertson, even UAH’s data is ‘alarmist propaganda’.
How dumb is one allowed to be here?
SC25 update, first comparison with only SC24 for clarity, second comparison with last 5 cycles for context
https://i.postimg.cc/BbM3k89f/comparison255.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FR6gZpzM/comparison251.jpg
rlh…”Blinny has published one recently”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYWNHBLQFRetPEJ-83c1Oeh-n8PbERt0/view
***
You do mean Binny, as in Bindidon? I thought you had more sense that to post trash from him. He references the graph as ‘reconstructed’ data since 2015 then along the x-axis he marks it from Jan to Dec.
In the title he lists the following…
-mean 1981 – 2010 yellow
-mean 1991 – 2020 blue
-1998 gold
-2015 – 2020 various colours
-2020 grey
-2021 black
Binny has sunk to a new low. What kind of a trash graph had the x coordinates listed in months and the graphics listed across varies years, ranging back to 1981?
He has 1998 listed in gold as the only curve that can fit on a graph with the x-axis marked from Jan – Dec, yet 1998, being the 2nd warmest year in that era, is drawn as being cooler than the others.
I have claimed in the past that Binny fudges data but this is the Mother of all Fudges.
swannie…”Ken, Europes population loss in the 14th century was the result of the arrival of the PLAGUE, not the Little Ice Age. The same thing happened in Iceland, though later in the century.”
***
And you don’t think the plague might have been related to freezing temperatures?
Same thing with the Spanish flu, being compared to covid. It happened just as soldiers were returning from living in horrid conditions in trenches, whereby the soldiers developed all sorts of contagious illnesses.
Because modern epidemiologists can’t get over their need for another Spanish flu to prove their pitiful worth, they have invented a new plague/Spanish flu in the form of covid. And our politicians have been stupid enough to allow them to take over our democracies to practice their pseudo-scientific theories.
Covid ended about two years ago yet we will still be in lockdown conditions 20 years from now unless we vote out the cretins running our countries and replace them with people who understand science.
Gordo pontificates again without actually checking the facts. It’s well documented that a major outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918 in a US army training camp located in Kansas with a large number of new recruits. as usual with such matters, the actual progression of the disease around the Earth is not well documented, but it would appear that the US may have been the source. Here are some theories:
https://www.knowledgesnacks.com/articles/spanish-flu-origin/
Viruses mutate. It’s called evolution, sort of like what may have resulted in ourselves.
E. Swanson
Maybe this paper interests you:
Genesis and pathogenesis of the 1918 pandemic H1N1 influenza A virus
Michael Worobey, Guan-Zhu Han, and Andrew Rambaut (2014)
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/22/8107
Here’s another interesting part of the scientific investigation:Scientists Describe How 1918 Influenza Virus Sample Was Exhumed In Alaska
Swanson and Bindidion, do you braindead cult idiots know as much about medical issues as you do about physics?
That would be zilch.
“And you don’t think the plague might have been related to freezing temperatures?”
Err, no. A nasty disease that we now know is spread by fleas and lice. Arrived in Europe from the East following the trade routes in 1347, starting in the Mediterranean area. Spread north and west over the next 2 to 4 years.
Freezing temperatures seem to have pretty well nothing to do with it – started out in quite warm places and spread into colder ones over time. More to do with poor personal hygiene and person-to-person contact.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Covid ended about two years ago yet we will still be in lockdown conditions 20 years from now unless we vote out the cretins running our countries and replace them with people who understand science.”
I agree you are a cretin who does not understand science. Science is evidence based not opinion based and not based upon unproven conspiracy theories.
I can Thank God you have no position of Authority or Power. You can post foolish and ignorant opinions on blogs. Good that is the limit of your abilities.
Look at the real evidence. This is what people that run countries are viewing. Not some mindless cretin’s opinion like yours that is based upon nothing but what it can make up.
Evidence: Not what you are interested in at all.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/
Norman, are your “people that run countries” lying to you again?
Have you had your 17th “booster” yet?
Remember, you fall for anything — as in the “real 255K surface”.
Clint R
This time you are a complete ignorant idiot. Your opinions are offensive and stupid please shut up once. You are a real asshole. My older sister just went into the Hospital with Covid. Your sick and twisted opinions show you to be a cold arrogant idiot. You play your stupid games here. I have had enough of your childish behavior grow up will you.
Norman, with your track history I doubt you even have a sister.
But, if you do, why didn’t your “people that run countries” protect her?
You love governments but you hate reality. That’s NOT going to work for you in the long run.
Have you had your 17th “booster” yet?
Remember, you fall for anything — as in the “real 255K surface”.
No warming for at least 19 years now.
Chic Bowdrie
” No warming for at least 19 years now. ”
Oh, really?
May I suppose you still belong to the people who draw a line across Roy Spencer’s graph upthread, and see it’s flat?
Welcome to the Third Viscount’s fantasy world!
I just had a look in my UAH data on the HD, and let it compute the trend for 2002-now:
0.16 +- 0.02 C / decade
If needed, no problem to restrict the graph above to that period, to draw a linear trend line and to post a link to the generated graph, so you can really see it.
Bindidon,
I don’t care what your trend says. The trend doesn’t make it any warmer than it was 20 years ago. You cannot guarantee continued warming. It’s only your blind faith in the global-warming religion that makes you doubt no warming for 20 years or so.
Temperatures go up and they go down as they have for 20 years and 20 centuries.
And just so you don’t misunderstand, I don’t claim any cooling or warming in the future. I am agnostic about the future of global temperatures. Based on science, not trends, it seems unlikely that CO2 has much effect anymore, therefore no need to keep crying wolf.
Chic Bowdrie
” The trend doesn’t make it any warmer than it was 20 years ago. ”
Sheer nonsense. A hind-cast is a hind-cast. { d followed by c}
When you say: ” No warming for at least 19 years now “, that means that you simply ignore even what Roy Spencer perfectly calculates. Feel free to do.
*
” You cannot guarantee continued warming. ”
I never claimed that on any blog wherever. Where is that in my text?
*
” Its only your blind faith in the global-warming religion that makes you doubt no warming for 20 years or so. ”
I have no blind faith in anything, it is only in your imagination.
You know nothing about me, at best the lies about me made here by ignoramus-in-chief Robertson and his lieutenant Clint R.
I have nothing to do with your ‘global-warming religion’, let alone with the inverse ‘Global Cooling’ religion permanently propagated on lots of blogs.
*
” Based on science, not trends, it seems unlikely that CO2 has much effect anymore, therefore no need to keep crying wolf. ”
I was quite sure you would come along with your ridiculous hint on CO2.
Did I mention that bloody CO2 anywhere?
*
You are a typical example of people who permanently feel the need to react with their Pavlovian CO2 reflex to indications of undeniable warming – regardless of whether it is of natural or human origin.
I apologize for my reply to your comment, and will manage to avoid that in the future.
I apologize for assuming you subscribe to the man-made global warming meme. I thought you did.
As for the sheer nonsense, I think it is nonsense to think that a trend makes observations any warmer or cooler than they are. What do you see in the trend that makes 2021 any warmer than 2002?
Today, on the 5th day of Summer it is actually colder than a few of the days we had last Winter.
So if a I drew a line from on of those warmer days in Winter to this day in Summer we would see that Summer is actually colder than Winter???
No, that would be making Chic’s mistake of confusing weather and climate.
Each annual average temperature of Earth’s surface is variable like the temperature of the days in the year where you live. So even if the globe is warming, you will get some years that are relatively cool, and will be similar to the annual temperature many years ago. Just like this day early in Summer is colder than that day last Winter. But if you think that this cold day means that Summer isn’t happening, then you…. are Chic Bowdrie.
I’m not talking about one day, Barry. Don’t be daft. I’m looking at the average of a year 19 years ago which is roughly the same temperature as this year within a reasonable error.
No need to get out your calculator or wax philosophically about weather vs. climate. It’s simply not any warmer now than it was 19 years ago. Period.
Better luck next year.
On the journey from Winter to Summer the daily temperature goes up and down, down and up.
On the journey from a cooler globe to a warmer one the annual average temperature will go up and down, down and up.
That’s why this Summer day can be cooler than some days last Winter, even though Summer is warmer than Winter.
That’s why this year can be as cool as a year 20 years ago, even if the world is warming.
Your observation doesn’t carry any meaning with respect to global climate change.
Just as my observation that today is a colder Summer day than a couple of days last Winter says nothing about whether Summer is hotter than Winter.
But if you take all the data from last Winter to this first week in Summer, you will see that overall it has warmed.
If you take all the data from 19 years ago till now, you see that overall it has warmed.
You mistake weather for climate. Global climate is measured in decades. You’re using only 2 years, and the variability from year to year (0.5C at most) is larger than the overall trend for the period you nominated (0.3C).
So it can easily be warming at the linear rate and we can still see 2 years at similar temperature 20 years apart. We could even see 2 years of similar temps 30 years apart if the linear warming rate of the last 19 years continues for another 11. That’s because the variability from one year to another is large enough for that to happen. It doesn’t cancel the warming trend – it’s just weather variability doing it’s thing.
I should have known better than to take Chic’s word for it.
2002 = 0.08 C
2021 = 0.12 C to date
You have to go to 2010 to find a year as warm (or warmer) than 2021 to date.
But never fear! There is always 1998, the year of the strongest el Nino of the 20th century. That was warmer than 2021 to date, and no doubt will still be so after the December data rolls in.
UAH data, of course.
“Your observation doesnt carry any meaning with respect to global climate change.”
It wasn’t meant to originally, Barry, but it gets more meaningful the more convoluted your arguments against my factual observation get.
“If you take all the data from 19 years ago till now, you see that overall it has warmed.”
That’s like saying my bank balance should be greater than it was 20 years ago, despite withdrawing the whole balance today. Feel free to keep on convoluting.
No, it’s nothing like a bank account. In a bank account you can see all the money there. In the global energy budget, you only see a fraction of the heat in the lower troposphere, which is where you are trying to do your accounting.
A more robust bank account for planet Earth is the global oceans, which have the lions share of the Earth’s heat energy.
As long as you only use two data points, you’ll keep getting this wrong. You don’t strike me as completely stupid, so I think you’re just trolling. If you actually mean what you say, then you are one dumb sob.
Maybe, like bobdroege, you’d like to conjure up some ocean heat from the past or future to correct the data. Make it a little colder in the past, a little warmer now so that observations match the trend? Where have we seen that before?
I’m not getting the data from two time periods wrong. It is what it is. You are simply convoluting the meaning of that data. Imagining what might have been or will be is not science.
Ok, so you really are that dumb. You assume that the total energy in the climate system is contained in the lower troposphere.
Here is the global ocean heat content data for people who are not dumb.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
You can’t measure ocean heat as accurately as the lower troposphere, barry. Keep on convoluting, imagining, thinking wishfully, and calling me dumb. I’m not moved.
Data is what it is, not what you think it will be.
I started with 1000 shares. Over time the returns afforded me the opportunity to buy more shares. The market goes up and down, but the number of shares increases. I’ve automated returns into buying more shares.
The lower troposphere is the value of my shares, going up and down with the market.
The global energy budget is my entire portfolio, which has grown in size.
The market gets three very bad quarters in a row and the value of my shares is now what it was some years ago.
But I have more shares now, so when the market rebounds the value of my shares will be higher than before.
I would be mistaken to think that I am suddenly in exactly the same position I was some years ago, just because of the dollar value of my shares. I am actually better off, even though the day-today and year-to-year vagaries of the stock market make it seem otherwise on this day. I have more shares than I did.
The lower troposphere temperatures are affected by the vagaries of day-to-day and year-to-year weather. But there is an underlying warming. The global energy budget has more shares than before. We had a really cold month that is nearly as cold as a month 19 years ago, but that doesn’t tell you anything about the heat in the whole climate system. And all the evidence in the system corroborates the underlying warming (sea level rise, ocean heat content rise, melting global land and sea ice, surface warming, changing seasonal patterns and flora/fauna migration patterns etc etc).
I’m sorry, Chic. If you can’t understand the flaw in your understanding here, then the conclusion draws itself.
My advice to you, Chic, is to stay away from casinos. You might get on a winning streak and think that therefore the house odds are always in your favour. That’s the fallacy you’re running with here – that a random event for one component indicates the state of the whole system.
barry,
It’s ironic that you are invoking the betting meme. You are the one who conjures up the ocean heat and argues for warmer temperatures ahead. I don’t doubt that possibility, but at the moment the lower troposphere is no warmer than it was about 20 years ago. No theory or trend or gift from Santa will change that.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Chic, it’s no good if you can’t accurately describe what your co-interlocutor said.
“You are the one who conjures up the ocean heat and argues for warmer temperatures ahead.”
I haven’t in our conversation argued for warmer temperatures ahead. That is something you just fabricated about the conversation.
And yes, the trend is significant, not something you can disregard just because it is inconvenient.
If next month goes up by 0.5 C, then according to your model of how global temperatures evolve, the Earth will have increased its temperature in one month, and also increased by the same amount over 19 years.
This is stupid. Not only is it mathematically impossible, it denies that there is heat inertia in the climate system. And that is the whole problem with your view. You think climate is an instantly changing phenomenon.
It’s clear now you can’t grasp the topic.
“If next month goes up by 0.5 C, then according to your model of how global temperatures evolve, the Earth will have increased its temperature in one month, and also increased by the same amount over 19 years.”
No, not the whole Earth. Only the lower troposphere will have increased 0.5 C in one month and the average yearly temperature by roughly a twelfth of that. That is not only mathematically possible, it is what actually happens. No conjuring necessary.
There is no problem with my view, only your opinion of it. You argue that heat inertia means warmer temperatures ahead. That is speculation, no matter how likely. Now let’s see you spin that otherwise.
Chic: “You cant measure ocean heat as accurately as the lower troposphere, barry. ”
“You are the one who conjures up the ocean heat and argues for warmer temperatures ahead.
Barry: “I havent in our conversation argued for warmer temperatures ahead. That is something you just fabricated about the conversation.”
Chic: “You argue that heat inertia means warmer temperatures ahead.”
Ahhh, brings up ‘fond’ memories of the many varied ridiculous claims and dishonest debate tactics of Chic.
Nate, the King of Obfuscation, strikes again. This time taking quotes from several comments out of context. You need to crawl back under your rock or somewhere else where the sun doesn’t shine.
Chic,
“No, not the whole Earth. Only the lower troposphere will have increased 0.5 C”
Why then do you talk about “global” warming while referring to data from the lower troposphere?
Monthly LT temperatures are to long-term global climate change what waves are to the tides.
The variability in monthly LT data can be as great as +/- 0.3 C from month to month.
The current linear trend for the complete data set is 0.14 C/decade. So, 0.28C over 20 years (you targeted 2 data points roughly 19 years apart).
The variability is larger than the trend, so no conclusions can be drawn if any two data points have the same value. More testing needed. Maybe some trend analysis?
2002 to present: https://i.imgur.com/6CQbMRD.png
0.157 C/decade (+/- 0.148)
The linear trend is higher than for the whole data set, but the uncertainty is greater, yielding a statistical possibility of a very slight warming over the 19-year period of 0.01 C. But the same uncertainty also allows for a 0.3 C warming over 20 years.
On the matter of whether or not the globe is warming, comparing two months LT data out of the whole record to claim something about global climate change is nonsense. You can’t tell which way the tide is going just from two waves.
The argument we’re having doesn’t require an investigation of causes, nor am I interested. It distracts from the point we’re discussing.
barry,
I never claimed to be talking about global temperatures, as in land and ocean and lower troposphere. Should we include the whole atmosphere and underground temps as well?
My original comment referred to what I only eye-balled as no warming in 19 years. Coincidentally, November of 2002 was exactly the same temperature as the past month. You calculated for a whole year and found a 0.04 C difference between 2002 and 2021, but also a warmer year in 2010. OK fair enough. You proved my eye sight wrong on a yearly average basis.
Now here’s where you are short-sighted. The month-to-month variability has nothing to do with whether or not one month is statistically different than another month. That would be dependent on how accurate UAH measurements are. So Nov 2021 was the same as Nov 2002 within that error. One might even argue that a similar statistical difference between the average of the two years means my eye-balling wasn’t so bad either.
Trends in whether data are essentially predictions when applied to the future. They do not tell you what the data was or will be at any time. They cannot tell you what the difference between any two data points is.
The wave/tide analogy is not an acceptable spin. Neither is your statistical analysis. Try again. Or don’t, and stop me having to waste my time pointing out flaws in your trivializations.
“I never claimed to be talking about global temperatures”
But you’ve been talking about global temps throughout this thread.
“No warming for at least 19 years now…
Its only your blind faith in the global-warming religion that makes you doubt no warming for 20 years or so…
I am agnostic about the future of global temperatures. Based on science, not trends, it seems unlikely that CO2 has much effect anymore…”
You wrote above:
“Trends in whether data are essentially predictions when applied to the future.”
No one in this discussion is using trends to predict anything. That’s YOUR preoccupation.
But the linear trend analysis of the data we have shows a clear warming over the period 2002 to present. This is a much more robust way of testing for a change in the system than comparing two data points when the data is highly variable.
I’m fairly sure you know this and can’t fathom why you’re still arguing about it.
The wave/tide and cold Summer day/warm Winter day are very apt analogies. The point is that if you ignore all the data you can get a misleading impression (that high tide is lower than low tide, that Winter is as warm as or warmer than Summer) if you only use a couple of data points.
That these operate on different time scales is immaterial – the variability in the data itself is common between all three metrics, and is the reason you can get a warmer day in Winter than in Summer, a low-tide wave peak that is higher than a high-tide trough, and a month in lower tropospheric temp data that is the same value as one 19 years previous, even if the lower troposphere has been warming.
The error of using just two data points is not only well-discussed in climateball, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain and a modicum of concentration.
We just had a week of Summer days here where several were colder than Winter warm days this year. If I believed your model I would have to conclude that Summer is no longer warmer than Winter all of a sudden, and that the seasonal heat build-up that has accumulated in the upper ocean nearby suddenly vanished.
But I know it is the vagaries of weather that give us these anomalous results. A linear trend of temperatures from Winter to Summer would give us a more accurate picture of what’s really happening regarding climate.
barry,
OK, you wanna believe I think UAH measurements of the lower troposphere are something other than what they are.
OK, you wanna use trends to argue the lower troposphere is warming even though it is almost back to what it was 19 years ago, but you’re not predicting any future warming.
OK, you wanna believe that actual measurement data from two months, both constrained within instrumental error of their true average values, are meaningless because measurements taken during other months are variable.
OK, you wanna believe that a high tide somewhere and a low tide somewhere says something about sea level that is analogous to actual global measurements of the lower troposphere taken in Novembers 19 years apart. Or that a winter being the same temperature as a summer shows that the actual equivalence of those two similar months must be a mistake.
OK, you wanna believe that a discussion on climate ball and among half brains constitutes a consilience of evidence that equating two actual measurements that are exactly the same is erroneous.
I believe nothing I write will persuade you otherwise. As for the weather, I think I already agreed that the year of 2021 was a whopping 0.04 C warmer than 2002 and therefore the lower troposphere is not the same temperature as it was 19 years ago. Hopefully that will satisfy you, but I’ll give you the last word in any case.
“OK, you wanna believe that… equating two actual measurements that are exactly the same is erroneous.”
Nope.
Taking two “measurements” (they are inferred values, actually) of a small component of a larger system and claiming something about the whole system based on that is erroneous.
Claiming a trend in variable data based on just two of hundreds of data points is erroneous. And that IS what you are doing. You are saying that the trend is flat – no warming.
“I’m looking at the average of a year 19 years ago which is roughly the same temperature as this year within a reasonable error.
No need to get out your calculator or wax philosophically about weather vs. climate. It’s simply not any warmer now than it was 19 years ago. Period.”
So I looked at the average of a 10 year period ending 20 y ago, and the same average over 10 y ending today. It is useful to smooth out all the year to year ENSO variation.
The 10 y UAH average ending today is 0.29 C warmer than the one ending 20 y ago.
I did the same analysis for GISS surface data. The current 10 y period is 0.43 C warmer than the one from 20 y ago.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
Pitiful.
The King of Obfuscation points out penetrating insight into the intuitively obvious.
Get lost.
You think the warming in the record revealed by my 10 year average is ‘intuitively obvious’?
I think I agree.
Not sure why you need to have a meltdown over it.
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters.
Chic, the period you mention shows no change in avg. weather temperature i.e. red,blue in top post.
Added ppm CO2 effect of interest is on climate – the black line through 0 in top post which Dr. Spencer recently moved up in accord with the added ppm CO2 during the black line period.
Huh? Are you agreeing with me or just babbling?
“Based on science, not trends, it seems unlikely that CO2 has much effect anymore, therefore no need to keep crying wolf.”
A trend is used in climate science, eg to compare observations and models. Roy does this regularly.
So they are not like two different alternatives.
Still up to your old obfuscation tricks, eh, Nate?
Still posting dubious arguments. And still have no answers when people point out the glaring flaws.
“So they are not like two different alternatives.”
Actually, they are different. The trend in the UAH data is an extremely poor fitting model limited to a relatively narrow time frame, which says nothing about the future, while observations are reality.
Don’t involve Dr. Spencer in your obfuscatory modus operandi.
Here, on one of Robertson’s latest ‘comments’ on this Dec 2021 thread, you can see how tremendously dumb, ignorant and arrogant he is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1042286
He looks at the following graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYWNHBLQFRetPEJ-83c1Oeh-n8PbERt0/view
whose purpose is to show some superposed years and averages of periods, using UAH’s absolute data reconstructed out of their 2.5 degree grid anomalies, and climatology (the 30-year average of the current reference period).
Now look at his remark concerning the graph:
” Binny has sunk to a new low.
What kind of a trash graph had the x coordinates listed in months and the graphics listed across varies years, ranging back to 1981?
He has 1998 listed in gold as the only curve that can fit on a graph with the x-axis marked from Jan Dec, yet 1998, being the 2nd warmest year in that era, is drawn as being cooler than the others.
I have claimed in the past that Binny fudges data but this is the Mother of all Fudges. ”
*
As you can see, he really did not understand even half a bit of what the graph shows.
And instead of simply asking, he starts ranting, insulting and lying…
No wonder for an ignoramus who dared to insult Andrew Motte, the great man who translated Newton’s Principia from Latin to English, a text Robertson didn’t understand anything of, with the words
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
No wonder for an ignoramus who dares to compare his megatrivial, pseudoscientific ‘thoughts’ about Moon’s spin, with the genial work of Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and that of hundreds of scientists who followed them.
*
All what Robertson is able to do is to distort, discredit, denigrate everything what he is not even able to understand.
The graph is quite clear.
I dont know what his mental defect is.
Yeah the graph is easy to follow. That’s a bunch of different years with the absolute temps month by month for each, done by taking the anomaly value and restoring it to an absolute value. 1998 is still the second highest if you average all the months for each year and compare, which apparently Gordon is unable to figure out. This is not difficult stuff.
1000 miles further south.
December will see a further drop in troposphere temperatures due to two reasons:
1. La Nina will bring a global decrease in water vapor in the troposphere;
2. Very high levels of galactic radiation will cause an increase in snowfall in the northern hemisphere.
“These plot present time series (updated daily) of the current amount of water stored by the seasonal snowpack (cubic km) over Northern Hemisphere land areas (excluding Greenland).”
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
The Peruvian Current will remain very cold throughout December.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
What is the second order trend for the 1979-2021 temperature data?
Ivar Satre (the blog doesn’t accept the full UTF8 charset)
Here is a graph with the linear and the quadratic fits for UAH, with annotated functions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o52rRZPApPmrcgcdoAcpZWofXB_MTYsh/view
The time series must have a quadratic factor anyway because the linear trend increases (it was 0.12 C / decade at the end of 2015).
Of course: to derive any prediction out of the quadratic factor is absolutely hypothetical and therefore 100 % useless. There might be a cooling in 2,5,10 years, lasting 20 years, what makes the prediction obsolete.
But, just for fun: if we compute the result of the function for 100 years, we obtain right now a temperature increase prediction of 1.9 C for 2121.
Bindidon beat me to it, but this is my plot of UAH TLT.
Over the years I added some curve fits to illustrate the how various memes have (not) held up.
The 2nd order fit was something Dr Spencer added “just for fun” to one of these monthly updates a few years back when it showed apparent deceleration. The term wasn’t significant then and it isn’t significant now.
UAHTLT.png
Mark B
” The term wasnt significant then and it isnt significant now. ”
I agree: it doesn’t look very significant.
I just had some fun in computing the result for x = 1200 (months).
And it is as it is: 1.9 C in 100 years…
As your 2nd order poly shows very similar to mine, you should, after all, obtain the same result :- )
Northern sea ice extent on 01/12/2021.
https://i.ibb.co/2dPF69d/N-daily-extent-hires.png
In the coming days, there will be a rapid freezing of Hudson Bay on the west side.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/churchill/ext
Why would land and water temperature trends be modeled with different linear rates of heating? Shouldnt they just be separated by a constant? It seems obvious that its impossible for land and water temps to diverge over several decades at different linear rates
When the amount of water vapor in the troposphere decreases (La Nina), temperatures on the continents near the surface increase in summer due to more sunshine; the opposite is true in winter, the lack of water vapor in the air causes a sharp drop in nighttime temperatures at mid-latitudes.
The surface temperature of the open ocean ranges from -2 to 32 degrees C.
Mark Dranias
In my opinion, this might be due to the fact that while land masses and oceans both radiate the incoming solar SW back to atmosphere and space, the oceans have a higher reemissivity rate than the land masses.
That in turn should imho result in the land masses increasing their temperature, while that of the oceans decreases because more radiation means more cooling.
It is also possible that water evaporation over the oceans increases faster than evaporation over land masses, which would then increase the trend difference.
Wind (and hence evaporation) is higher over the Oceans than it is over land.
https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=28.304380682962783&lon=4.042968750000001&zoom=3
I think this is an interesting question, but I don’t see why it’s obvious that it’s impossible for the change in temperatures of the air over water and over land to diverge over several decades at different linear rates. Why should the response to forcing converge in less than a several decade time frame? I mean I could certainly imagine that it might but is it really so obvious without studying the question that it should?
Mass and heat capacity of oceans is much greater than that of air, oceans take much more energy and time to warm than atmosphere. That’s why sea surface has a slower multidecadal rate of warming compared to land, and why deeper ocean temps have a (much) lower trend than than both in terms of degrees C/F.
If the atmosphere stopped warming it would take a few decades for the upper ocean to warm enough to equilibrate.
In two days there will be a splitting of the polar vortex in the upper troposphere into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field to the north. This phenomenon is associated with a very weak solar wind.
This will cause an influx of lows from the north over Europe and heavy snowfall.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/icon/2021120306/icon_z500_mslp_nhem_17.png
UAH yearly superpositions of absolute temperatures updated, including October:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhVica1eUmTWIFj0m6cC1jC-GKZdMZwi/view
We can see that while till June, the absolute temperatures kept near the new reference period, they later increased and kept above it.
Nonetheless, 2021 remains also in absolute form cooler than 2020, we see this when comparing the black and the gr[ae]y lines.
Differences Jan-Oct
-0.30
-0.39
-0.35
-0.30
-0.34
-0.30
-0.11
-0.13
-0.15
-0.01
Sea ice extent anomaly updates
1. Boreal
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
2. Austral
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
3. (1) + (2)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
There’s global warming where I live.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59489484
The past is not the future.
Ice age missing link.
The CO2 Dome buster & Source of SSW, (Sudden Stratospheric Warming).
I dont believe in Sudden Stratospheric Warming. I prefer to think PSW is a more suitable title, (Predictable Stratospheric Warming). It happens following huge snow fall events. Unfortunately,
it positions itself in the darkness of the Arctic & Antarctic. This will be heat lost to the background
almost absolute zero temperatures of deep space.
Laws of physics, and the mechanical upward transportation of heat AKA (convection).
These factors combine to dismantle the global warming theory during the Grand Solar Minimum.
The science isnt settled yet. Everything hasnt been considered. The theory below is a glaring omission. You can bet this upcoming winter will be more severe than last years record setting winter.
The thermal exchange zone is growing hypothesis!
What is the thermal exchange zone?
It is the area in the northern hemisphere where the upcoming winters snowfall is destined to melt off in the following spring and summer.
Ice doesnt just melt. It leaches out of the atmosphere 144 BTUs of warmth for every pound of ice that melts. As snow creeps further to the south or to the north in The Southern Hemisphere, the thermal exchange zone expands, gets deeper and remains in effect for a longer duration. It also increases the Albedo of the planet. The net effect is the lowering of global temperatures.
Excess moisture in the atmosphere is the chief cause forcing vertical atmospheric convective currents into hyper drive. Vertical currents bring cold down and warmth upward.
The earth is rapidly casting off heat.
In an atmosphere where there is 1/3 warmth and 2/3 freezing, this mixing and inverting of the atmosphere Is ominous on the surface parts of the planet.
According to the GSM experts as the cosmic rays increase, a result of being in a GSM, they will produce more moisture aloft. More moisture aloft combined with a dormant sun has us heading towards ice build up & the lowering of sea levels. If at some point, and I hope its soon, the moisture aloft reduces, then the melt off will exceed the growth and we are heading back to an interglacial period.
GSM = excess moisture in the atmosphere =
a parallel convective current joining long wave radiation in the dissipation of heat into space.
The formation of snow in the upper atmosphere has a six-fold compound cascading cooling impact. One thing happens it snows, but the impact is multiplied by six.
1. The state change from water to ice deposits heat in the upper atmosphere. It is being deposited at the rate of 144 BTUs per pound of water that is converted to snow at the very minimum. This deposited heat will be dissipated into and radiated off into the background temperature of space which is estimated to be -455*f
2. Snow fall is a key episode governing and controlling the cooling process. For the vertical current to provide cooling there must be a separation between the heat absorbed by the upper atmosphere and the ice that was created when the upper atmosphere surrendered part of its volume of cold or lack of heat. The gravity driven falling snow provides the separation from the heat that was deposited in the upper atmosphere or left behind during the snow formation and state change from liquid to solid. The snow fall also causes an updraft that draws even more heat up from the surface of the earth.
3. The snow makes a color change to the surface of the earth. The Albedo of the planet is increased. During the advancing spring, sun light will strike the surface of the snow at an obtuse angle reflecting it back into space instead of the earth absorbing that vital warmth. The greater the snow accumulations, the more sunlight is reflected back into space.
4. When the snow on the ground finally melts it absorbs 144 BTUs per pound of snow, which robs the earth of some of the warming provided by the sun.
5. The snow melt increases the wetted surface of the earth creating even more opportunity for excess moisture in the atmosphere. Excess moisture creates the possibility of still more snow. Vicious cycle.
6. The process of water evaporation in and of itself has a cooling effect. The greater the moisture, or the wider the area the moisture covers, the greater the evaporation & the greater the cooling
7. Lastly just physical damage but that wont cause the earth to discharge additional heat. The previous six will. The greater the volume of snow, the more acute all of these impacts become. Regenerative feedback. A cooling earth would suggest even more opportunities for additional snow formation. Until this chain is broken by the dormant sun returning to its normal radiance or there is so much cold & snow that the atmosphere becomes arid, the thermal decline will continue deepening.
A snow storms thermal exchange rate with the upper atmosphere is roughly eight times that of a rain storm because of the state change properties of converting water to ice and ice to water. A snow storm 200 miles wide would be the thermal exchange equivalent of a 1600 mile wide rain storm.
Having said that it is important to be reminded that almost all rainstorms start out as snow. Under current conditions with excess moisture in the atmosphere, vertical currents are in play 24/7 in both hemispheres lowering the freeze altitude.
Most people can readily see ocean currents and their thermal exchange impacts but vertical currents are completely ignored. Not a good idea when their thermal exchange capability is amped up by the state change properties of water to ice & ice to water.
Ocean currents are a closed system that merely redistribute temperature. Vertical currents are open at the upper end providing an escape portal for heat to exit the earth.
Simply put vertical currents are ushering thermal energy from the earth to the cold blackness of space at an alarming rate.
Ironically the driving force producing an ice age is the formation of ice.
If the AGW crowd says the snow and cooling is caused by global warming, then run away global warming is impossible. They are likely to say just about anything
except the truth. At this very moment many people are at risk of freezing or starving because the worlds governments have been preparing for a fairytale world instead of dealing with reality. What is reality? We may be facing a very cold future for which no preparation has been made. World leaders have deliberately or stupidly led us and themselves to the wrong
conclusion on climate.
Everything has not been considered.
Art Horton
Why don’t you write an article (including of course all the data essential to support your hypothesis), for example in the ‘Research Gate’ corner?
*
Btw, not only glacier calving increases at Greenland’s coasts; according to Promice, a subdivision of the Danish DMI, the snow melting increases as well. Greenland looses more snow through melting than snow falls.
If that snow melting, according to your claim above ‘leaches out of the atmosphere 144 BTUs of warmth for every pound of ice that melts‘: should then the lower troposphere not show a corresponding temperature decrease over time?
But… it doesn’t. I just checked, using the UAH grid data, that the grid cells above Greenland show a linear estimate of
0.21 C / decade.
*
Moreover, you seem to start from the assumption that solar energy will soon decline.
That was predicted years ago, but might become obsolete in a near future.
Anyway, Mr Sunny Boy currently isn’t quite willing to go asleep:
https://i.postimg.cc/3Rg58B5Z/Solar-flux-F10-SC25-vs-SC24.png
Very low solar activity.
CLS Solar Radio Flux at 10.7 cm, Time Series
https://i.ibb.co/kqGvmWb/Screenshot-2.png
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/cls_radio_flux_f107/
Yet another ‘how to show climate change is all wrong with this one simple trick’!
There are dozens of these, and each one is different and somehow each one is the KEY SIMPLE thing being missed by those dumb climate scientists.
This is part of the normal water cycle and convection of heat into the upper atmosphere.
The vapor-liquid transition releases most of the heat.
Indeed in a warmer world with a larger GHE the upper atmosphere needs to warm to radiate the same amount from a higher altitude.
Climate GCM models include such effects. Can you show that they don’t?
GW is happening more or less as predicted, while global cooling is not.
So why do you suggest the INM-CM5 model does not show as much warming as all the others but still corresponds better to the actual measurements?
RLH, Did you see my comment? Notice the way that the analysis treated the sat data in an equal manner in an effort to remove differences due to each group’s processing. They don’t need to compare the UAH LT versus the RSS TLT.
So please identify which actual models used in CMIP6 were running colder than the satellite series. Either of them.
RLH, Did you read the report, or are you going to keep insisting on cherry picking one model over all the others? You might also go back and read THIS REPORT from 2017, which questions the S&C version of reality.
E. Swanson
Thank you for reminding me of that excellent paper, it was gone from my ‘screen’.
“Did you read the report, or are you going to keep insisting on cherry picking one model over all the others?”
Yes I read it. What I was asking was which actual models (any of them) are running colder than the measurements.
RLH, Your question side steps the question of which “measurements” you think are the most accurate and therefore the standard against which one might answer that question. As I pointed out before, the graph to which you refer presents model results after they have been modified to simulate the MT time series, which is known to exhibit a cold bias due to stratospheric influence.
The two papers I referenced present two other methods for comparisons between the models and the satellite data. S&C still refuse to recognize that the data over the Antarctic is deeply flawed, which is, for me, one of several reasons to downplay their results. Sorry to say, your infatuation with the UAH presentation(s) taints your credibility.
ES: The paper you quoted shows that the models straddle the measurements (of all sorts). Why is it that you cannot quote the rates for those models and the corresponding rates for the measurements?
“Climate models have, on average, simulated substantially more tropical tropospheric warming than satellite data, with few simulations matching observations.”
“All of the observational and reanalysis points lie at the lower end of the model distribution”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2020EA001281
“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers”
R. McKitrick and J. Christy
“The tendency of climate models to overstate warming in the tropical troposphere has long been noted. Here we examine individual runs from 38 newly released Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) models and show that the warm bias is now observable globally as well. We compare CMIP6 runs against observational series drawn from satellites, weather balloons, and reanalysis products. We focus on the 19792014 interval, the maximum span for which all observational products are available and for which models were run using historically observed forcings. For lower‐troposphere and midtroposphere layers both globally and in the tropics, all 38 models overpredict
warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant. We present evidence that consistency with observed warming would require lower model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) values”
RLH, McKitrick & Christy’s paper displays one of those areas to which I have objected. When comparing the satellite data with balloon and reanalysis data, they mention applying a mathematical computation using varying layers to simulate the LT and the MT. But when they discuss the model results, there’s no mention of using a similar mathematical computation. To me, that omission is either a gross editing failure or an intentional effort to produce inappropriate comparisons. Of course, they don’t document the weighting function(s) used either, though perhaps it might be found in one of the references. If so, one might expect to see some mention of a earlier document, but, there’s nothing.
They apparently average the UAH and the RSS LT data, glossing over the fact that RSS provides no data poleward of 70S and also excluded regions with high mountains in their product.
“To me, that omission is either a gross editing failure or an intentional effort to produce inappropriate comparisons”
So you must be correct. And they are wrong. Quite simple isn’t it?
I assume that you have brought these objections forward appropriately and obtained some answers.
RLH, I’ve raised similar complaints about the weighting of the data on this web site. Those questions have never been answered. McKitrick is the lead author, not John Christy, so why don’t YOU ask him about it instead of defending their work without question?
As I’ve noted before, the other groups analyzing the data explicitly note that they adjust the model output, for example, this quote from Santer (2021):
Since RLH has not replied, here are some further comments.
McKitrick posted a link to his data as a large XL spreadsheet with one sheet for each model run and a sheet for observations. For each model run, the data appears to be simulated MSU/AMSU data, though that’s not clearly stated, and all extend thru 2050. All the other numbers are derived from those initial input, probably provided by John Christy.
The observation data extends thru 2018 for all but one apparently updated thru 2019, judging by the different formatting for some of the 2019 values. Mckitrick calculated trends for the observation data covering first 1979-2019 and then 1979-2014. In the report they claim that
It is indeed inexplicable that McKitrick used only data thru 2014, given that they had complete information thru 2018 and only a few data series were missing 2019 data. It would appear that they intentionally decided to downplay the impact of the 2016 El Nino, which resulted in stronger trends in the observational data, compared with the 79-14 results they reported.
Do I suggest that? Not to my knowledge.
So why if the INM-CM5 model closely represents temperatures on both RSS and UAH do you not accept it as being accurate?
??
Very low solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/RgFDrrw/Screenshot-1.png
Bindidon
Why not 2008-2011 and 2018-2021?
You are comparing arbitrarily only two years.
SC24 started in December 2008, and SC25 started in December 2019.
Bindidon, the lowest level of solar radio flux occurred in 2018.
https://i.ibb.co/V98Nx04/Screenshot-2.png
That is exactly the point where I was earlier, and then got told that I should compare the two cycles by setting them ‘start over start’.
When I have some idle time, I’ll make a graph again comparing the two on the base of their respective F10.7 minima.
This is also confirmed by the Bremen Center.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
You can’t compare Bremen’s Mg II and F10.7.
You can compare SSN and F10.7
You are very wrong.
“The Extreme UltraViolet (EUV) emissions that impact the ionosphere and modify the upper atmosphere track well with the F10.7 index. Many Ultra-Violet emissions that affect the stratosphere and ozone also correlate with the F10.7 index. And because this measurement can be made reliably and accurately from the ground in all weather conditions, it is a very robust data set with few gaps or calibration issues.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/f107-cm-radio-emissions
Here I show for the umpteenth time what imho is to be understood by correlation:
https://i.postimg.cc/gjrzK2M7/SSN-vs-F10-7cm.png
The two do not correlate with
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
as I do understand and use that word.
Moreover, the end of a cycle and the start of a new one are not at all defined by the least solar flux value.
This is governed by completely different, more complex observations.
Look in
https://www.astro.oma.be/en/december-2019-confirmed-as-starting-point-of-the-new-solar-activity-cycle/
The number of spots at the start of the 25th solar cycle (2021) is lower than at the start of the 24th solar cycle (2011).
https://i.ibb.co/mH7xPF5/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
And ???
Did you look at all cycle pairs in the last 100 years to ensure this is worth to be mentioned anyway?
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle/historical-solar-cycles.html
Shows all the cycles we have measured so far (from cycle 1 to 25).
He keeps posting his little cherry picked snippets so you can’t tell how misaligned and out of context it is
Typical destructive polemic.
Nothing is cherry-picked here, Eben, and you should know that.
The comparison ‘start over start’ is, after all, exactly the same as that what you post.
smell that? nothing in the world smells like that
I love the smell of falsified global circulation models in the morning
smells like… victory
Don’t buy a house in the low flood plane with no drainage
https://youtu.be/v9hycWGvzpI
But that’s exactly why people do build there! regular floods and/or mudslides make for fertile soils, while in a similar fashion, regular explosive volcanic eruptions also make for fertile soils near volcano. It is why the island of java, being the size of the state of new york (a bit smaller actually), hosts nearly 150 million people. Stable, steady climate leads over millions of years to the depletion of the soils creating infertile scrublands like most of the australian interior.
That must be devastating. Crops destroyed? Mass deaths? Drought?
Some expressed a desire for global warming theory.
Let’s over facts.
Over last 5000 years looks like long term cooling effect and
no evidence of this trend turning around.
The warmest period in Holocene was when we had arctic summer ice free polar sea ice and existing frozen stumps in arctic which were growing were once living trees. And current sandy Sahara Desert was
grasslands, forest, lands and rivers. Or Sahara Desert was in wet phase which lasted thousands of years.
And in the last 5000 years it has never become as warm as during this period which is called the Holocene climatic Optimum.
In terms of theories, it’s thought if Sahara Desert were to become as wet as it was, it would cause a significant amount of global warming. As having summer ice free polar sea conditions.
Or with either of them Green Sahara or ice free arctic would cause significant warming. And one could assume both would cause more global warming then just one of them occurring.
Or I did not make these theories, it more of what is commonly known or not disputed.
Another theory is we are in icehouse climate. Again, commonly known, nor has been disputed. And an icehouse global climate is where have polar icesheet which doesn’t melt during the year or regarded as “permanent” [though glaciers/icesheets are always constantly changing and flowing/moving]. AND the average temperature of entire ocean is cold. So, 34 million years old Antarticia is believed to started forming icesheet and as important the ocean became colder until the present time.
So, that 34 million period is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age or also called, Antarctic Glaciation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
And I think these theories are mostly right. Or facts will change as things are discovered, but broadly correct.
I would say in about last 2 million years, during the time Greenland was becoming a “permanent” icesheet- though mainly icesheet in terms Icehouse global climate regards to icesheets on continent, and Greenland is called the largest Island- we have been in the coldest period in last 34 million years.
And coldest mainly refers to the ocean being coldest.
And in Holocene I think/believe the ocean has been around about 4 C and currently the average temperature of ocean is about 3.5 C.
And it claimed and not disputed, that during past interglacial periods the ocean has warmed up to about 4 C.
And I would say that if interglacial period did not have ocean of about 4 C, it should not be called an interglacial period.
Or interglacial periods climb out glacial period quite steeply and reach a peak ocean temperature, and over many thousands of years the ocean cools and enters a glaciation period. And count as glaciation period one needs large ice sheet on North American.
Or if large continental ice sheet does not develop it’s not glaciation period.
Other things known is that CO2 level are not related to causing interglacial periods or Glaciation periods.
And the hysteria regarding CO2 is a religious matter.
Coherency in written communication is highly valued. Yours needs work.
“Coherency in written communication is highly valued. Yours needs work.”
It seems to me that you are overly optimistic about a possibility of me getting paid for my written communication.
But what I read generally from writers is that written communication is not highly valued.
And it seems to me if “coherency in written communication was highly valued”, we would be getting more of it- and not be getting less of it.
But nevertheless, I appreciate your encouragement.
Global climate is mostly about the Earth’s Ocean.
And even though I discussed the Sahara Desert, and it is large land area of 8,600,000 sq km- and is in an important part of world. I would say that Sahara Desert’s climate is caused by global climate rather than being a causal factor of global climate.
But in terms global air temperature, a Green Sahara Desert should have large effect upon global air temperature.
But it seems, we like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post. And are saying global air temperature is the same thing as global climate {rather than a proxy of it}.
But in terms a human concern, Sahara Desert becoming wetter, would be pointed to as huge example of climate change. Or if it was wetter and then become drier, it would be cited as an example of enormous climate change.
But the simple point is, we are currently after the peak high temperature of the Holocene, and doesn’t seem likely we going to have a Green Sahara within our 1000 year future {unless human make the Sahara Desert green, again}
Back to another issue.
I am interested in Mars exploration, and I have never been interested in living on Mars.
And recently I been wondering, what would have to be different about
living on Mars, which cause me to want to live on Mars.
Loosely speaking I would rather live on Mercury as compared to Mars- though it’s hard to get to Mercury from Earth. But it doesn’t matter much if I want to live on Mars, it’s that other people want to live
on Mars. And lots of people want Mars to be explored. That other people want to live on Mars, makes me happier. Though I am not worried that I will or could somehow discourage people from wanting to live on Mars, nor do wish advocate Mercury exploration and settlement, though tend to think Lunar exploration could lead more interest in Mercury, and lunar polar exploration I regard as most immediate and important.
Now, there things we don’t know, and there could be danger related to living in Mars gravity. But I would say I tend to be optimist, and so rather health problems of low gravity, it seems possible it’s better to live in lower gravity. Or I have said in past that low gravity might be appealing to older people. A lot of older people die by falling and hurting themselves. And I am growing older, maybe that could be factor in wanting to live on Mars. Also, radiation hazard is less of worry if one is older, as it could be more of long-term risk rather than short term issue.
I was saying our Moon hasn’t been explored.
And some might say it the most explored body in solar system {even including Earth}. Well, it’s true Earth has also not been explored with +7 billion people on it {I blame governments}. And I think Mars exploration could encourage more exploration of Earth.
What could help with statement of unexplored aspect of Earth is that 70% it is covered with deep ocean, but one also say, just land area of Earth lacks exploration.
And if we didn’t have US, Earth would less explored than it is. US is a product of exploration, but exploration of Earth which found America, had lots countries which didn’t help much with the exploration of Earth. So, it’s possible that exploration of Mars will not lead to nation which explores Mars and the rest of the universe.
But people who live on Mars would need to quite stupid, to not explore Mars, a lot.
“Over last 5000 years looks like long term cooling effect and
no evidence of this trend turning around. ”
“And in the last 5000 years it has never become as warm as during this period which is called the Holocene climatic Optimum.”
That turns out not to be the case.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
I agree with you about the 5000 year long term natural cooling trend.
However you have ignored the artificial warming trend in the 20th and 21st century. This has brought us to temperatures warmer than at any time during the Holocene.
Incidentally, the graph is a few years old. We are currently 1.1C above the pre-industrial temperature and 0.7C above the Holocene Optimum.
Oops.0.5C above Holocene Optimum.
Ent, did you ever wonder where those people went to buy their thermometers 12000 years ago?
No, you never questioned it because your faith is completely in your cult. Beyond that, you can’t think for yourself.
Pup,
Proxies are like sockpuppets. They replace the REAL thing when one can’t use the REAL thing.
“That turns out not to be the case.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg ”
Even Michael Mann said splicing was wrong-
but it didn’t stop him from doing it.
We don’t even know what the global air temperature is currently.
And certainly, didn’t know it 50 years ago.
Global average temperature, for decades before I was in elementary school, was about 15 C.
It’s possible it’s currently, actually 14 or 16 C.
Global land surface temperature “might” be close 10 C.
Northern land might be about 12 C and Southern about 8 C {mostly due to the unmeasured Antarctica}. And we have average global ocean surface temperature, which is somewhere around 17 C.
And ocean surface temperature is probably more uncertain than land.
But I made easy.
Does green Sahara increase global temperature?
Are you are doubting the fact that Sahara desert was green?
How about if Sahara is green, would it mean a much higher global water vapor? Agree or disagree?
Btw, around time of elementary school I told it was likely human activity, made the Sahara into a desert. And this clap-trap still is said.
So were this to be believed, the primitive and low population of Humans, caused a huge climate change.
They froze Earth.
Witches causing cold weather, and a small population of native Americans killed off all the larger faun.
Seems I missing something else, but anyhow…
gbaikie…”around time of elementary school I told it was likely human activity, made the Sahara into a desert”.
***
All sorts of that elementary school propaganda in modern climate alarmist theory.
Have you encountered the Orbital Monsoon Hypothesis?
Basically the North African Monsoon follows the amount of insolation in the Northern Hemisphere.
When insolation peaks the NAM is strong and the Sahara is wet.
When insolation is minimal the NAM is weak and the Sahara is dry.
The main driver is the Milankovich precession cycle. When the Northern Hemisphere tilts toward the Sun at perihelion (shortest distance to the Sun) you get maximum insolation. This occurs when the Earth passes perihelion in June.
When the Northern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun at perihelion you get minimum insolation. This occurs when the Earth passes perihelion in December.
Perihelion is currently on January 2nd, so the NAM is currently close to its minimum and the Sahara is dry. 10,000 years ago the NAM was close to its maximum and the Sahara was wet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_climate_cycles
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
Yes.
But other than tilt, I thought possible than warmer surface ocean above tropics could function similar to tilt. Or higher tilt warms these waters more. Or doesn’t matter how the ocean waters are warmed, just that they are warmer.
Oh that pic again – Kindergarten level climate shystering
Eboy can’t stay in his lane once again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now that Roy has updated the whole series here are the graphs for Nov 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-north-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-south-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-2.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-long-term.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-residuals-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_tp.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_ls.jpg
binny…”As you can see, he really did not understand even half a bit of what the graph shows”.
***
I understand perfectly well. You created a graph showing the abscissa in months over a year then inserted graphs for ranges covering decades. In other words, you lack even a basic understanding of how graphs are made.
Since the aim of your presentation was to compared temperature series in absolute temperatures, you failed miserably. You ended up showing one of the hottest years in the recent records as colder than all the rest.
binny in response to chic bowdrie…”May I suppose you still belong to the people who draw a line across Roy Spencers graph upthread, and see its flat?”
***
The IPCC admitted in their 5th assessment that the trend was flat from 1998 – 2012…15 years. I extended that to 18 years, based on a visual examination which comes down to visually averaging the data.
If you look at Roy’s graph above, between roughly 2007 and 2011, you can see an approximate inverted sine wave. That tells you immediately that the average was roughly zero between those years. Extending back to 2002, it’s roughly the same.
The 1998 spike is narrow while the following curve below the baseline is wide, Again…roughly a zero trend. The IPCC saw all that as a flat trend and I can see it visually.
Cripey, do I have to teach you everything?
When you see Roy’s trend of 0.14C/decade, that’s statistical trend based purely on the numbers. It does not represent the physical reality. UAH knows that and covered the difference in the 33 year report. However, UAH live in a scientific world where such statistical trends are required and I’m sure they don’t have the time to get into the esthetics.
Robertson
In the recent years, you got enough replies about this your endlessly repeated nonsense.
I am grasshopper; eager to learn.
However, You aren’t my teacher.
Ken
I’m over 70, and still learn every day in lots of domains.
Some like Robertson don’t (want to) learn anything further (that would be kinda appeal to authority).
They simply repeat the same stuff all the time, be it wrt weather/climate, 2Lot, Einstein, viruses, the Moon, etc etc etc.
Boring.
maguff…”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.
***
The IPCC’s logic is as follows: we have noted an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases since 1850, therefore it is certain that humans are causing the accompanying warming.
They advise us further that the Summary for Policymakers is fact, and can be trusted. They don’t advise us they have a mandate to only look at human causes of warming, not natural causes.
The document begins by referencing a working group then slyly switch the focus to the Summary for Policymakers. They don’t tell us the Summary, written by 50 politically-appointed lead authors, has amended the working group’s report to reflect the views of the 50 lead authors.
Maguff, in his stupidity, actually believes this propaganda since he is clearly incapable of doing the required research to see the IPCC are a load of politically-motivated hosers.
Robertson, shut up about “doing the required research.” Here’s what you recently posted:
“There is no such thing as a molecular vibration.” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1038736
thus negating the whole field of Molecular Spectroscopy and blissfully confirming your ignorance.
Ed Berry on CO2 and how the IPCC got it wrong.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin.
The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet…….. Te…. Te.corrected…..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K…..340 K…0,00568
Moon………270 K……224 K…..220 K…0,0339
Earth………255 K…….210 K…..288 K….1
Mars……….210 K……174 K…..210 K…0,9747
Europa…….95,2 K……78,8 K…102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…..88,6 K…110 K….0,1398
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
All of them are very close except Mercury. All are within 3C except Mercury. Which term might be off?
Stephen,
All are within 3C, please explain what is within 3C with what?
The Te.corrected.mercury = 364 K is calculated for Mercury’s Semi-major axis which is 0,387 AU.
But half of the time, Mercury comes closer to the sun at its Perihelion of 0,307 AU.
The fact Mercury’s orbit has high eccentricity e = 0,205 partly explains the bigger, than might be expected, difference between the calculated Te.corrected.mercury = 364 K and the measured Tsat = 340 K .
Stephen
“Which term might be off?”
The table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47 does not have, for further comparison the column of cp and the column of (N*cp) in sixteenth root.
I have a page in my site “ALL PLANETS TEMPERAT” – I have collected all the data in one Table there.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The difference between Tmean and Tsat.
Yes, for Mercury the calculated Tmean = 325,83 K and the satellite measured Tsat =340 K.
The fact Mercury’s orbit has high eccentricity e = 0,205 partly explains the bigger, than might be expected, difference.
For all planets the Tmean is calculated for the Semi-major axis.
Measured for Mercury the Tsat =340 K might be performed at a time Mercury was on the same as Earth side of sun. At that side of its orbit Mercury, due to its eccentricity, happens to be closer to the sun.
Thank you for noticing.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature the Te.corrected.–
Other than Earth, because it has an ocean, what planet is smooth?
What is meant by smooth?
One could call the lunar smooth because it’s pounded into dust but you also say a rough surface because pounded into dust by all kinds different size rocks, but because most common impactor is dust or micrometeorites and biggest rocks are in timeframe of millions of years, it’s smooth?
Anyhow I assume error is related lack exploration of the Moon, while imagining the Moon has been explored, when it hasn’t.
Smooth for planet doesn’t mean polished. It doesn’t mean smooth on microscopical level – the mirror like.
Smooth for planet means not effectively capturing solar energy.
An example of rough planet surface is a dense urban area. Solar beams, when hitting walls, get reflected in downward direction, until, after multiple reflections being completely absorbed. See how dark it is in the streets of the cities.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Smooth for planet means not effectively capturing solar energy.
An example of rough planet surface is a dense urban area.”
Well, few natural terrains are similar dense urban areas. Or seems one needs erosion to come close. I tend imagine Madagascar. But also, was just listening video on Mercury and apparently Mercury surface is thought to have a lot of volatiles {or has a lot of Sulphur and has ancient surface] which in what seems like small regions somehow boil off over millions of years of time.
But anyhow, Earth is very effective at capturing solar energy, the earth’s ocean in particular- and obviously it’s atmosphere also. The UHI effect of urban areas seems largely connected having an atmosphere and related air convective processes.
The moon is roughly like a region bombarded by heavy artillery a million year ago, in environment which not vaguely as erosive as Earth surfaces. Like a flat dry rock area with insane amount heavy artillery- millions of years ago. Mercury is roughly the same as our Moon. Mars has wind erosion as major erosion factor {again over millions of years- and also an insane amount heavy artillery. And these planets retain the evidence of very large impactors which hidden by erosion- and plate tectonic activity on Earth.
Also Mars thin atmosphere stops the micrometeorite impacts which are a major feature of the Moon and Mercury.
In terms broad scale elevation changes, Moon, Mars, and Venus are not smoothed by having an Earth’s ocean. Mercury smoothed due to cooling and some rock plates caused contraction erasing some impact craters over billions of years {though I guess also true with Moon or Mars, and maybe Venus- though its surface is said to be young}.
Φ is the spherical shape and roughness coefficient.
Because of the planet spherical shape Φ cannot be less than 0,47;
We have (theoretically) Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
In practice planets have either Φ=0,47 or Φ=1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together. The Φ(1 – a) term is a coupled physical term.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hmm.
I was looking from amount shadow there was in lunar polar region and didn’t find an answer, instead I got the amount of permanent shadow:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GL016180
Which was interesting:
” A detailed analysis of all fresh looking simple craters larger than 1 km within 12° of the pole was undertaken. The total number of craters mapped was 832.
These craters have a total surface area of approximately 12,500 km2 representing roughly 3% of the lunar surface poleward of 78°. Using equation 1 to calculate the amount or permanent shadow associated with these craters yields 7500 km^2. This number is significantly larger than the previous estimates of 530 km^2″
So, craters “fresh looking”, 1 km or larger are 3% of area and
amount 12,500 square km.
And I guess 97% of area is about 416,666 square km or total area
416,666 + 12,500 square km equals total 429,166 square km.
[And California is 423,970 square km}
So, I wanted to know how much of “California size” area is in shadow and gives me how much is calculated to be in permanent shadow. And obviously the amount in shadow is larger than in permanent shadow- or didn’t find what looking for, but it was interesting anyhow. Particularly the part where it was thought 530 square km vs 7500 square km calculation. {though another estimate was “and 2650 km2 [Margot et al., 1999]”
For south pole:
“A detailed analysis of all fresh looking simple craters larger than 1 km, within 12° of the pole identified 547 craters. These craters have a total area of 11,200 km2 which represents just under 3% of the total lunar surface south of 78°S. Using equation 1 to calculate the amount of permanent shadow associated with these craters yields a lower limit of permanent shadow of 6500 km2. This compares with 3300 km2 [Bussey et al., 1999], and 5100 km2 [Margot et al., 1999].”
Anyhow there seems more interest in south pole of Moon, and I wonder if it’s misguided.
Anyhow this talking down 78 degrees, and I generally regard 80 degrees or higher as lunar polar region even though strictly speaking the polar circle should at 88.5 degrees.
So, question remains in given hour on the Moon, how much percentage is 78-degree latitude and higher in shadow?
As this relates to near morning and evening when sun is 12 degrees above the horizon {15 degrees is Earth or Lunar hour]. Or hour after dawn how is the land in shadow.
Now when the sun is at 15 degree or less, it’s not heating a level surface of the Moon or Mercury by much. Though it would heat the side of vertical rock with a full sunlight intensity.
But curious at equator before the sun has risen for an hour how is land in shadow. Or on earth glowing sky adds lighting.
Wiki:
“On the Moon, permanent shadow can exist at latitudes as low as 58°; approximately 50 permanently shadowed regions exist in the 58°- 65° latitude range for both lunar hemispheres.
The cumulative area of permanently shadowed lunar regions is about 31 thousand km2; more than half of it is in the southern hemisphere”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanently_shadowed_crater
It seemed likely they could be that low, I didn’t know they found them at 58 degree latitude.
Still not getting idea of how much shadow is in polar region at given point in time, other general characterization of mostly dark with islands of light.
But getting a better idea of why I don’t know:
“Over the past decade, LRO’s NAC, as well as JAXA’s Kaguya Terrain Camera(TC), have used longer CCD exposure times to acquire optical images of PSRs with acceptable SNRs, however, the spatial resolution of these images (long exposure NAC: ~20–40 m/
pixel long exposure TC: ~10 m/pixel) is strongly limited by the movement of the satellite and is not able to close the strategic gap posed by the lack of optical, high-resolution images (<10 m/ pixel) that are required to study and understand the rover-/astronaut-scale geomorphology and trafficability of PSRs.
The current lack of knowledge of PSRs poses a risk to future
ground exploration missions. Small lunar PSRs are top-priority
sites targeted by a number of future robotic and crewed missions,
for example, by NASA’s Artemis program, including the VIPER
(Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) and Artemis III
missions. Without high-resolution data and imagery (<5 m/pixel), the meter-scale geomorphology of PSRs remains unknown, and this complicates mission planning and generates questions such as: Where can a given PSR be entered safely?"…
Here, we address the strategic need for low-noise, high resolution optical images of PSRs by focusing on improving the
quality of the short exposure, full-resolution regular- and
summed-mode NAC images. We develop a state-of-the-art low light denoising tool which we call HORUS—Hyper-effective nOise Removal U-net Software—that is capable of removing the high levels of noise in these images, unlocking the entire LRO NAC image archive for PSR-related science and exploration."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25882-z.pdf
And:
https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/max-planck-society-max-planck-gesellschaft/artificial-intelligence-now-provides-sharper-images
In this morning’s headlines:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1044545
maguff…GR..”There is no such thing as a molecular vibration….thus negating the whole field of Molecular Spectroscopy and blissfully confirming your ignorance”.
***
You still don’t understand that a molecule id a definition for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. Therefore any molecule is an aggregate of atomic nucleii bonded by electrons in different arrangements.
Here
s CO2….again!!!!……
O=====C=====O
Please pay attention.
The dashed lines represent ELECTRONS that bond the two oxygen atoms to the carbon atom. There are two dashed lines representing the two electrons involved in each bond.
It’s a linear molecule unlike water which has two hydrogen atoms at an angle of 104.45 degrees as their bond angle, with an oxygen atom. Therefore it would look similar to CO2 except the two hydrogen bonds would be bent into an angle of 104.45 degrees rather than horizontal.
Don’t know if the following will work via the Net.
O
/ \
H H
Note, only one line for bond since only one electron is involved.
It is the electrons and protons in atoms, and the charge between them, that define the atomic shapes. That’s true for any combination of electrons and their nuclei whether it involves two atoms or the estimated 204 billions atoms in the DNA macro-molecule.
https://michaelgr.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/how-many-atoms-to-encode-the-human-genome/
The only particles in either arrangement that can emit or absorb EM are the electrons belonging to either nucleus or shared between them. All visible light in the universe is produced by electrons, not molecules per se.
When anyone talks about a molecule radiating or absorbing EM they are referring to the electrons making up the molecular bonds. Some scientists are aware of that but some are ignorant of that fact and do us the disservice of creating the illusion there is something magical in a molecule, like a black box, that can radiate and absorb energy.
It is easier to describe and define aggregations of electrons/nuclei using a name, and that name is molecule.
testing with different browser…
Don’t know if the following will work via the Net.
O
/ \
H H
Note, only one line for bond since only one electron is involved.
nope…lost the spacing before O (x2) and between the H atoms (x4)
Geez, Gordon, crack a chemistry text if you want to blather on about molecular bonding.
Each molecular bond has two electrons, not one, you are way out of your lane.
“When anyone talks about a molecule radiating or absorbing EM they are referring to the electrons making up the molecular bonds. Some scientists are aware of that but some are ignorant of that fact and do us the disservice of creating the illusion there is something magical in a molecule, like a black box, that can radiate and absorb energy. “
You don’t understand anything do you? Water is a polar molecule which means it has a permanent dipole, whereas CO2 for example has a vibration-induced dipole, and thus H2O is much more IR active than CO2.
If you want to discuss this with me then go “do the required research first.” I have neither the time nor the desire to school you on this also.
maguff…”You don’t understand anything do you? Water is a polar molecule which means it has a permanent dipole, whereas CO2 for example has a vibration-induced dipole, and thus H2O is much more IR active than CO2″.
***
I am not discussing this with you, I am revealing to others how abysmally ignorant you are on the subject.
Where do the vibrations come from? Do you think in your abysmal ignorance this is like an unbalanced flywheel?
The vibrations come from the interaction of +ve and -ve charges between the protons in the nucleus and electrons. Also, vibration is caused by any charges close to each other. Remember, +ve charges repel each other as do -ve charges.
In covalent bonds that sets up a natural vibration and since molecules are atoms bonded together, any time charges get close to each other they attract or repel. However, it’s not always a straight attraction/repulsion, the bonds tend to vibrate. Molecular vibration is usually bond vibration due to electrons.
At other times there is a -ve to -ve repulsion and at others a +ve to +ve repulsion. The shape of the molecule comes largely from the negative charges of the electrons. In a probability cloud where electrons are more likely to be found in a water molecule, the higher negative charge is nearer to the oxygen molecule.
And guess why? The oxygen atoms has far more electrons than the sole electron in the hydrogen atoms. The O2 electrons push the hydrogen atom off to a 104.45 degree angle. But they don’t just push them away, there is an inherent vibration in the bond shape. When water molecules interact with other water molecules there is a +ve to +ve interaction, which is weaker than the -ve to -ve and -ve to +ve interactions.
Vibration is all about charges.
In a molecule, there are other inter-atomic interactions that lead to vibration but its all about *ve and -ve charges.
No sir, I have no interest in discussing this with someone with your arrogance and stupidity. My input is merely to reveal the bs you are posting.
“In a probability cloud where electrons are more likely to be found in a water molecule, the higher negative charge is nearer to the oxygen molecule.”
I thought you didnt buy quantum mechanics Gordon?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1047892
Whatever you say Ken.
But your claim was ‘there have only been…’ so its not a big problem and no need for interventions.
But now you dont deny the interventions worked and led to low numbers.
So your logic is circular.
Arrgh wrong place
P.s.: you dishonestly misrepresented my original comment by editing the quote. You are a shameless liar.
My original comment: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1046237
No misrepresentation.
An influx of Arctic air over the Great Lakes in three days.
https://i.ibb.co/xGT1vhS/gfs-isen290-K-us-13.png
https://i.ibb.co/Sm5qrzN/ecmwf-z500-mslp-namer-4.png
Lets see where it might be cooler in December.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/November2021/202111_Map.png
Robertson
I’m in a better mood today than yesterday, and I’m trying to help you, even though you keep insulting me.
You wrote:
” Since the aim of your presentation was to compared temperature series in absolute temperatures, you failed miserably. You ended up showing one of the hottest years in the recent records as colder than all the rest. ”
Maybe you are the only one here who doesn’t understand such a simple graph.
*
But at least you are now in real progress: in comparison with your previous comment:
” Binny has sunk to a new low. What kind of a trash graph had the x coordinates listed in months and the graphics listed across varies years, ranging back to 1981? ”
you have in between at least understood why the abscissa contains the 12 months of a year, while years (plus two means of 30 year-periods) are listed within the graph.
Good, Robertson! Weiter so, aus Ihnen kann vielleicht doch noch was werden…
*
Continue to learn, Robertson, and look at the graph once more:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhVica1eUmTWIFj0m6cC1jC-GKZdMZwi/view
Don’t you see that 1998 was in July the hottest of all years?
Why should 1998 have been hotter than all others for all months of that year? Is there any reason for that?
Why are you not also surprised by the fact that 2020’s absolute temperatures were in July hotter than 2016, which is the hottest in Roy Spencer’s graph?
Why was 2021, a cool year, in absolute form hotter in October than were both 2016 and 1998?
Oh Noes! How can that be?
*
And now look at a very similar graph that is made up of anomalies rather than reconstructed absolute values:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12nS8-UAHjEZWM-VRXI8S8q4H2-aBw3Zd/view
You see?
Now your hottest year 2016 is back on top, but not in July. Why?
Why is the blue mean suddenly a straight line, while the yellow one is not?
Oh Noes! How can that all be?
Yeah. Anomalies with annual cycle removal really are strange animals.
*
Btw, Robertson: when you write
” Since the aim of your presentation was to compared temperature series in absolute temperatures, you failed miserably. ”
why don’t you email Roy Spencer and ask what he thinks of my ‘miserable failure’ ?
Why don’t you call your mom in here for a back-up you Bindidork
As usual, Eben produces polemic one millimeter above the belt.
Why aren’t adult enough to avoid such stoopid comments?
Binny,
May I quote you?
“Why arent adult enough to avoid such stoopid comments?”
Ooooh, Flynnson comes out again!
Wonderful.
Did you recently put CO2 between your thermometer and the Sun, Flynnson?
Binny,
May I quote you again?
“Ooooh, Flynnson comes out again!
Wonderful.
Did you recently put CO2 between your thermometer and the Sun, Flynnson?”
binny…”Im in a better mood today than yesterday…”
***
Glad I cheered you up.
You are light years away from those who can.
Oh… no further reaction!
It seems that now, Robertson finally managed to understand the graph.
I totally agree: 2021 is all you want just not a pretty warm year, and so it looks like the UAH LT time series (and possibly about LT too, I didn’t check).
A warm winter (at least where I live) followed by a spring below lowest expectations, a mitigated summer, and a somewhat disappointing autumn.
Our usual holiday corner in Southern Spain was visited by absolutely unusual, sometimes stormy, northwesterly winds.
But to those however who, for whatever reason, want to lead us to believe that it is the beginning of a Global Cooling, I propose to have a look at a comparison of 2021 with e.g. 2011, which was also not at all a warm year according to UAH anomalies.
The absolute values look like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nAKEwIgGb37Y6ssIVdXOVw3wxmHvEuw4/view
Looking at the red vs. the black plot tells a lot.
” … and so it looks like in the UAH LT time series… “
So a fairly pedestrian year by current standards was still warmer than the average for the last decade.
https://xkcd.com/1321/
But cooler than the last 5 or 6.
Counting the 1980 peak, there have been eight new UAH record temperatures in 41 years. That spaces new records an average of 5.1 years apart.
The last peak was in 2016, five years ago.
You haven’t even reached the average time between records yet. Aren’t you wetting your knickers rather prematurely?
Are you suggesting that what I said was untrue?
RLH,
Of course not. He wrote –
“Aren’t you wetting your knickers rather prematurely?”
Just the usual immature innuendo, and attempted gratuitous insult, when he is caught out.
All par for the course for delusional climate crackpots.
entropic…”Counting the 1980 peak, there have been eight new UAH record temperatures in 41 years”.
***
There was no record in 1980. The anomaly was negative, significantly below the 1990 – 2020 baseline. The only two significant records occurred in 1998 and 2016. For some reason, the ’98 record came and went within a year but the 2016 peak lingered on.
Definite evidence of natural sources in both since alleged CO2 warming cannot operate like that.
RLH
“Are you suggesting that what I said was untrue?”
True but not significant. Five years without a new record month is routine in the UAH dataset.
It certainly does not prove your on going subtext claiming that UAH is showing a long term cooling trend.
True but not significant
So true then.
It certainly does not prove your on going subtext claiming that UAH is showing a long term cooling trend.
I am purely observing what the data itself shows. Accurately as you have agreed.
Mind you, 5 to 6 years is not long term, except when compered to a year or a month.
What is really funny is that when you show a temperature time series with values increasing within a time span of 5-6 years, thousand skeptics will answer you:
” Don’t mind, little boy, that’s OK, it was way way warmer 10,000 years ago or so. ”
But when somebody tells it’s cooling since 5-6 years, all skeptics agree.
Nice.
Let’s have a look at a descending sort of the yearly averages for UAH LT since 2000.
We have, directly before 2021 – except 1998 (0.33 C) – four of the five warmest years of the whole UAH record.
2016: 0.39 C
2020: 0.36
2019: 0.30
2017: 0.26
2010: 0.19
2015: 0.14
2021: 0.11
2018: 0.09
2002: 0.08
2005: 0.06
2003: 0.05
2014: 0.04
2007: 0.02
2013: 0.00
2001: -0.02
2006: -0.02
2009: -0.04
2004: -0.05
2012: -0.09
2011: -0.12
So, if a year suddenly behaves different and is cooler than the five years above it: is that significant as a hint on cooling?
{ Btw, 2021 was over the year not cooler than 2018, that’s one year out. }
Hmmmh.
If we see in a few years that the temperatures have continued to drop like thy did after 2010, due to a La Nina much stronger than the current one
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/#data
then yes: the 2021 cooling might well be viewed as significant.
I’m convinced, when looking at the numbers, that this cooling trend story, solely based on 2021 data, is premature.
And it’s always good to keep in mind that UAH produces the coolest temperature series available (due to the way how the atmospheric layers are averaged into the ‘LT’ product), and that the lower troposphere after all is not the surface.
“the lower troposphere after all is not the surface”
But all those who know about weather use the layer above the turbulent boundary layer as being the one that correlates well over longer distances.
The last few years of UAH look like this
https://imgur.com/wwOqMJy
The layer above the turbulent boundary layer is not less turbulent than the latter.
Temperatures are varying there a quick as at the surface, producing high deviations in time series.
Moreover, the uncertainties accumulated during the process of a satellite-borne sounding of O2 emissions are by far higher than those existing at the surface. There is plenty of publication about that.
It is known since long a time that the quality of the correlation between points spatially differing is not restricted to any place on Earth.
The best technique used until now consists of removing the seasonal dependencies (aka the annual cycle) locally point by point, by computing the anomalies wrt a global reference period but out of a baseline local to the point, what allows for a far better correlation over long distances than when using absolute data, including differently elevated points.
*
A typical example is the comparison, over the period 1979-2021, of
– a surface series constructed out of, on average over the years, 14,500 GHCN daily stations worldwide, whose anomalies are area weighted into about 2,000 cells of a 2.5 degree grid a la UAH, and are then subject to latitude weighting using a formula giving results similar to UAH’s
with
– a lower troposphere series constructed out of the about 3,000 cells of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid on which a land mask is applied, available in UAH’s monthly report (data column 2),
both based of course on the same reference period: 1991-2020.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvoKQfJHq14k2IQaGdUfKBk9Ps2JnZ7P/view
Who knows how the origin of these anomaly series – the absolute data – looks like, is always wondering about their similarity.
Unfortunately, I didn’t find yet in my spreadsheet guy (a pale copy of Excel) any user interface allowing me to accurately compute the correlation factor between the two.
“The layer above the turbulent boundary layer is not less turbulent than the latter”
The layers in the LT above the surface boundary layer are indeed less turbulent in the main than the layer below. That is why correlations can be observed over large distances. A fact that is used by weather people to produce their forecasts and has done for centauries. Sure there are lows, highs, ridges, etc. which produce large scale movements and differences but they are on a different scale to those down below.
You only have to look at wind over sea and over land to see that. Over the sea the surface boundary layer is much thinner and it is bulk air movements that govern things. Over land the velocities are lower. Close to the surface it is friction with the ‘static’ surface that governs things and that produces more turbulence lower down.
All sailors know that the air higher up moves in a more regular pattern.
Gordon Robertson
A record is a month warmer than any other month in the dataset.
If you take only the El NIno peaks of 1980, 1998 and 2016 as records, that gives an average spacing of 18 years and makes RLH’s implied cooling trend based on five year’s data even less probable than I suggested.
The data says that this year is lower than the last 5 to 6. That is a fact.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-2.jpeg
> The data says
Filters ain’t data, dummy.
The last few years of UAH look like this (unfiltered)
https://imgur.com/wwOqMJy
Low pass filters of data present a clearer picture of the data without distortions.
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters (though using infinity is not that useful).
> The last few years of UAH look
You made them look like this, dummy.
The picture accessed via
https://imgur.com/wwOqMJy
is correct.
Pictures ain’t correct or incorrect, dummy.
They’re just pictures.
“The data says that this year is lower than the last 5 to 6.”
Nope.
https://imgur.com/wwOqMJy
Willard
” Pictures ain’t correct or incorrect, dummy.
They’re just pictures. ”
Could you please stop this incompetent blah blah?
The picture represents numbers correctly derived from UAH’s monthly data.
The dummy here: that’s you, sorry.
Binny,
Je vais te le dire juste une fois:
Crisse-moi patience, parce que tu vas me trouver.
According to Willard even adding things up produces distortions. Unless it shows a rise in which case it is a fact.
Willard: Je ne parle pas Franscais
Barry: 2018 is at best the same as this year (within any reasonable margin of error and this year is not even finished yet), the rest since 2014 are indeed higher.
“Pictures aint correct or incorrect”
Now graphs (not pictures) that show data are not good enough for Willard. Unless they show warming in which case they are fine.
If we want to know if the underlying GW trend is continuing or has been interrupted, we need to consider the effect of ENSO history.
ENSO produces swings of +- 0.15 in the 13 mo. average. With a trend of 0.14C/decade, ENSO should dominate over trend for periods < 1 decade.
Looking at ENSO history, with 2021 and 2018 dominated by modest La Nina, 2016 by super El Nino, 2019-20 by modest El Nino, the result that 2021 and 2018 are the lowest since 2015 should come as no surprise.
There is no evidence (yet) of an interruption in the underlying GW trend.
> Now graphs (not pictures) that show data
You made the graph, dummy. To make the graph, you selected, then processed data. There were choices in that pipeline.
Then you interpreted your graph. You allowed yourself some uncertainty, some margin for error. You also miscalculated, as Barry spotted.
Data does not “tell” anything. You’re not a data truth-teller. You’re just a little Climateball rookie that lacks the courage to say clearly what you think and to own your contrarianism.
” Crisse-moi patience, parce que tu vas me trouver. ”
Voilà qui m'a vachement l'air d'être du québécois.
Qui me trouve, l'a bien cherché. Tant pis pour lui ou elle…
a me va, mon beau champion. T’aurais pas d.
Tu me passes un bon temps de Ftes!
Willard, please stop trolling.
The eruption of the Semeru volcano in Java.
https://youtu.be/hHG6FTzEg5w
binny…”They simply repeat the same stuff all the time, be it wrt weather/climate, 2Lot, Einstein, viruses, the Moon, etc etc etc.”
***
The thing that is incredible is that you cannot even begin to rebut anything I have said. Your entire arsenal is ad homs, insults, whining, and appeals to authority.
I would think that by age 70 you might be asking some serious questions rather than absorbing everything others want you to think.
” Your entire arsenal is ad homs, insults, whining, and appeals to authority. ”
Says Robertson, the specialist of ad homs, insults, and… appeal to the authority of contrarian blogs.
binny…”Says Robertson, the specialist of ad homs, insults, and appeal to the authority of contrarian blogs”.
***
Not so, the evidence in my past posts reveal that 99% of the time I try to rebut with scientific evidence. Every so often I have a bad hair day and take a shot for no apparent reason.
I am constantly aware of an appeal to authority. If I must use a name for reference I try to show I understand what the reference source is talking about.
It would be nice if you’d at least make an effort to follow suit. I don’t mind you taking shots at me, in fact, I get a good laugh out of your insults. Would be nice if you’d accompany them with a minimal effort to show you understand what you are talking about, in your own words.
Robertson
” Not so, the evidence in my past posts reveal that 99% of the time I try to rebut with scientific evidence. ”
This is a pure lie, Robertson.
Apart from citations of Clausius (of course not the recent one at the apogee of his great work in 1887! the one of 1854…), you never rely to anything scientific, let alone would you rebut anything ‘with scientific evidence’.
*
You are a nobody related to science, manifestly suffering from a catastrophically oversized ego.
How else can one explain that you have the audacity to feel elevated above all the scientific knowledge of the last few centuries, and to claim, for example, that Newton, Einstein and many others were wrong?
And that only because you dare to think that your megatrivial, pseudoscientific ‘results’ are better than their eminent works you don’t even understand anything of!
You’re definitely insane, Robertson. Visit a neurologist before it’s too late.
entropic…”Theres global warming where I live.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59489484 ”
***
According to UAH that’s not true. You had different heat domes hanging over you but it was far from global. In fact, you were right on the edge of them for some reason.
The MET office are alarmists and it seems, liars. Note that most of the planet has cooled or remained unchanged for November 2021, despite claims by lying alarmists that November was a record hot month.
Zoom in for detail.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/September2021/202109_Map.png
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/october%202021/202110_Map.png
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/November2021/202111_Map.png
C,mon, Gordo. Think.
EM does not live in the stratosphere.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why the polar vortex is still active in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Nxyw0jT/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Re-posting…lost my place.
maguff…”You dont understand anything do you? Water is a polar molecule which means it has a permanent dipole, whereas CO2 for example has a vibration-induced dipole, and thus H2O is much more IR active than CO2″.
***
I am not discussing this with you, I am revealing to others how abysmally ignorant you are on the subject.
Where do the vibrations come from? Do you think in your abysmal ignorance this is like an unbalanced flywheel?
The vibrations come from the interaction of +ve and -ve charges between the protons in the nucleus and electrons. Also, vibration is caused by any charges close to each other. Remember, +ve charges repel each other as do -ve charges.
In covalent bonds that sets up a natural vibration and since molecules are atoms bonded together, any time charges get close to each other they attract or repel. However, it’s not always a straight attraction/repulsion, the bonds tend to vibrate. Molecular vibration is usually bond vibration due to electrons.
At other times there is a -ve to -ve repulsion and at others a +ve to +ve repulsion. The shape of the molecule comes largely from the negative charges of the electrons. In a probability cloud where electrons are more likely to be found in a water molecule, the higher negative charge is nearer to the oxygen molecule.
And guess why? The oxygen atoms has far more electrons than the sole electron in the hydrogen atoms. The O2 electrons push the hydrogen atom off to a 104.45 degree angle. But they don’t just push them away, there is an inherent vibration in the bond shape. When water molecules interact with other water molecules there is a +ve to +ve interaction, which is weaker than the -ve to -ve and -ve to +ve interactions.
Vibration is all about charges.
In a molecule, there are other inter-atomic interactions that lead to vibration but its all about *ve and -ve charges.
No sir, I have no interest in discussing this with someone with your arrogance and stupidity. My input is merely to reveal the bs you are posting.
And, no, I did not misquote you. I quoted exactly what you said.
You are lying POS.
My original comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1046237
How you quoted me:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1046980
So no, he did not misquote you.
Gordo sure did, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
*Automatic Response*
DREMT is wrong as usual.
There was no misquote. Gordon said, "maguff…GR…" before the quote. GR is obviously Gordon Robertson. So he’s made us aware that what he is quoting comes from both Gordon and Tyson. It’s obvious from context who said what. Certainly there is no need to be calling anyone a "lying POS".
C’mon, Gordo hasn’t clearly identified who said what, and the lying part is what the evidence suggests.
… as there is also no need at all to name anyone a ‘blithering idiot’, a ‘braindead cult idiot’, let alone a ‘cheating SOB’.
Your are as usual blind on the ‘right eye’, DREMT, exactly like when you restrict your tedious
“Xxxx, please stop trolling’
always to the same group of persons, while carefulling omitting the others trolling exactly as much.
There was no misquote.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
*Automatic Response*
DREMT is wrong as usual.
There was no misquote. Talk about a fuss over nothing.
If ocean levels are rising, why can’t we see it?
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE
maguff…”If ocean levels are rising, why cant we see it?”
***
Why are these propaganda videos made by anonymous sources featuring an idiot who speaks like a British ponce?
In the video he refers to ‘respected’ scientific journals without acknowledging the journals are policed by climate alarmists who work hard to reject input by skeptical scientists.
Just ask Roy, or John Christy of UAH. John has the misfortune of having a paper he co-authored rejected for review by IPCC idiots. The paper had already been published, for cripes sake, but the idiot Phil Jones of Had-crut and his partner Keven Trenberth, both Coordinating Lead Authors with the power to reject papers had discussed in advance their desire to reject this paper. Trenberth had already forced a journal editor to resign over his interference in peer review.
When Richard Lindzen, MIT professor, called a journal to ask why there was a holdup in the publication of a paper, the editor told him essentially, the delay was related to his skeptical views.
Maguff, I am wondering how someone could become as naive as you.
Hey Dr. Spencer – just a heads up:
The link to Latest Global Temp. Anomaly up at the top takes one to the update page – it’s displaying the October graph. Just fyi.
It is the last entry in the blog heading
“Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (November ’21: +0.08C)”
that still leads to Oct’s data.
https://www.uah.edu/ resolves but not http://www.nsstc.uah.edu
And now it does
“True but not significant”
So true then.
“It certainly does not prove your on going subtext claiming that UAH is showing a long term cooling trend.”
I am purely observing what the data itself shows. Accurately as you have agreed.
Mind you, 5 to 6 years is not long term, except when compered to a year or a month.
“The data says that this year is lower than the last 5 to 6. That is a fact. ”
I did a quick check. You could have said the same in 1987, 1993-1987 and 2003-2015.
That is 17 years out of 43 and none of them was the start of a long term cooling trend.
Why do you expect 2021 to be different?
EM,
Saying that because something has occurred before, does not make it any less true.
Over the longest term possible, the Earth has cooled from a molten state to its present temperature. No cherry picking at all. The chaotic nature of Nature means that places like Antarctica can go from temperate to 4 km of ice, or that other places can go from temperate to arid deserts.
As to predicting the future, why do you expect that anybody can predict the future better than you can? Or a reasonably competent 12 year old, for that matter
Both you and a child can “predict” that the Sun will rise, that winter will be colder than summer, and that a particular aeroplane will reach its destination intact. Such “predictions” are pointless and useless.
Even the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. I assume you believe you can, otherwise you would not be so determined to support the mythical CO2 “greenhouse effect”.
Your faith is strong, its factual basis not quite so strong.
If it is impossible to predict future temperature, why do you keep telling me that the future will be cooler?
But this year is not the coolest out of the last 5 or 6. That title belongs to 2018.
https://imgur.com/wwOqMJy
But if we get a VERY cold December 2021 could become the coldest year of the last 7.
barry…”But if we get a VERY cold December 2021 could become the coldest year of the last 7″.
***
I know we are a very small part of the world here in Vancouver, Canada, but December has started out ominously cold. The two week forecast calls for more of the same.
La Nina just kicked us with severe flooding due to rain blowing in from the Pacific, and the idiots in the Environment Canada Climate Change department have blamed it on climate change. We have one week of excess rain over the long term, and that constitutes climate change in their bewildered minds.
Now, the same La Nina is creating below average temperatures, aided by Arctic air. However, the Arctic air has not completely set in, we are just on the edge of it. When it sets in, you know it.
“But this year is not the coolest out of the last 5 or 6. That title belongs to 2018”
You allow a margin of error normally but when it become inconvenient you don’t.
This year (so far) is cooler by far than the majority of the last 6 years and the sixth is barely different. Happier now?
I think we’d all be happier with accurate reporting.
entropic…”Why do you expect 2021 to be different?”
***
Even the IPCC admitted that future climate states cannot be predicted. However, ENSO varies with the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Recently, we have experienced far more El Ninos than La Ninas and although two years in a row of LNs is not proof of anything it COULD be indicating a change in phase of the PDO, leading to more LNs than ENs for a while.
Tsonis et al did a study in which they linked the phases of various ocean oscillations to warming/cooling. They did not say how long or how severe the changes in warming/cooling would last but they could produce another Little Ice Age.
Suppose the AMO, the PDO, the AO, ENSO, etc., go out of phase and things cool off. Could that produce an effect leading to 400 years of cooling? Of course, the opposite could prove true as well, like with the Medieval Warm Period, but maybe we just had that warming and it only lasted 150 years.
It is known that the LIA occurred in two stages over 400+ years. There were volcanic eruptions involved and solar minimums. What happens if a negative phase of the ocean oscillations aligns with volcanic activity and solar minima?
“What happens if a negative phase of the ocean oscillations aligns with volcanic activity and solar minima?”
You get extreme weather events. Heavy rain. Periods of extreme heat and cold. Unstable weather. Shorter Growing Seasons. All of which will directly impact crops. 2 – 4C global cooling. Ice advances. Sea levels drop. People will die in the billions.
Russia will invade Ukraine because they need the food security. Lots of other wars will break out for similar reasons. Breakdown in global trade.
Gordon Robertson
“Even the IPCC admitted that future climate states cannot be predicted. ”
If prediction is impossible, why do presume to predict cooling?
To offset your predicted warming?
I’m not the one saying that it is “impossible to predict the future behaviour of the system.” Nor am I the one predicting warming; I am the one projecting warming.
I’m a great believer in precise language, so let’s try another attempt to educate RLH and Gordon.
A prediction is a precise statement. “The global average temperature anomaly in 2050 will be 1.8C. ”
A projection is a conditional estimate. “If CO2 emissions follow this pattern over the next thirty years and other factors vary thus, the global average temperature will probably be between 1.7Cand 1.9C.
See the difference. A projection is a definite number. A projection is a probability.
It is impossible to precisely predict a future temperature. It is possible to project the probable range in which the future temperature will be.
The tide goes up and down predictably. Its a cycle.
The 4 seasons pass every year. Its a cycle.
We know there are cycles in ocean currents and on the sun.
The geological proxy data is pretty clear there are cycles in the climate.
Its hard to sort the effect of one cycle away from the other but if you have enough data Fourier Transform can separate out the cycles.
The addition of cycles is easy enough to see when you go to the beach. There will be a series of waves. One or two of the waves will be significantly larger than others and one or two waves will be significantly smaller than others.
So that addition of ocean and solar cycles, particularly the larger cycles that take decades and centuries to take place, also applies to warming and cooling cycles.
There are several prominent scientists who have warned of imminent cooling. Their argument are rather more compelling than the AGW hypothesis. So I presume to predict cooling.
IPCC is wrong because they look only at CO2. CO2 is not a factor in any cycle. Further, I think they are willfully wrong; anything UN has a political agenda.
Ent is a “great believer in precise language”. That’s why he gets so confused with his own words: “A projection is a definite number. A projection is a probability.”
He’s also a “great believer” in the AGW nonsense, and that passenger jets fly backwards.
Beliefs ain’t science.
Clint R
Thanks for spotting the typo.
It should, of course, have been
“See the difference. A prediction is a definite number. A projection is a probability.”
Ken
Could you link to a list of the cycles involved; their periods, amplitudes and current phases.
I’d also like to see an analysis of their combined effect in the recent past and into the future.
Are you familiar with the Camp Century cycles?
Have you read William Burrough’s book on climate cycles?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/weather-cycles/124AE7B1DFA087E0308D2A38F7AFBF9D
“Could you link to a list of the cycles involved; their periods, amplitudes and current phases.
I’d also like to see an analysis of their combined effect in the recent past and into the future.”
Here is Carl Otto Weiss making a presentation ‘Climate change is due to natural cycles’: https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
“The tide goes up and down predictably. Its a cycle.”
There goes a man who has never had to predict if a boat will clear a bar at the entrance to a harbor. Sure tides go up and down on a cycle but the precise measurement is not as easy to determine.
To offset your projected warming?
I saw upthread Bindidon making one of his snarky comments about the Moon issue he doesn’t understand. It’s coming up on two years that he has been in full denial of reality. He clings to astrology from over 300 years ago. He doesn’t understand orbital motion, or any science it seems. And he can’t learn.
For those without a physics background, the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string explains “orbital motion without axial rotation”. For those with a physics background, an analysis of the vectors explains it.
You have to be a braindead cult idiot to reject reality.
You are the braindead idiot who rejects reality.
rlh…”You are the braindead idiot who rejects reality”.
***
It’s sad that someone like you with a masters degree, and the ability to be in touch with intelligence, resorts to dismissing science without providing any scientific argument to backup his dismissal.
Intelligence is not something that a person has, or that can be owned. Intelligence is transient in that it can be blocked by conditioning. We all have access to intelligence but in your reply to Clint, you have opted to block it while resorting to a conditioning related to an appeal to authority.
Sad.
Refusing to accept good and well accepted science is what you and Clint both have in common it seems.
I use his own words to reflect his stupidity.
The cult meltdown continues.
They lost the Moon issue as it was revealed they don’t understand any of the physics involved. They lost the AGW issue because they can’t identify how the atmosphere can warm the surface. They throw stuff against the wall, like the “real 255K surface” nonsense, hoping something will stick. Fail….
But, it gets even worse for them. Now UAH global has dropped to 0.08C!!!
That’s why this is so much fun.
It is you who do not accept and distort the science.
RLH continues his meltdown. He claimed he understood vectors, but he can’t solve the simple problem.
He got caught again.
As I have said, I deal with adding and subtracting vectors all the time. So far I have been quite good at it.
I also deal with large free floating masses all the time and well understand inertia, acceleration, etc. that those inevitably bring.
RLH claimed he understood vectors, but he can’t solve the simple problem.
He’s all troll, no science.
I understand vectors quite well thanks despite your claims otherwise.
I just took some minutes to get the top 10 of the plummeting temps from month to month in UAH, and see, OMG:
2013 2: 0.34
1984 9: 0.33
2021 11: 0.29
2001 9: 0.29
1983 6: 0.29
2007 2: 0.26
1988 10: 0.26
2020 12: 0.25
2017 11: 0.25
2000 1: 0.25
I tell you: Grrrrand Cooooling Aheadddd!
Maintenant, il est temps d’aller au lit!
Binny,
You wrote –
“I tell you: Grrrrand Cooooling Aheadddd!”
Ah, you claim to be able to predict the future! I don’t believe you. Faith will not overcome fact.
Maybe you could try sarcasm. Do you think ignoring reality will make it go away?
The reality is that the future is unknowable – unless you are a climate crackpot, of course.
binny…”I tell you: Grrrrand Cooooling Aheadddd!”
***
I have seen no one on this blog predict a certain amount of cooling, what we skeptics are asking is “Where’s the predicted warming”?
In the past 20+ years since 1998, when the trend broke through the baseline with a bang, the trend has become essentially flat. There was another climate Big Bang in 2016, but since then we have descended slowly to the baseline again.
All in all, I think we can claim 20+ years of no average warming. I hope it doesn’t cool to any extent,I just don’t see any evidence of anthropogenic warming, now, or in the past 20+ years.
Gordon Robertson
“All in all, I think we can claim 20+ years of no average warming. ”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2022/every/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2022/every/trend
I think not. That,’s a linear trend of 0.18C/decade for the last two decades.
Linear trends are the ultimate in low pass filters. Using infinity does not make things clearer.
Perhaps you could try a polynomial?
I suspect you would find that the rate of change is accelerating.
Polynomials are another ‘infinity’ based construct. Try fitting a polynomial to a sine wave.
“I have seen no one on this blog predict a certain amount of cooling”
Then you have been spectacularly blind.
Scott R: “… happy to publically post my forecast of -0.2 on UAH within 5 years right here on this blog.”
Salvatore del Prete (in 2011, no less): “… The trend downward is continuing and this is going to go on for years in a irregular pattern.”
Samurai: “… the PDO, AMO, NAO, and AOO will all soon be entering their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles, and a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum event already started this year, which will all contribute to causing a 30-year global cooling trend.”
Salvatore: “… 2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016.”
I’ve saved a small list of entries like this from this blog. There have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of cooling predictions made on this blog. I’ve got 10 just from Salvatore, and that’s not a fraction of the amount of cooling predictions he’s given out just by himself. You will no doubt soon see Eben predicting cooling again – or maybe you really can’t see these regular, all too familiar posts.
barry
Thanks, I pretty good recall Salvatore del Prete, who, after having been disappointed so many years by the Globe falsifying his ‘predictions’, now might have a big come back soon…
Eben clearly needs more support.
It is odd how Hansen’s 1988 prediction over a 30 year period was off by maybe a tenth of a degree (if that) and it has been described as “completely wrong”, “utter failure”, “debacle”, etc. Yet when contrarians make predictions that are so astonishingly bad that they can’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct over a few years time they are considered brilliant and held up as fine examples of how climate science predictions could be improved if only scientists were smart enough to listen to them.
German has a lot of nice idioms fitting to a whole panoply of situations.
Best fit here: ‘bierernst’.
And by the way, we see here again that most ignoramuses are blind on the ‘right’ eye.
maguff…”You are lying POS”.
***
Maguff goes into a red-herring meltdown. He tries to divert attention from his ignorance of science by claiming I misquoted him. My quote had nothing to to do with anything, it was a simple reference to what he wrote.
Where have we seen this before? Ah, yes. In the hockey stick investigation both NAS and statistics expert Wegmann were appointed by the US government to investigate MBH 98, the paper from the authors of the hockey stick.
When Wegmann filed his report, seriously harming MBH and claiming a nepotic relationship between Mann and Chapter 9 of the IPCC review structure, Bradley of MBH claimed Wegmann had plagiarized him by quoting his work in his report.
Excuse me? Wegmann is investigating his work, uses a quote from his work, and that is plagiarism? Bradley ignores the fact that MBH have just been scewered as incompetent statisticians, by an expert statistician, and rather than defend their work they cry foul re plagiarism? Losers!!!
In a similar manner, I make a fool of Maguff by revealing his abysmal ignorance of molecular structure and he comes back at me with a red-herring argument that I misquoted him.
I did not, he claimed molecules can vibrate by some hidden mechanism and arrogantly insisted I needed to study the basics of molecular theory. When I revealed his utter stupidity and ignorance about molecules he called me a POS for misquoting him.
I think maguff is not only emotionally unstable, he suffers from delusions about his competency in science. Then again, the entire field involving climate alarmists are emotionally unstable. That says nothing about the politicians who rely on these twits.
> red-herring
C’mon, Gordo. You keep using these words. They do not mean what you make them mean.
You indeed claim that “There is no such thing as a molecular vibration.” Which means you still are saying stuff:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=molecular+vibration&btnG=
Research. Then think.
willard…”You indeed claim that “There is no such thing as a molecular vibration.” Which means you still are saying stuff:”
***
I have made my position clear. The word ‘molecule’ is nothing more than a name for an aggregation of atomic nucleii and the electrons that bond them together. Speaking of a molecule as having properties besides those of the nucleii and the electrons is plain stupid.
However we need to name each molecule based on the elements that make it up and the manner in which the atomic nucleii are joined by shared electrons, or in the case of ionic bonds, in the shared charges. Also, we need to classify molecules based on their energy levels, etc. Obviously each atom in a molecule adds energy.
When people claim that a molecule vibrates, they mean the structure of electrons and nucleii vibrate. And that vibration is related mainly to the bonding electrons, since it is the bonds they form that vibrate and rotate.
The bonding electrons are also subject to the laws of quantum theory posited by Bohr in 1913. That means only the electrons absorb and emit EM. There is no mysterious black box in a molecule emitting and absorbing EM, it is the electrons in the atoms, not only the bonding electrons but all electrons within the atoms. Therefore, when a molecule is said to absorb or emit EM, especially related to vibration or rotation, it is actually the electrons related to the nucleii that are radiating and emitting EM.
Look…EM = ‘electro’ – ‘magnetic’ energy and it just so happens that electrons radiate an electric and magnetic field when they move, whether through free air or in transitions between atomic orbital levels. It’s a no-brainer where EM comes from.
I have the same argument with the use of the word energy or the phrase kinetic energy. We know nothing about energy, only that it operates via different mechanisms. All we can do is observe and measure the effect energy has on mass.
When that energy is in motion, we call it kinetic energy and that applies to all forms of energy. That means energies we know nothing about are moving, therefore, there is nothing magical about the phrase kinetic energy. However, one form of energy, heat, is closely related to kinetic energy, it is the KE of atoms.
Climate alarmists try to deflect attention to that truth by changing the word ‘heat, to the word ‘energy’. Then they claim the 2nd law can be satisfied if a mystical ‘balance of energy’ is positive. In that manner, alarmists can claim that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, without using the word heat.
If they use the word heat, as in heat transfer, then the 2nd law must apply. That means heat can never, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot, as the AGW theory implies. Alarmists get around that by calling heat ‘energy’, which is a mysterious inference that heat and electromagnetic energy are one and the same, and that by unscrupulously adding them to get a ‘net energy’, they claim incorrectly that the 2nd law is satisfied, even though heat is being transferred cold to hot, by its own means.
The 2nd law applies only to heat and any ‘net’ must be a summation of heat quantities. In that context, heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold.
AGW kaput!!!
> I have made my position clear.
C’mon, Gordo. That’s not a position, it’s a rant.
“Molecular vibration” occurs in more than 35K papers.
You’re not Humpty Dumpty. Not even Dumbty. That’s Kiddo.
willard…”Molecular vibration occurs in more than 35K papers”.
***
You don’t have the intelligence to discuss this Willard. Better to go play with your cat.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
There’s even a Wiki entry on the concept you deny exists.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Wegmann is investigating his work, uses a quote from his work, and that is plagiarism?
C’mon, Gordo:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/WegmanHoax
If you can’t even spell Ed’s name properly, you should not go there.
Think.
willard…this is nothing more than a collection of whines. One of them asks if the Wegman report was peer reviewed. Is that the kind of insanity that pervades your mind? Since when does an expert investigator report require peer review?
Wegman was appointed by the US government to investigate a report by Canadians McIntyre and McKitrick that they found serious errors in the statistical methods used in the hockey stick report. It was not easy for M&M, who were ignored by alarmist Susan Solomon of the IPCC to the point she became exasperated and passed it on to the government. Solomon actually ordered Chapter 9 to investigate and they ignored her. Chapter 9, run by Mann’s buddies, ignored her.
The IPCC is run by climate alarmists and getting any kind of investigation going is wrought with problems. That did not prevent M&M from persisting till a real investigation was performed. Good for them.
The National Academy of Science did part of the investigation and they went easy on MBE98. They limited their 1000 year range to 400 years and disqualified their entire 20th century tree proxies, rendering their conclusions meaningless, since there was no blade for the hockey stick.
The IPCC immediately abandoned the hockey stick, limiting it from 1850 onward, then re-drawing it with so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph. They re-instituted the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period that Mann et al had obliterated.
Since then, apologist deniers have stepped forward trying to prop up MBE with red-herring arguments. Your link points to one of the worst of them.
I have heard all the whines, which amount to nothing more than red-herring arguments that bypass the obvious, that MBE98 was seriously flawed and their 1990’s unprecedented warming over the past 1000 years was a lie.
> One of them asks
C’mon, Gordon. Your throat clearing is getting silly.
It’s MBH. It was published in 1999. The Wegman Report has been asked by Barton. It was a political hit job. And it failed. Ed did not audit the Auditor’s work. He hired students to write his report. They patch wrote it. Worse than your comments if possible.
Here’s a cookie.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2011/06/08/further_wegman/
At least get your facts straight. Better, think.
willard…”At least get your facts straight”.
***
Better check with the IPCC. They dropped the hockey stick graph and its associations like a hot potato after NAS and Wegman got through debunking it.
You live in an alarmist dreamland, Willard, always making excuses for the political, alarmist liars/propagandists.
The evidence is clear, Mann et al tried to prove unprecedented warming for 1000 years and failed miserably. When Mann was asked why he replaced declining proxy temperatures in the 1960s with real data he claimed that was kosher.
That’s Mann’s ‘trick’ Willard, ‘hide the decline’. The head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, bragged in the Climategate emails about using Mann’s trick. Of course, he did not realize anyone else would ever see his chicanery.
When Jones was investigated by a tribunal made up of his supporters, none of that chicanery was allowed into the hearing. The guy who could do the most damage, Steve McIntyre, was not allowed to testify.
You support a load of alarmist shysters, Willard.
willard…”At least get your facts straight”.
***
Better check with the IPCC. They dropped the hockey stick graph and its associations like a hot potato after NAS and Wegman got through debunking it.
You live in an alarmist dreamland, Willard, always making excuses for the political, alarmist liars/propagandists.
The evidence is clear, Mann et al tried to prove unprecedented warming for 1000 years and failed miserably. When Mann was asked why he replaced declining proxy temperatures in the 1960s with real data he claimed that was kosher.
That’s Mann’s ‘trick’ Willard, ‘hide the decline’. The head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, bragged in the Climategate emails about using Mann’s trick. Of course, he did not realize anyone else would ever see his chicanery.
When Jones was investigated by a tribunal made up of his supporters, none of that chicanery was allowed into the hearing. The guy who could do the most damage, Steve McIntyre, was not allowed to testify.
You support a load of alarmist sh.y.ters, Willard.
> They dropped the hockey stick graph
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
You have one chance to retract that porky.
Think.
> [The Auditor] was not allowed to testify.
Another porky:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
I’m starting to think you’re just a monomaniacal mythomaniac, Gordo.
W
That wasn’t a long absence. Things were bland without you. There wasn’t the, how you say, pizazz.
Pozzo, my little personal sock puppet,
Nay not worry, I won’t be away for long.
Ta.
Gordon’s butchery of facts continues unabated.
“They dropped the hockey stick graph and its associations like a hot potato”
As soon as the same team updated their work the IPCC went with the improved version. That’s how science works. MBH reconstructions are still in the IPCC to this day. And they now include the Southern Hemisphere – small wonder the IPCC went with fully global reconstructions as they became available.
And the multitude of global and NH reconstructions since 1999 tell much the same story as the original MBH reconstruction of the past 1000 years of surface temperatures.
Yes, Wegman’s report was plagiarised, as was his follow-up paper on paleoclimatologists’ social networks, which was ultimately retracted. There are more insightful criticisms of MBH98/99 than Wegman’s effort.
There has been much made about how much of the global warming has been mitigated by heat transfer into the oceans. Does not the same thing take place between the land and the atmosphere?
So then, why do we only keep track of global atmospheric temperatures when the ground has by far the greatest heat capacity?
Has anyone got a dataset of historic ground temperatures at varying depths? If so, I would expect the data to be much more damped than the atmospheric temperature data, and it should show long term trends more clearly.
keijo…”Has anyone got a dataset of historic ground temperatures at varying depths? ”
***
You raise an excellent point but climate alarmists and their government bosses don’t care about science. They have some religious-based belief they are right and they are determined to leave us all freezing in the dark.
There you go.
“https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology/borehole”
And what the borehole data can tell you.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/752
Sun warms the surface, that’s science. The atmosphere warming the surface is “beliefs”.
Beliefs ain’t science.
https://b-ok.cc/book/814256/60b49f
EM,
You really should read before linking.
From your link –
“In our case, for distance, we are talking about depth in the Earth, and the center of the Earth is very hot — about 5000°C. The surface, instead, is quite cool at 15°C, so heat from the Earth tends to flow out to the surface, and this process is cooling the Earth very slowly.”
Gee. Even your appeals to authority support me.
Unfortunately, they also believe in some physical impossibilities, so no wonder you link to them.
“Sun warms the surface, thats science. The atmosphere warming the surface is ‘beliefs’.
Beliefs aint science.”
Optics IS science.
Atmospheric physics IS science.
Heat transfer physics IS science.
Science is still science, even if Clint doesnt believe in it.
Troll Nate, false accusations aim’r science.
Schuckmann et al. 2020 is relevant to your question.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/
The same thing takes place with the land and cryopshere.
The very first sentence of the abstract tells us it’s all going to be nonsense: “Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere which is driving global warming.”
Beliefs ain’t science.
Scientific knowledge is a bunch of justified beliefs, Pup.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Scientific knowledge” must be observed, measured, verified, demonstrated, and repeatable. Worthless trolls like you wouldn’t even know where to start.
That rules out much if not all you have said then.
Dear Pup,
Your “observed, measured, verified, demonstrated, and repeatable” all refer to justifications. Just as I said.
Just make sure you go slow on the “demonstrated” part, as empirical sciences ain’t no geometry.
I like it when you’re in violent agreement with me.
Worthless trolls like you wouldn’t even know where to start.
I would start here, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1051128
If you prefer:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Plato already anticipated your move!
See, you worthless trolls don’t have a clue.
You’re the troll, Pup. In fact you’re the lowest of them all.
A silly sock puppet.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Wrong, Dud.
You troll here all the time, with NOTHING. You’re worse than Norman. At least he tries to fake a knowledge of science. You can’t spell the word. You can’t even spell “pole”.
All you offer is your adolescent puppet-dancing nonsense.
You’re a worthless troll that will continue here endlessly, unless I break it off.
Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Clint R
Your unwanted of opinion of me is rejected. Go pound sand up your ass. You are a complete dick of a person and I have nothing more to discuss with you.
Interesting meltdown, Norman. You no longer attempt to fake a knowledge of science. You no longer link to things you don’t understand.
Just pure meltdown. I like it.
Also, your obsession with my body parts should concern you, if you were not a pervert.
For your own good, Pup, you really should stop pontificating about science. For you have NOTHING to say about that.
Do the POLE Dance Experiment.
And Norman, does this final meltdown mean you concede that there is no “real 255K surface”?
It’s kinda like nothing is working for you, huh?
Clint R
Kind of like I don’t want to talk with someone as sick mentally as you are. Yes I have not only one REAL sister, asshole, I have two and my older sister was fairly ill from Covid and was in the hospital. My younger sister had milder symptoms of losing taste and smell for a couple weeks. I also had Covid. You need a life you are so mental. I guess your goal in life is to be a continuous idiot.
Barf out more idiot words, post more stupid thoughts. Or raise the intelligence of this blog several points by no longer posting here.
Again you are very stupid and childish. Not sure what your actual age is but you act like a five-year-old.
Norman, you “have nothing more to discuss”, then you start one of your mindless rants.
You can’t get anything right.
Do the POLL Dance Experiment, PUP.
Maybe a more common sense approach would help.
Consider a sealed glass stovetop where the element is below some glass.
It is turned on to high, so that you can see the element glowing bright red.
At a point above the surface you measure the radiation emitted.
Is it all coming from the same surface?
Or is some of it coming from the element and some coming from the glass?
If you don’t have any common sense, let me put your hand on the glass and you tell me if it is hot or not.
Dumbasses will be dumbasses, there’s no point.
But it is funny.
The glass stovetop is a “real surface”, braindead bob. (Notice I can give a simple and direct answer.)
Now, where’s your “real 255K surface”?
You missed the point Clint R,
All the radiation isn’t coming from the glass surface.
Poof, there goes another one.
The “point”, braindead bob, is that you have no “real 255K surface”. You’ve got NOTHING.
You won’t understand the physics, so you can ignore the rest of this comment.
The glass is emitting IR, as it warms a pot or pan by conduction. The glass is a “real surface”. Visible wavelengths pass through glass. The burner warms the glasstop, and the glasstop warms the cooking equipment. An easy test is to turn the burner off and notice the glasstop continues to emit.
The glasstol is a REAL surface. There is no such thing as your “real 255K surface”.
You continue to miss the point Clint R
All the radiation coming from the Earth is not coming from a “surface”
Just like all the radiation coming from the stovetop is not coming from the glass surface, some of it is coming through the glass surface from the heating element below.
You just can’t understand the simple facts.
There is no requirement for there to be a real surface to have a measurable temperature.
Sorry you don’t understand
Somebody alert Bindiclown it is snowing in Germoney
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1037467
Oh thanks Eben for reminding me that yesterday we indeed got the very first snow this year.
We had terrible amounts: a bit less than 2 cm here and there.
Of course, I’m fully aware that elsewhere in our good ol’ Germoney, there will be a lot of corners with real snowfall.
*
Btw, Eben: it’s pretty pretty cold in Lapony aka Sami land:
https://tinyurl.com/3ar7tutc
Yesterday, -35 C in Karasjok (Norway), -40 today in Namaikka (Sweden).
But… for those who might think the Globe is cooling because of such temperatures, just a hint: when it doesn’t get cold in Lapony end of November the latest, something is ‘plain wrong’ there.
Here are, for the recent past, a few GHCN daily outputs from stations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, all above 65N and between Tromsö and Murmansk:
https://www.google.com/maps/@68.5582348,25.7029524,6z?hl=en
FIE00146543 63-82 2013 12 9 -39.7
SWE00140958 63-80 2013 12 9 -39.7
SWE00140960 63-80 2013 12 9 -39.4
NOE00111336 63-81 2013 12 9 -39.2
SWE00137440 63-80 2013 12 9 -39.1
SWE00137440 63-80 2013 12 8 -38.7
FIE00146543 63-82 2013 12 8 -38.4
SWE00140958 63-80 2013 12 8 -38.2
FIE00146508 63-82 2002 11 29 -38.0
FIE00146508 63-82 2013 12 9 -37.9
FIM00002801 63-80 2013 12 9 -37.7
And for even more recent years. a bit warmer:
NOE00111327 63-81 2016 12 4 -35.8
FIE00146762 63-82 2019 12 9 -35.4
NOE00105498 63-82 2016 12 4 -34.9
SWE00140960 63-80 2016 12 4 -34.9
NOE00105498 63-82 2019 12 9 -34.7
SWE00140958 63-80 2016 12 4 -34.7
NOE00105498 63-82 2016 12 6 -34.5
NOE00111327 63-81 2016 12 6 -34.4
NOE00111336 63-81 2016 12 4 -34.2
FIE00146762 63-82 2016 12 4 -34.0
But for 2020, the lowest temperature was definitely too warm there:
NOE00111327 63-81 2020 12 8 -23.3
Of course: many stations in the corner had far colder temperatures during the XXth century.
The Sami folks therefore sure won’t fear a bit about 2021 becoming cold again.
And we enjoy… this:
https://tinyurl.com/4sfwf876
Bye bye, Ebengenius!
Bindidong totally triggered by his once again failed forecast starts posting rows of numbers as if it is going to make the snowfall disappear
https://youtu.be/yZWX4c1mXpc
You can write your stubborn blah blah as long as you want.
The only result is that you appear here more and more as a duplicate of the other ignoramus Clint R.
Your permanent ranting against my wrong La Nina impression I have admitted months ago, looks perfectly like his ‘ball-on-a-string’.
Again: we have NO SNOW AT ALL where I live, and about 5 C above mean, basta ya!
Bindidon, when you don’t understand La Niña and the simple ball-on-a-string analogy, you don’t understand much about science.
Do you even know what snow is?
He lives in different Germany , where it never snows
Eben
” He lives in different Germany , where it never snows ”
The Germans call such a sentence “German humor” (i.e. none).
*
I repeat: our last winter deserving that name was in 2010.
In that year, we had – for our region, here is not Montana – plenty of snow (many times 20-30 cm, and lots of snow shoveling on the sidewalk).
Since then, like boastful bloggers use to say: not much more than zero, nada, zilch.
*
Btw… You can’t stop ridiculing me about La Nina but the prediction about Western and Northern Europe you posted a week ago was laughable as well.
Extremely cold in Lapony, -35/-40 C at the end of November! So what. I know you don’t like to look at the past, but…
FIE00146508 63-82 2002 11 29 -38.0
NOE00111327 63-81 2002 11 29 -37.5
NO000097250 63-82 2002 11 29 -37.0
RSM00022106 63-84 2002 11 30 -36.6
FIE00146508 63-82 2002 11 28 -36.1
One day, you will come along with a post about ‘Horribly cold in Siberia’ with -50 C at the Werchojansk station in January.
Regardless of what our resident, most verbose, pseudo-scientist believes (I’m looking at you GR):
Basic Chemistry. If you don’t understand what MCGuffin wrote then you don’t have the basic knowledge needed to discuss anything here.
That looks like a misplaced comment :- )
TM,
Some idiot wrote – “This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not.”, and you were stupid (or deluded) enough to believe.
All matter above absolute zero radiates IR. And guess what – all matter absorbs IR. Some better than others.
Sure, some molecules can be made to vibrate, through various mechanisms. Piano strings, wineglasses, vocal cords can also be made to vibrate. Just like molecules, they don’t spontaneously vibrate. This is just silly.
Maybe you should choose to appeal to authority.
” Some idiot wrote ‘This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not.’, and you were stupid (or deluded) enough to believe.
All matter above absolute zero radiates IR. And guess what all matter absorbs IR. Some better than others. ”
*
As always, Flynnson manages to be even a bit more ignorant than his pseudoskeptic mate-in-chief Robertson.
When considering all gases’ wrt their atmospheric abundance, trace gases like H2O and CO2 absorb and reemit IR way by dimensions better than N2 and O2.
CO2 vs N2: 2.5E+12
CO2 vs O2: 3.3E+7
H2O vs N2: 1.0E+12
H2O vs O2: 1.3E+7
*
Yes, Flynnson.
Putting CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter, doesn’it?
There is only one guy who is ‘stupid (or deluded)’ enough to believe what Contrarians say: you.
Bindidon, what is this nonsense, “CO2 vs N2: 2.5E+12”?
Where did you get it? What do you believe it means?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Putting CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter, doesnit?”
No. Don’t be stupid. Reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer reduces the temperature of the thermometer.
What has your bizarre remark to do with my statement that all matter above absolute aero radiates IR? Nothing at all?
By the way, removing the CO2 from a sample of air changes its temperature not one iota. The air continues merrily radiating just as much IR as ever. A clever experimenter named John Tyndall showed just this, more than a hundred years ago.
Carry on with your delusional thinking. If you run short on fact, maybe you could try irrelevant diversions, appeals to irrelevant authority, or even feeble attempts at sarcasm or gratuitous insults!
It’s hard to imagine how people like the one currently nicknamed ‘Swenson’ can believe we would here be all so dumb that we wouldn’t be able to search, within all threads posted by Roy Spencer since beginning of 2018, for sentences like
” Do you think that putting CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter? ”
and see that Swenson and Flynn are exactly the same person.
Bindidon, what is this nonsense, “CO2 vs N2: 2.5E+12”?
What do you believe it means? Where did you get it?
” Bindidon, what is this nonsense, “CO2 vs N2: 2.5E+12”? ”
This is the difference, for CO2 and N2, of their ability to absorb and reemit IR at an latitude of 10 km, of course by taking into account their respective abundance in the atmosphere.
N2 is nearly as inert wrt IR as is argon.
Everything what you either don’t understand or accept is for you automatically nonsense.
What is your source for that nonsense?
How are you measuring ability to absorb at 10km “latitude”?
Do you have any clue what you’re talking about?
Gordon Robertson at 9:06 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1049471
”… he claimed molecules can vibrate by some hidden mechanism and arrogantly insisted I needed to study the basics of molecular theory.”
I would suggest that you study the theory of molecular vibrational states; and being the quintessential anachronism that you are, may I recommend:
INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM MECHANICS With Applications to Chemistry. By Pauling and Wilson, McGRAW-HILL, 1935.
When you are ready to come into the 21st century, start by spending a few minutes with Professor Field in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iSqhxWjkq8.
Study hard!
TM,
You are confused. As are many people who should know better.
About as ignorant of reality as those who insist that CO2 can only emit radiation of certain specific frequencies. These types do not understand the interaction between light, (radiation at all frequencies), and matter.
Go away and understand that to which you refer.
Your opinion is duly noted.
TM,
Statements of fact, plus a direction.
Disbelieve one, and ignore the other, as you wish.
The facts don’t care what either one of us opines. I’m content with that. How about you?
If you find my comments objectionable, please call this number to complain: 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
TM,
Why should I find your comments objectionable? Are you powerful and important?
No, just another anonymous delusional climate crackpot. I generally decline to feel offended, upset, or annoyed by anonymous climate crackpots. I am surprised that you think I would accord your comments sufficient worth to find them objectionable.
Maybe you have a higher opinion of your importance than I do.
Carry on.
Alternatively, you can text AND_DIE to 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
Welcome to “meltdown”, TM.
You’ve got a lot of company.
funny man!
Earlier, Wonky Wee Willy Willard wrote –
“I’m starting to think . . . “.
I find that hard to believe, although sometimes previously unthinkable things have happened.
I hope that Wee Willy’s epiphany will bear fruit for him.
Mike Flynn,
Merry Festivus,
Merry Festivus!
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy claimed that he had started to think.
I found it hard to believe.
Judging by his comment, my finding stands.
Mike Flynn,
Merry Festivus,
To think and to think of something are two different usages.
One is transitive, the other is not.
Tis the season!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Wanker,
And you do neither with any competence, by the look of your comments.
I see another episode of self-abuse ended satisfactorily for you, judging by the “Oh! Oh! Oh!”
An interesting ejaculation, in both senses of the word, I suppose.
Maybe you should concentrate on what you do well.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd cheers.*
And justly so, even if they are equally as delusional as you.
Who is Mike Flynn?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
“Who is Mike Flynn?”
You are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/if-the-polar-vortex-is-due-to-global-warming-why-are-u-s-cold-waves-decreasing/
Cheers.
swenson…”Weary Wee Willy claimed that he had started to think”.
***
That could prove dangerous. Might set off a chain-reaction andinfect other alarmists.
Blizzard over Hawaii! Beaches full of snow!
The day after tomorrow is coming soon.
{/sarc}
Standard response of climate crackpot short on facts –
“Go pound sand up your ass. You are a complete dick of a person and I have nothing more to discuss with you.”
Well done, Norman. Very mature and rational to a climate crank, I suppose. Were you fragile enough to allow yourself to be offended or upset by words from an anonymous person?
Are all climate cranks so emotionally retarded?
swenson…”Standard response of climate crackpot short on facts ”
***
The alarmists have potty mouths and a complete disrespect for Roy. Maguff has gone into hysterics against both of us, using foul language in a display of his inability to discuss science. rationally.
–2 Dec, 2021
US LNG exports hit record highs as global gas crunch persists
Author Corey Paul
Natural gas deliveries to U.S. LNG export terminals surged to record levels in the waning days of November, topping 12 Bcf/d as strong global gas demand continued to incentivize operators to run their facilities at full bore.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/06/us-lng-exports-hit-new-record-highs/
Interesting article
Earlier, Wee Willy Willard wrote –
“C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
There’s even a Wiki entry on the concept you deny exists.
Think.”
From Wikipedia –
“A molecular vibration is excited when the molecule absorbs energy, ΔE, corresponding to the vibration’s frequency, ν, according to the relation ΔE = hν, where h is Planck’s constant. A fundamental vibration is evoked when one such quantum of energy is absorbed by the molecule in its ground state. When multiple quanta are absorbed, the first and possibly higher overtones are excited.”
A simplification, and as such, not particularly useful. Lies one tells to children – or climate cranks. Mind you, “molecular vibrations” do not occur spontaneously, so the quote is at least specific in that regard. Needless to say, molecular vibration is unrelated to the mythical GHE.
swenson…”From Wikipedia –
“A molecular vibration is excited when the molecule absorbs energy, ΔE, corresponding to the vibration’s frequency, ν, according to the relation ΔE = hν, where h is Planck’s constant.”
***
For one, this is false. Electron transition cause no vibration, it is the bonds made up of electrons that produce vibration. The bonds can stretch/contract, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, or they can vibrate back and forth like the hands on a clock.
I have confirmed this during my electronics studies and during a year of organic chemistry I studied. Both theories are similar, since they are based on the Bohr atom model. I did not get it in my early days of studying electronics, or even when I took the year of organic chemistry, that I was actually studying basic quantum theory.
To clarify transitions, delta E is the potential energy between orbital energy levels around a nucleus. Only electrons can inhabit those energy levels. These levels were postulated by Bohr then proved mathematically by Schrodinger in his famous wave equation.
A molecule per se, has no such transitional states.
delta E = hf is Bohr’s relationship based on Planck’s quantum number, h. E represents the potential difference through which an electron must rise or fall when it absorbs or emits a photon of electromagnetic energy. The parameter, f, represents the frequency of the electron based on it angular frequency in its orbit.
Bohr arrived at this theory while investigating the absorp-tion and emission spectra of the hydrogen atom. No one could explain why the absorp-tion/emission occurred in discrete frequency spikes. That led Bohr to speculate it was electrons moving between discrete quantum energy levels that caused the discrete absorp-tion/emission spectra.
Look up Balmer and Lyman series for hydrogen.
In any molecule, there are several possibilities from which delta E can be derived. Any electron in any atom making up a molecule can change through a number of potential energy levels. Also, when EM strikes a molecule there is nothing else in the molecule that can absorb EM except electrons.
In other words, atoms don’t stop behaving like atoms because they become part of a molecule.
Wikipedia are misleading people by claiming it is the molecule emitting and absorbing when in fact it is the electrons making up the constituent atoms of a molecule that are doing it.
“the bonds made up of electrons that produce vibration”
So individual atoms cannot have a temperature? Only molecules? I think not.
> Wikipedia are misleading people by claiming it is the molecule emitting and absorbing when in fact it is the electrons making up the constituent atoms of a molecule that are doing it.
C’mon, Gordo. First sentence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
Srsly.
Gordon,
“In other words, atoms dont stop behaving like atoms because they become part of a molecule.”
Well the electrons do go from being in atomic orbitals to being in molecular orbitals.
So you got that going for you.
maguff…”I would suggest that you study the theory of molecular vibrational states; and being the quintessential anachronism that you are, may I recommend:
INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM MECHANICS With Applications to Chemistry. By Pauling and Wilson, McGRAW-HILL, 1935″.
***
I have studied the theory at depth, at a university level, in both organic chemistry and electrical engineering. I am also aware of Pauling’s covalent bonding theory since it is employed widely in organic chemistry and electronics.
When you study molecules in organic chemistry, you do so at the atomic level. You study the bonds between atoms and how they can form different shapes. The only time ‘molecule’ comes into the discussion is to identify one arrangement of nucleii/electron bonds, from others. Or as a summation of bond energies and other energies contributed by each atom in a molecule.
Rather than talking down your nose, you might try reading related material yourself. You are in an indefensibly position and trying to save face.
BTW..Pauling introduced quantum theory to North America. He actually went to Europe to learn it during its infancy. He was already an expert on molecular shapes based on xray diffraction and he had to modify the current quantum theory to make it fit his understanding of molecules based on experience.
You might look up Pauling on electronegativity since it plays a major role in molecular shapes.
So, you studied Organic Chemistry in the curriculum for Electrical Engineering? A very unorthodox path for an electrical engineer if true.
I’m reminded that not long ago you claimed to have taken a year of Astronomy, the kind of Astronomy that doesn’t require Math according to your post.
The way you describe your education it sounds like it’s a mile wide and one foot deep. But I digress.
My “position,” which you call indefensible, is simply that molecules have vibrational energy states. You wrongly claim that:
“There is no such thing as a molecular vibration.” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1038736
I’ve given you references for your benefit, but you chose to ignore them. Good for you!
I should know better than to engage you in discussion.
maguff…”So, you studied Organic Chemistry in the curriculum for Electrical Engineering? A very unorthodox path for an electrical engineer if true”.
***
Engineering begins after 1st year is complete, 1st year engineering being a general engineering course. I did not start electrical engineering till 3rd year university. I took organic chemistry in relation to 1st year courses.
I took astronomy as an elective in one of my engineering years. In first year, I had already completed a required 1st year course in English (grammar and literature) at night school, so I had an open slot for an elective. I also took 3 years of psychology as an elective during my engineering years. I actually applied for a Music minor but the music admissions prof, being rather effeminate, took one look at my engineering jacket and said, “definitely not”!!!
With regard to molecular vibrations, you miss my point. There is nothing in a molecule that can vibrate other than the electron bonds binding the individual atom nucleii together. Yours is a semantics argument. Physically-speaking, there is no such thing as a unit called a molecule. It is simply a name for an aggregation of atomic nucleii bonded by shared electrons, or in the case of something like NaCl, with an ionic bond, electron-related charges.
I am fully aware of the nomenclature related to molecules but when it is claimed a molecule vibrates, rotates, or emits/absorbs EM, the reference is actually to the protons making up atomic nucleii and the electrons that bond them together.
When you draw a molecule, you do as follows:
O=====C=====O
Actually, O=C=O will suffice. The double dash tells you there are two electrons being shared.
That’s the CO2 molecule but as you can see it is made of two oxygen nucleii, one carbon nuclei, and the shared electrons that bond them together. The dashes represent the double bonds of electrons.
Any vibration or rotation is related to the electron bonds and any EM emission/absorp-tion is related to ANY of the electrons making up the electron orbitals around the nucleii.
You can stick to visualizing a molecule as a black box in which rotation, vibration, and emission/absorp-tion is going on, but I prefer the actuality. I was raised on electron theory as an adult, and I prefer to deal with electrons and nucleii rather than mythical black boxes. Of course, I need to use the word molecule to differentiate one atomic arrangement from the other.
Dunning Kruger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JziEOUvs7SQ
Gordon,
“Actually, O=C=O will suffice. The double dash tells you there are two electrons being shared.”
Actually the double dash tells you that it is a double bond, which means there are 4 electrons being shared by the Carbon atom and the Oxygen atom, for that bond.
The bond length can stretch and twist and bend, those are the vibrations we are talking about, they are indeed real.
Organic Chemistry isn’t even a first year course for a Chemistry Major, I should know, I have a Chemistry Degree.
TM,
The phrase “vibrational energy states” is just jargon, unless you can show some relevance to something.
And, of course, you can’t.
Just like saying a piano string has “vibrational energy states”.
So? Just more diversionary climate crackpottery.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
duly noted.
O=C=O.
There are 6 degrees of freedom in a CO2 molecule.
You might try pretending your head is a lump of coal and your hands are lumps of oxygen.
up and down
forward and back
inward and outward.
The first two do not involve a change in length of the bond. They simply expand and contract as per the gas law.
The third involves bending the bond. It is this characteristic that allows CO2 and other molecules with similar structure to absorb and radiate IR energy making them greenhouse gases.
N2 O2 are bipolar molecules. They expand and contract as per the gas law. Sure they absorb and emit some IR; as has been pointed out, everything does. But they are not efficient absorbers or emitters and don’t contribute as greenhouse gases.
Vibrational energy states does matter. LED goes from 0 state to 1 state and emits light. Its unique in that the ramp up is almost instantaneous. Everything has an emissivity rate (see Hottel emissivity chart)
CO2 has a slower emissivity rate but it does emit IR at the same frequency as was absorbed. Most of the heat energy absorbed is transferred to other molecules O2 and N2 in billions of collisions as the CO2 molecule expands and rises as per gas law.
One error ‘The first two do not involve a change in length of the bond’. It actually does change in length as the molecule expands and contracts according to gas law.
Linear molecules use the 3N-5 rule, non-linear molecules use the 3N-6.
So CO2 has 4 modes of vibration.
And the Ideal Gas Law treats all gases, molecules or atoms, as point particles.
Swenson,
A piano string does have vibrational energy states, and they are different in different piano strings, due to size, length, and tension, thus different pitches.
You can use the same quantum mechanics equations to solve piano string problems.
b,
And once you stop applying energy to the piano string, it stops vibrating.
As does a CO2 molecule. I presume you thought you were making a point, but you were just demonstrating climate crank silliness.
As to “quantum mechanics equations”, you have never used any to solve anything. How about I propose a piano string “problem”, and you solve it.
Show your work. (Only joking, of course)!
Swenson,
“you have never used any to solve anything. How about I propose a piano string “problem”, and you solve it.”
You want to bet on that?
I still have my Quantum Mechanics textbooks, they are full of Harmonic Oscillator problems.
And dumbass, even when the piano string stops vibrating, that’s still a vibrational energy state, it’s the one with zero energy.
bdg…”Schuckmann et al. 2020 is relevant to your question.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/
The same thing takes place with the land and cryopshere.”
***
Seriously primitive argument. Noted the name of James Hansen in the list of co-authors.
“The difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation, which is the sum of the reflected shortwave radiation and emitted longwave radiation, determines the net radiative flux at TOA. Changes of this global radiation balance at TOA the so-called Earth energy imbalance (EEI) determine the temporal evolution of Earth’s climate: If the imbalance is positive (i.e., less energy going out than coming in), energy in the form of heat is accumulated in the Earth system, resulting in global warming or cooling if the EEI is negative”.
***
For one, there is no ‘net’. A net would be a summation of the pertinent frequencies/wavelengths in the shortwave spectrum, for example, if the energy struck a reflective surface. There is simply no way the terrestrial outgoing IR frequencies/wavelength can be summed with the incoming since they are in different frequency/wavelength bands. Furthermore, there are orders of magnitude difference in intensities between the two.
This is a ridiculous argument presented by people who neither understand heat nor EM. It’s obvious that the radiation in cannot equal the radiation out since much of the heat created by the incoming is stored in the atmosphere, the surface, and the oceans. There is a delay involved and that account for the warming.
The warming is about storage of heat, not radiation.
This theory is just plain wrong. It does not account for heat stored in the atmospheric gases N2 and O2, nor the circulation of heat by the atmosphere and oceans. Just last summer, we had a dome of heat trapped over southern British Columbia in Canada and it was obviously nor radiating anything to space. It couldn’t, it was 99% N2/O2, gases that don’t radiate IR.
CO2 and WV in the mix did nothing to cool the dome.
Gordon,
Less bullshit please!
“There is simply no way the terrestrial outgoing IR frequencies/wavelength can be summed with the incoming since they are in different frequency/wavelength bands. ”
Each wavelength will have an intensity, which can be converted to energy, and then the energies of all the wavelengths can summed.
There is this thing Newton invented, called integration, perhaps you have heard of it.
“Each wavelength will have an intensity, which can be converted to energy, and then the energies of all the wavelengths can summed.”
Flux converted “correctly” to energy can indeed be added, as energy is conserved. But, then it can no longer be considered as flux. Flux does NOT add.
For example, an ice cube emits about 300 W/m^2. If that ice cube has a total area of 0.01 m^2, then it is emitting 3 Watts, or 3 Joules/second. Then, two such ice cubes would be emitting 6 Joules/second, but ONLY 300 W/m^2. More energy is being emitted, but only the same flux is being emitted.
That’s why two ice cubes can NOT warm an object above the temperature of the ice. 100 ice cubes can NOT warm an object above the temperature of the ice. Believing more energy means higher temperature is one of the many flaws in the AGW nonsense.
Non of your bullshit about ice cubes Clint R.
That has nothing to do with increasing CO2 causing the surface to warm.
It’s just your misunderstanding of Science.
It’s the Sun, what’s doing the warming, not a bunch of ice cubes.
And it’s the CO2 slowing the rate of cooling.
Only someone braindead could write such conflicting words:
“…increasing CO2 causing the surface to warm.”
“It’s the Sun, what’s doing the warming…”
But bob’s incompetence reminded me of another clarification needed.
Just as two ice cubes can’t warm an object above the temperature of the ice, because fluxes don’t add, the same would be true with Sun and the sky. That is, 300 W/m^2 from the sky and 600 W/m^2 from Sun does NOT result in 900 W/m^2. It only results in 600 W/m^2.
Clint R
“300 W/m^2 from the sky and 600 W/m^2 from Sun does NOT result in 900 W/m^2. It only results in 600 W/m^2. ”
Where does the 300W/m^2 go? It can’t disappear because that would be a 2LOT violation. You claim that it can’t be absor*bed by the surface because fluxes can’t add. So where does it go?
Ent, I cant teach physics to braindead cult idiots. When someone claims that passenger jets fly backwards, just to protect their cult beliefs, they can’t learn. They’re braindead.
As an example, see if you can face reality long enough to answer your own question, with the appropriate changes:
If you pour water uphill, where does it go? It can’t disappear because that would be a 2LOT violation. You claim that it can’t go uphill, so where does it go?
I’ll just go back to my reductio ad absurdum remark.
The name of the NBC series is Friday Night Lights, not Friday Night Light.
Because it takes more than one light to light a football field, and that is evidence that fluxes do indeed add.
bobdroege,
Have you found any evidence that CO2 is slowing the rate of cooling the planet? I would like to see it. I thought we were having a warming trend. But, from the data above, it looks as though the planet has cooled back down to about the same as it was nearly 20 years ago. Yet, CO2 continues to increase, right?
Sorry bob, more things you can’t understand.
More lights on a football field mean more REFLECTED light to your eyes. More light is not being created. More lights are being turned on. The flux does NOT add.
If you weren’t braindead, I could give you some simple examples to better explain. So this is just for anyone else.
Consider measuring a section of the sky with the proper instrument. You measure east, north, west, and south around a spot directly over your head. Each of the four measurements is made 15° off vertical. All four measurements are 300W/m^2.
Does that mean you are receiving 1200 W/m^2? If not, why not?
Chic,
If you do a regression to remove the variability due to noisy stuff like ENSO, you would find that it’s about .35 C warmer than 20 years ago.
Don’t compare El Nino years to La Nina years.
And yes there is evidence that CO2 has slowed the rate of cooling, because it has warmed without any increase in the heat source, that being the Sun.
Sorry Clint R,
Now you are just being too stupid for words.
More lights means more lights
More lights means more energy
More lights means there more light, which means there’s more flux, so the quarterback can see the receiver, and the receiver can see the ball.
Kinda hard to catch a football in the dark, don’t you think?
You pose another problem, problem is it only shows how stupid you are.
“Consider measuring a section of the sky with the proper instrument. You measure east, north, west, and south around a spot directly over your head. Each of the four measurements is made 15 off vertical. All four measurements are 300W/m^2.
Does that mean you are receiving 1200 W/m^2? If not, why not?”
Is that how you add vectors, Victor?
See braindead bob, I knew you couldn’t understand.
bobdroege,
“If you do….”
I didn’t and won’t do that regression. Let’s see you do it.
Are you aware of any data showing OLR has NOT increased in accordance with that expected from temperature increase? And are you aware that absorbed solar radiation increases irrespective of any change in the sun’s output?
bob,
You wrote –
“And its the CO2 slowing the rate of cooling.”
Unfortunately for the retarded climate crackpots, cooling is cooling. No rising temperature.
For example, night time. Sometimes the cooling is fast and extreme, as in arid tropical deserts. Sometimes slower, as under the canopy of dense tropical rainforests.
You really have no clue, do you?
Chic,
“Are you aware of any data showing OLR has NOT increased in accordance with that expected from temperature increase? And are you aware that absorbed solar radiation increases irrespective of any change in the sun’s output?”
Yes, I am aware of that.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
Gee Swenson,
“For example, night time. Sometimes the cooling is fast and extreme, as in arid tropical deserts. Sometimes slower, as under the canopy of dense tropical rainforests.”
Thanks for telling me where to find the greenhouse effect!
Fizzix guru Bil Gaede explains temperature
https://youtu.be/VshOCw4GfTQ
> “Lets say you are right and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. That means that when I compare a non-rotating planet to a rotating planet, the rotating planet has a higher temperature. That means the rotating planet is radiating more energy than a non-rotating planet. Where does the additional energy come from? Its not coming from the rotation the planet.”
We do not have tidally locked to sun planets or moons – every planet and moon in solar system is a rotating celestial body.
So we do not have measured data for non-rotating planets to compare with rotating.
But we have measured data for existing rotating planets and moons, some rotating faster and some rotating slower.
So we can compare those planets with different rotational spin the measured surface temperatures – and we have observed, and we have discovered the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s compare a faster rotating Earth (N = 1 rotation/day) with the slower rotating Moon (N = 1 /29,53 rotation/day = 0,03386 rotation/day).
Earth has higher than Moon average surface Albedo (a =0,306 vs a = 0,11).
As a result Moon has to “absorb” 28 % larger amount of the solar SW incident energy than Earth.
It means, on the average surface area, Moon’s surface emits 28 % more IR EM outgoing emission energy than Earth’s surface.
Nevertheless, Earth’s measured average surface temperature is 288 K. Moon’s average surface temperature is 220 K.
The very big 288 K – 220 K= 68C difference is explained by the Earth’s higher rotational spin (29,53 times higher) plus by the Earth’s surface higher average specific heat (5 times higher).
Therefore, the Earth’s higher than Moon’s (N*cp) product is what makes Earth a much warmer planet than Moon.
Earth (N*cp) /Moon (N*cp) ratio is 29,53*1/0,19 = 155,42 times higher!
What more illustrative example !!!
Moon IR radiates 28 % more IR outgoing EM energy than Earth, but, nevertheless, Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth.
To conclude with:
Earth has 155,42 times higher (N*cp) product, and Earth has 68C higher average surface temperature.
And, not to forget, Earth “absorbs” 28 % less incident SW EM solar energy.
It is obvious, that we are ABSOLUTELY right, and the average planetary temperature increases with rotation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Nevertheless, Earth’s measured average surface temperature is 288 K. Moon’s average surface temperature is 220 K.”
Christos, Earth has an optically thick atm. affecting surface temperatures! Our moon does not.
Thus earthen measured Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K GHE
Our moon’s measured equatorial Tequilibrium avg. Ts (depends on rotation speed) = 240K 210K
Your analytical work, if right, needs to agree reasonably well with measured data and so far your analytical work does not do so. The correct analysis work to learn why your work is incorrect can be found in a basic text book on the subject.
Here’s Braindead4 with his “real 255K surface” nonsense again. It’s a carryover from last month, where he couldn’t identify where it exists.
I predict he will hide behind another smokescreen.
No smokescreen needed, after a month+ Clint R clearly still admits in writing hasnt located the earthen 255K measurements despite other commenters providing clues.
The earthen 255K measured data should only take a few hours to understand even including the time to find and download the relevant, reliable papers. Clint is just not capable of doing so.
Clint is a reliable entertainer though performing routinely as the blog laughing stock.
As predicted, Braindead4 produces another smokescreen.
And now, he’s switching from “real 255K surface” to “255K measured data”. He knows he’s beat.
That’s why this is so much fun.
No meaningful switch Clint, there is a real measured earthen 255K surface for you to still locate.
Thanks for the great entertainment admitting you cannot do so. Thus admitting you have not studied even the basics of climate.
Hopefully adding the signs from 1:13pm for data Clint R admits cannot find:
Thus earthen measured data Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE
Our moon’s measured data equatorial Tequilibrium (no dependance on rotation speed) – measured avg. Ts (depends on rotation speed) = 240K – 210K
As our moon’s rotation speed increases in the limit avg. temperature rises due the non-linearity of S-B:
Equatorial Tequilibrium (no dependance on rotation speed) – avg. Ts (depends on rotation speed) = 240K – 240K = 0
A non-existent surface has a non-existent temperature. So 288K – [null] = 288K.
A non-existent surface can’t be measured at 255K Clint R, but the earthen Te HAS been measured by satellite radiometer data so the 255K surface does exist.
Except that surface doesn’t exist for Clint who admits Clint can’t find that surface & has to routinely ask others to locate it. Very funny all those Clint R antics.
Wrong Braindead4. You can’t measure a non-existent surface. What is confusing you is the “modeling”. An outgoing flux of 240W/m^2 is “modeled”, but there are NO meaningful measurements. Earth’s average outgoing flux is unknown. (And, flux doesn’t “average” anyway.)
It’s all cult nonsense, and you’ve swallow every drop of it.
“..but there are NO meaningful measurements.”
Clint R admits not knowing of the measurements in climate basics, so given Clint R’s lack of study much of climate appears to be “cult nonsense” like Clint claiming jets can fly backwards. Remember Clint: dogs bark at what they do not know.
Now back to Clint’s regularly scheduled entertainment, leave the climate basics to the adults in the room.
Braindead4, you’re evading the issue, again.
There is no “real 255K surface”. There are no meaningful measurements of Earth’s actual emission. If you had anything, you’d produce it.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Thanks for admitting Clint R still hasn’t found or understood the easily accessible meaningful climate basics real measurements and has yet to understand the earthen real 255K radiometer measured surface. Thus, Clint R’s climate comments are not well founded & totally lack credibility.
Back to entertainment specialist for Clint R.
NB for Clint: Passenger jets don’t fly backwards.
There is no “real 255K surface”. There are no meaningful measurements of Earth’s actual emission. If you had anything, you’d produce it.
You’ve got NOTHING.
You’re braindead.
“the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. ”
But why does Earth rotate once per day and has a surface temperature of 288K while Venus rotates once every 243 days and has a surface temperature of 733K?
Surely, as the faster spinner, Earth should be warmer than Venus?
he’s no idee what he’s talkinbout.
the the average planetary temperature increases with rotation. is only true for an atmosphere-less bodies, to which the idea of the average temperature isn’t even applicable that much on a count that what meteorologists talk about when they talk about ‘surface temperature’ is actually not the skin temperature of the hard surface but rather the temperature of the atmospheric boundary lair. With the moon, it not having any atmosphere, the idea of the average temperature as it is used on earth isn’t directly applicable to to begin with.
However, if the bodie has a thick enough atmosphere to have circulation, it would be slower rotating bodies that are warmer than the faster rotating ones, because of the momentum conservation hindering the heat flow from the equator to the poles on the faster spinning planet.
Of course, none of that directly applies to venus as its surface temperatures that are hot enough to melt zinc are hot for a different reason. the slower rotation of venus probably does contribute to it, but i don’t think that contribution is of any significance.
Bien vu – well balanced remark.
For those that haven’t learned “The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature” please read:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Christos curve fits the known measured data using a fudge factor to get the correct avg. T answer for Earth surface while Dr. Spencer shows the correct answer based on fundamentals.
For Venus, as the planet rotates faster its average temperature would increase as Dr. Spencer shows but Venus’ equilibrium temperature would not change as that equilibrium is independent of rotation rate.
Venus is not being heated at its rocky surface, rather it’s heated at its cloudy surface which has a day of about 4 to 5 days. As Venus has a fast global wind, ie:
“Venus is well-known for its curious super-rotating atmosphere, which whips around the planet once every four Earth days. ..”
But if Venus atmosphere spun faster [due rocky surface spinning faster or whatever] it would be a bit warmer.
Likewise if Venus had less sunlight, atmosphere would spin less than “once every four Earth days”.
And if Venus rocky surface was heating, then it’s atmosphere move but not spin as a “super-rotating atmosphere”
Venus at Earth distance would have a less “super-rotating atmosphere” and eventually screech to a stop. And become colder than Earth.
Comparing bodies with different atmospheres in terms of rotation speed makes no sense. Theoretically, rotating faster would make a given planet warmer, because extreme temperatures cause a body to be cooler than it would be with more uniform temperatures.
Thank you, gentlemen.
I’m quite happy with the argument that, all else being equal, a faster rotating body with no atmosphere has a higher average temperature.
I was trying to be satirical about his attempt to make rotation the only variable controlling surface temperature.
We need an irony emoji!
Here it is
https://tinyurl.com/4pak9sbj
So we are agreed that a borehole should show a consistent linear increase in temperature with depth. If we are going from a stable 15C at the surface to 5000C at the centre, 6000km down, you would expect the rate of change to be
5000-15 / 6000 = 0.8C/kilometre
If the surface temperature is stable at 15C the 0.8C/kilometre increase would continue all the way from the surface at 1km depth it would be 15.8C
If the climate cooled to 14C, the near surface temperature would decrease and the warming over the first km would increase to 15.8-14 = 1.8C.
If the climate warmed to 16C at the surface the gradient would reverse and the gradient would be 15.8-16 = -0.2C of cooling.
Boreholes are tending to show cooling over the first km instead of warming, independent evidence that the climate is warming.
So cooling is “independent evidence” of warming?
That’s right out of the cult handbook.
It’s very simple.
A surface cooling temperature trend increases the temperature gradient in the borehole.
A surface warming temperature trend reduces or reverses the temperature gradient in the borehole.
Reality is simple, Ent. Sun warms the surface.
Your beliefs are what is convoluted, “Cooling is ‘independent evidence’ of warming?”
Outer space cools the surface too.
Hmm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#/media/File:Temperature_schematic_of_inner_Earth.jpg
RLH
Thank you, that”s very useful. The gradient from surface to lithosphere is much steeper than in my thought experiment, so the effect I described would take place over the first 25 metres instead of the first kilometre.
“Negative geothermal gradients occur where temperature decreases with depth. This occurs in the upper few hundreds of meters near the surface. Because of the low thermal diffusivity of rocks, deep underground temperatures are hardly affected by diurnal or even annual surface temperature variations. At depths of a few meters, underground temperatures are therefore similar to the annual average surface temperature. At greater depths, underground temperatures reflect a long-term average over past climate, so that temperatures at the depths of dozens to hundreds of meters contain information about the climate of the last hundreds to thousands of years. Depending on the location, these may be colder than current temperatures due to the colder weather close to the last ice age, or due to more recent climate change.”
Clint R missed the point completely, as usual.
I didn’t miss the point, Ent. You got caught practicing witchcraft again.
EM,
More from your “borehole” link –
“When the surface temperature becomes colder, heat flows up from the ground, cooling the ground, and this cooling is transmitted downward slowly.”
Complete nonsense. Cooling does not get “transmitted”.
The authors are delusional. Anyone who believes “borehole” nonsense is similarly retarded.
Accept reality. Thermal gradients go from hot to cold – with absolute zero as the lower limit.
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of temperature change with respect to increasing depth in Earth’s interior. As a general rule, the crust temperature is rising with depth due to the heat flow from the much hotter mantle; away from tectonic plate boundaries, temperature rises in about 2530 C/km (7287 F/mi) of depth near the surface in most of the world”
RLH,
I assume you made a typo. 2530 C/km? Maybe 25-30 C/ km would be more likely.
Just in case lurkers get confused – especially climate cultists!
“Maybe 25-30 C/ km”
Yup. Just quoting something that the blog automatically shortens is how that happens.
Just as (72-87 F/mi) gets altered.
EM,
Why would anybody agree with you that fact should be abandoned for fiction?
Why would a borehole show a linear increase with depth at 0.8 C/km? The measured geothermal gradient varies around the globe, but is roughly 25 C per km, in the top part of the crust.
Obviously, the gradient will vary depending on thermal characteristics of the rock along the gradient, and conditions beneath the crust in the mantle.
You cannot measure the temperature of a “hole”, and measuring the temperature of the surface surrounding the hole is just silly. The hole is full of something, let us say air. The air temperature varies widely around the world, which will affect the temperature of the surface/air interface within the hole. I hope silly donkeys don’t just lower a thermometer down a hole and measure the temperature of the thermometer! Tell me it ain’t so!
As to the influence of the Sun, this is generally imperceptible beyond 10 m or so, and even seasonal variations cannot be measured. All fairly straight forward, and in accord with the laws of Nature, as currently understood.
So carry on believing cult nonsense if you wish. Heat does not descend from the ocean surface to the depths, and neither does ground surface cold “move” towards the interior of the Earth.
Accept reality.
if you can’t use thermometers in boreholes, how do you know that the temperature increases with depth at 25C/km ?
What method of measurement do you use?
EM,
Who said you can’t use thermometers in boreholes?
Not me, that’s for sure!
Of course, you can measure the temperature of the crust at depth. I’ll let you look up how it can be done. Or, look up why gold mines cannot be efficiently mined at extreme depth.
I’m right, you’ll find.
Try another type of gotcha. It’s all you’ve got now, by the look of it.
Swenson
You just wrote
“You cannot measure the temperature of a hole, and measuring the temperature of the surface surrounding the hole is just silly. The hole is full of something, let us say air. The air temperature varies widely around the world, which will affect the temperature of the surface/air interface within the hole. I hope silly donkeys dont just lower a thermometer down a hole and measure the temperature of the thermometer! ”
That looks like a denial that you can use thermometers in boreholes.
Retired Petroleum Engineer here who, having drilled several hundred wells around the world, can attest that every hole drilled is surveyed for various geophysical measurements including temperature.
EM,
I really don’t care what you think something “looks like”.
If you disagree with something I said, maybe you could supply some verifiable facts to support your opinion. Others can then make up their own minds.
If you can’t even quote my words to support your bizarre opinions, you will just “look like” a climate crank.
TM,
Maybe you could inform others as to precisely what you measured in the holes, and the circumstances. As an example, measuring the drill head temperature would be pointless if you were interested in the rock temperature you were drilling through. Measuring casing temperature would be similarly pointless.
How did you ensure that the drilling process had precisely no impact on the temperature of the rocks being drilled through? What about the precision, accuracy, and resolution of the measurements?
You can’t remember, can you? What a pity!
If you appeal to your own authority, you must expect to prove your expertise.
Swenson,
Quit it with the shtick, man! If you have a question, ask it clearly, concisely and directly.
That said, there are two ways to directly survey a borehole: while drilling and post drilling (open-hole). There is also a third phase (cased-hole), if and when petroleum has been found and the borehole becomes a well to be used for production over several decades.
The basic measurements of interest to the engineer are porosity, fluid saturations, rock mechanical properties, and temperature.
Due to the hostile subsurface environment, redundancy is built into all the measurements. For example acoustic and nuclear for porosity; conductivity and resistivity for saturation; fluid and rock sample extraction for direct examination of the host reservoir and its contents.
A producing well will be surveyed many times over its life primarily for bottom-hole pressure, temperature, distribution of fluid influx from the rock, and changes in fluid composition with depletion.
The minute the drill-bit first hits a formation its properties begin to change. Overburden stress is lifted, the drilling fluid cools the rock, pore pressure is altered, clays react with the drilling fluid. All these effects are known and expected to occur, and much research has gone into recognizing and adjusting for them.
If it was easy [you] anybody could do it.
Entropic man says:
December 7, 2021 at 8:47 AM
“the average planetary temperature increases with rotation.
But why does Earth rotate once per day and has a surface temperature of 288K while Venus rotates once every 243 days and has a surface temperature of 733K?
Surely, as the faster spinner, Earth should be warmer than Venus?”
…………………………
The answer:
The method I use is “Planet Temperatures Comparison Method”.
Let’s see what we have here, when comparing Venus’ mean surface temperature 733K (N= 1/243 rot/days) and Earth’s mean surface temperature 288K (N= 1 rot/day).
Venus is a gases planet!
………………………..
Venus’ Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation.
R = 0,723 AU, is the Venus distance from the sun in astronomical units
1/R = 1,9130
Venus albedo: avenus = 0,76 Bond
Venus is a gases planet, Venus solar irradiation accepting factor Φvenus = 1
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
1/243 rotations /per day, is the planet’s Venus sidereal rotation spin.
On the Venus atmosphere winds are 60 times faster than the planet’s Venus sidereal rotation spin. Since Venus has very thick atmosphere and being considered a gases planet, the Venus’ rotation spin will be calculated as
N = 60* 1/243 = 60/243 = 0,24691 rotations per day
cp.venus = 0,19 cal/gr*oC, it is because the surface is regolith dry soil
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant So = 1.362 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Venus Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.venus is:
Tmean.venus = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.venus = [ 1(1-0,76)1.362 W/m 1,9130*(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *0,24691rotations/day*0,19 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.venus = [ 0,24*1.362 W/m1,9130*(150*0,24691*0,19)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,24*1.362 W/m1,9130*(1,6287) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.venus = ( 4.490.620.150,82 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.venus = 258,87 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 735 K, measured by satellites.
What we see here is that planet Venus has a strong greenhouse warming effect due to the greenhouse gas CO2 96,5 % high content in the Venus’ atmosphere.
Venus’ atmosphere ground density D = 65 kg/m.
Earth’s atmosphere ground density is only D = 1,23 kg/m
and the greenhouse gas CO2 is only the 0,04 % very tiny trace content in the Earth’s atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What we see here is that planet Venus has a strong greenhouse warming effect due to the greenhouse gas CO2 96,5 % high content in the Venus atmosphere.
Venus atmosphere ground density D = 65 kg/m.
Earths atmosphere ground density is only D = 1,23 kg/m
and the greenhouse gas CO2 is only the 0,04 % very tiny trace content in the Earths atmosphere.”
Agreed, though 0 .04% is still enough to trigger 33C warming.
But if you agree with the greenhouse effect, why try to explain the temperature differences entirely by rotation rate?
Ent, you have to remember the AGW nonsense is “global”. The perversion of science is pervasive. It is taught in schools. It is constantly echoed in the media. Many governments fully accept it.
The purpose is to make us all braindead. The cult dogma is very effective. You see cult idiots even claiming passenger jets fly backwards!
Hard to believe, huh?
The laughing stock of the blog, Clint R, is the only commenter claiming jets can fly backwards. Not hard to believe given Clint admits not knowing the basics of climate and yet comments on a Climate blog.
The informed, critical commenters here understand Clint admits not understanding the basic science and assign the appropriate zero credibility to Clint’s comments. Keep up the great entertainment Clint.
Braindead4, if I link you to where Ent has made such claims, will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
“The purpose is to make us all braindead.”
Yes it certainly worked on Clint!
Troll Nate has NOTHING, again.
EM,
You wrote –
“Agreed, though 0 .04% is still enough to trigger 33C warming.”
Well, no. Not unless you believe that the Earth cooled to 33C less than it is now, and then miraculously warmed up. And yes, “warmer than it otherwise would be” is just nonsense spouted by climate crackpots.
The Earth has managed to cool from the molten state to its present temperature, whatever that is. The nonsensical notion that an “equation” “proves” that the Earth “should be” some other temperature is just specious nonsense. That same stupid “equation” “proves” that the earth never had a molten surface, which it apparently did.
Accept reality. Adding CO2 to a gas changes the temperature of the gas not one jot. Removing CO2 makes no difference either. What do you conclude from this?
I conclude that CO2 has no warming effect at all. Tyndall’s experiments back me up.
And you?
Tyndall’s experiments used boiling water for the warming effect; without that effect the CO2 would have stayed at room temperature as Swenson notes.
Tyndall adding CO2 just trapped more of that boiling water warming effect in Tyndall’s tube with thermometers inserted getting warmer just like our atm.
B,
Don’t be stupid. Read and comprehend Tyndall. He showed that temperature fell when the CO2 prevented IR from reaching the “thermometer” – which was not in the tube!
You may be referring to something else not involving CO2, but a completely separate matter.
By the way, Tyndall used a variety of heat sources, and if you had bothered to look, noticed that different gases and liquids showed different opacities to what we now recognise as differing IR wavelengths.
Anyone interested in the facts relating to Tyndall’s work in many fields can read Tyndall’s books for themselves. I believe I am correct about Tyndall’s experimental results, as recorded in the 1905 edition of “Heat – A mode of motion”, by John Tyndall.
“(Tyndall) showed that temperature fell when the CO2 prevented IR from reaching the “thermometer” – which was not in the tube!”
You are incorrect & a source of misinformation Mike..errr I mean Swenson:
Tyndall 1861: “I subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
For the experiments reported in 1861, Tyndall used boiling water for a constant IR source – he had experimented with higher temperature sources but could not control a constant enough temperature for his needs.
Ball4,
I can only assume you are referring to some of the things that Tyndall subsequently revised in later years. In some cases, after 1861, Tyndall discovered his measurements were incorrect (for reasons which later became evident), or that his experimental setup was defective in one way or another.
Like any rational person, over the next 30 years, Tyndall changed his ideas as he became aware of new facts. If you want to stay in 1861, be my guest.
Suffice it to say, nowhere did John Tyndall state or find that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer made the thermometer hotter. Maybe you were confused by “. . . I must slightly warm the defective face of the pile. This is done without any difficulty by a large Leslie’s cube of lukewarm water, placed at a distance ; the needle is now at zero.”
Unless you understand what “defective face of the pile”, means, or even what the relevance of “the needle is now at zero” is, it is easy to become confused. Of course the passage is irrelevant to any supposed “greenhouse effect”.
Anyone can read Tyndall’s books. He made copious amendments and corrections over his lifetime, and six editions of the book I mentioned were printed. If you want to ignore these facts, go your hardest.
“The Earth has managed to cool from the molten state to its present temperature, whatever that is.”
Well, the youngest and thinnest crust which covers 70% is the ocean floor.
The ocean temperature is averaging about 3.5 C.
Ocean floor in the most volcanically active and erupting lava is quickly cooled by the cold ocean.
Did Earth manage to cool faster because it has ocean or slower because it has ocean?
I don’t know answer.
It seems Earth absorbs more sunlight because it has ocean.
But does it radiate more energy to space because it has ocean?
It hard to imagine that Earth has lost more of its heat because it has an ocean.
I don’t know.
Swenson, The earth cooling to molten state hypothesis doesn’t work because rock doesn’t transfer radiation very well. The fact of there still being a molten core after billions of years of cooling is proof. Earth cooling from molten state has naught to do with climate observed today.
Ken,
Not hypothesis, as far as I know. Fact, according to Wikipedia – “Over time, the Earth cooled, causing the formation of a solid crust, and allowing liquid water on the surface.”
Seems reasonable to me. How would you explain the geothermal profile otherwise?
Quite apart from that, you said ” . . . rock doesnt transfer radiation very well.”
Perfectly correct, but completely irrelevant. Slow cooling still results in a drop in temperature, does it not?
The British physicist Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the Earth by assuming a completely molten ball of rock, and used measurements of radiation below the range of solar influence.
His calculation of twenty million years (later revised to forty million years) was incorrect. Lord Kelvin was ignorant of the radiogenic process (amongst other things).
The presence of a molten core merely shows that the earth is still cooling. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator, so an object (the core) around 5000 K, exposed to the Sun from a distance of 150,000,000 km or so, will cool, no matter how well insulated it is. Fact.
As a matter of fact, even a pot of hot water at 100 C, placed in direct sunlight, will cool.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
By the way, climate is just the statistics of weather. No more, no less.
Sorry to break the news to you Swenson, but the core of the Earth is not molten.
The outer core is molten, but the center of the tootsie roll is solid.
–As a matter of fact, even a pot of hot water at 100 C, placed in direct sunlight, will cool.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
By the way, climate is just the statistics of weather. No more, no less. —
Climate is weather. Global climate is not weather.
The global climate has been icehouse global climate
and should remain an icehouse global climate for a long time.
Or 34 million years ago was around the beginning of the icehouse global climate and about 2 million ago, the icehouse global climate became colder.
If you put a pot of hot water at 100 C in insulated box, it takes longer to cool. If put insulated box with pot of hot water is sunlight, it will cool slower then and without the sunlight.
Whether ocean kept earth warmer than without the ocean, is as I said, not clear to me.
Water is a good coolant, water also great insulator if water is not having convection of heat {not rising much due to a uniformity of water density, though the bottom of ocean is not a tomb of stillness, either}. And it seems one could set off nuclear bomb, in deep ocean water, and not get any heat from it coming to the surface. And impactors hitting the ocean, the ocean will absorb a lot that energy- going make big wave, and etc., but ocean should retain more energy compared striking a land surface.
Or lots factors and no doubt some unknown factors.
Also the factor as you mentioned not just cooling but also Earth is a nuclear reactor, the crust of earth in addition rock of mantle is generating heat. And Land has all that radioactive granite. And space delivering heavy material to Earth crust- or what we mostly mine, fell from the sky
Climate sheistering update
https://youtu.be/hs-K_tadveI
Ah yes, anonymous youtube videos. Eben’s educational sources.
Is that it? Is that all you’ve got, anonymous barry?
His name is John Shewchuk , it is right on his channel , his website has his bio including his picture,
http://www.climatecraze.com/aboutus.php
Dingle barry on the other hand is just a trolling debil who doesn’t know what he is talking about
Eben,
Relating to weather (and climate is just statistics of weather, of course) climate cranks prefer to believe non-meteorologists like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen, or any other delusional troubadour claiming to be a “climate scientist”.
barry lives in a fantasy, where reality is determined by barry’s erratic mental processes.
Maybe he will venture his thinking in dismissing the opinion of a meteorologist on matters meteorological.
John Shewchuk criticises NOAA’s use of USHCN for its national temperature data. NOAA hasn’t used that data set since 2014.
Typical of cockamamie sources.
You ‘skeptics’ give credence to absolute rubbish. And you are shameless about it. The major fault in the video is easily verifiable, but not only will you NOT verify, you’ll just ignore the gross error and spout further pablum.
barry, does NOAA claim CO2 is “heating the planet”?
“The major fault in the video is easily verifiable, but not only will you NOT verify, you’ll just ignore the gross error and spout further pablum.”
And here comes Clint with the distraction from topic. You ‘skeptics’ are so predictable.
No barry, this IS the topic. Does NOAA claim CO2 is “heating the planet”?
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
Climate/weather wise, that’s true.
But there’s a cult in meltdown. Enjoy the show.
There is still a global pandemic with lockdowns on and off around the globe, mass vaccination and economic downturns.
You’re a feckin’ feckless eejit. After thought, nothing
Приветствую!!!
ремонт электронных аппаратов судов 09 03 в основу составляет существенную роль выжимают из за 5 ккал. Использовать системы вентиляции. Обязательно на прогретом состоянии. Наличие подставки элементы отличаются разными способами. Для определения уровня жидкости и высадки размещения знака будет запускаться в условиях. Езда на перегрев. Основные ошибки необходимо дополнительно измельченных частиц грязи. Только после длительного прокручивания стартера трактора смещают обод при напряжении на все что позволяет быстро при переходе https://arsmash.ru/ оборудование. Цель в любом конкретном помещении с диспетчером и площадью 15. При наличии достаточного опыта и правильная схема приводит к баллону конфорки поверхности. Если двигатель подключаемый полный аккумулятор. Прокладываются кабельные тестеры для защиты ограждений переносных диагностических средств. Для осушения воздуха и асбестовых костюмов плащей текстильной переработки и ремонтных мастерских дорожащих своей грушевидной формы о пригодностинепригодности к ней оставили свое изделие из проблем подключить бойлер поэтапная диагностика по продажам. С
Удачи всем!
La Nina weather
https://youtu.be/dILaZIw7T3Q
Earlier, Ball4 wrote –
“No meaningful switch Clint, there is a real measured earthen 255K surface for you to still locate.”
If you can find a unicorn to ride, of course. A real measured earthen unicorn. Real, just like Ball4’s “real measured earthen surface”.
Or a climate crackpot’s description of the GHE.
All fantasy, but truth to climate cultists.
Another commenter reveals an admission of not understanding climate basics, just like Clint R.
Yet satellites with radiometers, not unicorns, orbit our moon and the Earth, their observational data is published under CERES and Diviner monikers, explained in published papers, and continuously updated measuring & monitoring the earthen Te of ~255K (and our moon’s ~200K Te) while Swenson writes it’s “all fantasy” and Clint R writes “but there are NO meaningful measurements.”
Fun to watch these two kids at play, while the adults do the science.
Ball4,
There is no “. . . earthen Te of ~255 K . . . “.
I note you have decided to omit any mention of the “surface”. Would this be because the “surface” is supposedly around 288 K?
If, as you claim, the surface average is really 255 K, what happened to the 33 K supposedly due to the GHE?
Did somebody ride up on their unicorn and spirit the mythical 33 K away?
Or have you now decided that the surface is really 255 K, and that the GHE doesn’t exist? You need to pick a fantasy, and stick to it.
Otherwise, you just look like a run-of-the mill climate crank.
Carry on. Pick another figure if you like.
Earthen thermometer measured Tse is 288K L&O surface; earthen radiometer measured Te is 255K at the surface Swenson and Clint R have yet to do the research to locate despite having been given many clues – I’ll leave the measured Tse – Te resultant measured earthen GHE math for the kids to do.
Swenson
“I note you have decided to omit any mention of the surface. Would this be because the surface is supposedly around 288 K?
If, as you claim, the surface average is really 255 K, what happened to the 33 K supposedly due to the GHE?”
Swenson, are you all right? That’s the second time today you’ve contradicted yourself in the same post.
Ent, you’re getting confused by Ball4. That’s his purpose. He doesn’t know where the “real 255K surface” is, yet he keeps mentioning it: “… 255K at the surface…”
He got caught trying to claim there is a “real 255K surface”. Now his only way out is to confuse the issue. His tricks only work on the braindead….
Clint R, prove you are old enough to do the arithmetic:
Earthen measured Tse earthen measured Te = 288K 255K = ?
This time with the signs displayed I hope:
Clint R, prove you are old enough to do the arithmetic:
Earthen measured Tse – earthen measured Te = 288K – 255K = ?
There is no “real 255K surface”, Braindead4.
You just make up stuff, and then you get caught. Now you have no credibility.
You’re kinda like a suicide bomber, except you are the only one hurt.
Clint R demonstrates not old enough yet to do the arithmetic since if Clint could produce the answer then Clint would do so:
Earthen measured Tse – measured Te = 288K – 255K = ?
Of course losing all credibility is no pain when you had none to begin with.
So, maybe you’ll decide to be a real suicide-bomber. There’s no pain involved.
Just make sure to test it first — when you’re alone….
Good proof with that childish answer – Clint isn’t old enough yet to have learned to do simple arithmetic.
Wrong Braindead4. You’re the one acting like a child. You can’t produce any evidence of what you claim, so you just say “it’s out there”. That tactic would only work with the uninformed, like Norman, or braindead bob.
I’m surprised your cult would approve of you using such immature tactics. Your leaders must be in serious meltdown also.
Many more informed commenters have found the earthen measured 255K surface published “out there” Clint R so perhaps you could team up with Swenson and find it for yourselves with all the recent clues provided.
I do understand entertaining us is more fun than doing the work to understand climate basics.
Continuing with that nonsense, huh Braindead4?
That’s because you’ve got NOTHING.
Whereas you had NOTHING to start with.
Moon IR radiates 28 % more IR outgoing EM energy than Earth, but, nevertheless, Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth…
This observation cannot be explained otherwise, but by the “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
” Moon IR radiates 28 % more IR outgoing EM energy than Earth, but, nevertheless, Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth…
This observation cannot be explained otherwise, but by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. ”
Sounds like a challenge for the back of my envelope.
Data from here.
https://nssd***c.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
(Remove *** before use)
Since we’re comparing a body with an atmosphere, clouds and GHGs with a body with no atmosphere we’ll use black body temperatures to describe the energy flow rather than surface temperatures.
First check the 28% difference in OLR.
Solar irradiation is 1360W/m^2, giving each sphere an average solar insolation of 340W/m^2.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. It will absorb and reradiate as IR 340*(1-0.3)= 238W/m^2.
The Moon has an albedo of 0.12. It will absorb and retaliate 340*(1-0.12)=299W/m^2.
The % difference between them 299-238/238 * 100 = 26%
Close enough for us to agree.
Now the temperatures.
Since the Moon radiates a higher OLR flux than Earth it must have a higher black body temperature. NASA has kindly calculated these as 254K for Earth and 270K for the Moon.
That is wildly different to your quote. Perhaps you were comparing surface temperatures, for which the difference in atmospheres would need to be allowed for.
“NASA has kindly calculated these as 254K for Earth and 270K for the Moon.”
Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth…
This observation cannot be explained otherwise, but by the “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
“Moon’s measured average surface temperature is 68C lower than that of Earth…”
References please.
What is the Earth’s measured average temperature? Is it the surface average (288K) or the black body temperature (255K)
What are you using for the Moon? Black body temperature is 270K. Highest-lowest/2 is 400-150 /2 =250K.
I can’t get “68C lower than that of Earth” by either measure.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp….min…..mean….max
……equator..100 K….220 K
For Moon with Earth Albedo the average surface temperature would be:
(255K/270K)*220K = 208K
Earth has 155,42 times higher (N*cp) product, and Earth has 68C higher average surface temperature.
Lets take the sixteenth root of 155,42 :
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,37078
Lets take the Earth 288K / Moon (with Earth Albedo a=0,3) 208K ratio
Earth 288K /Moon 208K = 1,3846
1,3846/1,37078 = 1,01009 or 1,009 % – the results are almost identical !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For Moon with Earth Albedo the average surface temperature would be:
(255K/270K)*220K = 208K
No. The SB relationship between radiation and temperature is non-linear. Remember T^4.
You would be mistaken to assume that the Moon’s temperature would reduce in direct proportion to the decrease in absorbed radiation.
Moon Albedo a=0,11
Earth Albedo a=0,306
Moon measured average surface temperature T=220K
NASA Moon Te = 270K = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴ =
= (1-a)∕ ⁴[So /4σ ]∕ ⁴ =
NASA Earth Te = 255K = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴ =
= (1-a)∕ ⁴[So /4σ ]∕ ⁴ =
255K/270K = [(1-0,306) /(1-0,12)]∕ ⁴ = (0,694/0,88)∕ ⁴ =
= (0,78864)∕ ⁴ = 0,9424
Moon (with Earth Albedo a=0,306) average surface temperature:
220K* 0,9424 = 207,32K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Reference here
Reference here
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Forecast on Dec 17 for the allegedly supercooling Europe:
https://tinyurl.com/4dvejthb
Yeah.
According to
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
we should be around -1.25 in December, but the WUWT Ensometer is pretty sluggish these days, and finally managed to break away from the 0.5 mark
https://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
it had stuck to for at least a week.
some people claim there’s global pandemic, but others say that’s only true if you cherrypick the most recent couple years
Have you had your 17th booster jab yet?
” … thats only true if you cherrypick the most recent couple years ”
No wonder: Mr Sars-COV-2 started his trip around the world by Nov Dec 2019 in Wuhan, China. Thus, dt: no cherry-picking.
Some people even claim theres NO global pandemic AT ALL.
I’m 100 % sure they are all vaccinated, and say something contrarian instead of having something real to say.
*
As you can imagine, ALL very sick COVID patients needing a place in the ICU of Bavarian of Saxonian hospitals in Germany, where the ICUs currently are 100 % full and must be trasferred (by ambulance or even by helicopter) to hospitals sometimes 400 km away:
That is for such contrarian idiots NO MORE THAN A BIG, BIG HOAX.
measuring right after the infections start is blatant cherrypicking
anyways by 2050 better studies will show time of day bias and siting issues resulted in millions of false positives and this whole “pandemic” idea will go the way of global cooling
Vaccine Passport is entry-level atrocity which is equivalent to requiring unvaccinated people must wear a yellow star.
A Vaccine mandate where people are fired from their jobs is a worse atrocity.
Othering’ is a phenomenon in which some individuals or groups are defined and labeled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. Othering has been observed in lead ups to the worst abuses of basic human rights in history. ‘Othering is happening in Canada now.
“If you have to be persuaded, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized…If all of this is necessary to gain your compliance ~ You can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest.” — Ian Watson
Ken:
I worked many years at a job where you were required to wear a hard-hat and steel-toed shoes to enter the facilities, under penalty of termination. I worked with a few of those “Others” you describe who defied the mandates; but they didn’t stay long; they usually left by ambulance.
TM, you’re confusing “real” with “imaginary”.
A wrench falling on your head is “real”. A hardhat would help protect you.
A virus that most healthy people can easily handle does NOT a pandemic make.
I have nothing against people that want to get the jab, or wear a mask. But, there’s no justification for forcing such nonsense on people that don’t fall for it.
ha ha ha. funny guy!
How’s about I don’t want to YOU to infect me?
TM — Is your nervous laughter telling you something?
RLH, you have every right to avoid people that scare you.
RLH
First, a person who is not vaccinated isn’t automatically sick.
Second, a person who is vaccinated isn’t guaranteed to not be sick.
Third, forcing people to take an experimental vaccine that has had serious side effects for some people, for an illness that doesn’t have serious consequences for most people, doesn’t make any sense at all. So what is the motive for vaccine mandates?
The measures taken against COVID such as mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and vaccine passports must be proven to work but the empirical data suggests they don’t work at all. The measures are not ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’.
Yes COVID exists and its a bad illness that really affects the vulnerable people in our society. Those vulnerable people should do everything to prevent getting sick with COVID, but not at the expense of everyone else’s rights and freedoms. Cost vs Benefit doesn’t add up.
If you are infected then I have every right to insist that you do not effect me. Even if you do not know that you are. My rights are the same as yours. Perhaps, if you do not wish to wear a mask, you should avoid all contact with those who do.
Clint R, my laughter is telling you that I find you amusing!
Keep up the good work.
No problem, TM. I’m used to it. Cult idiots try to twist reality into folly. They have to, to protect their false beliefs.
“If you are infected then I have every right to insist that you do not effect me. Even if you do not know that you are. My rights are the same as yours. Perhaps, if you do not wish to wear a mask, you should avoid all contact with those who do.”
If you are afraid of catching a virus then you should stay in your mom’s basement and engage in pointless arguments with the trolls on this blog.
The risk of COVID is not significant for any healthy person under 85 years of age. Its almost negligible for anyone under 65. So says the empirical data.
You don’t have any moral authority to demand that I avoid contact with others unless I am actually sick.
Ken
It is obvious, from you post, that you have not yet experienced Covid.
YOU: “The risk of COVID is not significant for any healthy person under 85 years of age. Its almost negligible for anyone under 65. So says the empirical data.”
I would consider myself to be fairly healthy. I rarely get sick and have not missed work with flu in 20 years.
But I got Covid in August 2020 and was off work for 3 weeks with fever every day, night sweats and very tired. The last week I had nausea and could not eat and had to get Dr. prescribed anti-nausea pill. During this time I was getting a little worried since I was not getting better. I did recover but was still weak and tired for about a month after. I did get a double vaccine this spring and will probably get a booster. So far the vaccines do not seem to have had any long term effects on me.
I would encourage you to reconsider your thinking. I am not an advocate of using force and pressure to get people to do things. I would rather appeal to trying to help another.
Norman,
I live on Vancouver Island population 860 000. There have been 12700 cases and 199 deaths. This is not a reasonable cause for calling it a pandemic and locking down an entire society.
Yeah, everyone knows someone who knew someone who got sick or died of COVID.
I am sorry you had the unfortunate experience to be ‘chosen’ for getting sick. RNG bad luck.
“If you are afraid of catching a virus then you should stay in your mom’s basement and engage in pointless arguments with the trolls on this blog”
So in order to not catch something I have to alter necessary trips from my house but you do not have to do anything on any of your trips because that would be ‘oppressive’?
More than a little hypocritical of you.
“You dont have any moral authority to demand that I avoid contact with others unless I am actually sick”
You don’t have any moral right to determine, without medical knowledge, that you are not a carrier of a disease just because you don’t want to take basic precautions.
Clint R at 4:29 PM
No problem, TM. Im used to it.
ha ha ha. so funny!
“I live on Vancouver Island population 860 000. There have been 12700 cases and 199 deaths. This is not a reasonable cause for calling it a pandemic and locking down an entire society.”
Sounds like you ought to thank the govt and all the people who masked, distanced and got vaccinated, Ken!
“Sounds like you ought to thank the govt and all the people who masked, distanced and got vaccinated”
I’m pretty sure that the only ‘benefit’ conferred by the measures is
to delay the inevitable.
Hard hats and steel-toed shoes have saved many lives and many more from serious injury.
Vaccines at large have saved many people from fell diseases like Polio, Measles, etc.
Contrast that with mask mandate when any reasonable assessment of masks versus virus shows masks to be of similar value as chicken wire to protect against mosquitoes.
Have any of the COVID measures, such as lockdown, had any effect on the spread of the virus? The empirical data suggest not.
Even the vaccines in places like Gibraltar and Israel where the uptake has been very high is still getting COVID cases unabated from the rest of the world.
Something is off about the COVID vaccines; the censorship alone has my hackles up high.
” Contrast that with mask mandate when any reasonable assessment of masks versus virus shows masks to be of similar value as chicken wire to protect against mosquitoes. ”
So? Are you sure?
In Germany, we (except the people who are against anything) have a quite different meaning about that.
No one who is known to me and managed to take recommendations, like e.g. wearing a mask, really serious, was harmed by COVID in any way.
Moreover, wearing a mask had for us an additional success: the absence, for the very first time, of any Influenza-based disease.
Think what you want, Ken: we think here different.
But, on the other hand: thanks for your opinion about vaccines:
” Vaccines at large have saved many people from fell diseases like Polio, Measles, etc. ”
Because I had the opportunity to see myself 60 years ago what happened to people who were not vaccined against poliomyelitis.
Ken:
I should have mentioned in my first comment we also required everyone to be clean shaven because a gas mask seals better over your hairless face.
Bindidon, you are so anti-science.
Personal anecdotes ain’t science. Just because you know some people that wore masks and did not get Covid does NOT mean masks are effective. Some of my friends, and all of my family, don’t wear masks and we don’t have Covid.
And to believe masks have prevented seasonal flu is beyond all rationality. How about the obvious? Seasonal flu cases are being reported as Covid. That’s why there are less seasonal flu cases in the last two years. It’s the same with all deaths. Maybe you remember the guy that died in a motorcycle accident over a year ago. He tested positive for Covid, so his death was listed as a Covid death. Hospitals get more money for Covid patients.
You will reject any reality to cling to your false beliefs. You are so anti-science you always remind me of Norman. He has trouble with English also.
ken…”Something is off about the COVID vaccines; the censorship alone has my hackles up high”.
***
A major producer of the vaccines, Pfizer, has been fined nearly 5 billion for lying about their products and illegally trying to influence medical practitioners. Another major producer Johnson & Johnson, have been fined close to 3 billion for the same thing.
The head of Moderna is bragging about how he is re-programming human beings via their DNA. The US FDA and the CD-C have far too cozy a relationship with these companies. The FDA allowed them to unleash an experimental drug on us while giving the drug companies immunity from prosecution should anything go wrong.
When the head of the CD-C was forced to resign over improprieties, she was immediately hired by a drug company. Millions of dollars earmarked for an investigation into the relationship between vaccines and autism in children was stolen by a CD-C employee, who ran off to a country where he could not be touched.
In nearly 40 years, no vaccine has been found for HIV, yet they found one for covid in 3 months. Yeah, right!!! Now countries like Greece and Austria are fining people for not being vaccinated.
“So? Are you sure?”
And
“I should have mentioned in my first comment we also required everyone to be clean shaven because a gas mask seals better over your hairless face.”
I spent some time in the armed forces. We learned about nuclear biological and chemical warfare defense. Wuhan Virus is a Biological Weapon. We used a C3 mask and we practiced with tear gas.
I’m pretty sure that a paper or cloth mask even one at N95 standard won’t protect you from tear gas. The difference between tear gas and a virus is you can see the tear gas.
Whilst in the Navy, we trained for firefighting using a breathing apparatus called a ChemOx. We trained in smoke filled closed spaces. If you couldn’t get a seal then you sucked in smoke.
People with beards had to be able to get a seal with a C3 gas mask or they had to get the beard shaved off. Big pain in the butt; shaving whilst at sea isn’t fun.
It’d be impossible to get a seal using a paper or cloth mask. Duct tape would be a solution for mask Karens but I digress.
I have an M3 half face respirator. Its at least an order of magnitude better as PPE. However, respirators aren’t considered as masks in the context of COVID because there is only a one way valve for expiration of air; there is no face ‘diaper effect’.
Here is a great video which shows just what to expect from a cloth or paper mask and should help explain why they won’t work and why the argument against respirators is nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MKzKAzKCNk&t=1s
Ken
Regarding your video.
https://keepkidshealthy.com/2020/08/30/fact-check-did-a-doctor-prove-that-face-masks-dont-work/
He is using vapor. Virus particles are indeed tiny but they do not leave our bodies as totally dry particles. They stick on any moist surface and get transported in much larger droplets from a sneeze or cough. His representation is a false one as it does not reflect the route viruses exist one person to infect another. Masks do greatly restrict the flow of droplets from a cough or sneeze.
Gordon Robertson
Interesting. You reject textbook science because they use electrical flow of current from positive to negative but you never research any material you get of social media. Science is corrupt but social media is all true in your world.
Anyway electrons are not moving through wires like water in a tube, they drift very slowly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
Now you post material here as if it is factual when it is not. You have been deluded by a false reality.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/19/fact-check-resolved-lawsuits-against-pfizer-alleged-marketing-fraud/4857499001/
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-moderna-mrna/fact-check-modernas-chief-medical-officer-did-not-say-mrna-vaccines-alter-dna-idUSL1N2M10IV
You should quit blindly believing internet liars and maybe realize scientists are not the dishonest ones. The liars are the people you think are telling you the truth.
“They stick on any moist surface and get transported in much larger droplets from a sneeze or cough.”
So wearing a mask provides a warm moist place for virus to stick and to accumulate and is a great environment in which to thrive.
That suggests only that such a mask improves the likelihood of getting really sick and not just with COVID.
Norman, I see you’re out for your nightly troll.
Since you’re looking for “internet liars”, did you ever find your “real 255K surface”? What is the altitude?
We need to catch all those “internet liars”….
Ken at 7:27 PM
If you’ve served, then you were injected with a number of different vaccines and God knows what else; it’s the nature of the job. Now as a civilian you object to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports to protect the elderly and other vulnerable individuals at large. Cognitive dissonance?
“Im pretty sure that a paper or cloth mask even one at N95 standard wont protect you from tear gas. The difference between tear gas and a virus is you can see the tear gas.”
The difference is one is molecule sized, and the other, the virus is much larger!
Use your noggin, Ken. Don’t make ridiculous false equivalences.
“So wearing a mask provides a warm moist place for virus to stick and to accumulate and is a great environment in which to thrive.
That suggests only that such a mask improves the likelihood of getting really sick and not just with COVID’
What it ‘suggests’ to you, a highly biased person, is irrelevant, Ken.
What the science studies show is. So show us.
Your thinking is what?
1. That it accumulates in a mask of someone who has the virus already? That is GOOD, that keeps it from the air that other people breathe in.
2. Or it accumulates in the mask of someone who doesnt have it, which, unless they eat the mask, is ALSO GOOD because they are not breathing it in. But #1 makes it less likely to accumulate in their mask.
Getting sick with other stuff?
The evidence of almost no Flu spread last winter makes it clear that the interventions worked very well.
“If youve served, then you were injected with a number of different vaccines and God knows what else; its the nature of the job. Now as a civilian you object to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports to protect the elderly and other vulnerable individuals at large. Cognitive dissonance?”
I even trained for the atropine jab which involved shoving a large spring loaded needle filled with a saline solution into my leg.
Yeah, I have a vaccine record book full. I don’t know how to explain why I am opposed to getting the COVID vaccine. When the vaccine rollout began I decided to wait till the rush was over. That decision has slowly morphed into a decision to not get the jab. There is something off about the vaccine and the determination by our governments are doing everything to force people to get one.
Now as the data is rolling in, it turns out that I am not at significant risk of getting seriously sick with COVID, never mind dying. But there is the matter of 10000 excess deaths due to heart and stroke in the UK among vaccinated people.
There is also the Censorship. When a PhD whose specialty is vaccine research at a respected university is getting censored when he speaks out against having children vaccinated there is a problem.
Lastly, its turning out that people who have the vaccine are getting sick and they are still getting harassed if they try to travel or even go to the store. There is not the return to ‘normal’ that was promised. So I am stuck at home whether vaccinated or not.
We’re now well into human rights abuses that are othering people. The othering is reminiscent of ‘struggle sessions’ and ‘Holocaust’.
I’m not even thinking about the efficacy of the vaccine or the threat of the virus. The erosion of our basic human dignity is of much greater concern.
“Vaccine Passport is entry-level atrocity which is equivalent to requiring unvaccinated people must wear a yellow star.
A Vaccine mandate where people are fired from their jobs is a worse atrocity.”
I think it is an atrocity that, as a society, we have the means to stop our health care system, our hospitals, our doctors, nurses, from being overwhelmed. We have the means to keep schools open, to keep the economy going, to get life back to normal.
But we are not doing it, because there are still large numbers of unvaccinated people spreading the disease, getting very sick, ending up in the hospital and dying.
Your individual liberty stops being a right, when it stops the rest of society from their liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It turns out that anti-vaxxers cannot be persuaded by facts and logic. The only thing that is proven to work is mandates, just like the vaccinations we were all required to get as kids to go to school.
So one of the major airlines got 99% compliance, and only a few dozen decided to quit.
SC25 update
The last month was rather uneventful with spot average around 35
It fizzled to almost nothing now with only one spot
https://i.postimg.cc/mkHbq1sb/EISNcurrent099.png
Also – recalculated Strength and start of Solar Cycle 25 by Patrick Geryl
https://bit.ly/3oAYGGo
Authors couldn’t get their paper peer-reviewed.
Try this: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
barry
Doesn’t matter for me.
From the point of view of F10.7, the new start sounds better to me than the official start in December.
If Jan Alvestad means SC 25 starts on 2019 Nov 18, than… let us following his proposal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SA3Gn4vVdRQaRj0FLg7bMA5Q3YpYouAN/view
Where is the problem?
Due to the change to the start, the 2nd order poly got even a bit sharper. Go Sunny boy go!
Earlier, the evasive and obfuscatory “Tyson McGuffin” wrote –
“Quit it with the shtick, man! If you have a question, ask it clearly, concisely and directly.”
Oh dear! TM has been called out, and doesn’t like it. I asked him to provide some details to support his appeal to his own authority, and of course he has none.
As part of my comment, I wrote – “How did you ensure that the drilling process had precisely no impact on the temperature of the rocks being drilled through? What about the precision, accuracy, and resolution of the measurements?”
If TM did not find those sentences terminated by question marks clear, concise, or direct enough, I apologise to him. I do not know how to “dumb them down” to his level. Generally, it makes sense to seek clarification if you are unsure what the questioner wants.
TM’s response is a good example of the climate cultist’s response to requests for information.
Others may make their own determination.
Swenson,
You are truly off your rocker!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1055454
And, again:
TM,
Once again, what temperature is being measured, and what relevance does it have to so-called “borehole temperature measurements”?
At least one paper refers to thermometers lowered down down old holes drilled for groundwater exploration. Cased? Diameter? Measuring what – air temperature, earth temperature, casing temperature?
So what about your oil wells? Given your supposed expertise, it shoukd be simple for you to describe what temperatures you measured, where, and what with. How hard can it be?
It’s a continuous recording of temperature vs depth both running in and coming out of the hole. Depending on the cable speed you also get a time varying measurement with depth.
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Oil well drilling goes much deeper than “groundwater exploration.”
Oil wells are drilled with tapered diameters depending on projected total depth. The most common size of the bottom section is 7-7/8″ into which you set a 5.5″ string of steel casing.
After casing and cementing the bottomhole will equilibrate to the temperature of the surrounding rock. So the temperature measured is that of the rock.
My expertise is real. Over forty years doing God’s work.
I don’t know why this is even relevant.
“Measuring what air temperature, earth temperature, casing temperature?”
Swenson is simply not smart enough to understand that there would be negligible transfer of heat from the surface down a deep, narrow hole, via the air.
Given sufficient time, the air, casing and the sensor will equilibrate with the surrounding rock, soil in the well at each given depth.
Just a note on coronavirus and masks. The size of a coronavirus is roughly 0.125 microns. It takes just one virus to kill you.
If you believe that the millions of viruses which might sail through your N95 mask won’t affect you, that’s your decision.
I don’t believe there is any research to show whether there are any adverse effects to rebreathing viruse trapped on “your” side of the mask. There seem to be many papers based on “evidence” and “data”, often reaching contradictory conclusions.
I’m aware of around 200 Covid papers which have been retracted after publication, for various reasons. Obviously, peer review and editorial review was not terribly effective in those cases.
On a final note, people working with pathogenic viruses of note, use Positive Pressure Protective Suits. No need to wonder why – they are the only form of PPE which gives decent protection. Anything else is based on hope that you will be lucky. Maybe wearing a mask increases your chances of survival, but certainly doesn’t guarantee it.
swenson…”On a final note, people working with pathogenic viruses of note, use Positive Pressure Protective Suits. No need to wonder why they are the only form of PPE which gives decent protection”.
***
I agree with you completely on the uselessness of cloth masks. Even surgeon’s masks have no effect.
The N95 is a specially designed mask that uses electrostatic attraction to draw a virus into the webbing. They are claimed to be 90% effective but how do you test that? The testing is done with fine aerosols which is not the same.
There is no way to spray viruses onto a mask to test it. Besides the fact that would be unethical, there is just no way to isolate viruses to that extent. You can gather material that is thought to be infected with a virus but proving the infectious material is a virus is quite another matter.
The truth is, we have never witnessed a virus infect a cell. The theory that a virus has little spikes that attach to a cells is pure sci-fi. No one has ever seen a virus with such appendages, all they have ever seen is a very thin cross-section that must be limited to about 100 billionth of a metre in order that electrons in an electron microscope can pass through the sample.
Even at that, there is no way to isolate a single virus and view it. The viruses subjected to an EM are in a theorized infected solution that has been prepared into a very thin sample for viewing.
It is claimed that a virus is not alive and cannot replicate on its own. It needs to inject its payload of RNA or DNA into a cell where it is theorized the RNA/DNA replicate using the cells own machinery to damage and kill itself.
Dr. Stefan Lanka, an expert in virology is asking how a dead virus can do that. He has proved to the satisfaction of a German High court that the research claiming such an action for the measles virus is incorrect. He has claimed further that anyone applying current virology theory is a fraud.
I might add that the major concern re infection is not breathing in contaminants. It is touching surfaces that are infected then touching your face around your nose or your eyes.
The CD-C has admitted this as has Fauci. Now they are tripping over themselves pushing masks for no good reason.
“It takes just one virus to kill you.”
Not correct.
Most of us have mucous in our nose and immune systems that can deal with ONE virus.
It is only when a large enough number of them get into our nose or mouth that our system can’t deal with it.
That’s one reason why wearing a mask is actually bad for you; the viruses accumulate on the mask and the immune system can’t handle the volume.
So its better to breathe in viruses than not breathing them in?
Your mask does not need an immune system.
Not making sense, Ken.
If they are accumulating on your mask in a warm moist environment ideal for viruses to thrive you’re going to be inhaling a lot more virus load than without a mask.
This paper is a review of literature relating to (title) ‘Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare SettingsPersonal Protective and Environmental Measures’ and includes discussion of masks.
One favorite bit is the statement: “Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39).”
Does anyone out there have training on the proper use of face masks? No? Didn’t think so.
Link?
I couldn’t get link to post. Try pasting the title into search engine.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
rlh…”Hows about I dont want to YOU to infect me?”
***
Then keep your immune system healthy and don’t hang out with people who have obvious symptoms they are sicl.
There is no way an unvaccinated person showing no symptoms can infect anyone. In fact, there are now thousands of cases where fully vaccinated people are testing positive, becoming infected, being hospitalized, and even dying.
An example…
Over the last week, there were about 28,000 COVID cases reported in the state of Massachusetts.
Nearly half of the reported 28,000 cases of covid reported (11.321) in a week were people who had been vaccinated. 88,968 cases have been reported from vaccinated people out of nearly 5 million vaccinated.
Note the reference to ‘reported’. The US CD-C has stopped reporting cases involving vaccinated people unless their symptoms are more than serious. Furthermore, how many people did not report.
I don’t care if there are 90,000 cases out of 5 million, that is far too many to justify the stock excuse that not all vaccines are perfect.
***
“BOSTON (CBS) The number of breakthrough COVID cases in Massachusetts increased by 11,321 this week. On Tuesday, the state released its weekly report on the number of cases in vaccinated people.
The total number of vaccinated people who have reported getting coronavirus is now 88,968, which is 1.8% of the 4.9 million people in Massachusetts who are fully vaccinated.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/88968-total-breakthrough-covid-cases-reported-in-massachusetts-which-is-18-25-of-vaccinated-people/ar-AARzLhA
Yep, my college age kid was one of those breakthrough cases. He had symptoms for a day or so, then he was all good, but quarantined for 14 days and missed Thanksgiving.
Contrast that with his same-age unvaxxed friend who got it a few months earlier. She said she was ‘sick-as-a-dog’ for more than 2 weeks and had long-term symptoms. Says shes still not quite right.
The data show that death rates are 13-15 x higher for unvaxxed.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
So yeah, Im very glad my kid was vaxxed.
So, Binny, found anything to respond to Kennui, Mike Flynn, and Gordo, or should I do your job once again?
Crickets.
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”The SB relationship between radiation and temperature is non-linear. Remember T^4″.
***
The relationship becomes more linear at higher temperatures.
The T^4 relationship between temperature and the intensity of radiated EM was derived by Stefan in the 500C to about 1500C range. He based the relationship on data from Tyndall’s experiment in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed visible colours.
The relationship does not hold outside that range, even though it is liberally applied as if it does. For example, on a T^4 curve representing surface temperature in degrees K vs emitted EM power, ice at 273K (0C) is claimed to emit 300 watts/m^2 of EM power.
Absolute nonsense.
The human body at about 310K is claimed to emit EM with a power of 500+ watts/m^2. In terms of watts/^2, that is equivalent to 5 x 100 watt light bulbs contained within a square metre.
Ok…I am aware that the wattage in a light bulb is a measure of electrical current running through the filament. Much of the heat felt from a light bulb is due to the warming of air in the vicinity of the glass.
Claiming the ice is giving off an equivalent EM of 300 w/m^2 is ingenuous. The EM given of by a 100 watt light is likely very low. You can test that by holding your hand over a 1500 watt electric stove ring glowing red. By the time you place your hand 4 feet away there is little or no effect from the EM given off by the stove.
If EM is rated at 300 w/m^2, it should be equivalent, at least, in terms of heat, to a heat source of 300 watts. Better still, it should be the same as a mechanical device operating at 1 HP, since 1 HP = 746 watts. .
Then again, why the heck are they measuring EM as if it is heat or mechanical energy? Heat is actually measured in calories, a calorie being the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a 1cc of water by 1C. However, the scientist Joule derived an equivalence between calories and watts, which is actually a measure of mechanical power.
Note the word ‘equivalence’. Heat cannot be measured in watts, when the term ‘watt’ is used with heat, it is the equivalent of so many calories of heat. EM can definitely not be measured in watts, per square metre or not.
There was confusion in the late 1800s when Stefan found that relationship, which is often mistakenly credited to Boltzmann. Kircheoff had proposed a black body theory with a BB having properties that were kicked out the window by quantum theory in 1913. The 1913 theory derived by Bohr proved that black bodies at different temperatures cannot arbitrarily exchange EM as claimed in BB theory.
The moral to the story is coming. If you extend the T^4 curve to a higher and higher temperatures, it begins to straighten out and become linear. Stefan’s data from Tyndall was in a region that was becoming more linear. However, modernists have artificially extended the curve down into the region of terrestrial temperatures where it simply does not apply, as evidenced by ice having a radiation power of 300 watts/metre squared.
I don’t know how anyone could honestly measure the amount of EM radiated by ice since most IR measuring devices are set up in a lab to measure the frequency of the radiation given off and not the power per unit area.
In winter, I have a small electric heat near me and I run it close to 300 watts. That is not the radiative power but I can assure you it is not the EM heating me, it’s the heated air molecules doing the heating.
If I place a block of ice in place of the heater, I would not be very happy or very warm.
Gordon Robertson
You are truly a broken record. I addressed a post you made like this on another thread giving you ample evidence based upon real experiments that the Stefan-Boltzmann applies at all temperatures.
IR measuring devices more likely used thermopiles.
https://www.electrical4u.com/thermopile/
There is nothing about frequency in how IR measuring devices work. IR energy passes through a silicon lens that stops visible light from entering. The IR is absorbed by a near blackbody surface. If the incoming IR is from a source warmer than the reference block it will produce a voltage that can be converted to a temperature with correct equations. If the surface and reference are the same no voltage so the temperature will be the same as the reference block. Colder objects will reduce the temperature of the surface as it radiates away more energy than it receives and it will cool relative to the reference block and produce a voltage. You can measure the temperature of a cold object with an IR detector you can verify the math used in the instrument is correct by using an actual thermometer on the cold object.
https://www.energyice.com/ener_eye.html
If you continue on a broken record, you will ignore the evidence and in couple of threads later post the same material.
This is typical Norman. He always tries to pretend he understands, then he links to things he doesn’t understand.
Gordon was saying that the 300 Watts from one square meter of ice is not the same as from 3-100 Watt light bulbs. And, Gordon is correct.
I’ll try to explain it so Norman can understand:
Consider an apple with mass, M. The apple is pureed into apple sauce, with no loss of mass. It’s the same apple, with the same mass, but yet it’s noticeably different.
Now, for non-idiots:
The “300 Watts” emitted from the ice are photons, each with a small amount of energy, very small. But, there are trillions and trillions being emitted every second. The total energy adds to 300 Joules/second, but it is very different from the Watts from the light bulbs. The entropy is greatly increased. The ability to warm a surface is greatly decreased. The units are the same, but the result is very different.
There goes Clint R,
He gets the entropy backwards.
There is more entropy in the 300 Watts from the ice, then in the 300 watts from the light bulb.
Get out your EZ Bake oven Clint R, you can bake a cake with that, with only 1 light bulb, but you block of ice won’t.
I predict you won’t understand.
I got it right, braindead bob.
“…but it is very different from the Watts from the light bulbs. The entropy is greatly increased. The ability to warm a surface is greatly decreased.”
The fact that you have to twist my words is indicative — You don’t have a clue.
Twist away, i won’t be responding.
Clint R,
sorry about that, we both said the same thing about the entropy in the block of ice.
norman…”IR measuring devices more likely used thermopiles.
There is nothing about frequency in how IR measuring devices work. IR energy passes through a silicon lens that stops visible light from entering. The IR is absorbed by a near blackbody surface…
***
A thermopile won’t work here. They are used at high temperature like detecting a pilot light heat on a furnace. They put out a voltage when heated and when the pilot goes out, the voltage drops to zero. Heat cannot be transferred through space by conduction since air is a lousy conductor. If the detector was detecting heat like that, or via convection, it would be measuring the air right in front of the detector.
Once you get into lenses, you are dealing with IR, and IR is not heat.
It’s all about frequency, Norman, IR devices do not measure heat, they detect the frequency of IR being emitted from a source then convert that frequency to an equivalent temperature calibrated in a lab from a known heat source at temperature, T.
How else could you get a reading off ice in a room at room temperature? The only way you could detect heat directly is if the measuring device receiver was maintained at a temperature below the temperature of ice. That’s what they do on bolometers used to observe stars, etc., but the receiver is kept at -200K, or so, so it’s colder. Such a device is very bulky and no ordinary person could afford one.
Gordon Robertson
You are wrong with this posts about IR thermometers. They measure ice fine and they use a thermopile. I linked you to a document that explained how they function in detail.
There is a silicon lens that only allows IR to a detecting surface (which tries to be as close to a blackbody as possible). It absorbs incoming IR and emits IR through the same lens.
It can get an ice temperature because when pointing at ice the incoming IR from ice is lower intensity so this surfaced emits more energy away and cools. There is an internal reference block that is not affected by the external world. So the surface is reaching a colder temperature pointing at the ice than the reference block and a voltage is produced between the two temperatures. This voltage is converted to a temperature based upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and other variables. You can verify they are somewhat accurate by comparing the digital IR reading to an actual ice temperature measured with a regular thermometer.
Wrong Norman. The “cold” side of the thermopile can never get colder than its ambient temperature. Gordon is correct.
You don’t understand your own links, as usual.
(Is it time for your weekly rant yet? You’re overdue, and those are always so much fun.)
“A thermopile won’t work here.”
Gordon and Clint R are clearly proven wrong as demonstrated by the thermopile in my Ryobi IR thermometer at room temperature working to cause display of 32F for a glass of ice water.
No physics credibility for Clint R and Gordon. But their abilities as entertainment providers make it hugely worthwhile hanging around here.
Found that earthen radiometer measured Te 255K surface yet, Clint, or that passenger jets do not fly backwards? No? Then study a text book and/or ask a college librarian for help.
When trolls start misrepresenting my words, that means they know they’ve lost.
Thanks for the de facto concession, Braindead4.
And since you’re just another worthless troll, I have to be the one to end this. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Good, put an end to this by using your college library Clint. The librarian will be eager to assist you. Ask about books on arithmetic to study that field also. Then you can answer to prove you have done so:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = ?
Clint R
Asshole idiot I did not request your stupid opinion. You again show you are a foolish one, ignorant and arrogant but a true troll asshole. When I do not wish any post from you, in your childish idiocy you feel compelled to respond. Read up on the instrument and give proof of your idiot claims or shut up.
Do you have the balls to answer a question I asked before? I doubt it. Does a flame have a radiating surface? Yes or no and why for either.
Norma, that’s a great meltdown!
When you get caught making up things, just lash out recklessly, flailing and flapping.
Have you tried pulling your hair out?
Clint R
You are a stupid dumbass that likes to troll this blog.
I can show you wrong over and over but you are too stupid to understand anything. When I find you are just an asshole (like saying I am a liar about my older sister hospitalized with Covid) I no longer wish interaction with you. But you are such a sick asshole you keep jumping in my posts. Not sure why you find pleasure in provoking people. You need to seek therapy. You have a real mental issue. This behavior may be normal for grade-school children but as and adult you are emotionally like a small kid.
Anyway, if it will shut you up read this material. You won’t understand it but it shows you are a total idiot. Not that my claim matters. You will be still be an idiot.
https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/sensors/global/analog-digital-thermopile-application-note.pdf
Still making things up, huh Norma?
I like your combining a rant with your meltdown. That’s why this is so much fun.
Have you pulled all your hair out yet? Next comes pounding your head against a wall…preferably brick.
Clint R
I guess you have nothing more to say but repeat a stupid point. I gave you material to read, read it.
Also why do you ignore the question I asked you? Does a flame have a radiating surface. You keep pestering me about a 255 K Earth radiating surface, I explained it to you many times. Now it is in your court to answer. Does a flame have a radiating surface?
Reading your posts is like being in grade school with an idiot who finds amusement in taunting others. What is your primary malfunction. You stopped emotional development at age 6? I seriously think you need some therapy. Maybe find out why you have sick desires and find amusement at upsetting people. It is a fairly sick mind that indulges in this behavior. Children act this way, most adults do not. I am assuming you are an adult. Since you still need to find pleasure in provoking people, it is time that you seriously consider mental help. You need it.
Norman, I ignore your questions when you behave irresponsibly. Clean up your act — avoid your false accusations, insults, and perversions of reality — if you want a chance to learn.
Otherwise, you’ll just remain braindead.
norman…”Anyway electrons are not moving through wires like water in a tube, they drift very slowly.
**********
Now you post material here as if it is factual when it is not. You have been deluded by a false reality.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/19/fact-check-resolved-lawsuits-against-pfizer-alleged-marketing-fraud/4857499001/
***************
Tell me something I don’t know. I have already written in this blog about the fact that electrons move relatively slowly through a conductor, which the charges carried by the electrons move at the speed of light.
***
With regard to your lying fact check article, here’s the truth from the US Department of Justice.
Anyway electrons are not moving through wires like water in a tube, they drift very slowly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY
Now you post material here as if it is factual when it is not. You have been deluded by a false reality.
Note that committing a felony act makes you a criminal, therefore Pfizer is now a criminal outfit.
” WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act…”
***
There’s more….
“In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company”.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
Don’t go away Norman, thus far we have only accounted for 2.9 billion in fines.
Note especially Pfizer using African children as guinea pigs and gouging poor African countries for drugs.
Real load of sweethearts, and you are defending them.
“Related: Pfizer Corporate Full Rap Sheet
Heres a brief glimpse of Pfizers track record for safety and ethics. This is a short list, by no means inclusive of the companys entire rap sheet.
-Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal with federal prosecutors for mis-promoting medicines (Bextra, Celebrex) and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to mis-branding the painkiller Bextra by promoting the drug for uses for which it was not approved.
-In the 1990s, Pfizer was involved in defective heart valves that lead to the deaths of more than 100 people. Pfizer had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. The company agreed to pay $10.75 Million to settle justice department charges for misleading regulators.
-Pfizer paid more than $60 Million to settle a lawsuit over Rezulin, a diabetes medication that caused patients to die from acute liver failure.
-In the UK, Pfizer has been fined nearly 90 Million for overcharging the NHS, the National Health Service. Pfizxer charged the taxpayer an additional 48 Million per year for what should have cost 2 million per year.
-Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved.
-In 2011, a jury found Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin. Pfizer agreed to pay $142.1 Million to settle the charges.
-Pfizer disclosed that it had paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on Pfizers behalf.
In 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 Million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.
-Pfizer was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens parents consent. Pfizer paid $75 Million to settle in Nigerian court for using an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on the children. The company paid an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle charges here. Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.
-Amid widespread criticism of gouging poor countries for drugs, Pfizer pledged to give $50 million for an AIDS drug to South Africa. Later, however, Pfizer failed to honor that promise”.
https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-covid-vaccine-maker-pfizer-well-documented/
egad…even the US NIH is complaining…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875889/
norman…here’s insider information on Pfizer that even Firefox is trying to block. I’st about former Pfizer vice-president, Michael Yeadon trying to advise us that the Pfizer covid vaccine is a fraud.
https://thehealthcoach1.com/?p=8297
More sanity from Yeadon….
https://awakening4321.wordpress.com/2021/06/05/dr-michael-yeadon/
note, at link above for Dr. Yeadon, you have to scroll down to the video, which has face on it with a red arrow to start the video. I had presumed the entire page was about him but on second look they seems to be conspiracy theorists who have latched on to Dr. Yeadon.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Sorry to break the news to you Swenson, but the core of the Earth is not molten.
The outer core is molten, but the center of the tootsie roll is solid.”
Fair enough, although I assumed that others would have been aware of the hypothesis. Totally irrelevant, of course, in any case.
The fact remains that if the interior is hotter than the surface, then the interior has no choice but to cool. Then, as the flux through the surface reduces, so too the surface cools.
Bobdroege apparently cannot find the time to address the question of where the supposed GHE may be observed, measured and documented, but instead takes umbrage because I simplify things, as one must when addressing climate cultists.
The sorts of simpletons who measure the temperature of something like the Earth, find it does not agree with their witless calculation, and proceed to invent a fictitious process to justify their erroneous nonsense.
It’s because they could not understand Venus.
If Earth’s core is about 5000 C, how hot is the core of Venus?
6000 C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uHUVG0T9po
Some think Venus core is 5200 K [4926.85 C]
Also, the video claims Earth lost about 200 F [93.33 C]
over billions of years. Of course, we don’t know how the Earth
formed. Nor how Venus formed, and no doubt we have different theories in the future
Gbaikie
Earth and Venus are of similar size and probably formed in the same way at the same time.
It would be reasonable to expect them to have similar core temperatures.
Of course, we can calculate Venus’ core temperature but won’t be able to measure it until we have a network of seismometers on its surface.
Yes, they are modeled upon some data and theories which appear reasonable at the moment.
I don’t think we have ever got a rock sample from Venus, as it seems to me to get such sample would require a pretty big impact, in order to get rock thru its thick atmosphere. And such impactors are very rare. And a 1 km diameter rock can easily impact earth atmosphere, as can some [or a few] 20 meter diameter space rocks punch thru our atmosphere and leave crater. Though one probably needs much larger rock than 20 meter diameter to eject earth material into escape velocity, though 1 km diameter impactor can eject a fair amount earth material into escape velocity. And 1 km diameter impactor is unlikely make crater on Venus- unless it’s iron or something and hits Venus fairly directly.
And 1 km diameter rocks and larger are fairly rare. Plus Venus is generally less likely to hit with space rocks, but there is the idea that very large impactor can hit Mars and Earth and end up impacting Venus, but if “common” such impactor would be hitting Venus at much lower velocity than “normal” impactors [they would hitting Venus from a kind of hohmann type trajectory}. and such low velocity {say 15 km/sec or less are even less likely cause Venus material to get to escape velocity.
But perhaps there are some rocks which are claimed to have possibly have come from Venus.
But according to modeling and theories, Venus core is thought to be about 1000 K cooler than Earth’s.
And what I am wondering about lately, does earth ocean cool or slow cooling of Earth temperature. And it seems reasonable the ocean does significantly cause Earth to be colder, and no evidence in particular, that is significantly a causal factor in why our core is about 6000 C. Though the “raining” of pure iron into your core, which is suppose make our core have a high concentration of iron and depletion of iron at our surface, might cause it to be warmer.
“…ocean does significantly…” I meant:
And it seems reasonable the
ocean doesn’t significantly
cause Earth to be colder,
I don’t know why Swenson keeps playing geological heat flow as though it was a trump card disproving AGW.
It is irrelevant to the AGW debate for two main reasons.
1) It is too small. Measurements around the world indicate an average geological flux less than 0.1W/m^2. The flux entering and leaving the climate system from space is 240W/m^2.
2) It has been constant for millions of years. It has been flowing up from below and out to space giving a very small increase in equilibrium temperature. It has not caused the recent warming.
EM,
Maybe you could quote me, if you disagree with something I have said. So far you haven’t, so you are merely thrashing around trying to avoid the extremely simple fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter one.
You mention “recent warming”. Fairly obviously, related to increased anthropogenic energy production and use over the last century. I assume you realise thermometers react to increased heat, and it is undisputed (I hope) that the amount of “waste” heat has increased enormously over the last century.
Given that you cannot say where this “greenhouse effect” may be observed, measured, or documented, why do you reject reality and the laws of nature?
Religious fervour, perhaps?
I wrote
” I dont know why Swenson keeps playing geological heat flow as though it was a trump card disproving AGW. ”
We agree on the basic geology. That’s not a problem. What puzzles me is why you keep bringing it up in the context of AGW, to which geological heat flow is irrelevant.
“where this greenhouse effect may be observed, measured, ”
Measure outward longwave radiation and downwelling longwave radiation.
Use the SB equation to calculate the thermal emission expected of a body at Earth’s temperature.
The presence of downwelling longwave radiation is the signature of the greenhouse effect.
Downwelling longwave radiation can be measured directly.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/4/127/2004/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2010JD015343
It can also be calculated since
Downwelling longwave radiation = SB radiation – Outward longwave radiation.
“You mention recent warming. Fairly obviously, related to increased anthropogenic energy production and use over the last century. I assume you realise thermometers react to increased heat, and it is undisputed (I hope) that the amount of waste heat has increased enormously over the last century. ”
That turns out not to be the case. Heat output from human activity is about 10^15 joules/year.
To produce the observed temperature changes and ice melt requires 3*10^21 joules/year.
Thus the energy required for the observed warming is 1 million times larger than our heat output. The measured imbalance between OLR and the expected SB radiation neatly fills the gap.
EM,
You wrote –
“Measure outward longwave radiation and downwelling longwave radiation.”
Stupid. Presumably you are unaware that only delusional cultists are fixated on the undefined “longwave radiation”, which in any case is impossible to measure globally. Maybe you don’t understand that light covers all frequencies, to a knowledgeable physicist.
If “longwave radiation” is your definition of the GHE, you are either ignorant, delusional, or both. As I keep repeating, the fact is that the Earth has cooled. In other words, since its creation, it has lost more energy than it has received from all sources. Mostly in the form of infrared radiation, of course.
Deny reality all you want. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, regardless of CO2, NH4, prayers, or models.
Pity you can’t find any factual reason to disagree with anything I say. It makes you look like a reality denying climate crackpot.
Carry on.
EM,
You wrote “That turns out not to be the case.”
What – you don’t believe that humans use more energy in total than a hundred years ago?
Not only has the population greatly increased, but also the per capita energy consumption has increased at least tenfold. Are you really claiming that thermometers do not react to increased heat by showing higher temperatures?
Maybe you can support such a stupid assertion with a few facts not depending on magic or models. That’s about as silly as claiming the greenhouse effect has anything to with greenhouses, or that population congregations don’t result in higher temperatures aka UHI.
Keep denying reality.
Ent, you’ve got so many things wrong that I don’t have time to correct them all.
* Fluxes do NOT add/subtract, so your basic equation is flawed.
* Then, you neglect Sun. You pretend it doesn’t exist. You claim “Heat output from human activity” can’t account for the warming. That’s correct. “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
You try to be so nicey-nicey as you attempt to pervert reality. You do the “please, thank you” con, like a used-car salesman. So, try this:
PLEASE take your head out of your butt. THANK YOU.
> you neglect Sun
Which part of
you do not get, Pup?
***
I cited your comment in “But ABC,” EM:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
Thanks for that.
Thank you, Willard. My place in history is assured.
“* Fluxes do NOT add/subtract, so your basic equation is flawed.”
Stand in the sun, with a flux of approximately 1000 W/m^2 on your face. Feel the warmth.
Take a mirror and reflect another 1000 W/m^2 of sunlight onto your face.
Take 2nd mirror and reflect yet another 1000 W/m^2 onto your face.
The flux onto your face will be:
a) ~1000 W/m^2 because the fluxes don’t add. Your face will feel just as warm as with no mirrors
b) ~3000 W/m^2 because the fluxes do add. Your face will feel MUCH warmer than with no mirrors.
Folkerts, your “mirrors” won’t qualify as your usual perversion of physics. It’s more in the category of your ignorance of physics. That’s too much to track.
You don’t need to get a whole bunch of mirrors. An inexpensive magnifying glass will burn wood with 1000 W/m^2 solar. The magnifying glass organizes the flux. Entropy is decreased, by design and work. That does NOT happen in nature.
In nature, flux does not add.
Any more tricks?
> The magnifying glass organizes the flux.
ORGANIZES, no less.
Does it follow the LEAN process, Pup?
Dud, you’ve already confirmed that you’re a worthless troll. There’s no need to keep verifying that fact.
But, since you have nothing else going in your life, feel free to continue….
That’s where you’re wrong, Pup:
You’re a sock puppet. Actually, not just a sock puppet, but a Dragon crank one. Above you there’s Gordo and Kiddo, who at least are not sock puppets. Then there’s Mike Flynn, who’s at least funny. Then there’s you.
You’re the lowest of the lowest troll here, Pup.
Do the Pole DANCE Experiment. Report.
I see you have NOTHING again, Dud.
Just your usual juvenile dragon-crank-puppet-dance. You can’t even come up with something original. With no education and no talent, it’s no wonder you’re a worthless troll.
And I forgot to sign off with you, since you will be here endlessly. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
That’s where you’re wrong, Pup:
You’re not the adult in the ROOM.
You’re just a silly SOCK PUPPET.
Do the POLL Dance Experiment.
Report.
Clint R,
Do you want to crack that Quantum Physics textbook again? Or for the first time, man that binder is a virgin, probably will sound magnificent when you do crack it.
“Fluxes do NOT add/subtract, so your basic equation is flawed.”
Um, the double slit experiment would like a word.
“When Thomas Young (1773–1829) first demonstrated this phenomenon, it indicated that light consists of waves, as the distribution of brightness can be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of wavefronts.”
From wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Light waves do indeed add and subtract, and therefore fluxes do too, as the fluxes under discussion are composed of light waves.
I anticipate your rejection for a certain reason, and it is overruled.
braindead bob found a link he can’t understand. He doesn’t understand any of this.
This is pretty close to the “magnifying glass” mentioned above. The flux is from the SAME source. No additional flux is being created. Fluxes don’t add.
Keep trying to pervert physics, braindead bob.
Clint R,
Explain to me exactly what about the double slit experiment I don’t understand.
You are denying reality again.
Fluxes add.
Swenson,
By the way there is a heat source in the interior of the Earth, maybe you have heard of such a thing.
And actually you have told me where the greenhouse effect can be observed.
At night, in dry desert areas it cools very rapidly, whereas in warm moist jungle areas it does not cools as rapidly.
That’s an observation of the greenhouse effect.
Thanks for providing the location where the greenhouse effect can be observed.
See, you answered your own question.
Well done chap!
Added to “But Evidence”:
https://climateball.net/but-evidence/
In return:
https://www.chillygonzales.com/music/a-very-chilly-christmas/
Thanks, Bob!
Willard, please stop trolling.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”
Yet: measured Tse – measured Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
Your analysis does not yet align with observations Christos. You do need to add the optics of the earthen atm. to align your analysis with observations.
Where is that “255K” measured, Ball4? You can’t answer that simple question. Here, I’ll make it multiple choice, to help you:
a) One of the 255K altitudes of the “standard atmosphere”
b) TOA
c) Ball4’s imaginary “real 255K surface”
d) None of the above
Do you need to use a lifeline?
No climate physics credibility for Clint until Clint can find the Te 255K radiometer measurements and surface on Clint’s own time and let us know.
NB: Extra credit for Clint if Clint can find the surface for the measured Te and its value for our spinning moon and where/how those radiometer measurments are made proves our moon inertially rotates on its own axis.
I see you couldn’t handle the simple multiple-choice question, Ball4.
Not a surprise. You’re braindead.
Why don’t you fill me in then Clint. Provide the answers to each. I’ll help with the simple arithmetic since you have not proved capable as yet.
2. Moons Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin……100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Moons albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moons sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earths satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moons surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moons surface specific heat (moons 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/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moons Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.488.581.418,96 )∕ ⁴ = 223,35 K
Tmean.moon = 223,35 Κ
The newly calculated Moons Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC – its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of its very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content.
Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth also has a surface 1 bar atm. Christos and your analysis does not account for that fact. You simply use a fudge factor to do so.
The actual earthen atm. surface energy balance at its current spin rate is found in basic texts covering the field Christos. You need to get busy and understand them.
Our moon’s Te at its current inertial spin rate, and also its equatorial equilibrium T, can be found in the literature based on Diviner results. Christos has yet to understand that work. College librarians can help Christos find the basic science he ignores.
Braindead4 can’t get the science right, so he just claims it’s “out there”!
Norman at least tries to fake some science, with links he can’t understand. Braindead4 can’t even fake it.
A college librarian can even help Clint R!
Though he/she will have to help Clint R with the arithmetic in the books and papers.
3. Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature calculation Tmean.mars = 210 K
Tmean.mars
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin…….130.K…210.K…308.K
(1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars’ albedo: amars = 0,25
Mars performs 1 rotation every 1,028 day
N = 1 /1,028 = 0,9728 Rotations /day
Mars is a rocky planet, Mars’ surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
cp.mars = 0,18cal/gr oC, on Mars’ surface is prevalent the iron oxide
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
Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature Equation is:
Tmean.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m²*(1/2,32)*(150*0,9728*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
=( 2.066.635.457,46 )¹∕ ⁴ = 213,21 K
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
The calculated Mars’ mean surface temperature Tmean.mars = 213,21 K is only by 1,53% higher than that measured by satellites.
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pretty close to measured martian GHE, Christos, since the surface pressure of Mars atm. is so low. You could adjust your fudge factors ever so slightly or use the actual atm. optical properties from first principles resulting in the actual measured martian no dust clear GHE of ~5K.
Or better yet, calculate the 5K GHE from Mars atm. optics and arrive at the measured value analytically. The methods are easily found with the help of your local college librarian.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1057765
Swenson,
I don’t know why you’re so interested in well logging all of a sudden, but I’m happy to oblige because the history of well logging is fascinating.
EM,
The borehole data supports nothing. Even other climate crackpots have realised how stupid “boreholers”. “Cold” does not travel “down”.
The Sun’s influence is not discernible at depths of more than around 10 meters, even on an annual basis.
As usual, you can’t bring yourself to quote me, but instead just avoid and obfuscate, in typical climate crackpot fashion. Keep at it.
Onlookers can make their own decisions.
Mike Flynn,
Misplaced Fabulation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tyson McGuffin
“Swenson,
I dont know why youre so interested in well logging all of a sudden, ”
A few days ago Keijo asked
“Has anyone got a dataset of historic ground temperatures at varying depths? ” I linked him to some data.
Swenson is now tearing himself apart. The borehole data supports the idea that the interior of the planet is cooling (which he loves) and the idea that surface global warming is warming the underlying rocks (which he hates).
His response was to try and discredit the whole idea of well logging.
In fairness, Mike Flynn can only give credit to the idea of logging off.
EM,
The borehole data supports nothing. Even other climate crackpots have realised how stupid “boreholers”. “Cold” does not travel “down”.
The Sun’s influence is not discernible at depths of more than around 10 meters, even on an annual basis.
As usual, you can’t bring yourself to quote me, but instead just avoid and obfuscate, in typical climate crackpot fashion. Keep at it.
Onlookers can make their own decisions.
So, just more shtick from Swenson; he’s a regular Jackie Gleason
Gordon Robertson
USGS is reporting an earthquake swarm off the coast of Oregon.
I know you’re about 250 miles North in Vancouver. This may be of interest.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=19.94983,-176.26614&extent=64.23372,-63.41458
During the week of the attack on New York there was a swarm of 6.0 just off the coast of Vancouver Island. It would have made the news except there was much more interesting stuff happening elsewhere.
The point being we get swarms off the west coast all the time. Unless there is a quake of 7.0 or more its not even noteworthy.
I suppose even the Sword of Damocles gets boring after a while.
EM,
Oooooh! Cryptic. Doom, doom, thrice doom!
Do you think we are all going to be boiled, fried, roasted and toasted, to paraphrase the delusional previous head of the IMF?
If you could provide some reason to support your apparent contention that the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter state, that would be a start.
According to bobdroege, the greenhouse effect can only be observed at night, and results in both reduced and enhanced rates of cooling. A bit odd, but that’s what he wrote. Maybe you can explain why the greenhouse seemingly only operates at night?
Where did you get the “only”
I never said the greenhouse effect could only be observed at night.
Why do you deniers have to lie to advance their arguments?
Because they don’t have any.
Swenson,
“For example, night time. Sometimes the cooling is fast and extreme, as in arid tropical deserts. Sometimes slower, as under the canopy of dense tropical rainforests.”
You brought up night.
bob,
What are you on about? Do you really think that temperatures dropping at night is due to your magical GHE?
Cooling is cooling, not warming, you idiot.
The greenhouse effect is largely about night temperature.
And it only true that daytime can higher average of daytime high temperature, because nighttime temperatures were warmer.
Or if nighttime temperature is colder, then usually the daytime high temperature is lower the next day.
And if a day is cool, next day is warmer, then good chance the next will warmer than the day which was cool.
Though one weather system come in which can change nighttime or daytime a lot. For instance can hot day, weather arrive, and next day is quite cold. Or the opposite.
But since ocean cover most of surface area of Earth, ocean controls the average global air temperature. The ocean has an effect upon average air temperature, even in Kansas.
entropic…”USGS is reporting an earthquake swarm off the coast of Oregon.
I know youre about 250 miles North in Vancouver. This may be of interest”.
****
Thanks for the tip. I have noticed nothing here on the mainland south of Vancouver. Last time I felt a tremor was about 20 years ago. It was brief…seconds…just enough to notice motion.
To be honest, I have felt worse tremors from house demolition. They are forever tearing down homes and rebuilding them around here. They use a large steam shovel, aka power shovel, about the size of a house height-wise, with a large bucket.
They use the bucket to literally claw the house apart but when they get to the concrete foundation, they have an attachment to replace the shovel which is a large, pointed device. They drop the pointed device on the concrete to break it up but the surface underneath is largely peat-bog, so the impact shakes the surrounding homes.
The motion is significant and I have feared it might sever a gas line. Never feared that with an earth tremor from a quake.
The big burning lump of coal turns spotless once more
https://i.postimg.cc/NG4vjysd/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.jpg
Are you sure? After all, we can only see half the surface. You don’t know what’s happening round the other side.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Exploring_space/How_we_see_the_far_side_of_the_Sun
Does the sunspot count include the spots visible only to helioseismometry or does it still only include only those visible to a telescope?
Did the sunspot count double when SOHO came on line?
EM,
You wrote –
“Are you sure? After all, we can only see half the surface. You dont know whats happening round the other side..
Are you sure? The Sun is the bright one – you know, sunspots, flares, heat, and so on.
The one you are referring to would seem to be the Moon, with one face towards the Earth at all times.
You seem a bit confused.
Silly Swenson.
The Sun is spherical and has a synodic rotation period of 26.4 days. At any one time you can only see half its surface. Thus the daily sunspot number is the number we can see, not the number that are present.
Seismology of the sun!? The things science and NASA can do is pretty damn cool!
Earlier, bobdroege (in a fit of silliness) wrote x
“At night, in dry desert areas it cools very rapidly, whereas in warm moist jungle areas it does not cools as rapidly.
Thats an observation of the greenhouse effect.”
Ah, I see – not!
So bob’s greenhouse effect can be only observed at night, and results in either slower or faster cooling.
Climate cranks are descending into the depths of delusion. For anybody who hasn’t realised it yet, neither slow nor fast cooling results in increased temperatures!
This minor fact seems to have escaped the notice of some very intelligent climate crackpots. Maybe their PhD’s didn’t include definitions of cooling and warming. Pity.
swenson…”Earlier, bobdroege (in a fit of silliness) wrote x
At night, in dry desert areas it cools very rapidly, whereas in warm moist jungle areas it does not cools as rapidly.
Thats an observation of the greenhouse effect.”
***
Bob doesn’t seem to get it that jungles normally exist near the Equator and temperatures in general seldom fall that far at night in any Tropical jungle.
Deserts are found at all latitudes in both tropical and colder regions. However, the Sahara, around the same latitude as Tropical jungles, seldom reaches 0C unless one is on one of the mountain ranges in the Sahara, where individual mountains exceed 10,000 feet.
You don’t see Bedouins wearing polar gear at night.
Altitude is important. Everest is located a bit north of Kathmandu where temperatures vary from 10C to 20C on average. Yet, at the peak of Everest, near 30,000 feet, temperature can plunge to -20C at night in summer.
One can plainly see that Kathmandue at 5000 feet altitude has an annual temperature between 10C and 20C while Everest, not far north, at its peak, has temperatures at -20C at night in summer. There’s no reason why a Tropical desert at sea level should get that cold at night.
Bad argument, Bob D.
GOrdon,
I visited a rain forest in Ketchikan Alaska.
Poof there goes another one.
Have you figured out the difference between molecular and atomic orbitals?
bob d…”Have you figured out the difference between molecular and atomic orbitals?”
***
No such thing as a molecular orbital, Bob. Only electrons have orbitals and electrons are related to atoms.
Next time you see a molecule orbiting something, let me know.
Gordon,
Molecular orbitals are the orbitals in molecular bonds, forgot your Pauling have you?
“In chemistry, a molecular orbital is a mathematical function describing the location and wave-like behavior of an electron in a molecule.”
From wikipedia, it’s should be about your speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital
“Part of Pauling’s work on the nature of the chemical bond led to his introduction of the concept of orbital hybridization.”
Hybrid orbitals, that’s what we have Pauling to thank for.
That’s from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
Gordon,
Also, Swenson was talking about the rate of cooling, not the absolute temperature, and I remind you that it was Swenson’s argument, not mine. I just pointed out he was providing evidence for the greenhouse effect.
That’s an example of just how stupid some people are.
Heat capacity is what is at play in the “warm moist jungle areas” at night.
Like I said, you don’t understand any of this.
bobdroege,
Just how silly do you want to appear?
I am not arguing, just pointing out some facts. So far, your “evidence” consists of pointing out that the temperature falls at night – in the absence of sunlight. Do you really think that this process requires a mythical GHE? Ordinary physics seems sufficient to explain the phenomena of night time cooling.
Are you quite mad, or just stupid?
Do I need to remind you that you are the one that said it cools faster at night in the dry desert vs the moister areas?
b,
I remember what I wrote. Just basic physics, no GHE involvement at all.
Try as you may, only the truly deluded are going to believe that dropping temperatures are due to the mythical GHE.
What is your point? Just agreeing that what I wrote was true, doesn’t make your attempt to justify a non-existent GHE any more likely to be successful.
Off you go now, quote something else I wrote, and agree with it. Maybe it will sink into your thick skull. Maybe.
Swenson,
It’s the difference between what is observed in arid desert areas versus under the canopy of dense tropical rainforests.
Look, you said it, now you explain the difference.
How about that?
bob,
Why should I should explain basic physics to you?
If you think that the GHE is responsible for the rapid night time cooling observed in arid tropical deserts, go your hardest.
I might point out that the same physics explain why the hottest regions on earth occur in the same places. Are you really trying to imply that the mythical GHE is responsible for rapid cooling, slow cooling, the hottest places on Earth – and also the coldest places on Earth!
Remarkable properties this mythical GHE of yours. It’s all in your imagination anyway, so everyone can have a good laugh at your gullibility. Who says there’s no benefit in being a fool? You provide a constant source of amusement.
Keep it up. No adverse effects to a good laugh (unless you are driving, or something).
Remarkable properties this measured GHE of which Swenson and Mike Flynn are unaware & can’t find. Clint R to date hasn’t shown the capability to do this simple arithmetic – can Swenson do it:
Earthen measured Tse – earthen measured Te = 288K – 255K = ?
Swenson,
I see you can’t explain why it cools faster in the desert than it does in a humid rain forest.
You refuse to explain the physics and I am the gullible one?
Ha, dude, you, funny
Swenson,
Just because the greenhouse effect is noticeable at night doesn’t mean it isn’t happening during the day.
The CO2 and water vapor and other greenhouses gases don’t go away during the daytime.
I answered your question, as to where it could be observed, now you want to know where it can be observed all the time.
Moving the goalposts are you?
braindead bob, “heat capacity” is NOT the CO2 nonsense. Strawberries have heat capacity. A room full of strawberries will hold temperature longer than an empty room.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R,
Where do you get heat capacity out of strawberries?
Yes strawberries have heat capacity, but,
where did I mention heat capacity in this thread.
Man, you deniers are stupid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1059125
So you think lighter moister air has a higher heat capacity than heavier drier air.
Might want to check that, to see if that’s the reason it doesn’t cool as fast.
b,
Don’t be stupid. It is well known to even children and dumb animals that temperatures drop at night.
If you think that cooling comes about as the result of a mythical GHE, good for you!
Sone people apparently think that the GHE effect creates higher surface temperatures! How sill6 must they be?
No wonder nobody can manage to adequately describe this “GHE”, let alone observe, document, and measure it.
Half-witted attempts like yours just expose the illusion.
Keep it up. The other climate cultists need all the help they can get.
Swenson,
I’ll remind you.
This is what you said.
“For example, night time. Sometimes the cooling is fast and extreme, as in arid tropical deserts. Sometimes slower, as under the canopy of dense tropical rainforests.”
That’s because of the greenhouse effect.
Thanks for telling us where and when it can be observed.
bob,
You are quite delusional.
The GHE is responsible for cooling?
What’s wrong with basic physics as an explanation?
Swenson,
Not just any kind of cooling, but a specific cooling.
The lapse rate is determined by the amount of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere.
But that’s not basic physics, it’s pretty high level.
Graduate level stuff.
But I was just pointing out that it is the difference in cooling, based on the difference in humidity.
Here is a pic showing how Sun’s spotless days really look like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fzmcLFOfUmjYuEeysd3jWSmHtUXNmJeB/view
I’ll update that when I have some idle time to do.
maguff…”Now as a civilian you object to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports to protect the elderly and other vulnerable individuals at large”.
***
The covid genetic concoction is not a vaccine. It does not use a sample of a virus garnered from an infected sample, it is a genetic formulation of RNA strands BELIEVED to be from the spike protein on a virus shell.
The tests are based on the same cockamamey theory and it is obvious they are wrong because people are still testing positive 2 years after covid was allegedly discovered.
Real vaccines do not tamper with the integrity of a cell. If this alleged vaccine was presented to a cell, the cell’s natural mechanism would refuse it entry. Therefore, the covid crap is designed to fool the cell into allowing it entry.
That methodology is fraught with danger. It can lead to cell death and undesirable cell mutation. Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice-president at Pfizer and an expert in this field, is warming people not to get the vaccine. He is also warning that deleterious effect could take 2 to 7 years to appear.
I am hoping that is not the case since I have family and friend who are vaccinated. However, a dangerous outcome of this kind of cell invasion is autoimmune disease. If the genetic ingredients in the so-called vaccine are not from a virus spike protein, but from normal processes in the body, the so-called vaccine will teach the immune system to attack itself.
The entire science is under question. No one has ever seen a spike that allegedly sticks out of a cell as a means of attaching itself to a cell in order to deliver its pay load. They don’t have the protein, they are guessing at it based on proteins found in samples and agreeing on it via consensus.
How could they have the spike protein? All that can be seen of a virus is a cross section of a sample of viral material that is about 100 billionth of a metre thick. It has to be that thin to allow electrons in an electron microscope to pass through it.
Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted he could not see HIV on an electron microscope. In lieu of that, for some mysterious reason, he invented a method of allegedly identifying HIV through inference. That is now the method used to identify covid therefore no one has seen covid with an EM.
That’s why people should not subject themselves to this genetic nonsense. It is based on a theory so far removed from science it could qualify for witch-doctoring.
“The covid genetic concoction is not a vaccine.”
Yes Gordon, that needs to be emphasized. The mRNA is highly experimental. The J&J is the only one that is a traditional vaccine.
clint…”The J&J is the only one that is a traditional vaccine”.
***
Unfortunately, J&J are criminals as well, having been fined several billion dollars for lying about their products.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/01/supreme-court-rejects-johnson-johnsons-appeal-of-2-billion-baby-powder-penalty.html
https://www.corp-research.org/jnj
“In 1995 a federal judge imposed $7.5 million in penalties on J&J subsidiary Ortho Pharmaceutical for shredding documents in an attempt to thwart an investigation into whether it was improperly marketing Retin-A acne cream as a wrinkle remover.
In 1996 J&J reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission under which the company agreed to stop making what the agency called false claims about the failure rates of condoms in the marketing of its K-Y spermicidal lubricant.
In 2010 J&J subsidiaries Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen had to pay $81 million to settle charges that they promoted the epilepsy drug Topamax for uses not approved as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. The following year, J&J subsidiary Scios Inc. had to pay $85 million to settle similar charges relating to its heart failure drug Natrecor.
In 2013 the Justice Department announced that J&J and several of its subsidiaries would pay more than $2.2 billion in criminal fines and civil settlements to resolve allegations that the company had marketed its anti-psychotic medication Risperdal and other drugs for unapproved uses as well as allegations that they had paid kickbacks to physicians and pharmacists to encourage off-label usage. The amount included $485 million in criminal fines and forfeiture and $1.72 billion in civil settlements with both the federal government and 45 states that had also sued the company.
At a press conference announcing the resolution of the case, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the company’s practices ”recklessly put at risk the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our society — including young children, the elderly and the disabled.”
In a related Risperdal civil lawsuit, a jury later awarded $8 billion in damages but a Philadelphia judge reduced that by more than 99 percent to $6.8 million.
In 2019 J&J and its subsidiary Ethicon, Inc. agreed to pay over $116 million to 41 states and the District of Columbia to settle litigation alleging deceptive marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh devices. In a separate suit brought by California, a state judge ordered the company to pay $344 million.
In 2021 J&J reached an agreement with a group of states under which it would pay $5 billion to resolve litigation brought against its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals alleging improper sale of pain medications, contributing to the national opioid epidemic.
Consumer Protection
In 2000 J&J subsidiary LifeScan pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and was fined $60 million for selling defective blood glucose monitors and giving false information about the problem to the FDA. It later had to pay $45 million to settle a related class-action lawsuit.
In 2001 J&J agreed to pay up to $860 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company had misled consumers into prematurely throwing away disposable Acuvue contact lenses. The suits argued that the company drove up sales of its 1-Day Acuvue soft lenses by recommending that consumers use them only once, even though the product was identical to regular Acuvue lenses, which could be worn as long as two weeks.
In December 2016 a federal jury in Dallas ordered J&J and its DePuy Orthopaedics unit to pay more than $1 billion to six plaintiffs who claimed they were injured by the company’s hip implants”.
The list is continued for foreign fines.
Mike Flynn,
Misquantified Fallacy,
You wrote-
“So bob’s greenhouse effect can be only observed at night”
That Bob provided you with a simple example does not imply that it’s the only example, simpleton!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Glad to see you are imitating my “Ho! Ho! Ho!”. Did you realise your silly “Oh! Oh! Oh!” had self abuse connotations, when you appear to be obsessed with JAQing off?
As to the idiot bobdroege, maybe you could take the time to read the exchange.
Providing examples of well known physical effects not requiring anything magical, such as the mythical GHE, just makes him look as delusional as you!
Neither of you seem to accept that cooling does not result in temperature rises.
Carry on the fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Spectators throw tomatoes.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
bull4…”Gordon and Clint R are clearly proven wrong as demonstrated by the thermopile in my Ryobi IR thermometer at room temperature working to cause display of 32F for a glass of ice water”.
***
There is no thermopyle in your Ryobi or in any other handheld infrared detector. Some people call the detectors a thermopyle but that is based on their ignorance of what a thermopyle is in reality.
A thermopyle converts heat to electrical energy and that electrical energy is compared to a set point voltage lab-corrected to a temperature.
The name of the infrared detector tells you right away it is not measuring heat directly but the infrared energy of a heat source. IR incident on a thermopyle does nothing, special semiconductors are used which respond to IR frequencies and produce a voltage commensurate with the frequency.
Still no temperature, just a voltage. The IR frequencies in the range have been measured in a lab, using the same IR detecting semiconductor, and correlated to the heat level (temperature) of the source. That data is programmed into the handheld and a comparison is made between it and the voltage produce by the handheld source.
> Some people call the detectors a thermopyle
C’mon, Gordo. You’re playing Humpty Dumpty once again.
And Thermopyle is somewhere else.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Words appear to be a mystery to you.
To you, poll is equivalent to pole, and Thermopyle is equivalent to Thermopylae.
No wonder you have to pretend you are just playing “silly semantic games”. You would just look foolish, otherwise, wouldn’t you?
Gordon, you are misinformed as is often the case. There is indeed a thermopile made up of thermocouples as the detector in my Ryobi IR002. Ask or search google on your own for how it works.
bull4…”There is indeed a thermopile made up of thermocouples as the detector in my Ryobi IR002. Ask or search google on your own for how it works”.
***
Prove it.
You can’t, because no thermopile, which is based on the Seebeck effect, can convert IR to a measurable voltage or heat.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
I got to ask: don’t you have any shame left?
Gordon, looking inside I see my Ryobi IR002 uses a similar component to the TS305-11C55 depicted in this article. Gordon remains badly misinformed as is most often the case. Gordon should search the article for “seebeck”:
https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/sensors/global/analog-digital-thermopile-application-note.pdf
ball4…”There is indeed a thermopile made up of thermocouples as the detector in my Ryobi IR002″.
***
Such an arrangement could not possibly convert IR to a voltage.
read the small print re your component…
“TE Connectivity’s thermopile sensors incorporate infrared radiation, or “IR”, technology which provides many benefits over conduction methods of heat transfer. These benefits include better performance and reliability as well as ease-of-use and overall simplicity when incorporating movement into a design. IR thermopiles also allow ambient temperature readings to be factored-in, thus providing greater accuracy and temperature control.
Thermopiles are mainly used for contactless temperature measurement in many applications. Their function is to transfer the heat radiation emitted from the objects into a voltage output”.
***
In the first paragraph they claim IR technology is INCORPORATED into the thermopile sensor. In the 2nd paragraph they claim a thermopile’s function is to transfer heat radiation emitted from the objects into a voltage output.
The first part is misleading while the second part is a lie, Thermopiles do NOT transfer ‘heat radiation’. For one there is no such thing as heat radiation. The radiation being measured is produced at the expense of heat loss. The radiation is electromagnetic energy not heat. Heat and radiation are mutually exclusive.
A thermopile can convert a heat difference (aka temperature difference) into a voltage using the Seebeck Effect, but it cannot convert IR into a voltage.
To be more specific, a thermocouple converts a temperature difference into a voltage via the Seebeck Effect, A thermopile is one or more thermocouples joined in series to increase the voltage.
Normally a thermopile is made from dissimilar metals but more modern devices use materials that allows them to be quite small. Still, they do not convert IR to a voltage. There is nothing in them can do that.
> they do not convert IR to a voltage
Yet they do:
https://www.instructables.com/Thermopile-Sensor/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Masterful Faff,
You might like:
https://www.ryobitools.ca/products/details/infrared-thermometer_640
There’s even a manual.
Cheers.
Wacky Wee Willy,
This would be the one with an “accuracy” of plus or minus 5C, and no guarantee, I suppose.
Designed and sold as a consumable throw away item.
Probably used by climate crackpots in lieu of a scientific instrument.
Mike Flynn,
Mistery Flavour,
Why are you trying to divert?
No wonder &c.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson insists he is not Mike Flynn, but he responds to posts directed to Mike Flynn.
When one tells lies all the time it does get difficult to keep them all straight.
willard…”> Some people call the detectors a thermopyle ”
***
I don’t care what they call it, a thermopile needs to be in direct contact with a heated source to operate. Look up Seebeck Effect.
[GORDO] Some people call the detectors a thermopyle but that is based on their ignorance of what a thermopyle is in reality.
[ALSO GORDO] I dont care what they call it
You can’t make this up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
What you post is just wrong. Most commercial hand-held IR thermometers use thermopiles. They have a sensing junction and a reference junction. The sensing junction is a near blackbody surface. It emits IR as well as absorbs it. The IR emitted acts to cool the surface, the IR absorbed acts to warm it.
The voltage is generated as the temperature difference between sensing surface and a reference that is not exposed to the external environment.
The sensor you describe requires considerable cooling. It has advantages in being fast and high resolution but it is not used in Ball4’s Ryobi sensor.
https://www.sensortips.com/featured/what-is-the-difference-between-a-thermal-ir-sensor-and-a-quantum-ir-sensor/
You can continue to post your incorrect information or you can research thermal detectors and correct what you think is correct. It is your choice.
norman…”Most commercial hand-held IR thermometers use thermopiles. They have a sensing junction and a reference junction”.
***
Not so, Norman. A thermopyle has no junction, only semiconductors have junctions where P-type semiconductor materials meet N-type semiconductor. There is no such thing as a blackbody or near-blackbody surface.
Here’s a definition of thermopyle from Wiki…
“A thermopile is an electronic device that converts thermal energy into electrical energy.[1] It is composed of several thermocouples connected usually in series or, less commonly, in parallel. Such a device works on the principle of the thermoelectric effect, i.e., generating a voltage when its dissimilar metals (thermocouples) are exposed to a temperature difference”.
Note the reference to ‘temperature difference’.
Thermopyles are based on the Seebeck effect, an effect wherein a voltages is generated across a metal exposed to different temperatures. Therefore, thermopiles work only when exposed directly to heat.
IR detectors used in handhelds operate on an entirely different mechanism, the excitation of electrons in semiconductors. One method is similar to the photoelectric effect, where a semiconductor is exposed to EM (IR in our case). That causes electrons to be ejected from atoms and the rate of ejection can be calculated and converted to a voltage proportional to the amount of IR.
Another method exposes a semiconductor P-N junction to IR radiation. The electrons absorb the radiation, jump to higher energy levels, and the temperature of the junction rises. Or, the increased electron current could be converted to a voltage for measurement as in the other type.
Either way, you must convert a voltage or a temperature to the equivalent temperature being measured and that can only be done if the relationship between the intensity of the received IR and the temperature of the emitting body is already known. Therefore, IR handhelds are calibrated in labs with that relationship already programmed into them.
Gordon Robertson
Again you are wrong. Read my links. What you are talking about is a quantum detector. Most commercially available Thermal IR detectors use thermopiles.
Please do not be as stupid as Clint R. One total idiot per blog is more than enough. I sent him a link that he cannot hope to understand. I can still hope you can but you need to read it.
https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/sensors/global/analog-digital-thermopile-application-note.pdf
This one has a graph of voltages derived from a thermopile. If an object is colder than the sensing part the voltage is negative (like when Ball4 measures ice) when an object is hotter than the voltage is positive (like hot water). If the same there is no voltage.
You fail to understand the concept because you have a bad physics working in your head. It is not real, it is not based on anything and you can’t verify it is correct.
Real world physics knows that energy transfers both ways. A cold object will still transfer energy to a hotter one but less than a hotter body. The Heat will still only flow one way from hot to cold. The heat is the NET energy exchange between the two. This is established physics and has not changed since Clausius. It is used to design non contact IR thermal devices like Ball4.
He is not wrong, you are. You are posting things that are incorrect. Most IR devices use thermopiles. Only advanced ones use quantum sensing (what you describe) and these have to be cooled to reduce “noise” inside the semiconductors. Down to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Read up on them and see.
Norman, there is nothing wrong with your link. There is plenty wrong with your interpretation of it. You’re still trying to distort reality to prove your false beliefs. A cold object does NOT transfer energy to a hotter object. You are purposely confusing flux with heat. Or maybe you honestly don’t know the difference?
Your false beliefs and worship of some of the phonies on this blog are what cause your frustration, which then leads to your mindless rants and meltdowns. “Reality” doesn’t make people act that way.
Your cult hero Ball4 claimed that there is a “real 255K surface”. That is wrong. But you immediately jumped in to agree. When Ball4 could not identify his “real 255K surface”, you were probably disappointed, but your faith in him prevailed. You still cling to his claim, but like him, you can’t identify it.
You’re still trying to distort reality to prove your false beliefs. That ain’t science.
Dr. Spencer showed experimentally a cold object (atm. ice) DOES transfer energy to a hotter object (surface water) by measuring the hotter object’s temperature higher!
Poor “Cling” usually commenting as Clint R is often proven wrong about physics and can’t even do simple arithmetic; here’s a chance to prove it “Cling” or Clint R show us you can do science and compute the simple answer to:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = ?
Clint R
Making stupid assertions does not make you intelligent.
You still act the part of a kid. You think saying things over and over make them true. You believe they are true so then it must be true. Sorry it does not work that way.
A cold object does transfer energy to a hotter one. You are just wrong about that and still wrong if you repeat it a thousand times.
I am not confusing anything.
You still bring up the 255 K surface (which I already said is a radiating surface).
So do you have an answer for flame?
1) It has a radiating surface
2) It does not have a radiating surface
3) You will not answer because it will expose you for the idiot you are.
You are the idiot who distorts reality by making unsupported stupid declarations (“fluxes don’t add…just a dumb statement from an idiot kid). You have endless false misleading beliefs you endlessly peddle on this blog. You are correct that your posts are NOT science, they are just a stupid jerk making a fool of themselves on a daily basis.
Diversions, diversions . . .
You still can’t make water warmer using the radiation emitted by a colder object – ice, for example.
Any thermometer attempts to measure a “degree of hotness”. That’s why they are calibrated in degrees, and various scales accept various standard degrees of hotness. Temperatures are tricky things. For example, people think of 100 C as the boiling point of water. True, sometimes. Not true at others.
Oh well, it doesn’t matter. GHE believers use fantasy temperatures anyway, and believ that the average temperature of some fictitious surface of the Earth can be measured to hundredths of a degree!
These dimwits couldn’t even read the temperature of a bowl of soup accurately in any objective sense.
As to IR thermometers, unless you know the precise emissivity of the object being measured, the temperature reading is at best, a good guess.
“You still cant make water warmer using the radiation emitted by a colder object – ice, for example.”
Swenson aka (you name it) is as badly misinformed as Gordon. Dr. Spencer showed by experiment how to make water measured by thermometer a higher temperature using the radiation emitted by a colder object – ice. He used the actual ice in the atm. and surface water!
“As to IR thermometers, unless you know the precise emissivity of the object being measured, the temperature reading is at best, a good guess.”
Nope. I don’t know the emissivity of my glass of ice water or my boiling water tea kettle yet my Ryobi reads out 32F and 212F for their temperatures in my kitchen at room temperature. On earth. At local atm. pressures. Learning from experiments is cool, you should try it.
B,
You idiot. No he didn’t. Nobody has.
As to IR thermometers, here’s a little extract from Fluke, re one of their cheaper models –
“If you need to take temperature readings on low emissivity objects regularly, consider an IR thermometer that enables you to compensate for variations in emissivity. For example, the Fluke 561 Infrared Thermometer enables you to set emissivity to “High” (for measuring most surfaces, such as wood, paint, rubber, plaster, or concrete), “Medium” (for oxidized metals or granite, for example), or “Low” (for shiny metals).”
For more expensive models, the settings are more precise.
Hopefully you didn’t buy a Ryobi IR002. Accuracy is stated as plus or minus 5 C, so either you are lying or you have been very lucky. It is pretty much impossible for a glass of water and the surface of a tea kettle to have the same emissivity.
Keep dreaming.
ball4…”I dont know the emissivity of my glass of ice water or my boiling water tea kettle yet my Ryobi reads out 32F and 212F for their temperatures in my kitchen at room temperature”.
***
That’s the point. You can’t tell the temperature by the radiation so how can the IR detector know? It can’t, unless someone programs it to receive a certain frequency of IR and relate it to a certain temperature.
Dissimilar metals like those used in a thermopile cannot convert IR to a voltage. There is no mechanism in metal to do that, but dissimilar metals have the property to generate a voltage if they are exposed to a temperature difference. By exposed, I mean directly exposed to heat, via air molecules, a flame, etc. Exposing the metals to IR does nothing.
To convert IR to a voltage, you need a semiconductor material that can be affected by the IR. Only electrons in the semiconductor material can be affected by the IR and produce a current. You can radiate metal all you want with IR and it won’t produce a current.
Semiconductors are based on specially prepared silicon slabs. They are said to be ‘doped’ if impurities are added to increase the natural number of electrons (N-type silicon) or decrease the number of electrons (P-type silicon).
When you apply the proper bias (voltage) across a junction created by joining a P-type with an N-type, current will flow if you irradiate the junction with IR and the material used can react to that frequency of IR. Using indium antimonide (InSb) or mercury cadmium telluride (HgCdTe) will accomplish that end. Those materials respond to IR of a certain bandwidth.
So, there you have it, another proof for your denial.
> Exposing the metals to IR does nothing.
C’mon, Gordo:
‘ A voltage is generated in a thermopile when its dissimilar metals (thermocouples) are exposed to temperature differences.´
https://www.electrical4u.com/thermopile
Measurement is *never* as direct and immediate than you presume.
“You can”t tell the temperature by the radiation so how can the IR detector know?”
By the physics of the thermopile Gordon now admits is in my detector. My Ryobi reads out brightness temperature from the emitted radiation correctly 32F and 212F just like the thermometer in the fluid reads out kinetic temperature.
Gordon should go buy an inexpensive fixed emissivity IR thermometer and learn this for himself.
“It is pretty much impossible for a glass of water and the surface of a tea kettle to have the same emissivity.”
Yet they do. Go buy (or borrow) a Ryobi IR002 and do the experiment yourself. Learning by experimenting is fun.
Dr. Spencer laid out all the details (& even the analysis!) of the experiment showing how to make surface water in the summer in Alabama measured by thermometer a higher temperature using the radiation emitted by a colder object – ice.
Anyone (maybe not Swenson so most everyone) can do the experiment on their own. Learning by experimenting is fun.
La Nina weather
https://youtu.be/-_obKQuIG90
They finally did it , they changed the “forecast” retroactively 3 month back to 100% La Nina,
The Best forecasting ever
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
eben..”They finally did it , they changed the forecast retroactively 3 month back to 100% La Nina”
***
There is a lot of denial among alarmists. Here in Canada, our government weather/climate hackers, Environment Canada, are trying to pass off the recent flooding around Vancouver, Canada, as evidence of climate change. Elsewhere on their site, they advise that La Nina produce above average rain in our area.
This is the first decent La Nina since the 2008 LN, some 14 years ago. So, it rains more than usual, roads get washed out and a dyke breaks, flooding farms in the vicinity, and they call it climate change.
Turns out the government had been warned about the dyke over several years, having it pointed out to them the dyke was too low at one point. Guess where it broke? Climate change broke it. Doh!!!
Eben
That is correct, but… what you of course did not see is
– that it was 6 weeks ago already at 100 % blue, and then moved down to 10 yellow vs. 90 blue;
and what you of course DO NOT WANT TO SEE is
– that since last Tuesday, the bottom most bar changed from 70 % yellow and 30 % blue to now 80 % yellow and 20 % blue.
As usual, you are always blind on the ‘right’ eye… but I am NOT!
… and enjoy the hyperdumb stuff written by ignoramus Robertson!
That is exactly what you always need.
Bindiclown is tripping again, claims his forecast for yesterday’s weather is always 100% accurate
One day, you’ll join the Moon spin denialists Clint R, Robertson & co, just like Vournas did.
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of its very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content.
Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin”.
***
The Moon gets two weeks of Sun directly on the side facing the Sun then two weeks of no Sun on the same face. The Moon does not rotate, it’s two week intervals are due to the positioning of the Moon in its orbit wrt the Sun.
I did not know that Earth is warmer on average but the extremes on the Moon are far greater due to each face getting two weeks of Sun at a time.
Yes, exactly.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” The Moon does not rotate… ”
” Yes, exactly ” ???
” It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ”
You contradict yourself here.
Ayez donc un peu plus de courage, Vournas! Cela ne vous fera certainement pas tort.
We are not justified to average 1362 W/m2 over the entire surface of the Earth. When hitting Earth, solar energy on the instant INTERACTS with Earth’s matter.
It is not like uniformly adding heat to the entire Earth surface area.
Ayez donc un peu plus de courage, Bindidon! Cela ne vous fera certainement pas tort.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
1. I was speaking about Moon’s rotation.
2. ” It is not like uniformly adding heat to the entire Earth surface area. ”
No experienced scientist claims that.
Even though I’m only a former engineer and not a scientist, let alone an experienced one, I don’t claim that either.
You simply misunderstand what scientists write.
Bindidon, Moon does NOT rotate. You appear to STILL be confusing its orbital motion with axial rotation. The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string clears it up, but you reject that reality. You refuse learning. You favor your false beliefs.
That ain’t science.
‘Average’ is the most misused (and misunderstood) statistic there is.
Moon DOES rotate on its axis. Fact.
RLH, we’re still waiting for your solution to the vector problem. It should be easy for you, since you work with vectors all the time?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036240
I don’t confuse anything.
Some people are just arrogant and ignorant enough to believe they can
– reduce Moon’s motion complexity to trivial nonsense and their own simple-minded, egocentric narrative
and above all
– discredit and denigrate scientists who know much more than they could ever learn.
I don’t belong to such people like do Clint R, Robertson, DREMT, bill hunter and a few newcomers.
Bindidon, all you have is your loyalty to your cult beliefs. You have NO science.
You reject the simple analogy, but yet you offer NOTHING in its place.
You can’t solve the easy vector problem.
Loyalty to false beliefs ain’t science.
Bindidon
“You simply misunderstand what scientists write.”
What scientists write and what I misunderstand?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle”
No it doesn’t. It moves in an ellipse.
Earthshine is incident only on the man in the moon face.
Sunshine is incident on all faces of our moon.
Christos (at times), Gordon, and Clint R aka “Cling” are correct wrt to Earth the moon does not rotate on its own axis while they are incorrect wrt to the sun since our moon inertially does rotate on its own axis.
The three amigos just never point out wrt to which object so commenters just have to realize or fill in their physical meaning at times.
Ball4
“Sunshine is incident on all faces of our moon.”
Lets consider a four wheels automobile, which wheels rotate on their own axis?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
wrt to which object Christos?
Vournas
The best example concerning what you manifestly misunderstand is this:
A. P. Smith
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
Gerlich tried to contradict him in 2009, but simply failed. Only lovers of pseudoscience think a posteriori he was able to.
Ball4
You write above:
” Christos (at times), Gordon, and Clint R aka Cling are correct wrt to Earth the moon does not rotate on its own axis… ”
This is simply wrong.
The Moon rotates about its own polar axis independently of the place in space from which it is considered.
If you were right, Tobias Mayer never would have been able to compute Moon’s rotation period and the inclination of its polar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic, let alone the selenocentric coordinates of Moon craters.
By the way: your eternal discourse about reference frames does not contribute to any increase of clarity in this discussion.
“By the way: your eternal discourse about reference frames does not contribute to any increase of clarity in this discussion.”
Hear, hear. Ball4 is just a waste of space.
RLH, you used that flimsy distraction before.
Someone might start to suspect you can’t really solve the simple problem. Like maybe you’re all talk and no action.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Binny’s constant handwaving contributes to less increase in clarity than B4’s simple remark. In fact it contributes to no increase at all. If he won’t even read the papers himself, why would his audience?
Bindidon, the A.P.Smith “proof” is another example of anti-science. After all his irrelevant blah-blah, he ends up with (bold my emphasis):
“The above analysis I believe completely establishes, within perfectly simple and appropriate theoretical physics constructs, the main points. Namely that assuming “the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation” leads to “a warming of the Earth’s surface” relative to firm limits established by basic physical principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared.”
It’s all “beliefs”. He never showed how CO2 can warm Earth’s surface.
That ain’t science.
Clint R
One thing is over 100 % sure: you do NOT belong to the people able to contradict even 0.001 % of what A.P. Smith wrote.
Your ‘competence’ is restricted to discrediting and denigrating anything what does not fit to your personal, egomaniac narrative.
You are CLINGING to a deprecated conception of science, Pup.
Empirical sciences nowadays come with assumptions and uncertainty.
A. P. Smith
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
It is very much mistaken. It claims:
Mercury has Te =439K, instead of the corrected Te =364K
Moon has Te =270K, instead of corrected Te =224K
Earth has Te =255K, instead of corrected Te =210K
Mars has Te =210K, instead of corrected Te =174K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint R: So are you trying to avoid your mistake or just trying for a distraction? It is well accepted that thing orbit in ellipses not perfect circles as you claim.
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. They are a complete red herring.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the right”. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the left”. The two motions are different, regardless of reference frame, therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions transcends reference frames. Eternal end of story.
This A.P.Smith “paper” is another example of the “peer-review” process and how hokey it is. One of the references was from that Pierrehumbert idiot that claimed Earth could reach 800,000K!
And there is this:
“And yet the observed average surface temperature on Earth and Venus significantly exceeds the effective radiative temperature set by the incoming solar radiation. This is not observed for the Moon or Mars. What makes Venus and Earth so different?”
He’s trying to link CO2 to surface temperatures, by cherry-picking planets. Put several layers of strawberries on Mars and Moon, and watch the temperature rise!
Yeah RLH, I knew you couldn’t solve the simple problem. You wouldn’t know a vector from a cucumber.
> The two motions are different, regardless of reference frame
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong once again:
A motion M can be described in many ways. How people “see” M is utterly irrelevant, except to explain why Moon Dragon cranks CLING to an egocentric view.
The two motions shown in the GIF are different, regardless of reference frame. Regardless of which reference frame you use, there will always be a difference between them. Not sure how many different ways I need to repeat that factual statement before it sinks in.
> two motions
Here’s where Kiddo’s wrong, once again:
First, each motion can be described in many ways. Each of the two motions the GIF from his Master Argument can be described in many ways. Some of them are equivalent as far as geometry is concerned.
Second, he’s conflating real with counterfactual behavior. “What would happen if” scenarios are not decided by appealing to geometry alone. The last point sinks the Moon Dragon cranks’ ship.
Hence why they CLING to the ad nauseam, and why it’s so much FUN!
#2
The two motions shown in the GIF are different, regardless of reference frame. Regardless of which reference frame you use, there will always be a difference between them. Not sure how many different ways I need to repeat that factual statement before it sinks in.
> Regardless of which reference frame you use, there will always be a difference between them.
Here are two another places where Kiddo’s wrong:
Third, even if description D1 and D2 are different, they could apply to motion M1 or M2 depending on the frame of reference. So his logic is faulty.
Fourth, the Moon (note the M) has only one motion.
#3
The two motions shown in the GIF are different, regardless of reference frame. Regardless of which reference frame you use, there will always be a difference between them. Not sure how many different ways I need to repeat that factual statement before it sinks in.
“”Christos (at times), Gordon, and Clint R aka Cling are correct wrt to Earth the moon does not rotate on its own axis…”
This is simply wrong.”
No, Bindidon, it is correct when those 3 observers are standing on our moon. Just like the ancients, in that accelerated ref. frame those 3 would correctly write/observe the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis under their feet. The universe would appear to rotate around our moon from that accelerated frame.
Eventually the ancients wised up, discovered more of the universe, and figured out reference frames do matter: the moon must be rotating on its own axis because it doesn’t make inertial sense for our moon to be the center of the universe so Christos (at times), DREMT, Clint R, and Gordon are wrong about our moon’s motion. Those 4 just haven’t wised up yet but I will venture a guess Bindidon can wise up. Give it a try.
Relativity IS hard, it took a lot of work by a lot of well grounded physics folks to figure it out.
As if any of us are saying the moon is at the center of the Universe. For goodness sake.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#2
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Clint R: Try navigation at sea without vectors and see how well you do.
Yeah RLH, I knew you couldn’t solve the simple problem. You wouldn’t know a vector from a kumquat.
As I said I do vectors and vector addition all the time. Unlike you who would know one if it bit you.
Likewise I understand mass, inertia, acceleration, reference frames from constant application. Unlike you who have no practical knowledge at all.
All your imagination, RLH. If you knew anything, you would solve the simple problem. You’re just another blog blowhard — all words but no action.
You wouldn’t know a vector from a spaghetti noodle.
Clint R: Do tell me where you are using vectors day to day.
The so-called moon-on-the-right is simply translating. It is in Curvilinear Translation according to Kinematics.
Because lines within the moon always point to the stars and never rotate, this moon does not have any rotation.
But the TEAM of morons insists that it does have rotation! In fact it has two rotations.
One from its orbital motion, and another from axial rotation, but they perfectly cancel!
Many problems with this idea.
a. It is pure invention from the minds of the TEAM
b. Strange that rotations on different axes can CANCEL each other, but the TEAM still insists it is certain which axes these rotations are on.
c. There is no observable evidence of these TWO independent rotations.
d. Thus this idea is not FALSIFIABLE by any test.
e. I could just as well claim there are 6 cancelling rotations, and 8 cancelling translations!
f. Because of (d) this idea is not science, it can only be classified as a religion, with 3 or 4 members.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-949521
Nate, your TEAM of morons include NASA, most universities and colleges, and several braindead cult idiots here. That’s exactly what they believe about Moon:
“But the TEAM of morons insists that it does have rotation! In fact it has two rotations.
One from its orbital motion, and another from axial rotation, but they perfectly cancel!”
********
RLH, here’s where you can use vectors today:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036240
As I thought you know nothing about vectors or orbits either.
“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°.”
Firstly, no object moves in an orbit in a circle.
Secondly, you use a vantage point (reference frame) that can ‘see’ things as being 90 degrees apart.
Yet you claim that you despise both.
“your TEAM of morons include NASA, most universities and colleges, and several braindead cult idiots here”
The alternative is that NASA, most universities and colleges, and various people on here are correct and it is you that is the braindead cult idiot.
Sorry RLH, the two options for the MOTL, which moves as per our moon, are as follows (according to Tim Folkerts, in the comment I linked to):
a) rotating about a stationary external axis [with no rotation about an internal axis].
b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis.
Notice there is no option for the MOTL to be rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. So NASA’s “synchronous rotation” term is definitely a misnomer. They should have called it “synchronous translation and rotation”.
Yeah RLH, I knew you couldn’t solve the simple problem. You wouldn’t know a vector from an aardvark.
In the link which pups posted above, they wrote:
Resultant vector? With this curious statement, does pups actually mean resultant force vector? Or, are the pups referring to the angular position vector as shown on the LH side of the cartoon?
A velocity or angular rotation vector can not “act” on a body, only a force or torque vector. Which is it pups?
Willard Jr, if you don’t like the terminology, substitute “…what is the resultant vector associated with the object”
There is nothing wrong with the problem. The problem is that you braindead cults idiots don’t have a clue about orbital motion, as demonstrated by your inability to solve the easy problem.
Which was the purpose of presenting the problem in the first place….
Clint R is wrong about everything, as usual.
He is quite unable to deal with vectors or points of view.
All he does is insist, quite incorrectly, that everybody else is wrong.
RLH, if you could solve the simple problem correctly, then you would have SOMETHING right.
But we know that’s not going to happen….
Clearly the concept of Falsifiability is way beyond the intellectual capability of the Moron Team.
That’s correct Nate. You morons don’t have the intellectual capability to recognize that the ball-on-a-string falsifies your Moon beliefs. Orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation always has the same side facing the inside of the orbit.
pups thinks that this is a better statement:
Of course, pups still hasn’t defined it’s “vector” in a quantitative sense. For example, the basic question of which coordinate system is used is never defined. And, pups has never specified the location of that external axis about which the Moon is supposedly rotating. Where is the center of rotation wrt the elliptical coordinates? pups never gives these important details.
As predicted, Willard Jr. would be unable to solve the simple problem.
He can’t even understand it, let alone solve it!
It’s called “braindead”.
Clint R is still wrong as always. He does not know or deal with vectors on a regular basis. Or mass, inertia, and acceleration with large masses. In fact he is useless about everything scientific.
Orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation always has the same side facing towards a fixed star.
“Orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation always has the same side facing the inside of the orbit.”
And there we have it. They just repeat their beliefs like a mantra, over and over, and they think that is an argument. It is a religious cult.
It isnt an argument. But I’m sure it is comforting to them, like saying three hail-Marys. It cleanses all their sins.
“Orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation always has the same side facing towards a fixed star”
RLH repeats his beliefs like a mantra, still wrong as always.
“Synchronous rotation: Describes the rotation of an object that always shows the same face to an object that it is orbiting because its rotation period and orbital period are equal.”
Makes perfect sense. There are two independent motions. Translation and rotation.
When the translation is on an elliptical orbit, the two motions have different angular velocities, which gives Libration, which is easily observed.
Hence the two motions are detectable.
Of course if MOTL is just one motion, ‘just orbiting’, there is nothing else to be synchronous with.
OTOH the TEAM imagines the MOTR involves two hidden cancelling rotations, and thus it should be called ‘synchronous rotation’, but of course it isnt.
Because science is not in the habit of naming things that have never been observed and are fictional.
Something for the “Spinners” to think about…
…if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion (motion in which the orientation of the object doesn’t change), how could there be such a thing as “orbital angular velocity” when:
“angular velocity or rotational velocity (ω or Ω), also known as angular frequency vector,[1] is a vector measure of rotation rate, that refers to how fast an object rotates or revolves relative to another point, i.e. how fast the angular position or orientation of an object changes with time.”
For there to be “orbital angular velocity”, “orbital motion without axial rotation” needs to be a rotation about an external axis. Not translation.
“if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is translational motion (motion in which the orientation of the object doesnt change), how could there be such a thing as ‘orbital angular velocity'”
Because ‘orbital angular velocity’ is a orbit of the object wrt the ‘center’. This does not require or need any motion about an axis of the object in orbit.
Interesting that DREMT brings up angular velocity when ‘nobody he is responding to’ brings it up.
The charade continues.
Angular velocity happens whenever an angle is changing.
For those who are unclear:
“In Euclidean geometry, an angle is the figure formed by two rays, called the sides of the angle, sharing a common endpoint, called the vertex of the angle”
Clearly, when an object is orbiting around a barycenter, an angle can be determined between two of its positions on the orbit wrt to the barycenter.
But again, some people need to learn that words can be used in different contexts, and this doesnt imply the contexts are equivalent!
In a ROTATION, only angular change is occurring. No other variables are changing.
This motion can be reproduced by viewing a static object thru a camera that is rotating on its axis.
In a Kepler orbit, the planet changes its ANGULAR position AND its RADIAL distance from the barycenter. Thus two variables are changing.
This motion cannot be reproduced by simply rotating a camera placed directly over the barycenter, while viewing a motionless planet.
So anyone claiming a Kepler orbit is simply a rotation is simply mistaken.
“Because ‘orbital angular velocity’ is a orbit of the object wrt the ‘center’. This does not require or need any motion about an axis of the object in orbit.”
According to the more kinematics-literate “Spinners”, the MOTL can be seen as an example of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, and the MOTR can be seen as an example of “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”. As angular velocity specifically relates to rotation, not translation, it would make more sense that the MOTL be described as having an orbital angular velocity but no spin angular velocity. That being the case, the MOTR would have both orbital angular velocity and spin angular velocity.
And this is a good time to remind people how Orbit is defined.
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
In fact, Newton’s solution of the 2-body gravity problem gives the Kepler observed orbit. And it is indeed simply a PATH. It finds specifies a series of x,y,z positions in space.
For a Kepler orbit, the COM of a planet, a POINT, is what is following the PATH.
The angle in a Kepler/Newton Orbit is simple the angle between two xyz positions of the COM POINT along the orbital path.
There is NO orientation or rotation specified or required for a planet to be in an ORBIT.
This is obvious from the many different rotation rates and axes of the planets orbiting in our solar system.
Anyone claiming that an orientation or rotation rate is specified for an Orbit is obviously mistaken.
“As angular velocity specifically relates to rotation, not translation, it would make more sense that the MOTL be described as having an orbital angular velocity but no spin angular velocity. That being the case, the MOTR would have both orbital angular velocity and spin angular velocity.”
Saying that one’s belief ‘would make more sense’ is not an argument based on evidence or logic.
“As angular velocity specifically relates to rotation”
Again, some people who see a word used in DIFFERENT contexts and claim that implies the DIFFERENT contexts must be equivalent, are mistaken and being rather dishonest.
See eg
“Angle-to present something from a particular or prejudiced point of view : SLANT”
It is obvious from the above that people need to distinguish between an orbital path and the orientation of an object on that path.
The “Spinners” include orientation in their understanding of “orbital motion without axial rotation” as well. They believe that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star.
Spinners believe ORBIT simply means translation on a path, thus lines within the orbiting object remain pointing in the same, unspecified direction. They believe ‘without rotation’ means without rotation.
And an orbit WITH rotation means the object has rotation.
There are no contradictions here.
#2
The “Spinners” include orientation in their understanding of “orbital motion without axial rotation” as well. They believe that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star.
Ball4,
With nothing of substance to offer, looks like hes just going to keep repeating himself, while falsely accusing others of what he does himself, until he gets the last word.
Today was a big ‘last word’ effort by the DREMT troll, with 16 last word attempts.
#3
The “Spinners” include orientation in their understanding of “orbital motion without axial rotation” as well. They believe that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star.
17 last-word attempts, and one false accusation of the same today.
What a mensch!
#4
The “Spinners” include orientation in their understanding of “orbital motion without axial rotation” as well. They believe that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star.
Nate says:
December 12, 2021 at 12:27 PM, ”Spinners believe ORBIT simply means translation on a path, thus lines within the orbiting object remain pointing in the same, unspecified direction. They believe without rotation means without rotation. And an orbit WITH rotation means the object has rotation. There are no contradictions here.”
and on: December 11, 2021 at 7:31 AM, ”The so-called moon-on-the-right is simply translating. It is in Curvilinear Translation according to Kinematics. Because lines within the moon always point to the stars and never rotate, this moon does not have any rotation. But the TEAM of morons insists that it does have rotation! In fact it has two rotations. One from its orbital motion, and another from axial rotation, but they perfectly cancel!”
Of course the contradiction is not contained within the realm of the definition of a rotation. Thats because folks rely on rote memory build their world on definitions and lack the vision to see the underlying logic of physics.
The contradiction arises in the physics and not the definition of a rotation. The physics demand two rotations and not one.
Nate wrongly claims the two rotation arguement put forth by the non-spinners would perfectly cancel and result in no rotations. But Nate couldn’t be more wrong.
Only a portion of the angular momentum of the moon would be opposed by a second rotation on its own axis to maintain its alignment with the stars.
The total angular momentum of the moon is much greater than the amount of angular momentum necessary to maintain the orientation of the moons particles with the distant stars.
Therefore, there is a residual angular momentum for the moon on the right that is attributable to the orbital motion.
And thus there is a contradiction in the physics because: ”When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero”
So an orbital rotation cannot be denied. It is demanded by the physics surrounding the definitions.
Therefore the only non-contradictory solution is: 1) a single motion of rotation would produce the moon on the left. and 2) the moon on the right must be rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis. Recognizing two rotations survives all of Nate’s objections and is necessary to avoid a contradiction in the physics if one were adopt Nate’s flawed argument.
Nate says:
December 12 ”Spinners believe ORBIT simply means translation on a path…. There are no contradictions here.”
and December 11 ”But the TEAM…. insists that it does have rotation! In fact it has two rotations. One from its orbital motion, and another from axial rotation, but they perfectly cancel!”
—————————
Nate wrongly claims the two rotation argument demands cancellation of all angular momentum.
In fact, only a portion of the angular momentum of the moon would be opposed by a second rotation.
Therefore, there is a residual angular momentum for the moon on the right that is attributable to the orbital motion.
And thus there is a contradiction in the physics because: ”When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero”
Therefore the only non-contradictory solution is: 1) a single motion of rotation would produce the moon on the left. and 2) the moon on the right must be rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis.
Nate says: Spinners believe ORBIT simply means translation on a path. There are no contradictions here.
——————-
What spinners need to provide is a rational argument that no contradiction exists rather than just claiming it.
There appears to be a strong contradiction. The rule is: ”When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero.” Yet physics widely acknowledges that most of the angular momentum of the moon is attributable to its orbit. It causes the moon’s angular momentum to exceed the spin angular momentum of the earth’s diurnal spin. So how can that be reconciled with the notion that an orbit is a translation?
If this argument is true then the only logical configuration of the moon’s rotation is that the moon on the left has a single rotating motion, and the moon on the right has that also plus a counter rotation on its internal axis to maintain the orientation of its particles with the stars.
“The rule is: ‘When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero.'”
Not aware of this ‘rule’, Bill. Pls show us from which orifice it came.
Come on Nate some simple Google searches will turn up dozens of references.
In fact one you can turn up is a source you first provided in the September thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-931980
The Wang course on Kinematics and Dynamics describes this fact. Only thing you have to do to find it is move forward from Week 6 of the course you referenced to on to week 8.
Here Wang says:
1. Pure Translation: When a rigid body is subjected to only curvilinear or rectilinear translation, the rotational kinetic energy is zero.
Here is another. Prof. Albert S.Kim, Univ of Hawaii, CEE 271 Aoplied Mechanics II, Dynamics
”When a rigid body undergoes
rectilinear or curvilinear
translation, its angular
momentum is zero because
ω = 0”
Don’t put words in my mouth, DREMT!
FIRST
DREMT: “the two options for the MOTL, which moves as per our moon, are as follows (according to Tim Folkerts … ”
Actually the MOTL does NOT move ‘as per our our moon’, since MOTL is a perfect circle, whereas our moon is an ellipse. This is a subtle but important distinction.
SECOND
DREMT shows his misunderstanding by trying to ‘clarify’ what I said.
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.)
DREMT: “a) rotating about a stationary external axis [with no rotation about an internal axis].
b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis.
These are not two mutually exclusive descriptions of the motion, but two complementary descriptions. The circular motion of the MOTL can be described as rotating about either axis (or indeed about an infinite number of axes).
(If you wanted to say “rotating about a stationary external axis [with no ADDITIONAL rotation about an internal axis]” I could go with that. )
The importance of the first point is that the REAL moon in a REAL elliptical orbit:
1) can be described as (b) translating in an ellipse and rotating about its own axis
2) cannot be described as (a) ‘rotating in an ellipse about an external axis’.
“The circular motion of the MOTL can be described as rotating about either axis (or indeed about an infinite number of axes).”
Incorrect, Tim. You obviously do not understand rotation. There is only one possible axis of rotation for the MOTL. If you go with describing its motion as a translation plus an axial rotation, then that one axis of rotation is in the center of the moon itself. If you go with describing its motion as a rotation about an external axis, then the axis of rotation is in the center of the white circle, external to the moon itself. Either way, there is only one axis of rotation.
But bill hunter just settled the entire moon issue, anyway. The “Spinners” erroneously think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion. As bill just showed, ”When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero because ω = 0”. Orbiting bodies are meant to have orbital angular velocity and momentum, Tim. Hence “orbital motion without axial rotation” must be motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR.
“Here Wang says:
1. Pure Translation: When a rigid body is subjected to only curvilinear or rectilinear translation, the rotational kinetic energy is zero.”
Yep. And there is no contradiction between that statement, and the body still having angular momentum.
Review angular momentum, Bill.
“When a rigid body undergoes
rectilinear or curvilinear
translation, its angular
momentum is zero because
ω = 0”
Link for this quote?
There is NO POINT in arguing physics via random out-of-context quotes.
You have to understand physics fundamentals, which you clearly do not seem to.
The fundamentals of angular momentum are that it is defined by
L = rxp, where r and p are vectors. r is radial distance from a point and p is momentum.
That means that any object with translational momentum, p, can have angular momentum around a point a distance r away, unless r and p are perfectly parallel.
“Incorrect, Tim. You obviously do not understand rotation.”
Sure, PhD physicist Tim, doesnt understand rotation.. But science-denier DREMT understands it much better!
Hilarious. And DREMT contradicts his own statements regarding MOTL being describable in differtent ways.
“But bill hunter just settled the entire moon issue, anyway.”
Also hilarious, because Bill has no idea what he is talking about!
So we have tag-team Bill and DREMT who regularly get fundamental physics all wrong, but have no problem man-splaining physics to two physicists, using random out-of-context quotes as evidence.
Nate says:
Link for this quote?
———————-
Google it. I quoted the author and title of the source. Its on the web and in fact there is more than one source. All you need to help you is Google and a willingness to learn something.
Anyway you must be in full on obfuscation mode. Its absurd that anybody with physics training would claim that angular momentum is not a component of rotational kinetic energy.
=
=
=
=
Nate says:
There is NO POINT in arguing physics via random out-of-context quotes.
—————-
Hmmmmm, especially when you are losing so badly? Anyway they are not out of context. I provided you the sources.
The score must be up to something like 21 to nothing. Starting right from the top with Madhavi from DREMT many moons ago.
Yes I recognize that the angular momentum of the moon can be mathematically devolved into an orbital angular momentum and a spin angular momentum. . . .a fact that makes space travel manageable like driving down a road with curves, taking each curve sequentially.
But all the quotes you have provided simply focuses on individual parts of that sequence. . . .while ignoring the physical facts that make them part of a single motion.
The differences are the raison d’etre for a course in kinematics.
What you fail to understand is the angular momentum of the moon includes its orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, the two cannot be separated except for visitation and observation.
in reality. One goes hand in hand with the other and you need another force to create another motion to change that relationship.
And the reason that is true is any and all rigid structures that operate as a unit have friction that brings about a rotation where all the components move synchronously unless a rotational kinetic energy from a different motion is present.
Astronomy finds it a great simplification to consider the mathematically devolved components separately. However you are completely alone (beyond the rest of those with little real world experience with physics and lacking discipline to not make up stuff) in your claim the moon’s orbit is a translation.
=
=
=
=
Nate stupidly says:
You have to understand physics fundamentals, which you clearly do not seem to.
The fundamentals of angular momentum are that it is defined by
L = rxp, where r and p are vectors. r is radial distance from a point and p is momentum.
That means that any object with translational momentum, p, can have angular momentum around a point a distance r away, unless r and p are perfectly parallel.
——————-
The difference Nate, among other facts, is angular momentum is part of rotational kinetic energy and translational momentum is not. I gave you the sources that establish that fact.
If you insist on being a denier please provide even one source that disputes any of the above.
As far as I am concerned you are just a loud mouth who knows nothing real about physics. Yes you might have actually been on the ‘leave no kids behind’ program through some kind of pay as you go program; but apparently it didn’t amount to much of anything for you. . . .maybe you teach. . . .I wouldn’t be surprised. There a lot of such folks polluting kids minds these days. . . .its not unlike a virus while all it does for the kids is pile up debt. I wouldn’t say that based on this one topic but it seems you do the same thing with every topic you get involved in.(bringing extrapolations from textbooks to life and claim the extrapolations as new discoveries). CO2 as the primary cause of climate change being the largest. Having lots of company on that one can be audited by the money trail that creates it.
“There is only one possible axis of rotation for the MOTL. “
* Get an x-y plotter and have the platform *translate* uniformly in a circle.
* Mount a small electric motor vertically at the center of the platform.
* Mount a little image of the moon on the axle.
* set the motor to rotate once every time the platform translates in its circle.
This recreates *exactly* the “MOTL”. I think you will agree the axle is rotating about the axis of the motor. And thus so is the image of the moon.
One last quick reply. There are various comments about angular momentum for rectilinear or curvilinear motion. This is a bit subtle.
For *pure* rectilinear or curvilinear motion (the object maintains the same orientation), the “spin angular momentum” is zero. Ie measured from a coordinate system moving with the object, its angular momentum is L = I(omega) and omega is zero, so L = 0.
There can still be “orbital angular momentum” of the object as a whole measured from a fixed coordinate system. This is calculated as L = r x p. Since r & p can be non-zero, the orbital angular momentum is typically non-zero (and in fact depends on the origin you chose).
If the object is both translating AND rotating, then you add the two angular momenta and you get the total angular momentum.
Read the whole paragraph, Tim. Don’t just quote one sentence, and then go on to miss the point completely.
"There is only one possible axis of rotation for the MOTL. If you go with describing its motion as a translation plus an axial rotation, then that one axis of rotation is in the center of the moon itself. If you go with describing its motion as a rotation about an external axis, then the axis of rotation is in the center of the white circle, external to the moon itself. Either way, there is only one axis of rotation."
Nate says:
Also hilarious, because Bill has no idea what he is talking about!
So we have tag-team Bill and DREMT who regularly get fundamental physics all wrong, but have no problem man-splaining physics to two physicists, using random out-of-context quotes as evidence.
———————–
Nate is just going to ignore the so-called out-of-context quotes all have references to the full context. Nate that is how science communication is done. Don’t dispute me and DREMT work on the professors making the quotes. Provide your own references. Either than or throw in the towel. You are putting up about the same amount of opposition as a bop bag.
“L = rxp, where r and p are vectors. r is radial distance from a point and p is momentum.
That means that any object with translational momentum, p, can have angular momentum around a point a distance r away, unless r and p are perfectly parallel.”
——————-
“The difference Nate, among other facts, is angular momentum is part of rotational kinetic energy and translational momentum is not. I gave you the sources that establish that fact.”
Huh??
Angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy are different quantities!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Are you denying this equation? Are you denying the math?
It really is quite ludicrous to keep trying to man-splain a subject that you clearly don’t have a good handle on, to people who work in that profession.
Where is your source for the out-of-context quotes?
Lets see here is what Tim stated:
” The circular motion of the MOTL can be described as rotating about either axis (or indeed about an infinite number of axes)”
Here is Bill’s source.
http://facstaff.cbu.edu/pshiue/Courses/ME202/Notes/Ch19_1_19_2.pdf
And as expected, the missing CONTEXT of the random quote is:
“The angular momentum of a rotating two-dimensional rigid
body about its CENTER OF MASS G is:”
then examples are shown where the object has no rotation around its COM and thus has no angular momentum.
Then when the axis is moved off of the COM, the object has angular momentum mvr.
Nate says:
Angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy are different quantities!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
—————————-
Nate your source does not even try to say rotational and translational kinetic energy are the same. In physics, angular momentum (rarely, moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.
And I never claimed angular momentum is the same as rotational kinetic energy. You are just a liar.
You even lack a random out of context quote much less a source to take my claim on without trying to build a strawman.
Your source does say: ”The angular momentum is the same at every point on an orbit.” that is something very hard to imitate in any non-rigid system. . . .or impossible without constant correction.
Space travel uses the same incomplete/devolved/imperfect concepts as astronomy and deals with it by providing the necessary corrections at the right times using both active and passive technologies.
As I have said repeatedly you academics take inculcated concepts as reality until reality deals you into the game.
The difference between rotational KE and translational KE is:
Rotational Translational
I=∑jmjr2j m
K=12Iω2 K=12mv2
Translational KE has no ω as noted by the Professor Kim source I gave you.
Here read this maybe you will begin to understand but I am not holding my breath.
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/10-4-moment-of-inertia-and-rotational-kinetic-energy
“As I have said repeatedly you academics take inculcated concepts as reality until reality deals you into the game.”
Bill uses the word ‘inculcated’ whenever he is caught getting science completely wrong.
Somehow using correct science is bad, while being ignorant of correct science is good.
In this instance his random out of context quote
“When a rigid body undergoes
rectilinear or curvilinear
translation, its angular
momentum is zero because
ω = 0”
the context he missed is that this is referring to angular momentum about the COM.
Thus a planet in orbit undergoing curvilinear translation, like the MOTR, has zero angular momentum around its COM. IOW it has no axial rotation. As spinners agree.
But it DOES have orbital angular momentum, mvr, about the orbit center.
According to Bill’s own source:
“When a rigid body is subjected to general plane motion, both the linear momentum and the angular momentum computed about the COM, (called G) are required.
p = m VG
LG = IGw
The angular momentum about point A is LA = IGw + mVGd”
where d is the distance to a point A, and has rotation around its COM, w.
IOW for an object orbiting around point A, that also has rotation w around its COM, its angular momentum has an Orbital part, mvr and a Spin part, Iw.
And just to remind Bill, what this part of the argument was about was his statement:
“There appears to be a strong contradiction. The rule is: ‘When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero.'”
So the fact-check of this ‘rule’ shows it is a Pants on Fire.
There is no contradiction with an Orbit being a curvilinear translation.
Nate says:
According to Bills own source:
”When a rigid body is subjected to general plane motion, both the linear momentum and the angular momentum computed about the COM, (called G) are required.
p = m VG
LG = IGw
The angular momentum about point A is LA = IGw + mVGd”
————————–
Beyond pointing out that a general plane motion is not the translation that Nate considers the moons rotation around the earth’s COM to be. A general plane motion is not a rotation nor is it a translation.
Your argument that the moons orbit is a curvilinear translation fails on DREMTs comment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1083912
”There is only one possible axis of rotation for the MOTL.
If you go with describing its motion as a translation plus an axial rotation, then that one axis of rotation is in the center of the moon itself.
If you go with describing its motion as a rotation about an external axis, then the axis of rotation is in the center of the white circle, external to the moon itself.
Either way, there is only one axis of rotation.”
So we have the fact that a translation does not have angular momentum.
”When a rigid body undergoes
rectilinear or curvilinear
translation, its angular
momentum is zero because
ω = 0”
and you need to reconcile your view of all this with your statement above: ”That means that any object with translational momentum, p, can have angular momentum around a point a distance r away”
So what is ‘r’ Nate the radius of the moon or the radius of the orbit?
In other words a translation can be an element of angular momentum but a translation never has angular momentum as you need to keep your r’s in the right place.
Going back to your source on the angular momentum of a particle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
noting that the different particles of an object have different angular momentums because of a variation of r we have a science reference contributed by you that shows a ellipse does not change anything other than make it a more complicated calculation and directly states that this fact leads to one of Kepler’s laws as I have repeatedly pointed out to your obstinate denial.
So if you want to continue the argument pick an ‘r’ and stick with it. Once you do that then we can comprehend where the fixed axis is you are using to compute angular momentum.
Lets sum up:
First the argument that an ellipse is not a rotation is debunked by Nates weblink here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
The first slide shows how to calculate the angular momentum of a single particle of an object that is moving in an ellipse. Nate and Tim’s arguments here are completely obliterated.
Second moving on to how to calculate the angular momentum of an object around fixed axis or any random point Nate provided the second weblink here:
http://facstaff.cbu.edu/pshiue/Courses/ME202/Notes/Ch19_1_19_2.pdf
The key slides are slides 7,8,and 9.
First slide 7 depicts why a translation has no angular momentum.
Slide 8 depicts a rotation around a fixed axis and calculates two different angular momentums for it.
a) The first one is around point G which could be a translating axis or any point where the rotation provides particles moving in circles around the point.
Separately and not part of that angular momentum is a calculation of the linear momentum that derives from any translation of point G, but it is not part of the moon’s angular momentum around point G as point G’s angular momentum stands complete and alone without a translation.
Slide 8 continues to state that sometimes its convenient to calculate the angular momentum around a fixed axis O.
Here the linear momentum from the translation is modified by r to convert it to an angular momentum.
This considers everything but the motion of the realignment of the individual particles of the object with respect to each other. This conveniently and logically equals the angular momentum about point G.
So these two angular momentums are added to together to give the angular momentum about the fixed axis O.
Neither of those angular momentums can standalone as a rotation around a fixed axis. Both are required for the angular momentum around a fixed axis and if the translational-like element is zero then it doesn’t matter. So its an error to devolve this equation into two motions.
Finally slide 9 deals with general plane motion that doesn’t involve a fixed axis but instead a object in general plane motion that and is not either a rotation nor a translation.
Here no fixed axis is present but an angular momentum about a random point perpendicular to the translation direction can be derived for points needed for special purposes in the same way that the angular momentum about a fixed axis can be calculated.
A reason why an expert might use slide 9 is exemplified in this video.
So we should give Nate a hearty thank you for providing two excellent sources that completely debunks his position on the matter.
Bill,
You are missing key points in here, because AGAIN, you don’t really get the fundamentals of angular momentum and refuse to learn from those of us who do.
“First slide 7 depicts why a translation has no angular momentum.”
Yes indeed when the translation is THRU the COM and the angular momentum is measured around the COM.
That is NOT the case for a planet in orbit around an external point.
“Separately and not part of that angular momentum is a calculation of the linear momentum that derives from any translation of point G, but it is not part of the moon’s angular momentum around point G as point G’s angular momentum stands complete and alone without a translation.”
Yes indeed! Again around point G, the COM!
“Slide 8 continues to state that sometimes its convenient to calculate the angular momentum around a fixed axis O.
Here the linear momentum from the translation is modified by r to convert it to an angular momentum.”
Exactly as I have been telling you! This is relevant for an orbiting planet or moon. The angular momentum now has an ORBITAL component mvr.
“So these two angular momentums are added to together to give the angular momentum about the fixed axis O.
Neither of those angular momentums can standalone as a rotation around a fixed axis. Both are required for the angular momentum around a fixed axis and if the translational-like element is zero then it doesn’t matter. So its an error to devolve this equation into two motions.”
Exactly as I have been telling you, Bill, there are two terms, ORBITAL and SPIN angular momentum that are relevant for an orbiting planet or moon.
And if the SPIN component is zero, then we still have the translational component, MVR, remaining.
THUS, as I have been repeatedly saying, an ORBIT is a translation and DOES HAVE angular momentum, known as ORBITAL angular momentum.
NO rotation is required for an orbit to have angular momentum.
Yes, bill, “in physics, angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum”.
The “rotational equivalent”, i.e. rotation should be required for an object to have angular momentum. So “orbital motion without axial rotation” would be motion like the MOTL, a rotation about an external axis. That settles that, and your quote:
”When a rigid body undergoes rectilinear or curvilinear translation, its angular momentum is zero because ω = 0”
is the icing on the cake. Of course the usual suspects will prattle on about how it “only applies to the spin angular momentum, and not the orbital angular momentum”, but why should it? Since “angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum” we should not be assigning orbital angular momentum to objects that are in curvilinear translation. Physics needs a shake up on this. It’s time people started getting it right.
Nate says:
Bill,
You are missing key points in here, because AGAIN, you don’t really get the fundamentals of angular momentum and refuse to learn from those of us who do.
“First slide 7 depicts why a translation has no angular momentum.”
Yes indeed when the translation is THRU the COM and the angular momentum is measured around the COM.
That is NOT the case for a planet in orbit around an external point.
——————————–
Nate you are failing to comprehend your own weblinks. There is no angular momentum associated with the translation of the moon’s COM axis around the moon’s COM because the moon’s COM axis doesn’t go around itself. There is only linear momentum from it speeding through space in translation.
The translation-like motion of an orbit around the COM of earth though does add angular momentum to the rotation of the moon around the earth’s COM. That is in addition to the angular momentum calculated around point G.
But you cannot devolve the calculation of the angular momentum around the earths COM or Point A into individual components and still call it the angular momentum of the moon going around the earth.
Where you are confused is point G in the diagrams can be the moon’s COM or any other point within the perimeter of the moon. It could be a chalked circle on a merry-go-round disk and an angular momentum can be associated with it but the translation of that point does not add to that angular momentum.
So angular momentum calculations around Fixed Axis O or Point A are done in the same way. The difference in kinematics is the former is classified as a single motion rotation and the other a single motion general plane motion that is neither a rotation nor a translation.
So we could belabor this argument arguing about whether the earth’s COM is a fixed axis or a point A associated with a general plane motion. But that argument leads absolutely nowhere.
In the case of the rotation around fixed axis O or Point A the translation-like motion of the moon’s axis does add to the angular momentum in the same way.
So you are totally mired down in your own links and cannot point to an argument that the angular momentum around the moon’s COM includes any orbital angular momentum associated with the translation of that axis. Which of course you see as ridiculous because Point G cannot go around itself.
The confusion and lack of understanding is fully on your side. So if you need to have the confusion further straightened out point to specific points I am making so I can address them.
Thus a planet in orbit undergoing curvilinear translation, like the MOTR, has zero angular momentum around its COM. IOW it has no axial rotation. As spinners agree.
————————
You could build a machine that simulates that motion but it would require another force to produce a rotation that exactly counter acts the force that produces friction and zero rotation of the moon with respect to the COM of earth.
That is why non-spinners maintain that the MOTR is two rotations in opposition to each other. . . .namely two different torques each capable of producing a rotation are in play. That plays well into the concept of a moon with an independent spin resulting from some historic torque/cataclysmic event that produced the spin. But in the latter instance that spin is being eroded by the torque produced by the friction that earth’s gravity asserts on the moon. Conclusion has to be that your translating moon is merely conceptual unless you can explain a potential source of that secondary torque.
Nate says:
IOW for an object orbiting around point A, that also has rotation w around its COM, its angular momentum has an Orbital part, mvr and a Spin part, Iw.
——————-
Indeed but neither part can stand alone and thus neither part is a translation.
Its essentially the same calculation for a rotation around a fixed axis. Seems to be a fixed axis as it never changes and has an explicit location in the COM of earth; whereas a general plane motion is merely a random selected fixed point in space.
That suggests that a difference between a fixed axis and a random fixed point in space is you can identify the location of a fixed axis via a rigid connection to the moon from the COM of earth. At any rate that’s the point used by scientists. When you use random points the angular momentum will be different with each point as ‘d’ changes its value.
That brings us full circle to your other link that shows a Kepler ellipse qualifies as a rotation. It also has a changing ‘r’ that doesn’t change angular momentum because of a corresponding change in velocity. And the sum of those ‘r’s doesn’t change the angular momentum of the corresponding circular orbit with the same angular momentum.
Its hard to keep count of all how many ignorant claims these sources of yours debunk.
Not the least of which is the fact that rectilinear and curvilinear translations have no angular momentum associated with your longterm insistence that the moon does not rotate around the earth.
But what we have here are a multitude of conceptual student inculcated inanities that are neither true nor false but definitely don’t correspond to any known real engineering design that produces the moon’s rotation around the earth’s COM.
“The translation-like motion of an orbit around the COM of earth though does add angular momentum”
Yes, We agree on that!
“to the rotation of the moon around the earths COM.”
That is not angular momentum, so it cannot be added in.
“That is in addition to the angular momentum calculated around point G.”
Yes!
To summarize, what we agree on is that there are two terms, Orbital and Spin angular momentum for an orbiting object like the Moon around the Earth.
If there is no Spin angular momentum there still remains orbital angular momentum which arises purely from the Translation of an orbiting object around an external point.
That describes the MOTR.
“we should not be assigning orbital angular momentum to objects that are in curvilinear translation. Physics needs a shake up on this. Its time people started getting it right.”
And here some are finally admitting that their view doesnt agree with physics!
Gee this is great Nate! I didn’t see any disagreement.
I heard:
No more claims the orbit of the moon around the earth is a translation.
No more claims the orbit of the moon around the earth isn’t a rotation.
No more claims the orbit of the moon can’t be a rotation because it is an ellipse.
No more claims that the orbit of the moon cannot be a rotation because it librates!
No more claims that the so-called moon-on-the-right is simply translating.
No more claims that its not possible for all particles on a moon in an elliptical orbit to move concentrically, and satisfy conservation of angular momentum.
No more claims that there is no material connection between the Moon and Earth.
No more claims that an object in an elliptical orbit simply cannot stay oriented along its path without violating conservation of angular momentum.
No more claims that the rotation of the moon around the earth’s COM is just two independent motions. Translation and rotation.
I have to say Nate it appears that you have learned a lot.
I suppose all that is left is to get into the discussion as to whether the most realistic static situation for the MOTR is that it has its rotation around the earth while maintaining one face turned to earth and that rotation must opposed by a rotation on the moon’s internal axis.
“I heard:
No more claims the orbit of the moon around the earth is a translation.”
Never claimed that, so..
All of the rest are non-sequiturs.
None of it follows from what we agreed to and the discussion we just had.
Just face the reality that physics does not agree with your beliefs, as DREMT just did.
Sure is a long winded thread, yet we may find the truth. Hunter wrote:
In Nate’s reference it refers to: a “rotating two-dimensional rigid body about its center of mass G”, so the point G in the Moon would be the Moon’s CoM, not some arbitrary point.
Later, the analysis begins with: “Establish the x, y, z inertial frame of reference”. Thus, to discuss the Moon’s motions, all angles must be defined against an inertial frame of reference. It should be abundantly clear by now that measuring the Moon’s rotation against an inertial reference frame with origin at the Moon’s CoM proves that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
E. Swanson says:
It should be abundantly clear by now that measuring the Moons rotation against an inertial reference frame with origin at the Moons CoM proves that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
——————————-
What should be abundantly clear to you Swanson is the moon’s rotation around a fixed axis results in what all rotations for which fixed axes result in unless there is some outside force to prevent it.
Name the source of this torque and maybe you will have an argument but the torque must overcome the friction created by the earth’s gravity so that the moon falls into the same pattern all rotations around fixed axes do.
Indeed you can play around with math and estimate the rotational kinetics of such a system and attribute it to some torque putting a spin on the moon’s axis. . . .but a design engineer would never make such an lousy design. The KISS principle favors a rotation around the earth’s COM and by virtue of that rotation the moon rotates in time.
Certainly for many purposes like navigation it doesn’t matter how you view the moon’s rotation. But all this nonsense that it has to be that way is just ridiculous.
“It should be abundantly clear by now that measuring the Moon’s rotation against an inertial reference frame with origin at the Moon’s CoM proves that the Moon rotates once an orbit.”
1) According to bobdroege, a reference frame with the origin at the moon’s CoM cannot be an inertial reference frame, because the moon is accelerating.
2) If you put the origin of your reference frame through the CoM of Mt. Everest, and align your coordinate system axes with the fixed stars, you could similarly convince yourself that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, once per day. However, we all know that Swanson agrees with the “Non-Spinners” that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, once per day. I expect Swanson will still not understand the point I am making.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Physics needs a shake up on this. It’s time people started getting it right.
—————-
Yep it appears it doesn’t get straightened out until it gets over into the Engineering Department. . . .there they actually have to prepare their people for licensure. . . .no more fairy tales.
Hunter wrote more BS:
Quantify the “friction” torque which you claim to exist. You know, use math, not a cartoon. The primary effect of the Earth’s gravity on the Moon is to change the velocity vector of the CoM, not it’s rotational vector, which, BTW, is not perpendicular to the orbital plane. And, while you are at it, please provide a mathematical precise location for your postulated external center of rotation, given that the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse, not a circle, thus it can not be the center of the Earth as you claim.
If you really want a KISS description, it’s that the Moon’s motion is a combination of a translation of the CoM in an orbital path due to the forcing of gravity, coupled to a constant rate of rotation around an axis thru that CoM.
Swanson ignores my comment, as he must.
pups, For every coordinate system, there are 6 degrees of freedom, 3 translations and 3 rotations. For reference frames which are inertial in rotation, the vectors for rotation of a body are parallel with those in all other such inertial reference frames. Placing the origin of an inertial frame at the COM of the Moon allows one to easily prove that the Moon is rotating wrt inertial space. To mathematically describe the translational motions of the Moon wrt the Earth or the Earth wrt the Sun, different origins are required.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response, Swanson. Read what I actually wrote, and try again to write a response, this time one which attempts to deal with the argument that I made. If not, your point about reference frames stands eternally refuted. Thank you for your cooperation.
pups, Mt. Everest is not a Free Body, but is connected to and moves with the rest of the Earth. Thus, it has no separate CoM and there can be no axis of rotation thru it, except, perhaps in your deluded brain.
Troll on, clown.
Swanson, I agree that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. Did you miss the point again!? Re-read the comment and try to be a bit more intelligent. Yes, obviously I am well aware that Mt. Everest is attached to the Earth. That is completely besides the point.
Swanson says:
If you really want a KISS description, its that the Moons motion is a combination of a translation of the CoM in an orbital path due to the forcing of gravity, coupled to a constant rate of rotation around an axis thru that CoM.
—————————–
It might be helpful to actually make an argument for your position as opposed to relying upon a declaration.
I will offer some hints, feel free to add anything you like.
1. Is the moon’s motion more like a single motion around an external axis or is it like two motions a translation around the earth plus in addition to a spin on the moon’s internal axis.
I would argue for the former for the following reasons.
a) Angular momentum occurs around a single axis and angular momentum is calculated for the movement of the moon around the earth. If its a translation there can be no angular momentum assigned to it. Yet scientists do assign angular momentum to the movement of the moon around the earth.
b) The movement of the moon around the earth has an analogy to other rotations on external axes in that unless other forces intervene all rotations around an external axis have friction in that it involves a certain adequate rigidity. i.e. there is no such thing as frictionless bearings.
c) If other forces intervene that prevent the moon from rotating in time with its orbital motion then those forces must be adequate to produce a rotation of their own equal to or superior to the forces that cause the moon to be tidal locked.
Therefore, based upon what it is believed that the angular momentum of the moon rotating around the earth is, it must be that it is a rotation around an external axis.
” If its a translation there can be no angular momentum assigned to it. Yet scientists do assign angular momentum to the movement of the moon around the earth.”
Obviously your premise is False.
Angular momentum is clearly defined in physics the way it is for good reasons.
For example, a translating asteroid slams tangentially into the outer edge of a moon. As a result the moon acquires rotation and angular momentum. Clearly this angular momentum didnt suddenly materialize from nothing.
It was already present in the translating asteroid.
Nate your prattling isn’t science. You were provided with links that state otherwise.
Nate says:
For example, a translating asteroid slams tangentially into the outer edge of a moon. As a result the moon acquires rotation and angular momentum.
—————————-
That is incorrect Nate. What is required is a collision with a torque arm. Tangential contact alone is insufficient.
Hunter, I think that you are confused about orbiting. The orbiting satellite has an instantaneous velocity in one direction tangent to the orbit and thus linear momentum. The body is subjected to gravitational acceleration, which changes that initial velocity to a new value and direction at the next point along the orbit. At each point around an elliptical orbit, the velocity vector is different, thus one can not claim that the mass is “rotating” around a fixed point. furthermore, “rotation about an external axis” implies that the distance between the Moon and said external axis be a constant, which is not possible with an elliptical orbit. I asked that you provide a location for the fixed axis, which you (and pups) have several times failed to do.
You babble about “friction less bearings” when there’s no significant friction on the Moon in the vacuum of space to slow it’s rotation, only the force of gravity and perhaps, solar pressure. Whatever the cause of tidal locking, the massive angular momentum of the Moon keeps it rotating at that rate all the way around the elliptical orbit even as the direction of the gravitational attraction changes. The Moon’s velocity is slowed while moving from perigee to apogee, then increased between apogee and perigee as the Moon rotates around it’s CoM at that constant rate.
Swanson you have proven yourself as unreliable as a source (e.g. ellipses, libration, and who knows what else. So I will say the same thing to you I said to Nate. Swanson your prattling isnt science. If you wish to make a science case provide a scientific link to support your claims.
Swanson says:
You babble about ”friction less bearings”.
—————–
Oh so you are claiming there are frictionless bearings Swanson?
If not then just shove it dude!
=
=
=
=
=
Swanson says:
when theres no significant friction on the Moon in the vacuum of space to slow its rotation, only the force of gravity and perhaps, solar pressure.
———————-
So please provide us with your formuli to determine significance Swanson, or just stop prattling.
=
=
=
=
=
Swanson says:
Whatever the cause of tidal locking, the massive angular momentum of the Moon keeps it rotating at that rate all the way around the elliptical orbit even as the direction of the gravitational attraction changes.
——————–
Yeah so what?
=
=
=
=
=
Swanson says:
The Moons velocity is slowed while moving from perigee to apogee, then increased between apogee and perigee as the Moon rotates around its CoM at that constant rate.
——————–
Yeah so what?
Swanson it doesn’t make any difference that the angular velocity of the moon changes. Nates claim that angular velocity needed to be conserved was incorrect. Only angular momentum needs conservation.
Nates link shows an elliptical rotation which simplifed is the sum of the angular momentum of every particle. Lspin is only a very smart shortcut. Apparently a shortcut few physicists comprehend.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
“That is incorrect Nate. What is required is a collision with a torque arm. Tangential contact alone is insufficient.”
More man-splaining nonsense from Bill, shocking.
A collision with an arm works ALSO.
Any collison that is off-center, off the COM, will impart angular momentum and rotation will result.
A collision of a translating ice skater with a stationary partner works too. If the collision is off-center, the end result will be rotation of the pair (and angular momentum).
And all examples make precisely the same point, linear momentum can carry angular momentum, and these collision examples prove the point.
Your’s and DREMTS intuition, feelings, about what you think should and should not have angular momentum are simply erroneous.
“Nates claim that angular velocity needed to be conserved was incorrect.”
I never said any such thing.
Bill you are such a liar.
“Swanson your prattling isnt science.”
And we get more loser-troll tactics.
A basic explanation of real science is called ‘prattling’. Or its called ‘inculcation’.
When they clearly don’t understand BASIC science, they just insult it.
And probably quite hilarious for engineer Swanson, they think if physics doesnt agree with their beliefs then engineering still will!
“Yep it appears it doesnt get straightened out until it gets over into the Engineering Department”
Ultimately, bill, if physics is going to claim that objects which are moving in a perfectly straight line have angular momentum, that’s fine. Go ahead. Carry on. What does need to happen though, is that the definition of angular momentum be changed, because currently it is:
“In physics, angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum”
So you would think that an object moving in a straight line would have only linear momentum, and for an object to have angular momentum it would need to be rotating, either about an external axis (for orbital angular momentum) or about an internal axis (for spin angular momentum), or both. That just simply and logically follows from how angular momentum is currently defined. So, you want an object moving in a straight line to have angular momentum? Absolutely fine. Just change the definition of angular momentum so there is no confusion.
I’m not saying it’s “wrong”. I’m just saying, have definitions which actually fit with the application of the concept.
None of this influences the debate over whether the moon rotates on its own axis, of course, because no matter how you define angular momentum, and no matter how you apply the concept, if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis, and an object moving as per the MOTR is orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit. Whereas if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, then the MOTL is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion, and the MOTR is orbiting without axial rotation.
So it still, as always, ultimately comes down to whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
Obviously Nate prattling is what anybody does who has no credentials for speaking with authority.
But you are incorrect, a torque arm of some nature is required.
Stop prattling and start supporting your absurd claims with some science.
The game of pool is an example. In pool essentially all of the linear momentum transferred from the cue ball is converted into linear momentum of the object ball. One does not need book learning to know that. And that obviously is a good thing considered how confused book worms become about this stuff.
Hitting the object ball off center does not impart spin on object ball as the balls are very smooth and hard. Now pool balls do have angular momentum as they are in general plane motion due to the torque arms on the ball and the frictional contact with the bottoms of the balls and the table top.
Torque arms on balls exist as radii from the center of the ball to the outer shell. Its just the case that for a torque arm to work you need to be able to grab it.
The hardness and smoothness of pool balls prevents any significant grab on the arm, instead virtually all of the momentum transferred is linear momentum no matter the angle of contact.
The torque arm of the object ball extending to the table top then partially converts the linear momentum transferred from the cue into a general plane motion (despite that the contact was dead center on the object ball in the rolling plane)
So in fact Nate a torque arm is required despite your prattling. And that fact can be easily demonstrated. Point masses need not apply as they have no torque arm.
Nate you should really hang in here as you are really learning alot about rotations, ellipses, librations, torque arms and all sorts of good stuff.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
So it still, as always, ultimately comes down to whether orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
————————————-
Indeed. But the MOTR is impossible for a rigid object subjected to orbital motion without a second motion or force adequate to create a second motion.
Hunter, you’re such a clown. You wrote:
From your links:
You can’t ignore gravity’s effects on the Moon, which Kepler didn’t know about in 1621 CE. My guess is that any torque due to gravity would be very small, i.e., “insignificant” in the popular vernacular. After Newton figured out gravity, it was no longer appropriate to rely on Kepler’s version, especially when more than two celestial bodies are involved.
“But you are incorrect, a torque arm of some nature is required.”
What is a ‘torque arm’?
The collisions I was discussing, skater, asteroid, involve all or parts of the colliding objects sticking together. They are inelastic collisions.
Yes, in the case of elastic billiard balls, the force can be applied thru the COM and no spin acquired.. Still in the end angular momentum is conserved.
My examples are correct. The principle that translating object can carry angular momentum is correct.
So Bill your original assertions about angular momentum were simply erroneous. Even DREMT gets it, sort of, now.
Nate says:
What is a torque arm?
The collisions I was discussing, skater, asteroid, involve all or parts of the colliding objects sticking together. They are inelastic collisions.
Yes, in the case of elastic billiard balls, the force can be applied thru the COM and no spin acquired.. Still in the end angular momentum is conserved.
———————————-
A torque arm is basically a lever.
For a lever to work you can not just hit or push on the end of an lever that points to the COM of the object ball. When you do that the force is applied through the com.
Providing surfaces that ”stick together” provides the ”necessary” grab angular to the end of the lever and provides for the means of linear momentum getting translated into both linear and an angular momentum. The amount each will receive depends upon how much grab you get and how long the grab is.
+
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
My principles are correct. The principle that translating object can carry angular momentum is correct.
————————
Nate you are still prattling.
Linear momentum does not carry angular momentum, angular momentum needs that ”r” and not just an imaginary ”r”. A rigid ”r”!!!!
All value in imaginary ”r” is to turn the focus toward constructing a rigid lever arm to create the angular momentum. Having that concept for engineers is critical. Bookworms though tend to give it a life of its own.
All your principles demonstrate is the amount of extrapolation folks with only book learning become vulnerable to. . . .essentially unlimited prattling and no references backing it up.
Your argument is logically ridiculous its like claiming that angular momentum is an inherent component of energy rather than vice versa.
Swanson I am trying to figure out the point of your last post. The only point you seem to be trying to make is that:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Is archaic science, yet it is currently being taught by Georgia State University.
To get beyond the prattling you are so prone to you need to come up with a source that supports whatever viewpoint your are trying to make.
Bill, standing still, and starting a merry-go-round rotating – do you apply a linear force causing a torque around the mgr center or what?
Hunter, I’m sorry that you can’t understand the physics. Your link to “Angular Momentum of a Particle” refers to Kepler’s empirical model of orbital motion. The mass of said particle can be that of the Moon, the Earth or Jupiter, but it does not include the angular momentum of those rotating spherical bodies while they orbit. As I noted, models based on Newton’s physics supersede Kepler’s because they can explicitly include the body’s rotation. Duh.
Some authors use the term “particle” to mean an imaginary object that has mass but no radius thus cannot carry rotational inertia.
Other authors use the term “particle” to mean a minute something real & physical like an atom which does carry rotational inertia. Any author needs to define terms adequately so readers don’t have to assume or guess the author’s physical meaning & argue it without cease.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, Im sorry that you cant understand the physics. Your link to Angular Momentum of a Particle refers to Keplers empirical model of orbital motion. The mass of said particle can be that of the Moon, the Earth or Jupiter, but it does not include the angular momentum of those rotating spherical bodies while they orbit. As I noted, models based on Newtons physics supersede Keplers because they can explicitly include the bodys rotation. Duh.
——————————-
Swanson you are the one that doesn’t understand.
The sum of the angular momentums of all the particles in the moon rotating around the earth’s COM equals Lorb+Lspin.
Thats because MVR of a point mass is equal to the sum of all the angular momentums of the particles in the moon minus Lspin.
Why is that? It is that way because the variable R is squared and if you take a number and square it the result will be less than the average of the squares of two numbers an equal distance from the center of point mass.
Here is formula for Lorb: Lorb= 2 * 3.14 *(5.98 x 10e24kg)(1.496 x 10e11m)2/(3.15 x 10e7s)
the 1.496 x 10e11m is the distance to the moon’s COM.
as an example: If you have the number 1.5 the square is 2.5.
But 1.4 squared plus 1.6 squared divided by 2 equal 2.6. The .1 difference is what is needed for the Lspin.
So very much No! Swanson the Georgia State University calculation of angular momentum is neither archaic nor inapplicable to solid objects versus particles only.
That difference exists and it cannot be attributed to a different motion.
This is logical also because if you have the angular momentum of a disk with Mount everest on top of it and you eliminate all solid particles in the assembly except a sphere out near the edge of the disk, provided you continued to provide for rigidity, you have the same thing and still no axial rotation. . . .and you already agreed that Mount Everest wasn’t rotating on its COM so would you believe that the moon is. Provide sources with whatever you post as a response.
If you wish to continue to argue this point you need to attribute the missing angular momentum when you use Lorb alone as the angular momentum of the orbit. That little square sine in the formula while using a point mass for Lorb grinds your concept of it all into total garbage.
Ball4 says:
Some authors use the term particle to mean an imaginary object that has mass but no radius thus cannot carry rotational inertia.
Other authors use the term particle to mean a minute something real & physical like an atom which does carry rotational inertia. Any author needs to define terms adequately so readers dont have to assume or guess the authors physical meaning & argue it without cease.
—————-
I argued it in my response to Swanson. You are can take a shot and explaining the missing angular momentum between a point mass and a solid object if you wish to also. Just define your words and provide sources to support the explanation.
Ball 4 I didn’t fully respond to your post so here goes.
I don’t need to distinguish between definitions of rotating particle because the math shows there is no rotational inertia around the moon’s center of mass for the MOTL. It is merely an illusion created by simplifying the challenge of summing the mathematics L for zillions of individual particles.
That simplification was done to condense the particles into a point mass. Then, if you are paying attention, recognizing what you need to add something back to account for angular momentum lost by the condensation.
Conservation of angular momentum demands this and no other explanation like creating another motion around the moons axis simply widens, if anything, the disparity in finding a solution to the problem.
Hunter, This is getting absurd. For an idealized orbit with only gravity, the momentum of the elliptical orbiting CoM is conserved because the gravitational forces acting on the Moon add to zero when integrated around the orbit. That is to say, the orbit’s path is constantly repeated so there’s no change in momentum.
Your red herring about Mt.Everest does not apply to the Moon, since the Moon is not solidly connected to the Earth.
So, when are you going to let us in on the Big Secret, which is, the location of the point external to the Moon around which it rotates.
Swanson you are just dodging the only argument you have because without explaining where the missing angular momentum is between Lorb and the sum of the angular momentums of all the particles of the moon ANY solution you come up with will be a violation of the law of conservation. So stop prattling around the edges of the argument especially with anything you don’t have a source for.
“All your principles demonstrate is the amount of extrapolation folks with only book learning become vulnerable to. . . .essentially unlimited prattling and no references backing it up.”
Not just book learning, Bill. This has many real world applications, some we just discussed. The reference was shown to you.
We’re done here.
Nate gives up apparently due to a failure of supporting his own prattle with science sources that have withstood the test of time.
And Nate I never said the book learned tools didn’t have important applications. I even named at least one.
See ya. Hopefully this is the end of ellipses, librations, Lspin being a spin on the COM axis of the orbiting body and a few other things we have learned here.
Bill,
In this discussion, you learned some physics. You learned more about angular momentum, and that it can be carried by an object that is simply translating. You learned that objects in orbit do indeed have orbital and spin angular momentum.
Learning is good.
Now the hard part comes. Incorporating that learning into your thinking, and using it to test your beliefs.
Can you do that?
“So you would think that an object moving in a straight line would have only linear momentum”
And if what one ‘would think’ turns out to be wrong then what?
“What does need to happen though, is that the definition of angular momentum be changed, because currently it is:
‘In physics, angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum'”
It IS TRUE that angular momentum is applicable to rotations. Masses that are simply rotating DO have angular momentum.
But in some cases translation and rotation are exchanged.
Rotations can arise when translating objects that have no rotation collide like the skaters.
Conservation of angular momentum explains this–the translating objects needed to have angular momentum before the collision, to conserve it.
That is very useful and has many applications.
Dictionary descriptions of physics terms that have mathematical definitions, cannot capture all of their applicability in a few words.
So, others need to change what they do to match your thinking?
Or maybe your reference frame is off. Maybe the universe doesnt actually revolve around you?
Nate says:
But in some cases translation and rotation are exchanged.
———————-
Hmmmm, now you seem to be agreeing with Tesla Nate.
So if the moon were released from earth’s gravity does the angular momentum convert back to the pure linear momentum the moon started with before entering orbit? Does this phenomena work in both directions?
+
+
+
+
+
Nate says:
Dictionary descriptions of physics terms that have mathematical definitions, cannot capture all of their applicability in a few words.
So, others need to change what they do to match your thinking?
—————————-
Hmmm you need to be more specific about what my ”thinking” is that you are objecting to Nate. Please provide sources while describing what that is as you are providing absolutely no clue to what you are referring to.
But if you are referring to me calling you a moron or something like that, I will concede that you are not a moron nor something like that.
Hunter, Your pigheaded refusal to answer a simple question shows again that you refuse to move beyond the Keplerian model of a particle moving around an orbit and the more modern Newtonian model of the Moon’s motion due to gravity. The Kepler model does not tell us anything about the rotation of the Moon or any other planet. Of course, you have no mathematical model of that rotation, so you just ignore the question.
I think that you refuse to answer because the instantaneous point around which the Moon appears to rotate and the distance between that point and the Moon changes around the orbit. At perigee, that point is the barycenter and the distance to the Moon is at a minimum, ~0.3633e6 km. At apogee, the barycenter is again the center of rotation, but the distance is ~0.4055e6 km. Midway thru the orbit, the center of rotation is along a line in the direction of the minor axis, not the barycenter, etc. In your post above, you present some math, writing:
I have no clue where you came up with that number, which, in any case, wouldn’t be a constant.
Bill 6:38 pm, “That simplification was done to condense the particles into a point mass.”
Point masses have no rotational inertia Bill, so you summed up a zillion zeros to get zero total rotational inertia for the entire MOTL. Bill isn’t able to understand Bill’s basic mistake.
The spinners continue to duck en masse the issue of the missing angular momentum of the moon orbiting the earth’s COM when Lorb is used alone to describe that motion.
Bill, there is no missing angular momentum of the moon orbiting the Earth’s COM.
Ball4 says:
Point masses have no rotational inertia Bill, so you summed up a zillion zeros to get zero total rotational inertia for the entire MOTL. Bill isnt able to understand Bills basic mistake.
————————
Its not my mistake Ball4. It is described here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#alm
and recognized here also:
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
Its a no brainer that the sum of evenly distributed particles of an object with different ”r” values will be greater than Lorb which only uses a single point mass particle at the COM of the object.
That error produced accounts for Lspin and Lspin cannot according physics arise as angular momentum for which no lever action exists on a different COM.
The entire argument here by Tesla is to whether than rotational inertia exists or if it is merely imputed to exist. For me I can’t see how it would exist. It is obvious to me that:
1) a fixed axis is needed for an orbit or a rotation.
2) Some force or momentum needs to be applied to a torque arm connected to that fixed axis.
3) the fixed axis must be sufficiently rigid to handle the load.
4) there is no fixed axis at the moon’s COM that has a force or momentum being applied to it by the orbital elements.
Conclusion: the MOTL is the correct model for the moon’s rotation of earth’s COM with zero rotation on the moon’s central axis.
This is not a conclusion I arrive at easily. I arrive at it because I don’t see a condition that questions it or provides for axial rotation of the moon. Show me that condition and I would change my opinion, either reversing it or becoming unconvinced of the conclusion I arrive at above.
Being inculcated is a process of arriving at conclusions without actually seeing the necessary conditions but instead of it being what you were taught by another.
I see the necessary conditions for my conclusion and see none for any other.
So if you want to suggest I am making a mistake you need to explicitly point out where rather than just prattling about there being a mistake.
Bill, in your second link rotational angular momentum of our moon is (see Example 1):
Lunar Lrot = 0.8*pi * MR^2 / Trot
Thus your own link eqn. for lunar rotational angular momentum explicitly points out your conclusion is bogus.
Ball4 says:
Bill, in your second link rotational angular momentum of our moon is (see Example 1):
Lunar Lrot = 0.8*pi * MR^2 / Trot
Thus your own link eqn. for lunar rotational angular momentum explicitly points out your conclusion is bogus.
——————-
Your point is well taken. But the bottom line is Lrot is Lspin and not Lorb.
Thus it does not resolve the disparity found in Lorb it just shows that Lorb is not equal to the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis (i.e. orbiting). That means Lspin (Lrot per link) is an inseparable part of the angular momentum around a single fixed axis.
Likewise by using the Georgia State U link and the claim I am adding a bunch of zeroes would not make the GSU result larger than Lorb.
If you want to dispute that go beyond prattling that it isn’t or that it falsifies a conclusion and show why. And show your sources.
“Hmmm you need to be more specific about what my ‘thinking’ is that you are objecting to Nate.
Wasn’t you that I quoted Bill.
‘But in some cases translation and rotation are exchanged.’
“So if the moon were released from earths gravity does the angular momentum convert back to the pure linear momentum the moon started with before entering orbit? Does this phenomena work in both directions?”
Here you are caught in the act of transforming something I did say into something I didn’t say. This is a regular occurrence that leads to so many confusions, Bill.
I did say ‘translation and rotation are exchanged’
I did not say ‘angular momentum converts’ into ‘pure linear momentum’, nor would I have said this because it is wrong.
Angular momentum is conserved.
And again, if an object is translating, flying past a planet at distance distance r from its center, then it already has angular momentum.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Ultimately, bill, if physics is going to claim that objects which are moving in a perfectly straight line have angular momentum, thats fine. Go ahead. Carry on. What does need to happen though, is that the definition of angular momentum be changed, because currently it is:
”In physics, angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum”
————————————-
I am in agreement. If I have it correct angular momentum has a centripetal force being applied that is not present in linear momentum. So its only a partial equivalence.
Hunter’s link provides some insight into his delusions. As noted, he previously stated:
No, from the reference, that number refers to the semi-major axis of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Selecting that number to quantify the “angular momentum” is arbitrary, as the quote points out:
Selecting the semi-major axis as the radial line means that they can only use the velocity at apogee or perigee where the velocity is perpendicular to the radial line to calculate their velocity, v, not any point around the ellipse as they contend. The problem with this is that Kepler’s Laws are defined relative to the 1st Focus of the orbit, not the middle of the line between apogee and perigee. That’s because the center of rotation at perigee is the 1st focus and the center at apogee is also the 1st focus when calculating the “angular momentum”, L.
The result of this is that the Earth and the Moon are not “rotating” around the middle of the major axis, it’s ORBITING around the 1st focus, aka, the barycenter.
Swanson continues to prattle endlessly with absolutely zero scientific sources to back up any of his conclusions. Not a single one of them in the above post.
I will give you fractional credit for noting that the formula I copied and pasted was for the earth’s orbit around the sun and not the moon as I stated.
But thats a non-sequitur because the equation is right just the quantities are different.
Beyond that its just pure prattle from you. The source explicitly states Swanson:
”More accurately, the velocity and distance from the Sun both change as the planet moves in an elliptical orbit, but the product of the velocity times the distance stays constant, so we can pick any one point in the orbit and calculate L”
Any point within the orbit would include the barycenter.
So this effectively answers your criticism.
Meanwhile the GSU source shows how to make L=mvr to come up with the correct figure for ellipses by using sine theta.
Now here is yet another source that responds to the criticism that Kepler could not have known about gravity. Here is a discussion on that.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/keplers-second-law-of-planetary-motion-vector-calculus-and-force-of-gravity-e42f143bfe8d
You really should seriously and carefully bone up on this before just prattling on about it.
Nate says:
Here you are caught in the act of transforming something I did say into something I didnt say. This is a regular occurrence that leads to so many confusions, Bill.
I did say translation and rotation are exchanged
I did not say angular momentum converts into pure linear momentum, nor would I have said this because it is wrong.
————————-
OK if translation and rotation are exchanged does the translation keep the rotational angular momentum in a local skull-shaped anti-gravity box that blocks gravity waves from finding the angular momentum? Perhaps you should try to be a bit more descriptive.
Hunter continues to ignore the basic error of the “no spin” cult. The Moon does not follow a circular path and thus it’s CoM does not “rotate around an external axis”. That is to say, there’s no fixed point of rotation, thus the Moon’s orbital motion and rotation around it’s CoM can not be coupled together as a single rotation. You cultist can throw up all the assertions you want, but you have yet to present a model or math to prove your case.
For example, NASA tells us that (the Moon’s)
Perigee:
orbital radius 0.3633^6 km
orbital velocity 1.082 km/s
Apogee:
orbital radius 0.4055^6 km
orbital velocity 0.970 km/s
Ignoring mass and calculating linear V x R gives:
Perigee = 0.3931^6 km^2/s
Apogee = 0.3933^6 km^2/s
This only works at perigee or apogee, where the velocity is perpendicular to the radial line from the barycenter.
Swanson continues to prattle and not provide sources.
Further your calculations are only good to 3 significant digits and your proposed error requires 4 significant digits. Seriously you weren’t responsible for any kind of professional work like this were you?
Hunter continues to ignore the fact that the Moon’s “angular momentum” has nothing to do with the rotation of the Moon around it’s CoM. Not only that, but he refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Moon’s CoM does not “rotate” around some unknown fixed point or external axis. So Hunter, exactly where is that mythical External Axis your No Spin cult keeps ranting about?
Wikipedia entry on "Rotation", Swanson. "Revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis. Sorry for your argument loss.
It is rather telling that people keep returning to the same out-of-context, colloquial word usage, from sources that any idiot can edit. These are not definitions.
Actual definitions of words like ORBIT and ROTATION, from legitimate sources, like Kinematics or Astronomy course, sites, textbooks, or glossaries are required.
It is rather telling the non-spinners have such difficulty finding explicit definitions that agree with them.
Nate the serial prattler comes back again prattling for the umpteenth thousandth time totally lacking an explicit and universally adopted source to back him up.
Instead he merely alludes to some unnamed Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard and actually believes that makes him look smart. Gee Nate didn’t you know that only a Sean Penn or a Greta Thunberg or a Joe Biden are the only ones that can get away with that? They all have the necessary popularity.
Below is the question, in my view, that spinners must answer to advance their cause.
Given
Lmp=the angular momentum of a moon particle around the earth’s COM.(abbreviated from L=MVR sin Θ)
ΣLmp=the sum of the angular momentums of all the moon’s particles around the COM
Why is
ΣLmp>Lorb
It is conundrum because you need the angular momentum of Lmp for each particle to go all around the earth one time without any regard to any other motion that might be occurring on the moon’s central axis.
And of course that is exactly what Lorb is supposed to represent.
Bill-the-kid has discovered a new word, ‘Prattle’, so he has to use it to troll as often as possible.
And the serial loser on the facts has decided to have a go at stand-up comedy.
“Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard”
Maybe shouldn’t quit your day job just yet, Bill.
And have to give Bill credit for persistence.
Angular momentum has perplexed him and has not been helpful to his cause, again and again, but he keeps returning to it!
Bill, if you could formulate a simple, mathematically precise question about angular momentum, you probably would end up answering your own question.
Nate says:
Bill-the-kid has discovered a new word, Prattle, so he has to use it to troll as often as possible.
And the serial loser on the facts has decided to have a go at stand-up comedy.
Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard
Maybe shouldnt quit your day job just yet, Bill.
========================
Gee Nate shouldn’t the use of the word ”prattling” go up in direct proportion with the amount of ”prattling”?
I see you are continuing to only prattle.
And I figure I should provide a name for this mysterious all knowing physics authority you keep referring to as ”physics”. Whats the matter there? Too much testosterone? Would ”Miss Physics” be more appropriate?
Care to answer why Lorb is missing energy for what it purports to be according the spinners and their anonymous authorities? Or are you going to continue to duck the question?
“Care to answer why Lorb is missing energy for what it purports to be according the spinners and their anonymous authorities? Or are you going to continue to duck the question?”
Again, no one can answer your gobbledegook questions.
Here you are mixing angular momentum and energy?
‘Purports to be’? What are you talking about?
Come up with a real, clear, relevant question.
“Bill asks 11:27 pm: Why is ΣLmp>Lorb?”
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
Where is Bill’s “Given” formula for Lmp from? It is not shown in Bill’s own link.
What is Bill’s def. of “moon’s particles” radius i.e. 0 or nonzero? No prattling.
Ball4 says:
Where is Bills Given formula for Lmp from? It is not shown in Bills own link.
What is Bills def. of moons particles radius i.e. 0 or nonzero? No prattling.
———————–
The formula for a particle was in both links. The sum of the particles would the angular momentum of an object of particles going around the earth’s COM would be greater than Lorb from the second reference.
Nates link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#alm
L = mvr sin θ
My link:
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/angular_momentum.html
Lorb = 2 * 3.14 *(5.98 x 10^24 kg)(1.496 x 10^11m)2/(3.15 x 10^7 s)
Since the middle term is squared for Lorb; the sum of the L for every particle in the moon per Nate’s link formula would be larger than Lorb in my link.
If Lorb is going to be argued as the angular momentum around the earth’s COM and Lrot as the angular momentum around the moon’s axis. There is some reconciling that needs to be done. Either that or there is a conservation violation.
And you should readily see from Nates own link itself; what BS Nate and Swanson have been pedaling regarding ellipses not being rotations. There it is right there in living color.
Shows conclusively Nate and Swanson don’t have a clue. One should never ever listen to them. . . .unless of course they are willing to own up to a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes.
“And you should readily see from Nates own link itself; what BS Nate and Swanson have been pedaling regarding ellipses not being rotations. There it is right there in living color.”
Where?
Bill, both sites have the same basic equations. Neither one is MINE. It is your understanding of them and application of them that appears to be F*ked up.
“If Lorb is going to be argued as the angular momentum around the earth’s COM and Lrot as the angular momentum around the moon’s axis. There is some reconciling that needs to be done. Either that or there is a conservation violation.”
No, No, No! You still confused about what I am arguing and just making it up.
Lorb is JUST THE ORBITAL part of angular momentum of an orbiting planet. It does not include the part due to rotation, Lrot.
The TOTAL angular momentum of the Moon around the barycenter is the SUM of both.
LTOT = Lorb + Lrot
This is what I have explained all along, though what you call Lrot I call Lspin.
Describing Ltot this way is very useful to understanding the physics of orbits.
My experience has been that no matter how much I explain it, I cannot fix your many confusions.
Hunter, speaking of mistakes, repeats his previous error, posting an equation for the Earth, not the Moon. Of course, Hunter continues to ignore the original claim by cult leader pups that the Moon’s motion acts like a solid body which rotates around an external axis. When asked to show where that axis, specifically
it’s center, is located, they are mute. He and the rest of the cult can not answer this question because no such axis exists.
Spinach time, this can be skipped and still lead a good life.
Bill 12:09 am, in your link little r = distance of the object from a rotation axis and also big R = distance of the object from a rotation axis AND then big R is the radius of the sphere. Confused? The readers should be.
Your link writer leaves it to the reader to figure out which one of the R’s is meant by context.
Lorb in Bill’s link is for a sphere of zero R and at the same time an R that is the distance of the object from a rotation axis.
So I can see why Bill’s link can be confusing since they use R to mean two different distances. In Example 1, R is the radius of sphere (Earth) and Example 2, R becomes the distance of the object (Earth) from a rotation axis (sun distance).
Total angular momentum for Earth in a circular orbit of sun then is Lrot + Lorb in Bills link.
—–
In Nate’s link Lorb=mvr, where r is the distance of the object from a rotation axis & forget about sine theta just set it equal to 1 for a circular orbit because that is what Bill’s link does for Lorb.
In Nate’s link set v= 2*pi*r/Torb into Lorb=mvr.
Substituting v into Nate’s link Lorb = mr^2*pi/Torb which is exactly the same as Bill’s link Lorb=MR^2*2*pi/Torb.
Conclusion:
Both Bill’s and Nate’s links for Lorb reconcile perfectly once the reader understands r=R=the distance of the object from a rotation axis in this context for Lorb (barring any typo’s.)
Nate says:
Lorb is JUST THE ORBITAL part of angular momentum of an orbiting planet. It does not include the part due to rotation, Lrot.
————————————
Oh Nate and his rose tinted inculcation googles!!
Nate I am referring to your link with the particles going around a planet in a elliptical motion with angular momentum.
When you take a whole bunch of those particles conceptually moving in a perfect ellipses how the heck do you come up with the idea that the particles are also doing donuts around each other?
Oh thats right you are locked into classical mechanics and reality is your point of view with somebody who has shot your brain out into outerspace. OK space cadet explain your view point so folks can understand it. Are you so subservient to some grand dragon pooh bah imperial wizard sitting on some throne on some distant star that commands reality is his point of view? If it appears to the GDPBIW particles are doing donuts around each other; they are doing donuts around each other!
Personally I don’t think that would be quite enough for me to start running around to kids on the block claiming the moon rotates on its own axis.
When I was in the military we marched in squadron formation of 4 columns. We went everywhere. Around the parade ground, to lunch, and to work in that formation. We circled the parade grounds and the same guy who started on my right was always on my right. . . .yet you would argue he was circling me instead. Pull your head out of the clouds Nate!
“When you take a whole bunch of those particles conceptually moving in a perfect ellipses how the heck do you come up with the idea that the particles are also doing donuts around each other?”
Not quite sure what your problem is here.
One can certainly look at all the partcles velocities and masses and sum up their angular momenta to find the total. Painful and cumbersome.
Or one can easily find the total from two parts, one from the orbital velocity (Lorb) and the other from rotation rate (Lrot).
There is no contradiction.
And Lorb is what is needed to use Newtons laws to solve for the orbit. Very useful.
Nate says:
And Lorb is what is needed to use Newtons laws to solve for the orbit. Very useful.
———————
Source please!
Lorb does not solve for an orbit of anything.
If you want to convince me that your Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard knows what he is talking about you will need to go through that painful and cumbersome process you are avoiding to demonstrate it does equal Lorb. No more prattling.
“Source please!
Lorb does not solve for an orbit of anything.”
So you need a source.
But at the same time, you’re CERTAIN that YOU KNOW Lorb doesnt help solve for the orbit.
You are hilarious, Bill!
“you are avoiding to demonstrate it does equal Lorb”
What is ‘it’ ?
The sources already shown to you already explained what Lorb is.
“And Lorb is what is needed to use Newtons laws to solve for the orbit. Very useful.”
“Source please! Lorb doesnt solve for an orbit of anything’
Bill, I do work for you and nothing ever ever comes of it.
Not even an acknowledgement that you were wrong in your assertion!
What do I get for finding sources that demonstrate this?
Will you agree to clearly state:
‘I, Bill, was wrong about orbital angular momentum.’
If you agree to these terms, then I will find sources.
Nate I am not interested in the fact that some Grand Wizard Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard once wrote the moon spins on its axis. As long as the proof is mathematical and the math is done correctly then it will meet the conditions of science.
In other words mathematically establish that Lorb alone stands up to the detailed painful and cumbersome way of measuring the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis. It OK to assume a perfect circle orbit for the sake of making the effort less cumbersome. Further all the particles must be moving in concentric circles.
“In other words mathematically establish that Lorb alone stands up to the detailed painful and cumbersome way of measuring the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis. It OK to assume a perfect circle orbit for the sake of making the effort less cumbersome. Further all the particles must be moving in concentric circles.”
I do not need to prove something that we have NEVER CLAIMED, Bill!
For the 3rd or 4th time, we are not claiming Lorb ALONE is the total angular momentum of OUR MOON, or even a moon in a circular orbit with rotation like our Moon, i.e. the MOTL.
For MOTL, we have been consistently saying that its total angular momentum Ltot = Lorb + Lspin.
Until you understand what we are claiming, it is hopeless!
Only the MOTR, which is simply TRANSLATING has Ltot = Lorb = MVR.
For the MOTR, since it is merely translating, ALL its particles are moving with the same velocity, V.
Each particle of mass, m, and radius r, would have angular momentum l = mVr.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
The sum of all m is M.
The average(r) of all the particles is, by definition, R, the radius of the COM.
The the total angular momentum L = sum(mVr) = sum(m)*V*average(r) = MVR
QED
OK thanks for that.
What Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard ever came up with that nonsense? And Why? What it sounds like to me is a few green behind the ears wanna bee astronomers reading implications into Lorb and Lspin that simply have no merit other than representing a mathematical shortcut.
gotta say thats a real classic!
I am amusing myself with the image of chalked circles on a merry-go-round translating and not appearing to rotate at the same time as a Biden plan for saving energy.
“As long as the proof is mathematical and the math is done correctly then it will meet the conditions of science.”
Your demanded proof comes.
Then we get:
“What Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard ever came up with that nonsense? And Why?”
“Lorb and Lspin that simply have no merit other than representing a mathematical shortcut.”
So as I suspected, providing proofs or evidence to you is pointless, you will simply make new flimsy excuses.
Next time you make demands for proofs or evidence, I will remind you of that.
Nate says:
Your demanded proof comes.
So as I suspected, providing proofs or evidence to you is pointless, you will simply make new flimsy excuses.
Next time you make demands for proofs or evidence, I will remind you of that.
—————————————-
You mean you are going to remind me that you never ever provided any evidence, source, or link that supports your viewpoint because of your suspicions I would laugh at it?
LOL!
Nate as long as your source is some anonymous Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard you just pulled out of your arse you can bet your sox I will laugh.
Bill,
We gave you sources. I know you looked at them and quoted them.
You demanded a proof. I gave you one.
Now you demand more sources? For what?
It is clear that you are not interested in facts and truth.
Your only interest is to troll.
Nate says:
Bill,
We gave you sources. I know you looked at them and quoted them.
You demanded a proof. I gave you one.
Now you demand more sources? For what?
It is clear that you are not interested in facts and truth.
Your only interest is to troll.
————————
thats a bald faced lie! You never ever provided a scientific source that stated explicitly that L=MVR is the MOTR!!
You just extrapolated that.
L=MVR is the formula for a single particle.
Then you extrapolated that the moon made up of zillions of particles that are all traveling at the same speed in the same direction the same distance from the axis. One can easily see that is not the case.
“You just extrapolated that.”
I proved it, Bill, which is exactly what you asked for.
You seemed to understand the proof, which was simple.
Now are saying it has a flaw? What is it?
You proved it? LMAO! So you fancy yourself and the Grand Dragon Pooh Bah Imperial Wizard you have been claiming was your source!
ROTFLMAO!
Bill,
If you lack the ability to understand the simple proof, and now require some authority figure to explain it to you, well, then I can’t help you anymore.
Bye.
You don’t have an authority figure. You are just pulling it out of your arse. You use a figure with a radius from the center of the moon to the center of the earth then claim the angular momentum/rotation is around the center of the moon. LMAO! Thats not a proof thats just you being confused.
Ok troll.
Nate claiming somebody is a troll doesn’t magically embue you with the scientific support you are lacking.
One looks at the particle orbiting an external axis and its clear that a bundle of particles that make up the moon orbiting a planet is going to account for all the angular momentum of that bundle.
But adding up the particles incorrectly by giving them all the same velocity and radius doesn’t provide any scientific support whatsoever for considering that momentum to be around a different axis. Its a violation of Madhavi, Brown, and Wang. . . .some your own sources.
A point mass is not an object!!! Its only a useful mathematical derivation as long as you don’t abuse it and try to give it a life of its own. It should be perfectly clear to you that some particles have greater radii and higher velocities and some less.
For a long time you simply argued that an ellipse does not represent a rotation. . . .of course until you posted a source that supports that idea. You argued the libration associated with elliptical motion disqualifies that as a rotation. . . .clearly thats wrong also. Putting pressure on you to come up with sources actually succeeded in you providing the very sources that proved you wrong.
“But adding up the particles incorrectly by giving them all the same velocity”
Thats what Translation means. Thats what the MOTR is doing. When are you going to learn?
“all the same velocity and radius”
I never stated all have the same radius.
Just stop changing, distorting, confusing what other people are saying, Bill.
Im done with you. Go troll elsewhere.
Nate says:
Thats what Translation means. Thats what the MOTR is doing. When are you going to learn?
————————
There are no moons like MOTR Nate!
There is a reason there are no moons like the MOTR Nate!
The MOTR is just a pipe dream Nate! Watcha puttin your pipe?
One can easily see how particles are traveling with the MOTL, they have different velocities and different radii.
Your link says it all.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
During the last years, I repeatedly have shown that Robertson is a (very probably mentally sick) liar:
” Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted he could not see HIV on an electron microscope. In lieu of that, for some mysterious reason, he invented a method of allegedly identifying HIV through inference. ”
This is a lie he permanently repeats, like dozens of other lies.
Luc Montagnier never admitted anything like that.
*
The truth everybody can see here:
25 YEARS AFTER HIV DISCOVERY: PROSPECTS
FOR CURE AND VACCINE
Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2008
by Luc Montagnier
World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_lecture.pdf
Never believe what Robertson writes!
Anybody else notice the Freudian slip here: Cling R 7:09 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1060309
It’s called “early morning typo”, TM.
But I got a laugh out of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
I want maak anie moor misteaks….
Urban Dictionary definition of Cling[e]R: a turd that doesn’t wanna fall out. Priceless!
Your juvenile fascination with bodily functions is even funnier, TM.
Thanks again.
ha ha ha. Such a funny Cling[e]R!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
> For one there is no such thing as heat radiation.
Gordo’s denial knows no bound:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate shystering special, this is why the ice is always lower
https://bit.ly/3ICWwy2
add the Danes to the cheating alarmists.
A flood here in Vancouver, Canada has been claimed as evidence of climate change, even though we have a major La Nina underway, which is known to cause excess rainfall in our part of the world.
Ironically, our government agency, Environment Canada, admit that on their site, yet they insist the flooding is a sign of climate change.
Cheating alarmists everywhere.
Climate pseudoshystering special, made by Electroverse, and reblogged by the incompetent and gullible storytellers Paul Homewood and… Eben.
1. 2021, Nov 18:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20211118.png
2. 2021, Dec 8:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20211208.png
How is it possible to believe anything posted by Electroverse?
Binidiot doesn’t know how to read
“Note also that previous years have been revised down, too, but only during the summer melt season.
The averages have not been changed, nor has the scale, only the data points: all have been revised down so as to create a disparity from the 2004-2013 average.”
Wayback machine shows enough prove they did the change
Pffft…
What a dumb contrarian discourse.
Reminds me the stuff endlessly posted by Robertson about 4,500 GHCN V3 stations allegedly dropped.
The day Eben and Homewood understand what DMI is doing: That day won’t come anytime soon.
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
“New graphics December 7, 2021
We have improved the DMI operational ocean and sea-ice model HYCOM-CICE with higher horizontal resolution and updated HYCOM and CICE code. In particular, the sea ice code has been greatly improved with meltponds, sea-ice salinity, improved thermodynamics and much more. The freshwater discharge from Greenland has also been greatly improved using freshwater product from GEUS, which especially improves the coastal ocean currents and thus the ice transport nearshore Greenland. The model has been running continuously since September 1990. Therefore, we have by December 07, 2021 updated the graphics of sea-ice thickness and volume using the new and improved data on Polarportal and ocean.dmi.dk.
The improved model setup has led to higher variability as well as less abrupt melting during the melt season, which gives a shift of approximately half a month for the time of minimum ice volume. The trend between the years is almost unchanged. Thereby, a year with a large sea-ice volume in the old setup also has a large volume in the new setup, and similar for years with low sea-ice volume.”
b,
Improved model? What was wrong with the one before?
Did people find it laughable, or just completely useless?
OMG!
For the second day ‘in a row’, our Sun kept spotless:
2021 12 09 2021.938 0 0.0 14 14
2021 12 10 2021.941 0 0.0 9 9
I tell you: this is unprecedented!
Puritans sure will say: better spotless than topless!
To dispute DMI’s honesty about the Arctic sea ice or Greenland’s ice sheet mass balance: that’s exactly the same level of dishonesty as that shown by Robertson, Clint R., etc. regarding the lunar rotation.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the Electroverse blog is funded by the shale gas industry, Heartland and GWPF.
Bindidon, do you wear your tin-foil all the time, or only during your meltdowns?
Bindidong is trying to bite my ankles on every one of my posts, ends up shooting himself in his own foot instead every time, but never learns
https://youtu.be/UUwekAbsz28
Binidiot posts two pictures both of them altered because he can’t read and doesn’t look up the originals , makes himself look like an idiot , then he starts spinning around like a top throwing crap in every direction
https://i.postimg.cc/SQTK9Hgb/FF8wit7-XIAAe-CGX.png
Give it up Eben.
You become more and more ridiculous.
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K.
Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moons surface.
Let’s compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon,
“The number of land surface weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) drops off in recent years. This fact is an indication of our success in adding historical data. Every month data from over 1,200 stations from around the world are added to GHCN as a result of monthly reports transmitted over the Global Telecommunication System. This number is up from what it was a decade ago due to systematic efforts by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and others to encourage countries to send in CLIMAT reports. If NCEI relied solely on such data that would be the maximum number of stations available. But we have systematically sought to increase the data holdings in the past through international projects such as the once a decade creation of World Weather Records as well as NCEI’s own digitization of select Colonial Era archive data. The creation of the GCOS Surface Network is one example of a specific attempt to both enhance data exchange around the world and to identify and select the ‘best’ stations for long-term climate change purposes. The weighting scheme used to rate stations for the initial selection in the GSN clearly indicates the biases climatologists have in favor of stations that have been in operation for a long time, that are rural, are agricultural research sites, and are distributed throughout the world with increasing density the farther they are away from the tropics. The result of all these efforts is that GHCN has data for many thousands of stations in the period from the 1950s to the 1990s that cannot be routinely updated, thus the number of stations drops considerably in recent years.”
https://tinyurl.com/hlueqbc
Do you get it yet? Stations weren’t “slashed” from the record. Stations were ADDED retrospectively that do not update in real time. You’ve always had this the wrong way around. A weather station that was demolished by the local authority in the 70s is nothing to do with NOAA slashing anything, but NOAA retrieve the data for that defunct station and put it in the record. It is the addition of these old records no longer being updated that makes for the larger station count in the past.
barry…”Do you get it yet? Stations werent slashed from the record. Stations were ADDED retrospectively that do not update in real time”.
***
The thing that amuses me is your appeal to authority. You have it so bad you are not only willing to believe this NOAA propaganda. you try to explain it, even though it is not possible to explain it.
NOAA starts the article like this…
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500? The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time. ”
Get it…THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF WEATHER STATIONS HAS SHRUNK AROUND THE GLOBE — FROM 6000 TO LESS THAN 1,500.
“THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF WEATHER STATIONS HAS SHRUNK….”
Then they try to deny it using smoke and mirrors.
“However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions”.
Tell me something Barry, how does a record from the past, or information from the past, give you present day temperature data? Weather stations measure in real time, not based on historical records.
This is nothing more than NOAA chicanery. They are fudging the modern record using data from the past, which they have amended (fudged).
Want proof of that? In 2013, the IPCC announced a 15 year warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012. You tried to deny that as well. NOAA went back, after the flat trend was announced, and fudged old SST records to show a warming trend.
It amazes me how you have this unwavering naivete and loyalty to alarmist cheaters.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
> The thing that amuses me is your appeal to authority.
C’mon, Gordo. If there’s one sycophant here it’s you.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“NOAA starts the article like this”
No, that’s a different article, and it says the same thing as the one I found more recently. Station data was added retrospectively.
“Tell me something Barry, how does a record from the past, or information from the past, give you present day temperature data?”
It doesn’t. This data is added to the historical record. NOAA has a smaller number of weather stations that update in real time. The larger number of weather stations added to the list stopped operating years ago. That’s why there is a maximum of weather stations earlier in the record – it includes old weather station data for weather stations that no longer exist. Because the number of weather stations has shrunk.
And the number of weather stations globally hasn’t shrunk from 6000 to 1500, you goose. The number of weather stations has shrunk overall, and this has affected the number of stations that report in real-time to NOAA (causing a decrease in the number of those stations).
It seems that you are intellectually incapable of understanding how the overall station count could could grow by adding historical data to the GHCN database. I cannot fathom how you could not get this, what sort of abrasion in your reasoning faculties makes this notion impenetrable for you. Yet it’s so simple.
NOAA find data for a weather station previously unincluded, that has data from 1923 to 1984, when the station was decommissioned. Add this data to the list, and now you have one more weather station included to GHCN. Now add another station that operated from 1896 to 1949. There: 2 stations added to the list.
If you make a big effort in the mid 1990s to add data retrospectively, unearthing old data from decommissioned stations, as well as from stations that currently operate but do NOT send their data to NOAA in real-time, and you have a huge additions of weather stations to the list that go up to the mid 90s. Because none of these stations update in real time, there is a sudden drop off in the station count occurring right after the date of that big effort to add data retrospectively.
And this is exactly what happened, as explained in the 1997 paper describing the project to collate old data to be added to GHCN.
How can you not understand this? You have to be incredibly dense.
willard…”A thermopile is a device that converts thermal energy into electrical voltage”.
***
Thermal energy is heat NOT IR.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Lindzen_TakingGr.pdf
Please don’t shout. You’ll wake up Mike Flynn.
willard…”Then the earth is in radiative balance with space, the net incoming solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR or thermal radiation or infrared radiation; these are all commonly used and equivalent terms) …”
***
That is an old witch’s tale. There can be no Net balance when the corresponding EM frequencies don’t overlap. Furthermore there is an indefinite time delay between energy in and energy out and there’s no reason to presume the energies must balance.
This notion that radiative energy controls Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong. Most of the heat on the planet is retained and circulated by the atmosphere and oceans. Once per Earth rotation, solar input serves to make up for natural losses due to heat loss by atmospheric expansion as hit air rises and dissipates naturally.
As I pointed out, the term ‘thermal radiation’ is an oxymoron. It’s also an anachronism dating back to the late 1800’s when scientists believed that heat moved through space as heat rays. Obviously, you, and those who employ the term, are living in the past.
Gordo presents another stupid comment writtingt:
Thermal energy lofted into the upper atmosphere by convection and radiation from below can only be “dissipated” via outgoing thermal IR radiation. This has been explained to him numerous times, yet he still can’t grasp the fact that there’s no other mode energy transfer out of the Earth’s atmosphere toward deep space.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
binny…”Reminds me the stuff endlessly posted by Robertson about 4,500 GHCN V3 stations allegedly dropped”.
***
Here’s the link again, which I just posted for Barry.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF WEATHER STATIONS HAS SHRUNK AROUND THE GLOBE FROM 6000 TO LESS THAN 1,500.
THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF WEATHER STATIONS HAS SHRUNK.
…directly from NOAA
Yet you and Barry continue to deny it.
Tell me something, how does anyone cover Earth’s global temperatures with less than 1500 reporting stations? The satellites cover 95% of the surface and they show lower global temps.
Duh!!!
I have never heard UAH make absurd claims like NOAA and NASA GISS, such as 2014 being the warmest year ever…based on a 48% probability (NOAA) or a 38% probability (GISS).
Why do you think they have to lie about such matters?
Robertson
barry and I we have explained that to you many times.
From the page you show you silently omit one half eaxch time you show it.
Read that page again, and try to understand.
*
The degree of the denial of evidence you show in any domain tells us that you are mentally completely dense.
You are not even aware of your own lies.
Visit a neurologist.
“THE PHYSICAL NUMBER OF WEATHER STATIONS HAS SHRUNK AROUND THE GLOBE FROM 6000 TO LESS THAN 1,500.”
That is a fake quote. That is not how the page reads, but that is obviously how Gordon reads the page. Stupid. And deceitful, putting a quote mark to BS like that.
Here’s the actual quote.
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record.”
willard…”Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation is generated when heat from the movement of charges in the material (electrons and protons in common forms of matter) is converted to electromagnetic radiation”.
***
I warned you about reading Wikipedia, it can make you go blind.
The statement above is one of the trashiest statements I have ever read. Outright lies.
Anyone who uses the term ‘thermal radiation’ is a plain liar. That notion dates back to the late 1800s when scientists believed heat could be transmitted through space as ‘heat rays’. I cannot fault any of those learned scientists for thinking that, they were doing the best with what they had technically. I can’t say the same for an idiot who would post such crap on Wiki, or the editors who would allow it.
It has been known since Bohr’s 1913 hypothesis, that became the basis for quantum theory, that electrons are the only particle in matter that can generate or absorb EM. The reason is simple. The electron carries an electron field which creates a magnetic field when it moves. Electric field + Magnetic field = ElectroMagnetic field.
EM is NOT generated by thermal motion of particles in matter. That is an idiotic statement in itself. EM is generated by electrons moving through a conductor or electrons changing orbital energy levels, called transitions.
EM generated by electrons moving through a conductor is called ‘near-field’ EM. Typically, it is the EM field around an electromagnet, or the EM field related to electric motors and transformers. Far-field EM is the higher frequency EM generated by electrons and it can be radiated through space, subject to the inverse-square law.
In matter the protons are not even moving, they are bound in a lattice. The claim that heat generates EM is so ludicrous it makes me wonder if the editors at Wiki are asleep. In matter, heat is related to the quantum energy levels of electrons around the nucleus or the movement of electrons through a conductor. In other words, the electrons produce the heat just as they produce EM, but the processes are not inter-related.
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. Then again, it’s being read by an idiot and presented as fact.
> Anyone who uses the term “thermal radiation” is a plain liar.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Lindzen_TakingGr.pdf
Please don’t make Dick sad.
willard…the words you cherry-picked are not the words of Lindzen, they are the words of the alarmist idiots he is paraphrasing.
Lindzen states:
“In any event, the oversimplified argument then proceeds as follows. Part of the sunlight reaching the earth is reflected by clouds, and the earths surface. The remainder (Net Incoming Solar Radiation) warms the earth and this warming is balanced by the earths infrared (or thermal)radiation. However, the presence of greenhouse substances (the most important of which are water vapor and clouds) inhibits this cooling by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33 C warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket”.
***
I don’t know if you deliberately misquoted Lindzen or if you are just too obtuse to understand what he was saying. Lindzen is presenting an ‘oversimplified argument’, representative of climate alarmists. He is not presenting his own views above.
If you follow his reasoning throughout the article he states that the atmosphere is bound by a warming of much less than 1C.
Thermal radiation is an oxymoron, not to be confused with alarmist morons. Thermal means heat, and heat is lost completely during the conversion from heat to EM.
Even that statement is inaccurate. It’s not heat producing EM radiation, its the electrons that also cause heating when they rise to a higher orbital energy level, representing a higher level of KE, which is heat.
When the electron falls to a lower level of KE, that represents an automatic loss of heat with the resulting production of EM.
Heat is not radiated and it’s stupid to claim it is. Heat is lost in the downward electron transition.
C’mon, Gordo.
The point is very simple. Even you should get it:
You said that whoever used “thermal radiation” was a liar.
Dick uses “thermal radiation” five times in that paper.
I’m sure you can make the appropriate inference.
Next time, think.
Witless Wee Willy,
Ooooh! How subtle! How crafty! How completely pointless!
C’mon, Wee Willy, you can be completely obscure and meaningless if you try hard enough.
Think, laddie, think.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd shoots the piano player.*
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Keep at it. Meaningless, but not quite obscure enough.
You can do it.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Wistful Wee Willy,
That’s a little better. Maybe you could increase the repetitious irrelevancy.
Waste a bit more space, and a bit more of your time. You can no doubt concentrate better if you keep both hands on your keyboard.
See how easy it is to be obscure?
Mike Flynn,
You’ve been repeating the same crap over and over again at Roy’s since at least 2013.
In fact you got banned a few times already.
Please spare me the repetitious!
Live long and prosper,
W
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…re your posted Montagnier lecture link…
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/montagnier_lecture.pdf
from the paper…
“This last factor and immune depression caused by malnutrition, drug abuse and increased co-infections, are probably the causes of the emergence of AIDS as a global epidemic, affecting most if not all continents, recently including the Polynesian islands.
The causative agent existed in Africa before the emergence of the epidemics in Central Africa and North America in the 1970s”.
***
A bit later, he was interviewed in an hour long video and he elaborated on the above. He made it clear he does not think HIV causes AIDS, that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle. That’s what he is saying above, that AIDS is caused by malnutrition, drug abuse and increased co-infections, one of them NOT being HIV, since he ruled that out as the cause of AIDS at a later time.
Now watch this video and weep, as the idiot you are. In the video Montagnier claims the following:
-that he has never seen HIV on an electron microscope, that he tried but that the view was too clouded to make out a virus. Later in the video, there is a quote from his lab tech, admitting they did not see HIV at any time.
-that he inferred HIV based on genetic theory. That same bs theory is used today to claim isolation of covid.
NOTE…I want to know why any scientist, who cannot see a virus on an electron microscope, where they are readily visible, would carry on looking for one by inference.
-that AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infection.
-that HIV does not cause AIDS, that it can infect an immune system only after the immune system has been defeated by lifestyle.
-that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system. He claimed we are all exposed to HIV several times in our lives but if our immune systems are healthy it will not harm us.
Exactly the same seems to be true for covid, based on the number of deaths claimed to be caused by it in any population.
https://vimeo.com/29599455
Robertson
The degree of the denial of evidence you show in any domain tells us that you are mentally completely dense.
You are not even aware of your own lies.
Visit a neurologist.
Montagnier has a rare but extreme case of Nobel disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
“Montagnier claimed that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses could emit low frequency radio waves that induce surrounding water molecules to become arranged into ‘nanostructures’.”
“He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished, and that water could retain the ‘memory’ of substances with which it had been in contact”
“He further claimed that DNA sequence information could be ‘teleported’ to a separate test tube of purified water via these radio waves.”
Basically that means he has lost his mind.
Researchers are struggling to determine how DNA can communicate. They’re convinced one DNA molecule communicates with other molecules, but they can’t figure out how. You’ll see a lot of conjectures until they figure it out, if they ever do.
Reasearchers are still struggling to determine how Dragon cranks can communicate, Pup.
If you could do the poel dance experiment, that would help.
Here’s one such conjecture:
DNA generates a longitudinal wave that propagates in the direction of the magnetic field vector. Computed frequencies from the structure of DNA agree with those of the predicted biophoton radiation. The optimization of efficiency by minimizing the conduction losses leads to the double-helix structure of DNA. The vortex model of the magnetic scalar wave not only covers many observed structures within the nucleus perfectly, but also explains the hyperboloid channels in the matrix when two cells communicate with each other. Potential vortexes are an essential component of a scalar waves, as discovered in 1990. The basic approach for an extended field theory was confirmed in 2009 with the discovery of magnetic monopoles. For the first time, this provides the opportunity to explain the physical basis of life not only from the biological discipline. Nature covers the whole spectrum of known scientific fields of research, and interdisciplinary understanding is required to explain its complex relationships. The characteristics of the potential vortex are significant. With its concentration effect, it provides for miniaturization down to a few nanometers, which allows enormously high information density in the nucleus. With this first introduction of the magnetic scalar wave, it becomes clear that such a wave is suitable to use genetic code chemically stored in the base pairs of the genes and electrically modulate them, so as to “piggyback” information from the cell nucleus to another cell. At the receiving end, the reverse process takes place and the transported information is converted back into a chemical structure. The necessary energy required to power the chemical process is provided by the magnetic scalar wave itself.
I thought that paper had been retracted. What say you Cling[e]R?
Hence the “struggling”, Dud.
Cling to the STRUGGLE, Pup.
Write a book on it.
you are such a funny Cling[e]R!
Clint R
Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
Montague and Mullis are fantasising. There is no remote communication between DNA molecules by magnetic scalar waves or monopoles.
Radio waves are not generated by nucleotides and there is no conversion of electromagnetically transmitted information back to nucleotide base sequences.
Ent, there’s no need to be sorry about agreeing with me. That’s what you want to do. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.
Or, are you sorry you havent agreed with me before now?
It’s never to late to learn. Better late than never.
Where is that gobbledegook found? Not in a real science journal.
Clearly it is full of buzzwords, but put together in ways that dont make much sense.
From his website:
“Dr. Meyl discovered a fundamental mistake in Maxwell’s Equations. By fixing these equations, Meyl was able to elegantly derive Tesla’s results as well as explain many other unexplained physical effects in science. Meyl’s theory, like all good theories explain all current results but is able to extend scientific explanation to include results that were previously outside the theory.”
Never heard about a mistake in Maxwells equations.
Also free energy:
“The consequences of Meyl’s theory are profound; they prove that free space has an abundant supply of energy and if developed properly as envision by Tesla a century ago, can result in environmentally benign clean energy for humanity – at a time when it is desparately needed.”
A clue to all but the most gullible: so many Over-the-Top claims.
“The optimization of efficiency by minimizing the conduction losses leads to the double-helix structure of DNA.”
“The vortex model of the magnetic scalar wave not only covers many observed structures within the nucleus PERFECTLY”
“he basic approach for an extended field theory was confirmed in 2009 with the discovery of MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.”
Huuh?
“For the first time, this provides the opportunity to explain the physical basis of life not only from the biological discipline.”
” At the receiving end, the reverse process takes place and the transported information is converted back into a chemical structure.”
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted –
” . . .serves as a blanket which causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be.”
Complete and utter balderdash.
The Earth is as warm as it is – no more, no less. If “Dick” (whoever he is) wants to be sad, don’t blame me. It’s his choice. Why should I care?
Maybe you could read the peer-reviewed research which explains why inhabitants of the hottest deserts in the world wear what could be described as black woolen blankets. Keeps them cooler than they otherwise would be, apparently.
I hope “Dick” doesn’t make himself too sad, accepting reality.
Mike Flynn,
Miraculous Flannelette,
Dick’s one of Gordo’s favorite authority.
Besides, mayhaps you forgot:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/#comment-229968
I’ll let you find back the last time I gave you a paper on this. Twas a few months ago.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Wanker,
What particular form of mental retardation leads you to think that I give a toss who “Dick” is, or how angry he chooses to feel?
As to rest of your meaningless gibberish, I assume you think it is important. I’m sure the contents of your fantasy are important to you, far less so to me.
Maybe you believe that communicating the results of your self abuse – “Oh! Oh! Oh!” – offer encouragement to other climate wankers, and maybe you are right. You all need something to turn to, when it all gets too much for you, and you realise fewer people each day care what you think.
Dear oh dear, Wee Will, you really are losing it a little, aren’t you?
Have you figured out why shielding a thermometer (or a person) from the sun does not result in an increase in temperature? Do you think it would make “Dick” angry if I explained it to you? Yes?
In that case, I suppose I best let you work it out for yourself. Or you can just do a bit more of whatever it is that makes you go “Oh! Oh! Oh!”
[chortles]
Mike Flynn,
Melbournian Fundamentalist,
Why I should care about how you feel about Dick? I mentioned Dick in response to Gordo’s comment. Gordo seems to care about Dick.
Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243020
Please, do keep up!
Cheers.
Weary Wee Willy,
I don’t care what you feel or don’t feel? Why should I?
Why you think that your opinion of what somebody I don’t know thinks about someone else I don’t know is a mystery to me. If you say you don’t care, what bother wasting your time banging away on your keyboard?
Thank you (I suppose) for confirming that I am not the only person who reads peer-reviewed papers in Nature. Maybe you should, as well. Then you wouldn’t appear quite so asinine.
Carry on being irrelevant. You obviously enjoy being an object of derision.
“Carry on being irrelevant. You obviously enjoy being an object of derision.”
I do find it amazing how often the trolls here unwittingly employ psychological projection.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/psychological-projection-dealing-with-undesirable-emotions/#:~:text=Psychological%20projection%20is%20a%20defense,dealing%20with%20the%20unwanted%20feelings.
Nate,
I’m sure you would find almost anything amazing, if it went against the climate cult dogma.
What is your response to an opinion you don’t like?
Psychobabble, and a link – presumably to more psychobabble. There are some delusional people who believe psychology is a science. Climate crackpots, psychologists, and many others.
Psychologists, just like climate cranks, offer opinions. Not science.
Carry on avoiding reality. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state, and thermometers respond to heat. Neither CO2 nor other insulators produce heat. That’s why they are used to keep things cold.
Maybe you can psychobabble inconvenient facts out of existence.
Give it a try.
“The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state”
Right on cue, he carries on being irrelevant, and invites more derision.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just another normal day in Kentucky.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59620091
Entropic Man,
So refreshing to see someone recognizing that the Kentucky tornado, though rate is part of natures normal. Thanks.
https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/2019-04-12-ten-worst-tornadoes-in-us
ET forgot the “sarc” tag. How many of your previous extreme tornado outbreaks hit in December?
I will give Entropic the benefit of the doubt for intelligence. As far as to your question, below is where tornados form in December.
https://www.ustornadoes.com/2014/12/10/heres-where-tornadoes-typically-form-in-december-across-the-united-states/
In a normal curve, extreme events are typically 2 standard deviations from the mean. Though rare, they do happen. Some people do not understand the normal curve.
Sorry, that should be rare not rate
Love how you use “rare” and “normal” in the same sentence, Billy.
By that logic, unique events belong to a normal distribution too!
Why are you repeating what he just said?
Nice to be talking about normal distributions. Very few sceptics recognise that climate change often shows as changes in the mean and SD of climate data.
For example, the normal distributions of temperature are moving towards higher temperatures over time.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2012_hansen_17/
I would add that many climate deniers do not recognize that either, though I have yet to meet anyone that claims climate does not exist or even that climate does not change. Also, many climate alarmist tend to point to an event and make a claim without properly setting up a hypothesis and null hypothesis and comparing to the normal curve.
The real trick is setting up the data to be relevant. For example, we know that sea levels were much higher than today under the same CO2 concentrations in the past. The past data is based on proxies and the current data are based on instrumentation. Would it be fair to claim CO2 has no impact on sea levels?
“normal distributions of temperature are moving towards higher temperatures over time”
Over the last few hundred years maybe. But that is not over ALL time.
” under the same CO2 concentrations in the past.”
But under what other conditions?
Cooler sun, for one.
Regarding tornadoes, their total numbers are not changing, but their distribution is. They are becoming less frequent in Texas and the plains states, while becoming more frequent further East in Alabama and Kentucky.
https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/06/16/tornado-season-changing-spreading-across-south-deaths-and-destruction/5134403001/
“In Alabama and Kentucky, though, between 2000 and 2020, the annual average of reported tornadoes more than doubled from the annual average of the prior 20-year period, according to a USA TODAY Network analysis of federal tornado data. “
“Regarding tornadoes, their total numbers are not changing, but their distribution is.”
Ent, that’s just what you’re seeing in your lifetime. That doesn’t mean anything is changing longterm. For example, what was the distribution of tornadoes in 1491, the year before Columbus landed?
You’re just forming opinions based on your beliefs. Maybe you’ve heard this before, “Beliefs ain’t science”‘.
Appealing to your ignorance is a tad unfair, Pup.
You have MORE than us all!
Chortles.
entropic…”Regarding tornadoes, their total numbers are not changing, but their distribution is”.
***
why do you cite one idiot who cites unknown sources? The historical evidence says otherwise. Tornado Alley had its worst hit by far in 1974, when 149 tornadoes ripped up parts of the alley in 24 hours.
Remember 1974…before the climate change propaganda got a grip?
> Why are you repeating what he just said?
Because it’s ridiculous, Troglodyte.
Singularities are not “normal” in any ordinary sense!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hope Roy and his family are OK after the tornado that just ripped through the Kentucky area.I know Kentucky is a fair ways from Alabama but that entire area is known as Tornado Alley.
In 1974, 149 tornadoes ripped through part of the Alley in a 24 hour period. Surprisingly to me, in the same year, 81 tornadoes ripped through the UK in a 24 hour period. That is very unusual for the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Super_Outbreak
Naturally, CNN missed 1974 in its list of the 10 worst tornadoes in US history. It lists the last outbreak in 1951. All the same, the CNN list puts the boots to the alarmists notion that severe weather is a sign of climate change. Obviously, this years turbulent weather is related to La Nina.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/us/deadliest-tornadoes-trnd/index.html
FYI, Kentucky is not in Tornado Alley.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Tornado_Alley_Diagram.svg/1280px-Tornado_Alley_Diagram.svg.png
entropic…”Just another normal day in Kentucky”.
***
The BBC are full of crap, as usual. I just posted above about the April 1974 event when 149 tornadoes ripped through the same area in 24 hours. That night was dubbed, “The Night of the Killer Tornadoes”. It spread from Kentucky up through Windsor, Canada killing 315 people along the way.
Here’s the link again…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Super_Outbreak
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Super_Outbreak
You need to slow down. Then read. Then think.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You need to try to be more obscure. Try giving more meaningless instructions.
Have you given thought to what you are trying to achieve? Maybe you’ve lost your way.
willard…”You need to slow down. Then read. Then think”.
***
I’m wondering if you are a bot programmed to follow me and other posters and post an automated reply of utter gibberish?
Is there a point to your post?
C’mon, Gordo. Don’t you even read? The Beeb reported the goddam Governor of Kentucky:
But my own point is more mundane: do you even realize that we’re in December?
I mean, srsly. Do you? Reading your comments, I’m not so sure you would not dispute that!
Think.
willard…”do you even realize that were in December?”
***
Do you realize we’re having a major La Nina in December and it it is creating havoc with atmospheric and ocean disturbances globally?
Do you realize Arctic air is descending into the areas where the tornadoes occurred and that La Nina affected air from the Gulf region is mixing with the cold front from the Arctic? That’s what causes tornadoes.
I’d ask you to think but I realize that’s too tall an order for you.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
You are coming along, although slowly. “The Beeb” is cryptic enough, but I wonder if people will understand your reference to “the goddamn Governor”, as opposed to the other one.
Your point seems to be sufficiently obscure, being disguised as a qotcha, masquerading as an implied question. However, possibly if you had enquired as to his awareness of the fact that there are eleven months which are not December, you would have confused onlookers even more.
Quoting someone’s opinion about the “worst tornadoes” is quite clever as an obfuscatory tactic, as “worst” is not defined, and so cannot be contradicted.
Rather like climate crackpots talking about stopping “climate change”, when to any rational person, such a thing is impossible (climate being the statistics of past weather). Or referring to “climate deniers”, without being able to name a single person who denies that weather statistics exist!
Not a bad try, Wee Willy. Nobody has the faintest idea what your point was, or if it even existed.
Carry on.
Cmon, Gordo.
Do you realize that you misread the Beebs title?
Did you know that to argue that an event must have a cause is silly?
How far is Kentucky from the ocean, BTW?
Think.
Wandering Wee Willy,
Questions, questions, questions! Or gotchas, gotchas, gotchas?
Do you think anybody cares?
Keep at it, Wee Willy.
Oh, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn,
You missed the start of the exchange once again, you adorable pest!
Gordo asked questions, questions, questions, I asked questions, questions, questions.
Simple, isn’t it?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Whickering Wee Willy,
Diversions, diversions, diversions.
Thanks for the flattery, imitation being the sincerest form of.
You obviously realised that your “Oh! Oh! Oh!” attempt to appear original had masturbatory implications. Appropriate, but maybe not quite you intended.
In the meantime, have you managed to dream up any non-fantasy explanation for the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
The mythical GHE doesn’t seem to have stopped the cooling. Neither has the insulating effect of the atmosphere, the ice caps, the solid crust or anything else.
Consult with the other GHE imbeciles, see how fast you can all deny reality. About as fast as Gavin Schmidt ran away from a debate with Roy Spencer, I guess.
[sniggers]
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd starts to mosh.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”The degree of the denial of evidence you show in any domain tells us that you are mentally completely dense.
You are not even aware of your own lies.
Visit a neurologist”.
***
A typical Binny rant where evidence is supplied to refute something he posted. Note the lack of scientific rebuttal, just an ad hom-based rant.
C’mon, Gordo. Read that comment of yours:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1063774
Think before you type.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate…re Montagnier’s theories. I don’t like to knock the guy. I watched his hour long video interview and I like the guy even though I don’t agree with his science. I don’t know what to make of his claims re water molecules because I don’t know what he’s on about.
My problem with Montagnier is that he followed a protocol for isolating a virus developed by his institute, the Louis Pasteur Institute. A member of his team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the panel that created the protocol, which requires that an infectious agent be inserted into a sugar solution with a density gradient, centrifuged, and then any material settling at a certain density level be removed. The density level is that of viral material but not necessarily a virus.
Then the removed viral material is to be prepared and viewed with an electron microscope. Any virus seen must be apparent with the same shape and size for the viruses. In the interview, Montagnier admitted he followed the protocol, isolated material from the proper density level, but when he prepared the material and viewed it with an EM he could see no virus.
In the end, he INFERRED that 1 in 1000 particles in the EM micrograph ‘MUST BE’ HIV. Montagnier’s background is in the retroviral branch, based on a theory that was only ten years old when he made the inference. There are still questions today as to whether retroviral theory is correct. It is based on the presence of an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, but it has been found since that RT is common in other bodily processes.
Why did he not stop when he saw no virus on the EM? What he has done by continuing to search for HIV, is create a situation where a perfectly good method developed by his institution, the Louis Pasteur Institute, has been cast aside while his bogus method re inference has been adopted world wide.
His eventual conclusion, some 25 years after, is that AIDS is not caused by HIV, yet he still maintains the HIV virus exists, based purely on inference. He also insists HIV is not dangerous to a healthy immune system.
This does not make him an idiot but it does show how attached scientists can become to entrenched paradigms. They become so attached, in this case, to their theories, that when evidence is lacking, they manufacture theories to account for the missing viruses.
That applies not only to HIV or covid, it applies to all viruses since they were inferred 150 years ago. The science is full of conjecture, inference, and consensus, and seriously lacking in science based on the scientific method.
That’s why we are caught up in this insanity about covid. Montagnier manufactured a theory about HIV, based on inference and supported by consensus, and that same bs theory is the basis of covid theory. The same people pushing the covid bs, are the same people keeping the HIV/AIDS theory alive, even though the data on HIV/AIDS should have killed that theory long ago.
At least Montagnier has the guts to admit the theory is wrong, although he does not state that in words. Another whiz kid researcher, Dr. Peter Duesberg, the youngest scientists ever inducted into the National Academy of Science at the time, tried to point out that HIV could not cause AIDS. His career was ruined.
Duesberg is a retrovirologist as well and even he refused to let go of the HIV speculation. Both he and Montagnier are now in agreement, however, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is a lifestyle issue.
I have no problem with Montagnier expressing his opinions. I do have a problem with media accepting his theory about HIV in 1983 then failing to report his major amendment to the theory 25 years later, which essentially kills the HIV/AIDS theory and put serious doubt on the nonsense about covid.
I am also deeply concerned that any science which opposes the covid theory is being systematically suppressed. Scientists and doctors are being fired for expressing opinions that oppose the current theory. In Winnipeg, Canada, a doctor was fired for questioning the use of the covid vaccine on children.
“HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is a lifestyle issue”
You are wrong.
Arthur Ashe is on line 2.
Lifestyle issue, my ass.
bob, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Thermal energy lofted into the upper atmosphere by convection and radiation from below can only be dissipated via outgoing thermal IR radiation”.
***
Swannie fails to understand what heat is or how it can be dissipated. That’s why he incorrectly concluded from an experiment that heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
Swannie also fails to understand the Ideal Gas Law.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. If you have x molecules in a container of so many cubic inches, and you double the size of the container, what happens? The pressure drops and the temperature drops. That is, the heat level drops. The heat doesn’t go anywhere, it is simply lost naturally.
That’s an example of the Ideal Gas Law. So, if you have a quantity of atmospheric gas at the surface at STP, and that gas rises to a level where the pressure is much lower than the pressure at STP, what happens. The quantity of gas expands, the pressure drops, and the temperature drops.
There you have it, a dissipation of heat in the atmosphere due to gas expansion and no need to radiate anything to space.
This is not magic nor does it contradict any laws of physics. The problem is that we have been brain-washed with this credo about heat in must equal heat out, as if it is a generic law. It’s not in this case.
The average temperature of the Earth depends on much more complicated factors. Solar energy is definitely one of those factors but so is the rate at which the planet turns, the distance and position in its orbit of the Earth wrt Sun, and most importantly, the amount of heat the oceans, surface, and atmosphere can store.
It’s about heat in, heat stored, heat dissipated naturally, and heat lost by other means. Solar energy in does not have to be balanced, it is merely a regular shot of energy that helps maintain the energy stored in the system. Some heat is lost due to conversion to EM and radiated to space but that amount does not have the balance the solar energy in.
If they were balanced, the Earth would never have warmed.
It is the stored energy that accounts for the alleged 33C warming, not a trace gas that can cause no more than about 0.04C warming for every 1C overall warming.
Gordo, you are a complete Dunning-Kruger idiot. You wrote:
Over a year, if more solar energy enters the atmosphere than is reflected or lost to deep space, the Earth will warm. It will continue to warm over a period of time until the rate of outward energy equals the rate of inbound energy from the Sun. The rate of outbound energy depends on the temperature at various points in the system, including the upper atmosphere above the tropopause and the outgoing energy is thermal IR radiation emitted by the surface and by Greenhouse Gasses, which have been accurately measured by satellite instruments orbiting above the TOA.
Since you apparently disagree with this simple description, give us your version of the physical mechanism(s) which accomplishes that upper level energy “dissipation” out of the atmosphere to deep space. Your version of the Ideal Gas Law fails because you don’t include a way to remove the thermal energy from the rising gas.
ES,
But first, give us your explanation of the physical mechanisms which allowed the Earth to cool from the molten state.
Be sure to include the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last four and a half billion years, if you wouldn’t mind.
You haven’t a clue, have you?
Mike Flynn,
Marketable Forstalling,
Questions, questions, questions?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
swenson…”You havent a clue, have you?”
***
Swannie is still trying to figure out the 2nd law. Willard doesn’t even know what it is.
C’mon, Gordo.
The second law of Climateball is – don’t fall for silly head fakes.
More so by serial liars like you, I might add.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Over a year, if more solar energy enters the atmosphere than is reflected or lost to deep space, the Earth will warm”.
***
Your ability to think laterally seems non-existent. Has it ever occurred to your limited intellect that it has already warmed, and needs the solar input to remain at that level of warming?
Again, you don’t understand heat, or the the Ideal Gas Law.
Gordo’s been taking lessons from pups and Swenson/Flynn. I never implied that the Earth wasn’t presently warm, just that the effect of an energy flow imbalance would be a change in average temperature.
Instead of answering my question regarding his delusional physics about what happens to the energy lofted by convection high into the atmosphere, he distorts what I wrote and accuses me of not “understanding” basic physics. Gordo doesn’t understand the basics of meteorology, including the physics behind the vertical circulation in the atmosphere. So Gordo, I must again insist that you tell us what you think happens to that energy, as it’s obvious that it goes somewhere and that somewhere is deep space.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Добрый День. Совершенно случайно нашла данный ресурс https://vk.cc/c8QR71 и сначала думала, что это какой то развод, мало ли что можно насобирать, каких курсов. Но потом подписалась на телеграмм и для себя очень много интересных тем нашла. Зарегистрировалась, оплатила премиум и ни капли не пожалела. Сэкономила очень много денег. Если бы узнала о этом сайте раньше, не тратила бы 14к за нужный мне курс, который там выложен бесплатно! Своих денег этот ресурс стоит и, мало того, во многом превосходит!. Вечная подписка обойдётся в 500р.
Just in, coldest winter on record at the South Pole. Can Australia be far behind?
Of course, the bumbling alarmists are writing it off as a mere blip. I imagine some of the more deluded will claim it was predicted by AGW theory.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/10/01/south-pole-coldest-winter-record/
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This commercial for this flawed product is getting boring, Christos.
We have all seen it too many times, and shown you the flaws too many times, and you still refuse to deal with them.
You defend the consensus climate science… Do not call names what you don’t understand yet. I do my best to make you understand!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Troll Nate, as a cult member, you have to also believe there is a “real 255K surface”. Do you know where it is? Your cult believes in it, but they don’t know where it is.
Clint R wanders on still looking for the earthen 255K measurement. Funny.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas at 2:50 AM
Your model does not explain the fact that the atmosphere filters out outgoing IR radiation in certain wavelengths as shown by satellite measurements here: IR spectra for the entire atmosphere. By ignoring this inconvenient truth you are denying basic laws of physics.
You shouldn’t get defensive when Nate at 6:04 AM points out this inconsistency.
Tyson,
“…as shown by satellite measurements here: IR spectra for the entire atmosphere.”
Again, what you do is to consider a planet (Earth) as a blackbody which it is not. There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation. Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Can you post the scientific data supporting your statement that “There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation”. If you can’t then I take your assertion as an opinion, which is perfectly fine of course. However, there are thousands of spectroscopic measurements that say you are wrong.
As to your remark that “Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted I am speechless!. I seem to remember you saying you were a Mechanical Engineer, no? Didn’t you ever study radiation heat transfer?
Again, no need to get defensive when someone asks you a question about your model. If you really believe you have discovered some new physics, then you’ve better be prepared to answer some questions.
Didnt you ever study
radiationradiative heat transfer?https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1064667
Christos Vournas at 9:51 AM
In your case, self-referencing is no better than a personal opinion.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Here are the first paragraphs of the first chapter of Michael Modest’s Radiative Heat Transfer textbook which is widely used in first year M.Eng. instruction:
“The terms radiative heat transfer and thermal radiation are commonly used to describe the science of the heat transfer caused by electromagnetic waves. Obvious everyday examples of thermal radiation include the heating effect of sunshine on a clear day, the fact that – when one is standing in front of a fire – the body’s side facing the fire feels much hotter than the back, and so on.
All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels. The strength and wavelengths of emission depend on the temperature of the emitting material.”
Surely this is not new to you!
TM pulls out all his cult tricks, trying to pervert reality.
Notice he “cherry-picks” the sun and a fire for his examples of IR heating. Notice he didn’t try to claim a wall of ice could keep you warm. A wall of ice emits higher energy photons than the 15μ photon from CO2.
pups, a “wall of ice” at 0 C separating a heated body from colder surroundings will keep the heated body warmer than if said heated body were directly emitting energy toward the colder surroundings. Ask an Inuit living in an igloo or read my Ice Plate Demo again.
An igloo is a structure that restricts conduction and convection, Willard Jr.
Try again.
Clint R at 10:29 AM
“Notice he “cherry-picks””
Since I gave the name and author of the Mechanical Engineering textbook I quoted, your slanderous retort is moot, you clown!
Again:Michael Modest’s Radiative Heat Transfer textbook
Yeah, I noticed the source you used to cherry-pick, TM.
Did your source mention that a wall of ice won’t warm you? A wall of ice emits higher energy photons than the 15μ photon from CO2.
Clint R at 12:00 PM
Again, you Clingy Clown: Michael Modests Radiative Heat Transfer textbook
Do your own research.
Well TM, if you believe Michael is your cult hero, invite him here to discuss. Dr. Spencer allows an open forum for people to learn science from nonsense. Invite Micheal to participate.
Clint R at 12:29 PM
you are dumber than a door nail! You don’t understand how citations work, do you?
I see that pups ignored my Ice Plate Demo again continuing it’s failure to understand that all materials emit thermal IR radiation, which, depending on the geometry and other circumstances, can warm a heated body. It objects to my mention of an igloo ice house, which also limits convective losses, but accepts the opposite claim for an ice block warming an unheated material, where heat loss thru convection will dominate.
Thermal IR shielding works for us engineers, which is why we use it.
Willard Jr, if your point was that you don’t understand any of this, you did a good job.
TM, do you realize that “IR spectra for the entire atmosphere” is only 4 locations?
Do you understand how meaningless that is?
Clint R at 10:09 AM
I’m not going to do your research for you, you simpleton.
I’ve already done the research, TM. You haven’t, obviously.
Four locations mean NOTHING.
you’re just too funny!
TM, pick one of your 4 locations and convert that spectrum to energy for us.
That would be some REAL humor.
Clint R at 12:31 PM
“pick one of your 4 locations and convert that spectrum to energy for us.”
You are such an idiot!
Here’s how I do it:https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M (Outgoing Longwave Radiation)
since my tax dollars pay for this.
You don’t understand any of this, TM.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1065588
Your tax dollars were wasted. But the “flat earth” is a nice touch.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R at 2:49 PM
LMAO…
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Tyson,
“…as shown by satellite measurements here: IR spectra for the entire atmosphere.”
Again you consider a planet (Earth) as a blackbody, which it is not. The atmosphere doesn’t filter out outgoing IR radiation which is not being emitted.
https://www.cristos-vournas
So the surface (water or ground) does not emit any IR?
Which “surface” is that, RLH?
An imaginary sphere does not have “water or ground”. And the imaginary “real 255K surface” does not exist.
The surface where a large change in density occurs. From land/ocean to gas.
What altitude would that be?
“The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds
At what elevation do clouds warm Earth?
“What altitude would that be?”
At ‘sea’ level.
If you don’t understand how winds/highs/lows affect temperatures you need to use something like https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=52.26815737376817&lon=6.50390625&zoom=3 and set on the lower right hand corner options, temperature, wind particles and isobars.
Gbaikie
As a rule of thumb clouds made of water droplets reflect more sunlight than IR and have a net cooling effect on the surface.
Clouds made of ice crystals (ie cirrus) reflect more IR than sunlight and have a net warming effect.
Cirrus is mostly found above 8000m ( 26000ft).
Gbaikie
The warming takes place where the sunlight and IR are absorbed. That would be by particles and GHGs in the atmosphere below the cloud, and by the surface.
Clint R
It is relatively easy to derive total radiative energy from a graph of OLR radiance v wavenumber. Just integrate the area under the curve.
That’s wrong, Ent.
You would need the emitting area, and the distance to that area from where the flux is measured. Plus the time involved. Even then, your result would contain massive errors.
You don’t know anything about this subject. You’re just another cult idiot, willing to pervert reality to fit your false beliefs. You actually have claimed passenger jets fly backwards, just to support your belief that Moon rotates.
So now we have another entry for the location of the imaginary “real 255K surface”.
RLH — sea level
braindead bob — TOA
Norman — somewhere in the atmosphere, yet to be determined
Ball4 — no clue
What we need is a “consensus”….
(Reality is there’s no such thing.)
Clint writes the earthen 255K measurment is imaginary not having done the work to find about it. Truly funny.
Clint R: I was observing that ‘sea or land level’ produces IR from solid or liquid objects.
That is quite different from transmissibility of a gasseuos atmosphere.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Cirrus is mostly found above 8000m ( 26000ft).”
So, some where average air temperature is about 50 C colder, and where there is more UV sunlight and more sunlight in general.
How about the clouds of Venus, where they warm?
What planet blackbody equation claims is that for the stationary Moon the planet blackbody temperature is 270K.
It is calculated by the use of the planet blackbody equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
which is a mathematical abstraction .
Moon’s MEASURED average surface temperature is 220K though!
It is 270K-220K =50C less than the mathematical abstraction equation calculates.
Conclusion:
The Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ equation is not valid for planet surface temperatures estimations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos writes the 1st law of thermodynamics is a mathematical abstraction! No, the 1LOT is perfectly valid for planetary surface temperature estimates.
“Moon’s MEASURED average surface temperature is 220K though!”
No Christos, the moon’s equatorial measured avg. brightness temperature is 210K so the total lunar surface brightness temperature cannot be higher at 220K. There is published work claiming it closer to 197K. The 210K avg. is below the equatorial equilibrium temperature of 240K.
Always before writing on a subject the writer will have surveyed past work on the subject. Christos clearly has not done so & thus is not up to speed on previous work.
“Always before writing on a subject the writer will have surveyed past work on the subject. Christos clearly has not done so & thus is not up to speed on previous work.”
Yes, I am fully aware of that:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp.
………….min mean max
equator… 100 K 220 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Good for Christos to admit being “fully aware” not being up to speed on previous work. Christos can remove obvious errors (& various fudge factors) from his analysis work by reading up on the subject from reliable sources that ARE up to speed & using measured Diviner radiometer data & Apollo thermometer temperature data.
Btw, wiki gives no source for the 220K lunar equatorial mean that I can quickly find. Does Christos understand where that figure is sourced?
“Btw, wiki gives no source for the 220K lunar equatorial mean that I can quickly find. Does Christos understand where that figure is sourced?”
Lune — Wikipédia (wikipedia.org)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lune
Maximum 396 K (123 °C) Moyenne 200 K (−73 °C) Minimum 40 K (−233 °C)
月球 – 维基百科,自由的百科全书 (wikipedia.org)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9C%88%E7%90%83
表面溫度最低平均
最高赤道100 K220 K390 K85°N[3]70 K130 K230 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, wiki reports original research but they don’t report the original research source for lunar mean 220K and I can’t quickly find it
Apparently Christos simply relies on wiki reports being accurate – not always the case. In this case wiki is probably not reliable & probably wrong – the accurate avg. lunar equatorial temperature is 210K you can find in the relevant, reliable published literature.
“Christos writes the 1st law of thermodynamics is a mathematical abstraction! No, the 1LOT is perfectly valid for planetary surface temperature estimates.”
“There is published work claiming it closer to 197K.
What planet blackbody equation claims is that for the stationary Moon the planet blackbody temperature is 270K.
270K-197K =73C
Conclusion:
The Te = [(1-a)S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ equation is not valid for planet surface temperatures estimations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What Christos really means is the input data to 1LOT is not valid for the NASA fact sheet 270K equilibrium lunar black-body temperature calculation as measurements show a lower lunar T.
Perhaps Christos, purporting to be knowledgeable in these matters, could explain to us why that is?
What Christos really means is the input data to 1LOT is not valid for the NASA fact sheet 270K equilibrium lunar black-body temperature calculation as measurements show a lower lunar T.
Perhaps Christos, purporting to be knowledgeable in these matters, could explain to us why that is?
Please do not blame NASA for all this mess!
NASA calculates 270K very well.
Also NASA measures surface temperatures very much precisely!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Obviously NASA calculates the lunar equilibrium brightness temperature 270K wrongly Christos as the NASA sponsored instruments measure a lower lunar equilibrium temperature. Why is NASA calculation so inaccurate – too high?
Ball4, thank you for asking!
If you are still interested, please put the question again tomorrow.
It is Monday Nov. 13 1:22AM in Athens now.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your mumbling weatherman in chief giving update on Kentucky “hurricane”
https://youtu.be/PCZ-YRHGc2U
In the next video he will be demonstrating what happens when you lick a metal pole in the freezing weather
Braindead cult idiots worship this guy.
(From the sub-thread above that is getting too long to respond to.)
Nate still is confusing “kinematics” with “orbital motion” He doesn’t understand the physics. That’s why he can’t answer the simple vectors problem.
> getting too long
Dragon crank kids, these days.
Too lazy to troll properly.
Do the Peol Dance Experiment, Pup.
Report.
As you don’t use vectors on a daily, practical, basis, I take anything you say with a large pinch of salt.
I might have time to show the solution today, RLH. Stay tuned.
Bring all the salt you want.
Your ‘solution’ is nothing like. It is the ramblings of a lunatic.
Christos Vournas at 8:32 AM
“Tyson,
“…as shown by satellite measurements here: IR spectra for the entire atmosphere.”
Again, what you do is to consider a planet (Earth) as a blackbody which it is not. There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation. Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted!”
Here is the earth lit up like a Christmas tree with Outgoing IR radiation: https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M
So, you not only ignore the laws of physics, you also ignore real data!
The least you can do is admit that, yes, the earth does emit IR radiation. Until you do, you have zero credibility.
Again, what you do is to consider a planet (Earth) as a blackbody which it is not. There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation. Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted!
Planet not being blackbody doesn’t mean planet doesn’t emit IR radiation…
“Here is the earth lit up like a Christmas tree with Outgoing IR radiation: https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M
So, you not only ignore the laws of physics, you also ignore real data!
The least you can do is admit that, yes, the earth does emit IR radiation. Until you do, you have zero credibility.”
Tyson, the least you can do is to apologize for your inattention.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Forget about the blackbody analogy if it’s confusing you.
You should have learned somewhere in school that, all materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves simply by virtue of their being at a temperature above absolute zero, no? Young adults learn that in high school these days.
If you didn’t learn that, then you are a lost cause!
TM,
As you say, all matter above absolute zero emits and absorbs radiation.
CO2 is no exception. Some ignorant climate crackpots believe that CO2 can only absorb and emit radiation of certain frequencies.
Silly, aren’t they?
your opinion is duly note. Now, go read a textbook.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM doesn’t realize that is a computer model, a supposed composite, colorized even! It means NOTHING, since EVERYTHING emits IR.
Again, the “flat earth” is a nice touch. Somewhat symbolic of the cult’s beliefs.
Clint R at 3:13 PM
We all know that you don’t understand any of this. You just go ahead and continue to say funny stuff and let the adults talk, alright!
Here’s some humor you will like:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1065426
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-975764
LMAO!
I had forgotten that one, TM. That was where you got caught denying the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.
Thanks for the reminder.
LMAO! you get funnier by the minute.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Tyson McGuffin appealed to authority, and quoted –
“All materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves, or photons, by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels.”
Close, but no cigar. Not everything is composed of molecules – the noble gases for example. The author is being economical with truth for some reason, or may just be ignorant.
However, saying that radiation emission comes about ” . .
by lowering or raising their molecular energy levels.” Is just nonsense. The energy content of matter is changed by the gain or loss due to electrons interacting with radiation.
As an example, matter deprived of an external heat source will spontaneously continue to emit radiation of continuously longer wavelengths until it has reached its effective ground state – absolute zero. I have condensed this explanation for brevity.
Suffice it to say that TM’s appeal to authority merely shows that TM does not understand what he is talking about. However, he has performed a service, inasmuch as he now appears to accept that CO2 emits and absorbs radiation of all frequencies – hopefully, because it is fact.
Mike Flynn,
Word-that-starts-with-M Word-that-starts-with-F,
Vintage 2013:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/how-can-home-insulation-keep-your-house-warmer-when-it-cools-your-house/
Live well and prosper,
W
PS: Forgot about that line. Ha!
Word that starts with W word that starts with I word that starts with M word that starts with H
Willard is my hero
Wasteful Wee Willy,
Obviously, Mike Flynn is a rational and realistic chap.
You should quote him more often, instead of spouting all that diversionary nonsense you usually do.
Are you seriously trying to disagree with what he wrote? I cannot see anything of note with which to disagree.
By the way, who is W? What line did you forget about?
You can’t shake the compulsion to try to appear intelligent through obscurity and crypticism, can you?
More Mike Flynn quotes, please!
Mike Flynn,
Multicopying Fax,
Questions! Questions! Questions!
You are Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Long live and prosper,
W
Wee Willy Wanker,
Now that you have delivered yourself the happy ending to your self-abuse – “Oh! Oh! Oh!” – you have time to provide more Mike Flynn quotes.
Or have you just realised that quoting facts is likely to get you booted from the ragtag delusional consensus of climate crackpots?
Tut, tut. Truth is not appreciated by climate cranks. Best quote nonsense, instead.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd yawns.*
Witless Wee Willy,
Given up trying to appear intelligent, have you?
That should impress someone, at least.
Carry on looking deranged.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd chants “MIKE FLYNN! MIKE FLYNN.”*
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
your opinion is duly noted. Now go read a textbook!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
(If all the HTML codes work, it will be a miracle — maybe multiple miracles.)
The Moon rotation nonsense is easily debunked by the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, swinging in a circle. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, the string would wrap around it.
But the cult idiots don’t like reality.
So to add to their confusion, I prepared a simple problem, about two weeks ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036240
Because it involves simple physics, NONE of them could solve it. So here’s the solution:
Given the two vectors, 50∠180° and 10∠-90°, both at the “top” of the circle. Find the resultant vector after orbiting 90° CCW.
There are two ways to solve it. First way is to find the resultant, and then orbit that resultant 90°:
Magnitude = sqrt(2500 + 100) = 51
Direction = 180 + arctan(10/50) = 180.2°
So resultant = 51∠180.2°
Then 90° CCW in orbit –> 51∠270.2°
Second way is orbit first, then find the resultant:
50∠270° and 10∠0°
Magnitude = sqrt(2500 +100) = 51
Direction = 270 + arctan(10/50) = 270.2°
Resultant is then 51∠270.2°
Of course the answer should be the same either way.
The point is, the result of the two vectors changes the direction. It does NOT cause rotation because the vectors act on the center of mass.
Now the fun starts….
A ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else and certainly not orbits.
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else and certainly not orbits”.
***
This smells of red-herring. The ball on a string demonstrates perfectly how the Moon orbits the Earth, keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, while NOT rotating about its COG.
Observe and learn.
It’s not meant to model the lunar orbit, only to reveal the motion of the Moon in its orbit wrt to not rotating about its axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
May I ask you, why are you doing this?
coturnix…”May I ask you, why are you doing this?”
***
Can you be more specific, doing what? Please don’t reply with an appeal to authority, if you have a genuine scientific rebuttal, let’s hear it. If you do, you’ll be the only one who has attempted a scientific rebuttal, the spinners avoid science like the plague, bowing to an appeal to authority.
idon’t care what you tink, i wonder why you (and a few like usernames)do it? leaving thousands upon thousands of nonsensical comments under the dr. spencer’s blog? Are you payed by al Gore to do this, or are you truly insane?
A ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string. That is not a red herring, that is a fact.
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string is only of relevance to a ball-on-a-string. That is not a red herring, that is a fact”.
***
You are being obtuse, well below the station of someone with a master’s degree.
>>If it were, the string would wrap around it.
actually, the string in the setup you describe WOULD wrap around the non-rotating earth, which proves that moon rotates =). For the string not to wrap around anything at all requires the earth to rotate, and therefore proves that moon rotates ass well. Conversely, if neither of them rotated, the string would wrap around both of them but in the opposite directions.
coturnix…”the string in the setup you describe WOULD wrap around the non-rotating earth, which proves that moon rotates =)”.
***
Picture the Earth as a yoyo but a spheroid with a slit in it so the string can slip around a slippery axle in the centre of the Earth. The other end of the string attaches to the near face of the Moon. As the Moon orbits, the near side faces down the string, as required.
That’s the point of the ball on a string model. The near side always faces the Earth and the Moon cannot rotate about it’s axis since tension on the string holds it in place, just as it does with the ball.
If you want a scientific model, presuming a circular orbit, based on simple calculus, visualize a radial line rotating around the Earth’s centre, located at 0,0 on the lunar orbital plane. Now draw a line perpendicular to the radial line. Note that the angle the perpendicular line makes with the x-axis changes through 360 degrees yet it cannot rotate about the point where it intercepts the radial line.
That’s the Moon’s action in its orbit, translation without rotation. If you want to go deeper, make the perpendicular line a tangent line to a circle. Make the tangential line the tangential plane of the near face of the Moon. Now the Moon’s near face is changing it’s angle with the x-axis just as the perpendicular line did. That change of angle is what spinners are confusing with local rotation about the Moon’s axis.
Now draw another tangent line on the far face and allow it to represent a circle concentric to the inner circle. Therefore the near face and far face are orbiting along concentric circle. The faces are always moving in parallel, and that is irrefutable proof that the Moon is not rotating around it’s COG/axis.
You can draw an infinite number of tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line and all of them represent concentric circles. That is the definition of curvilinear translation: all points are moving in parallel and at the same angular velocity, the angular velocity of the radial line.
There is no rotation about a local axis/COG whatsoever.
That’s why I do this, I want to convey that proof till the lights go on and some spinner sees it. Failing that, someone else reading the blog might have the lights go on.
“Picture the Earth as a yoyo but a spheroid with a slit in it so the string can slip around a slippery axle in the centre of the Earth. The other end of the string attaches to the near face of the Moon. As the Moon orbits, the near side faces down the string, as required. ”
Why not have a slippery axle in both bodies?
A slippery axle on both bodies would make more sense and be closer to how gravity actually works.
Gordo, We know that you have trouble understanding this, but the Moon’s orbit is not a circle.
coturnix…forget the mathematical proof I just offered, you lack the intelligence to understand it.
i lack the inetelligence to decipher raving nonsense, yes.
“Thats the Moons action in its orbit, translation without rotation. ”
Hmmmm.
Gordon, How does that jive with the actual definition of translation from all Kinematics of Rigid Bodies textbooks:
EG Madhavi:
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
We know of course that straight lines within our Moon are certainly NOT keeping the same direction as it orbits.
Troll Nate, “kinematics” does not apply to orbital motion.
You can’t learn that because you’re braindead.
>> “kinematics” does not apply to orbital motion.
that’s the most nonsensical thing i heard uttered on these pages. Seriously, your job writing this nonsense must be really fun. How much does the proverbial albert bin albert al Gore pay you? I seriously won’t ever believe that a sane person can spew such a nonsense for free…
Bird, your knowledge of science is even worse than your written communication.
If you can ever get through high school, maybe things will improve.
seriously, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTVt_g8_wSs
Seriously. Orbital motion cannot be explained with kinematics.
Start learning while you’re still young. That way, when you grow up, you might know something.
Wow, Coturnix, that summarizes Clint’s (and Gordon’s) arguments so eloquently!
RLH and Willard couldn’t even find the obvious mistake I left for them!
They don’t understand any of this.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is an idiot. That is why this is so much fun.
RLH and Willard can’t find the mistake because they know NOTHING about physics.
I showed my work, so the mistake would be easy to find. But, they couldn’t even follow my work. They’re nothing but worthless trolls. They want so badly to pervert reality, but they don’t have the basic education to make a difference.
Just to bring this to a close, the mistake was the angle. The actual value of arctan(.2) is 11.3°. So the resultant at “top” of orbit is 51∠191.3° and the resultant, at 90° of orbit, is 51∠281.3°.
You presume I read your comment and tried to resolve your problem, Pup.
You should not.
Unless and until you do the Pole Dance Experiment, that won’t happen.
Do it. Report.
Clint R is as wrong as he usually is. Nothing ever changes there.
Clint R,
Since you didn’t specify what kind of vectors are in play in your little problem, yet you assume you can add them, but what if they are different kinds of vectors, specifically ones like velocity and acceleration, which can’t be added like you claim.
Since you didn’t specify the diameter of the revolving object, there is a solution where the resultant vectors are 50 @ 90 degrees, and 10 @ 180 degrees.
So there isn’t one unique solution to your problem.
That was the purpose in presenting the problem, braindead bob — to show you cult idiots don’t have a clue about the physics involved.
The vectors are simply vectors, no units mentioned. And “diameter” doesn’t matter. The object could be a planet, a bowling ball, or a point mass. It’s a very simple physics problem, but you can’t understand any of it.
Clint R,
“The vectors are simply vectors, no units mentioned”
Vectors have magnitude and direction, the magnitude necessarily has to have units, otherwise it isn’t a vector.
Second problem with your problem is why did you rotate the vectors, when the orbiting body revolved 90 degrees.
Since you didn’t specify what the vector was, and where it came from, how do you know it rotates with the body.
What if it was a gravity force from a distant object or two?
In that case the vectors wouldn’t rotate.
That’s why no one answered your question, it was a bullshit question and only shows you think you know more than you do.
That was the purpose in presenting the problem, braindead bob — to show you cult idiots don’t have a clue about the physics involved.
The vectors are simply vectors, no units mentioned. And “diameter” doesn’t matter. The object could be a planet, a bowling ball, or a point mass. The change in direction was caused by the resultant of the two vectors given. It’s the same vector addition as with a ball-on-a-string.
It’s a very simple physics problem, but you can’t understand any of it.
You have to ask yourself if you’re sincerely trying to understand, or trying desperately to pervert reality.
Also fool, if it is rotating ccw, you should subtract 90, if your vector is due to the force of gravity from the object being orbited.
Dumb ass rookie mistake.
Add “polar coordinates” to the many things you don’t understand, braindead bob.
I can tell your frustration is increasing to the point where your juvenile profanity begins. I’ll break off until you cool down.
Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Clint R,
You weren’t using polar coordinates, now were you dear boy?
Cause a vector in polar coordinates requires 3 pieces of information, in your problem you only provided two.
Yes, someone has to be the adult and admit they were wrong.
Wrong-o, bob. The problem contains everything needed for a physics-wise person to solve it.
Did you notice the bold?
If that’s true Clint R,
How come you got the wrong answer?
Wrong way rotator.
Not getting Polar Coordinates?
Don’t understand the requirements to add vectors?
Not qualified to teach Physics?
Clint R is an idiot. Notice the bold?
braindead bob, I showed my work. If it were wrong, you should be able to identify the error.
But, of course you can’t.
Clint R,
I documented at least 4 errors in your problem, in both the statement of the problem and your “solution”
I didn’t count your failed attempts, braindead bob. But two of the funniest were your confusion about polar coordinates and not understanding you didn’t need to know the “kind” of vectors to solve the simple problem.
If the others are as funny, please list them. I always enjoy you making a fool of yourself.
Clint R,
You have to specify what the vectors represent, if one of them represents the acceleration due to gravity, and one represents the motion due to velocity, then how can you add them?
You didn’t use polar coordinates, so how can you claim I misunderstood polar coordinates.
You rotated the vectors the wrong way.
An object rotating in a circle, if the vectors are the same units, then the values of 50 and 10 are wrong.
Is that enough mistakes for you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1077458
> Because it involves simple physics
What physics, Pup?
Wee Willy Stupid,
Tell him what physics you know, and I can tell you what you don’t.
How does anybody know just how little you know until you tell them what you do know?
Presumably, you thought you had a point, but your obsession with obscurity means the nobody can figure out what it was!
Mike Flynn,
Mostly Futile,
Presumably, you’re playing dumb –
Magnitude and direction are not physical concepts.
Presumably, you know that.
Presumably?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Whacko Wee Willy,
So what simple physics don’t you know?
You assert that magnitude and direction are not physical concepts. What has your assertion to do with what you don’t know about physics? Trying to be more obscure than usual, I guess.
You really are a strange deluded chap, aren’t you?
Go away and play some silly semantic games – or just play with yourself. Neither will convince anybody you can contribute anything worthwhile – but who would care anyway?
You could always hire yourself out as a butt for jokes. You don’t need to thank me for my excellent suggestion.
Mike Flynn,
Meekly Flexing,
There’s no simple physics to speak of!
Something that Bob and Tim already noticed, e.g.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1038733
Why do you think that people are as dumb as dumbbells like you?
Long live and prosper,
Whining Wee Willy,
What are you on about? I suppose you are appealing to the authority of a couple of mysterious anonymous commenters, apparently named Bob and Tim!
No wonder you resort to playing “silly semantic games” (when you are not playing with yourself, of course).
Why have you stopped quoting Mike Flynn? Can’t face reality?
So carry on telling people that simple physics doesn’t exist, and then tell people what difference your opinion makes. You obviously refuse to accept physics in any form. Good luck with making people think you are an authority on physics.
Maybe you could describe where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented, for a start.
[ROFLMAO]
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“So carry on telling people that simple physics doesn’t exist”
Do you have any idea how silly that is?
If there’s somebody who ignores physics, it’s Pup!
Physics isn’t about direction or magnitude, but about force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
Pup is treating the motion of the Moon as a mere geometrical problem!
Get real.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you dont understand how winds/highs/lows can affect global temperatures you need to use something like
https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=52.26815737376817&lon=6.50390625&zoom=3
and set on the lower right hand corner options to: temperature, wind particles and isobars.
See https://imgur.com/oLkMWtO as an example
Climate shysterin, it’s hard to keep up with it
https://youtu.be/iIAUioSi3ek
maguff…”You should have learned somewhere in school that, all materials continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic waves simply by virtue of their being at a temperature above absolute zero, no? Young adults learn that in high school these days”.
***
Kids are taught garbage in school today. Kids should be taught the difference between an atom and a molecule and how EM is emitted and absorbed. They should be taught the relationship between EM and heat and why they have nothing in common.
It is not true that materials continuously absorb/emit EM by virtue of their temperature above 0K. The word ‘materials’ is far too general and makes the process far too vague and mysterious. Maguff obviously did not get past that nonsense theory hence he is confused about it today, as are many others, including some scientists.
Heat is not converted to EM, or EM to heat. There is an intermediate state featuring electron transitions with the electron properties being common to both. In AGW theory, they claim SW solar EM is converted to LW IR but they don’t tell you how. By omitting the ‘how’ they become confused and begin altering the 2nd law to appease their confusion. They also confuse molecules with atoms, giving molecules properties they don’t have, like emitting and absorbing EM.
Temperature is a human definition and is a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms. It is measuring the relative heat level where heat is that kinetic energy, which means ‘energy in motion’. The motion can be atoms moving through space as a gas, or through liquids. Atoms generally don’t move through solids unless the solids are in a liquefied state.
Or, the motion can be the motion of electrons moving between orbital energy levels. Technically, this cannot be classified as motion since the orbital energy states are quantum definitions defined by Bohr to limit electrons to certain energy levels. The transition between states is not classical motion, there is no time allowed for the transitions.
The electron is in one state then it is in another. However, there is a difference in potential energy between levels and the electron in one level has a different kinetic energy and frequency than in another level. When it transitions downward between levels, it must give up kinetic energy and it does so by transferring the difference in kinetic energy between levels, which is potential energy, to a quantum of electromagnetic energy. The emitted EM also has the angular frequency of the electron in the higher state.
In order for the electron to transition to a higher energy state, it must absorb energy. It can do that by absorbing heat (KE) directly or by absorbing a quantum of EM that meets the requirements of the transition. That immediately rules out EM from a cooler source, thus respecting the 2nd law. Since KE in this context is heat, then electrons, en masse, moving to higher energy levels represent an increase in heat, ergo an increase in temperature.
This has nothing to do with materials or molecules per se, it’s all about electrons. Kids are being cheated if they are not taught the simple basics. I learned most of this in grade 10 but at the time, no one talked about quantum theory. We learned the basic Bohr model and about atomic energy levels but not at the same level as I learned the same thing in organic chemistry or electrical engineering at university.
Electronics is a branch of physics and it is based on quantum theory.
Earlier, the completely delusional and incoherent Ball4 posted –
“Thus earthen measured Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K GHE.”
The fantasist creates new “earthen” temperatures, one of which is 288 K, the other 255 K.
With the crafty rat cunning of the dedicated climate crank, whichever temperature you try to pin Ball4 to, he will immediately claim he was referring to the other one, and suggest that a mythical college librarian will sort you out, because Ball4 is far too busy!
What an idiot!
maguff…”Here are the first paragraphs of the first chapter of Michael Modests Radiative Heat Transfer textbook which is widely used in first year M.Eng. instruction:
The terms radiative heat transfer and thermal radiation are commonly used to describe the science of the heat transfer caused by electromagnetic waves”.
***
In any modern electrical engineering manual, they tell you electrical current flows from positive to negative. It’s a lie. If you study electronics from an electronics textbook, they tell you electrical current flows negative to positive, which is correct. So, when a graduating EE has to interface with electronic technicians, how does he do it when they both see electrons as flowing in different directions?
Actually, to be fair, EEs are often taught that current flow is based on a ‘positive test charge’. Good in theory but it seriously breaks down in a vacuum tube. A tube is based on an electrically-heated tungsten filament boiling off electrons, which form a space charge of electrons around the filament. When a high positive potential is applied to a cylindrical ‘plate’ around the filament, the electrons are attracted a flow through the vacuum to the plate.
Conventional theory would have us believe that positive test charges on the +ve plate flow to the negative filament (cathode). In that case, why would you need to boil electrons off the tungsten filament to get a current flow?
Some EE texts will tell you the reason for the lie, it is convention. Circa 1925, it was agreed by consensus that current flows +ve to -ve and they were wrong. Nearly 100 years later they have not corrected the lie and continue to spread the propaganda.
I asked about this when I studied EE, and the prof just laughed. He pointed out that it doesn’t matter which way the current flows as far as calculations are concerned as long as you are careful to keep tract of the signs. Did not answer my question and I had already been applying electron theory on my own to do my calculations.
Everyone in the EE field knows it’s a lie but they continue the lie year after year.
It’s the same in other fields, not just in engineering. When someone claims heat is transferred via radiation, it is a lie. No heat leaves the emitting body and no heat enters the absorbing body. No heat ever flows through empty space or the atmosphere via radiation, because air is essentially an insulator for heat transfer via radiation.
Ergo, radiative heat transfer is a blatant lie. In the late 1800s they did not know that because none of them understood the mechanism by which heat is converted to EM then back again at an absorbing body.
There is no such thing as thermal radiation either. Why??? Because HEAT IS LOST DURING THE CONVERSION TO EM. No heat is ever radiated. What is radiated is the electric field and the magnetic field created by electrons in motion. Neither field has heat as a property. ‘IF’ that radiated field is absorbed by another body, it causes electrons to rise en masse to higher energy levels and that produces heat inside the absorbing body.
Norman has already revealed how mechanical engineering textbooks incorrectly describe the exchange of EM between bodies. They show a two-way transfer of EM between bodies of different temperatures, yet in their practical application of such theory, they never show EM transferring in any direction other than hot to cold.
Come on, and here I take a dig at my fellow engineers, what the heck would a mechanical engineer know about EM?
typo…”In any modern electrical engineering manual…”
obviously…”In any modern electrical engineering textbook…”
“when they both see electrons as flowing in different directions”
To be fair no-one does this. It is a convention that electrons flow in one direction and holes the opposite way.
Holes (the absence of an electron where one should exist) do occur.
Which you prefer to decide actually moves is only a point of view, not a lie.
More to be feared than ignorance
is the illusion of knowledge.
Yep. And it is positively charged Li ions that actually carry the current in a Li-ion battery that everybody has in their phone or laptop.
coturnix…”idont care what you tink, i wonder why you (and a few like usernames)do it? leaving thousands upon thousands of nonsensical comments under the dr. spencers blog?”
***
Till now, I had not regarded you as an idiot, now I know you are. You’re just another brown-noser who cannot respond with a scientific rebuttal, you go along with appeals authority to get along.
Don’t bother me with your stupidity.
haha why not bother? there is no law against the online harrassement of menthal hospital patients, or is there?
There is no law but there is the matter of morals and ethics. If you’re going to participate in discussion you have an obligation to respect others even when their opinion is completely out to lunch.
This page already is saturated with trulls so you’re not needed here in that capacity. You’re a lousy trull too; nowhere near the loser levels of the willnots and clingers on this page.
I don’t know how trulls can look themselves in the mirror and still consider themselves fit for human contact at any level.
You’re being too harsh on Eboy and Binny, Kennui. Perhaps you should stay in your mom’s basement.
Ken, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. So in that sense, all commenters are equal.
But, reality is NOT based on opinions or consensus. So when it comes to separating reality from opinions, all commenters are NOT equal.
Everyone should think for themselves, and develop their own opinions. But, in an ideal world, if their opinions do not match reality, they need to change their opinions. It’s called “learning”.
What we are seeing here is many are unable or unwilling to change their opinions, even when they don’t coincide with reality. What we see are some actually attempting to change reality to match their opinions, rather than change their opinions to match reality. The result is exactly like that of a religious cult. The cultists don’t accept anything other then their cult beliefs.
That ain’t science.
“reality is NOT based on opinions”
Well that rules out everything that you have said so far then.
Wrong Clint R at 9:52 AM, you are only telling half the story.
The full story is that: People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
You are missing the facts as always.
It is amazing how Clint R clearly describes his posting history but he attributes his flaws to everyone else. I give this poor deluded sap tons of links to real science, empirical data, observations which he completely brushes off with his stupid redundant comment (he uses it on any link he does not agree with) “You don’t understand the link”
His latest was when I clearly gave him a link to correct his false opinion on IR detectors that they can measure objects at colder temperature because the surface exposed to the external environment has a small mass and radiates close to a blackbody. It the external environment is colder that the reference block (one not exposed to the environment) the sensing surface loses energy and cools generating a voltage difference. The article describes it correctly and shows it in graphs. Because it did not match his incorrect opinion of reality he just makes the idiot blanket statement “You don’t understand the link”. This idiot response means nothing but if proves that Clint R is highly unscientific, does not care about any evidence, never supports any of his opinions but he constantly repeats them just like a cult member chanting the same things over and over.
For instance this idiot keeps bringing up “ball-on-a-string” to represent orbital motion. It is, in reality, no different than a rod rotating. The ball is not a separate object from the string. The ball on the string only represents rotation about an axis, not an orbit, RLH has told Clint R this many times but it does not register.
Clint R is a cult minded idiot who cannot understand what science is or how it works. This one thinks his opinions of reality are all that matter, no need to experiment, verify, prove, test or evaluate. Just claim fluxes don’t add over and over an in this idiot’s mind, they no longer do, even though the idiot could turn on more lights in a room and verify that fluxes to indeed add as more light will go through the pupil of his eye (which is flux, energy per unit time though some given area).
I see you’re still in meltdown, Norma.
That usually happens when cults start to break down.
Reality always wins.
swannie…”…all materials emit thermal IR radiation, which, depending on the geometry and other circumstances, can warm a heated body. It objects to my mention of an igloo ice house….
Thermal IR shielding works for us engineers, which is why we use it”.
***
Swannie, you are a legend in your own mind.
You lumped the 2nd law under ‘other circumstances’ and there is no such thing as thermal IR. IR is an electromagnetic field with the magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field. There is no heat associated with IR/EM.
Do you call IR from ice ‘thermal IR’?
What do you mean by ‘thermal IR shielding’? Placing a reflective surface in a wall, along with other insulation, will help stem losses due to IR radiation. However, the reflective surface is not blocking heat. If that was the case, walls in homes would not require R-rated insulation, which blocks real heat loss via conduction.
The proper name is ‘radiant barrier’, there is no reference to heat in the description since radiant barriers do not block heat. Of course, if you block radiation from a hot surface, it reduces the heat loss due to radiation.
A radiant barrier cannot block heat conduction. The heated air will simply warm the metal barrier and it will conduct heat to the outside world very efficiently.
This is lost on you because you still believe the radiation from a cooler surface can raise the temperature of a hotter surface, when in your experiment, the hotter surface warmed because you used a radiant barrier to block radiation from the hotter body therefore causing to to dissipate less heat.
Thermal IR is the transfer of energy via IR, i.e. heat energy. See
https://movitherm.com/knowledgebase/thermal-infrared-imaging-explained
“Placing a reflective surface in a wall, along with other insulation, will help stem losses due to IR radiation. ”
Yes!
“However, the reflective surface is not blocking heat.”
Oops, they ‘will help stem losses’ of what?
Pretty sure it is HEAT losses, else this ‘other insulation’ would serve no purpose, Gordon!
Gordon Robertson
” if you have a quantity of atmospheric gas at the surface at STP, and that gas rises to a level where the pressure is much lower than the pressure at STP, what happens. The quantity of gas expands, the pressure drops, and the temperature drops. ”
I think I’ve spotted the flaws in your argument.
The Ideal Gas Law is PV=nRT.
You can simplify it to PV/T=k
P is pressure.
V is volume.
T is temperature.
k is a constant.
Your first misunderstanding. The “quantity” is not volume, it is the number of molecules involved. When using the gas law to describe convection the number of molecules is assumed to be constant.
Your second misunderstanding. The gas law assumes that the packet of gas convecting is adiabatic. It has a constant heat content. That is why it includes a constant k or nR.
When a packet of air converts from the surface to the tropopause by adiabatic convection P and T decrease while V increases. k remains constant. The number of molecules and the heat content remain constant.
This is why the rest of us are disagreeing with your interpretation.
“There you have it, a dissipation of heat in the atmosphere due to gas expansion and no need to radiate anything to space. ”
The amount of heat carried by a packet of air during convection is the same at the end as at the beginning. Convection cannot dissipate heat, only transport it upwards.
Some other process must be invoked to dissipate the heat into space.
“Your second misunderstanding. The gas law assumes that the packet of gas convecting is adiabatic. It has a constant heat content. That is why it includes a constant k or nR.”
A couple things …
1) The ideal gas law does not require a constant heat content (ie “internal energy”) nor does it require adiabatic processes.
2) The constant k or R is a property of gases. It is a constant independent of what sort of processes may or may not be happening.
3) The rising gas does not have a constant “heat content” = U. Even though Q = 0, W is not zero, and U decreases as it rises and expans and cools.
“The amount of heat carried by a packet of air during convection is the same at the end as at the beginning. Convection cannot dissipate heat, only transport it upwards.”
*THAT* is the key point. For every mole of gas rising and expanding and cooling, there is a mole of gas descending and compressing and warming. the net effect is … zero!
The only way to ‘dissipate; energy from the system is to send it OUT of the system. In this case, that would be IR radiation to space.
Tim,
I think you have contributed to Entropic man’s grossly over-simplified and inappropriate use of the ideal gas law. And the “key point” is probably wrong. Convection allows expanded air packets from below to warm the layer above. Conversely, the cold air pocket replacing the rising one is warmed by the lower layer. That’s a lot of dissipated heat. It’s also the reason that convection is so much more efficient than radiation in the lower and middle troposphere.
The starting point is a warmed surface. Otherwise, there is no convection to begin with. Only radiation through the “window” escapes to space from the surface. The rest of the radiation only goes out after convection and condensation delivers its energy to the upper troposphere.
“Only radiation through the ‘window’ escapes to space from the surface. The rest of the radiation only goes out after convection and condensation delivers its energy to the upper troposphere.”
Yes, and I dont see any contradiction with Tim’s post above.
“The only way to dissipate; energy from the system is to send it OUT of the system. “
I wouldn’t expect you to see the contradiction. You’re too focused on defending the party lines.
They are asserting convection cannot dissipate heat. In fact, heat is dissipated at every level as convection occurs. The air packets aren’t insulated balloons.
Actually, if you were less focused on trolling and paid more attention to learning science, you would know that the large air packets do act as if little heat escapes thru their boundaries, because conduction is poor and the packets are large. This is the standard adiabatic model of convection.
But as Tim was pointing out, as the packets expand they do work on their surroundings. Any energy transported up in the atmosphere that isn’t radiated to space is getting recycled thru subsidence and compression, wind generation.
“This is the standard adiabatic model of convection.”
Teach me how an adiabatic model convects without being initiated by heat from below.
Wo said there wasnt heat from below? The surface heats the air.
Adiabatic: relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned.
No heating or cooling, no convection.
Anyway, your model is not reality. You can’t contain the heat in an open system like air. But I’m open to new realities if you have them. Teach on!
Chic, the *convection* itself is often modeled as adiabatic. Ie a given mole of warm gas rises and cools because it DOES WORK on the surrounding gas, not because it SUPPLIES HEAT to the surrounding gas. There is no Q as the mole rises, only W (in the adiabatic idealization).
But the initial heat added at the bottom and the heat subtracted at the top is NOT adiabatic. Pretty much by definition.
I object to applying classroom Carnot cycle lessons to the atmosphere. There are no contained spaces there where you can theoretically prevent heat transfer. Without heat transfer there is no convection. Even latent heat evaporation promotes convection.
I’m surprised that you do not appreciate these nuances after all the discussions you have weighed in on here and at Tallbloke’s talkshop.
“I object to applying classroom Carnot cycle lessons to the atmosphere. ”
You can object all you want, but it is still a standard starting point model in meteorology, for understanding convection and the lapse rate.
And no model is reality, but they can be useful.
Chic says: “The rest of the radiation only goes out after convection and condensation delivers its energy to the upper troposphere.”
Yes, but this directly contradicts Gordon’s claim that “There you have it, a dissipation of heat in the atmosphere due to gas expansion and no need to radiate anything to space.”
Convection only *carries* energy *through* the atmosphere from the warm lower region to the cool region. Convection does not *dissipate* energy *in* the atmosphere.
We could also sort of say convection ‘dissipates’ energy from the surface and ‘delivers’ energy to higher layers. But again that energy then needs to radiate to space to continue the convection process.
Tim,
I don’t know why Gordon wrote what he wrote, but it doesn’t mean convection doesn’t dissipate heat. Theory and models are not reality. Show me some data how a convected air parcel does not conduct heat to or receive heat from its surroundings
CB, Convection moves sensible and latent heat from one area to another. By itself, it does not “dissipate” energy out of the atmospheric system. Natural convection within the atmosphere depends on IR thermal radiation to remove that energy outward thru the TOA, which cools the rising column(s) and allows the now dryer, cooler air to sink back toward the surface.
“Show me some data how a convected air parcel does not conduct heat to or receive heat from its surroundings”
Here are a few to consider.
1) The measured thermal conductivity of air is known to be extremely small.
2) The mere existence of convection implies poor conduction to/from the surrounding fluid. For a parcel of air to convect upward, it must remain cooler and less dense than the surrounding air. IF there was good conduction, the parcel would rapidly reach the same temperature, and convection would stop!
3)The “adiabatic lapse rate” closely matches the actual measured lapse rate in the atmosphere. When theory matches data, that is a very strong bit of evidence.
Sure, there is some conduction with the surrounding air. Sure, there is some radiation with the surrounding air. But it tends to be fairly small.
1) Small, but not zero. Data?
2) So what?
3) I don’t consider 9.8 compared to 6.5 or so a close match. The constant input of heat from below and loss of heat from above ensures almost continual convection everywhere.
oops.
2 … it must remain WARMER …
…everywhere in the troposphere, Chic. Nil in the stratosphere for about 9km as there the fluid is warmed from above.
1) Surely you don’t need me to tell you air is an excellent insulator. You can easily find values of the thermal conductivity online or in any general physics text.
2) So experimentally air parcels don’t conduct heat quickly to surrounding air parcels. Which is what you were asking about.
3a) The small bits of conduction and radiation would lower the real lapse rate below the idea value of 9.8 K/km.
3b) There are two theoretical adiabatic lapse rates. Dry = 9.8 K/km. Moist varies, but is less than 9.8 K/km
… so yes, the agreement is quite good.
***********************
Anything involving the atmosphere is going to be complex. But even a simple model can explain some basics quite well.
* The sun warms the ground.
* The ground warms the lowest layer of air by conduction (non-adiabatic)
* the warm air convects up (adiabatic)
* the air radiates to space (non-adiabatic)
* the air convects back down (adiabatic)
There are innumerable refinements that could be made, but this explains *a* *lot*.
“the air convects back down”
Poor choice of word Tim, a parcel will descend when it becomes cooler, denser than surrounding ambient parcels, this is not convection as originally defined by the Count. A better description for how dry convection produces a DALR in our troposphere is to consider a layer that is stable so has a lapse less than DALR – you are right though convective mixing is complicated:
If a parcel convects to a higher level (updraft) and then mixes with the air at that level, the layer is destabilized (i.e. the lapse rate increases) because a rising parcel cools at the DALR and hence will be cooler than its surroundings.
Similarly, if a parcel becomes cooler, denser and moves to a lower level (downdrafts) and then mixes with the air at that level, the layer is also destabilized because a descending parcel warms at the DALR and hence will be warmer than its surroundings.
Convective mixing is much slower in a stable than in an unstable layer. The free atm is routinely observed stable but rarely observed unstable (stormy) because unstable layers (if unsaturated dry) quickly mix to the stable DALR. In the absence of gravity, and for a fluid in a gravity field warmed from above, a DALR will be zero and the equilibrium temperature profile isothermal.
Tim,
I’ll accept that air is a relatively good insulator and therefore air parcels don’t conduct heat quickly to surrounding air parcels, but nevertheless it happens to some degree.
You wrote, “We could also sort of say convection ‘dissipates’ energy from the surface and ‘delivers’ energy to higher layers.”
That’s all I’m saying. Maybe saying ‘moves’ instead of dissipate would be more apt way of saying it. And that movement is responsible in large part for over 80% of the energy from the surface getting to the higher layers.
Having said that, trying to argue that actual lapse rates agree “quite good” with theory (which you are quite wrong about) completely ignores what is to be learned by asking and knowing what makes actual lapse rates 35 to 45% less.
“…knowing what makes actual lapse rates 35 to 45% less.”
Actual lapse rates can even be 100s to 1000s times greater than the DALR – as you can verify for yourself on a calm, sunny hot summer afternoon. The temperature of an asphalt road can be 40C (or higher). Standing on such a road your feet will be at 40C but your nose is sniffing air at 35C (or less). Thus the lapse rate is about 5C/meter or 5,000C/km, around 500 times the DALR.
Still, for well-mixed layers of the atm., far from surfaces, in air in which phase changes are not taking place, the DALR is often measured as the lapse rate of earthen air temperature. The DALR just is the dividing line between statically stable and unstable atm.s.
CB (and Gordo), You guys still don’t want to discuss what happens to the energy which is lofted to the higher elevations of the atmosphere via convection. You apparently agree that this convection will warm the upper atmosphere, but that warming is countered by the continual energy loss to deep space, which can only happen thru IR thermal radiation, a pathway which involves greenhouse gasses. CO2 emissions are a major portion of that energy pathway, especially above the tropopause, and that which finally exits the TOA is the result of emissions thru the entire column of atmosphere from the surface to deep space.
Ball4,
Of course you are right. Lapse rates vary widely at times from average or normal, if there is such a thing.
E Swanson,
Who said us guys don’t want to discuss what happens to the energy which is lofted to the higher elevations? It’s a major reason I doubt increasing CO2 can have any substantial contribution to global temperatures. There is already plenty of CO2 to emit all the available energy to space.
In the bulk of the atmosphere, IR absorbing gases play ping pong with the energy. Only increasingly at higher altitudes does the bulk of the radiation begin to escape other than through wavelengths where absorp.tion does not occur.
Chic, it is tempting to believe that increasing carbon dioxide can only eventually saturate all lines as you write, resulting in an upper limit on infrared radiation from the atmosphere, which necessarily assumes (incorrectly) that the atm. temperature profile does not change. It is as unreasonable to expect an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eventually result in some asymptotic value for infrared atmospheric irradiance as to expect it to increase indefinitely.
“There is already plenty of CO2 to emit all the available energy to space.”
I thought you already knew about that increase in the radiating level with increasing CO2. The radiating level is the altitude above which radiation from CO2 can escape to space.
With increasing CO2 concentration, the level must increase, and due to the lapse rate, it emits from a lower T layer. Therefore the emission to space is reduced.
It is analogous to adding an extra layer of insulation to my existing attic insulation. The last layer which emits the heat to the air is colder.
CB Wrote:
The emissions from individual molecules are in random directions, but the effect is that in any particular layer, roughly equal emissions occur in the upward and downward directions. But, at each higher layer, the emission lines narrow due to the reduction in pressure, thus some of the lower emissions can slip past the GHG molecules and exit to deep space, AIUI. The downward IR is more likely to be absorbed below where the bands are wider, warming the lower layer. Above the tropopause thru the stratosphere, the upward outbound emissions are the only heat transfer and are from the greenhouse gases.
“Poor choice of word Tim, a parcel will descend when it becomes cooler, denser than surrounding ambient parcels, this is not convection … ”
That is precisely convection. A cycle where a fluid warms, expands and rises; then cools, contracts, and settles. You need both parts of the cycle to maintain convection.
“But, at each higher layer, the emission lines narrow due to the reduction in pressure … “
Pressure broadening is part of the reason. There is a second part.
Even at constant pressure, absorp.tion is strongest near the center of the band. This makes the band effectively wider at higher concentrations.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/ is a handy, simple tool to explore some effects of changing gases in the atmosphere.
“A cycle where a fluid warms, expands and rises; then cools, contracts, and settles. You need both parts of the cycle to maintain convection.”
No, Tim. Convection occurs when a fluid parcel is warmed above ambient from below in a gravity field.
As the warmed above ambient fluid parcel rises, the fluid displaced is replaced laterally by ambient fluid until the parcel equilibrates with surroundings & stops rising the parcel does not then descend.
You can go to youtube and search on convection for the experimental evidence or do the experiment yourself.
Ball4. “As the warmed above ambient fluid parcel rises, the fluid displaced is replaced laterally by ambient fluid …”
And the lateral fluid is replaced by fluid flowing down. A cycle. Rising air is accompanied by falling air. You can’t simply have air go up with no air coming back down. That is all I was saying.
With no cooling from the top (ie radiation to space), convection would quickly stop.
Here are a couple typical youtube videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB_Dlq57OLQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUU69ParFM
If you watch until the end, you will clearly see “red parcels” descending again. A cycle.
Tim, here’s what you originally wrote: “the air convects back down” a poor choice of words.
Now you write a better choice of words even though the demo.s are in liquid not air or an atm. of air: “Rising air is accompanied by falling air.” the falling of which is due to continuity of mass not convection. Note too that the convecting fluid rises in a reasonably well-defined column whereas the falling fluid does not.
“… due to continuity of mass not convection. ”
You can’t have one without the other! Convection is a bulk movement of a fluid. Fluids have continuity of mass.
Therefore, convection has continuity of mass.
“Note too that the convecting fluid rises in a reasonably well-defined column whereas the falling fluid does not.”
Not really. It depends how the situation is set up. Here is a video of cold fluid descending in a well-defined column.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBBVSTBLRNk
Tim, the rising fluid warmed from below in a gravity field is termed convection. The bulk movement of fluid in a river is not convection.
The blue ice cube causes a parcel of local fluid to become cooler than ambient, more dense than surroundings, and thus the parcel of now higher density fluid descends in a reasonable column, this is not convection nor the mass continuity of the previous video red fluid that doesn’t descend in a reasonable column.
Thanks for the videos.
“Tim, the rising fluid warmed from below in a gravity field is termed convection. ”
No, convection is a process that transfers energy from warm regions to cool regions by the bulk motion of fluids. Usually this means natural convection where warm fluids rise and cool fluids descend to take their place. Convection is not simply one part of this process.
There isn’t much convection (or thus advection) in the stratosphere because the fluid is warmed from above in a gravity field. For about 9km of height in the midlatitiude tropics the fluid is isothermal meaning the radiative cooling equals the radiative warming across the boundaries of the control volume of that layer.
You are discussing advection ~horizontal “windiness” in the troposphere driven by vertical columnar convection as the atm. fluid is warmed above ambient from below in a gravity field. You can observe the difference in the two terms (vertical vs horizontal mass motion of fluid) in the videos you posted.
1. How could one ever believe anything coming from a person who doesn’t understand simplest things, like e.g. the difference between electron and current flow?
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece112/beamer_lectures/elect_flow_vs_conv_I.pdf
” It is important to realize that the difference between conventional current flow and electron flow in no way effects any real-world behavior or computational results.
In general, analyzing an electrical circuit yields results that are independent of the assumed direction of current flow. Conventional current flow is the standard that most all of the world follows.
*
2. How could one ever believe anything coming from a person who doesn’t understand simplest things, like e.g. that energy cannot dissipate?
If energy in form of EM radiation coming from space hits a system, that system has to give the energy back to space in EM form as well.
Conduction and convection are only of internal nature.
Some people permanently refer to 2LoT but permanently ignore 1LoT.
*
The addition of (1) and (2) is a proof for maximal ignorance.
> The addition of (1) and (2) is a proof for maximal ignorance.
Take that, Plato!
Ball4 says:
December 12, 2021 at 5:00 PM
“Obviously NASA calculates the lunar equilibrium brightness temperature 270K wrongly Christos as the NASA sponsored instruments measure a lower lunar equilibrium temperature. Why is NASA calculation so inaccurate – too high?”
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin.
The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon =[0,47(1-0,11)1.362 W/m²/4*5,67*10⁻⁸W/m²K⁴]¹∕ ⁴=
Te.correct.moon =[0,47(0,89)1.362 W/m²/4*5,67*10⁻⁸W/m²K⁴]¹∕ ⁴=
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet….Te….Te.corrected..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…440K….364K…….340K..0,00568
Moon……270K….224K…….220K..0,0339
Earth…..255K….210K…….288K..1
Mars……210K….174K…….210K..0,9747
Europa…..95,2K.. 78,8K…..102K..0,2816
Ganymede..107,1K…88,6K…..110K..0,1398
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos posts at least these measured global temperatures wrong thus has to use an incorrect fudge factor to get his analysis to match those incorrect values:
1) measured Tsat is not 288K for Earth
2) measured Te for moon is not 270K, 224K nor equatorial 220K
3) measured Mars Te is not 174K
Other authors have used basic science in their analysis and have been able to reasonably match the already published actual measured temperature values with measured input data to their first principle analyses without using any fudge factors. In fact, many authors analyses came reasonably close in planetary global avg. temperature before the measured values became known.
What is the original source of the wiki 220K for our moon Christos? Find it or continue relying on a faulty wiki entry.
There is exactly ONE explanation for the difference between Moon’s effective temperature (about 270 K), and Moon’s measured average temperature over all latitudes (about 200 K).
It is the diurnal variation (about 280 K) due to Moon’s extremely low spin.
In comparison, Earth’s diurnal variation is about 20 K.
There is more to the story, Bindidon, since the Diviner radiometer measured global brightness temperature of about 200K IS our moon’s Te. Btw, the measurement process proves the moon rotates on its own axis making Gordon wrong that our moon doesn’t spin.
Our moon’s equilibrium temperature Tse from sparse Apollo thermometers at the equator is reasonably about 240K using regolith thermophysical properties where the avg. surface temperature is about 210K.
NASA and many others calculate our moon’s equilibrium temperature using 1LOT at about 270K from its albedo and regolith optical properties. Obvious something is not right in that 270K calculation.
“NASA and many others calculate our moons equilibrium temperature using 1LOT at about 270K from its albedo and regolith optical properties. Obvious something is not right in that 270K calculation.”
But
“Christos posts at least these measured global temperatures wrong thus has to use an incorrect fudge factor to get his analysis to match those incorrect values:
1) measured Tsat is not 288K for Earth
2) measured Te for moon is not 270K, 224K nor equatorial 220K
3) measured Mars Te is not 174K”
Binbidon, why it is so necessary to prove Christos wrong ?
1) measured Tsat is not 288K for Earth (what is it then?)
2) measured Te for moon is not 270K (of course, it is calculated), 224K (it is the corrected calculated) nor equatorial 220K (it is not Te …)
3) measured Mars Te is not 174K (it is the corrected calculated Te for Mars)
Now I see. Bindidon, what you would like to find is the data for the planets’ measured Te… There are not such data because planet blackbody temperature, the not corrected Te and the corrected Te.corrected are either of them only mathematical abstractions.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The 1LOT is not a mathematical abstraction.
1) About 200K
2) About 210K
3) About 210K clear not dusty atm.
…from instruments, in published reports thus showing Christos hasn’t yet surveyed the literature – one reason to show Christos is wrong: motivate Christos to read up on the subject before commenting.
Bindidon
“There is exactly ONE explanation for the difference between Moon’s effective temperature (about 270 K), and Moon’s measured average temperature over all latitudes (about 200 K).”
“It is the diurnal variation (about 280 K) due to Moon’s extremely low spin.”
Bindidon, by definition the planet effective temperature Te
Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
And the planet Corrected effective temperature Te.corrected
Te.corrected = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
by definition do not get affected by the planet rotational spin.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Christos 12:08pm because you use the 1LOT which calculates an equilibrium temperature which doesn’t change with rotation speed.
Only the avg. planetary temperature changes with rotation speed – rising to equilibrium temperature as the spin rate increases. This points out averaging an intensive property like temperature is incorrect.
“Only the avg. planetary temperature changes with rotation speed rising to equilibrium temperature as the spin rate increases.”
Only the avg. planetary temperature changes with rotation speed rising to equilibrium temperature and overgoing it as the spin rate increases.
Notice, there is a limit to the avg. planetary temperature rise, but it is not the the Te or the Te.corrected.
Also the calculated Te and Te.corrected assume planet having reached uniform surface temperature, which is impossible, because planets always are solar irradiated by one side, and, no matter how fast they rotate, the solar lit side is always warmer…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The properly calculated Te matches the actual measured planet Te without the planet having reached uniform surface temperature.
Earthen Te properly 1LOT calculated can be found in existing publications Christos along with calculated Tse 288K & both values match global measurements over time of the actual earthen values even though the solar lit side is always warmer.
Measured Tse – measured Te = 288K – 255K = 33K measured GHE.
That bogus “255K” comes from an imaginary sphere. It makes no sense to compare it to reality.
Ball4 says:
December 12, 2021 at 5:00 PM
“Obviously NASA calculates the lunar equilibrium brightness temperature 270K wrongly Christos as the NASA sponsored instruments measure a lower lunar equilibrium temperature. Why is NASA calculation so inaccurate – too high?”
Ball says:
December 13, 2021 at 5:02 PM
“The properly calculated Te matches the actual measured planet Te without the planet having reached uniform surface temperature.
Earthen Te properly 1LOT calculated can be found in existing publications Christos along with calculated Tse 288K & both values match global measurements over time of the actual earthen values even though the solar lit side is always warmer.
Measured Tse – measured Te = 288K – 255K = 33K measured GHE.”
Ball4, please consolidate these above you mentioned two observations.
……………………
“…the NASA sponsored instruments measure a lower lunar equilibrium temperature.”
Earth without-atmosphere and higher than Moon Albedo (a=0,306), when measured by NASA the Earthen equilibrium temperature should be even less than 210K.
Why is (for Earth Te =255K) NASA calculation so inaccurate – too high?
And
Tse – Te = 288K- 210K = 78K the measured GHE then?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Why is (for Earth Te =255K) NASA calculation so inaccurate – too high?”
Earthen 255K is not inaccurate nor too high Christos, the 1LOT calculated Te = 255K and the measured earthen Te = 255K. The calculation was made before long term CERES/ERBE measurements proved it was accurate.
The measured earthen 1bar atm. GHE is Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K and Christos’ analysis is faulty or uses fudge factors until it matches the satellite measurements properly using 1LOT.
Ball4, please consolidate these above you mentioned two observations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Moon’s “day and night” is due to its orbit around Earth. Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit. So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string provides an easy-to-understand demonstration.
The Moon IS rotating on its axis during its orbit of Earth. Only an idiot claims otherwise.
Clint R 12:13pm has learned observation of motion location matters! Good for Clint since all motion is relative.
An very hot observer on the sun observes the moon rotate on its own axis so sunshine is incident on all lunar faces.
An observer on Earth sees only one man-in-the-moon face so earthshine is incident on only one lunar face and that observer writes the moon is not rotating on its own axis.
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue. This will be repeated for the rest of my life, since I am more certain that it is true than I am that 2+2=4.
In trinary?
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue.
So do tell me how looking from the Sun and looking from the Earth at the Moon shows the same thing.
It doesn’t. Never said it did. Nevertheless, reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue. I refer you to the hundreds, if not thousands, of comments I have previously written on this particular part of the moon discussion.
All of the DREMT comments needing correction while providing great, laughable entertainment for the more astute blog reader over the years. Clint R shows progress in understanding relativity when writing sun and earth bound observers see different moon motions & needing no correction.
I agree with Clint R that Sun and Earth-bound observers see different moon motions. The moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. Reference frames do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Good DREMT, as Clint R comments for earthbound observers the moon is orbiting, and observed not rotating on its own axis since earthshine is incident only on the man-in-the-moon face. Good learning from Clint R. You two should study together.
As Clint R comments:
“That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Moon’s “day and night” is due to its orbit around Earth. Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit. So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string provides an easy-to-understand demonstration.”
“That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.” per Clint R observed from “the inside of it orbit.” just like the observer at the end of the string “sees” from inside the ball’s orbit – no ball roation on its own axis.
An observer outside the ball’s orbit per Clint R “sees” all sides of the ball rotating on its own axis. So DREMT should go study with Clint R.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
An observer outside the ball sees all sides of the ball because it is orbiting (and not rotating on its own axis).
Not according to Clint R who has it correct DREMT, study with Clint:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
That should have been: An observer outside the ball’s orbit sees all sides of the ball because it is orbiting (and not rotating on its own axis).
Let’s quote the relevant bit, B:
See, Kiddo?
That’s how frames of reference works!
I know how frames of reference work. That’s how I know they do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Here’s how you’re wrong once again, Kiddo:
You don’t get to support empirical knowledge by saying “that’s because I know.”
Heck, you don’t even get to support definitions that way!
So once again you’re arguing by assertion.
Please desist.
I’m not making an argument here. The arguments for why reference frames do not resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue are made elsewhere. Have a look around. Open your mind. Be less obnoxious.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not making any argument anywhere. ALL the lines of the Master Argument are at best counterfactuals that reword the assertion you keep repeating over and over again.
Thousands if not tens of thousands of times already.
For trolling, the ad nauseam is more than enough.
For a conversation?
In your Moon Dragon Crank dreams.
Incorrect.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#2
Res ipsa loquitur.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
[PUP] The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.
I agree with that statement completely.
Then you agree with what Ball said, Kiddo.
Hard to do physics without a frame of reference, don’t you think?
Sure, you need to use a reference frame. However, reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. I do not agree with Ball4.
I think misunderstanding reference frames is where every lunar non-spinner STARTS their journey down the river of denial.
It was how DREMT, Clint, Bill, Gordon, FTOP, Swenson and newcomers to this topic all started.
Gordon, FTOP, Swenson are still seemingly stuck there, and Bill is all over the place on it.
They looked up at the Moon and always saw the same face, and think that it is obviously NOT rotating.
Then when people inform them that is due to a rotating reference frame, if they have a moment of clarity and learn about the inertial frame of the stars, then they are forced to come up with a NEW erroneous argument.
The Moon IS rotating, but just not on its own axis.
This initial act of doubling down, leads further down an endless rabbit hole of ongoing denial.
Denial of what is an orbit, a rotation, an axis, a translation, libration, lunar poles, angular momentum, torque from gravity, projectile motion, what Newton said, on and on.
And that’s how we got stuck in this long-blog-nightmare.
My stalker gets everything wrong, as usual.
Too bad he can’t respond, point by point, as he usually does when he has answers.
#2
My stalker gets everything wrong, as usual.
Vournas
” And the planet Corrected effective temperature Te.corrected… by definition do not get affected by the planet rotational spin. ”
That, Vournas, is no more than your private invention.
The one and only correct point in your ‘explanations’ is when you calculate the ratio between Earth’s and Moon’s spin.
Clint R
Your eternal ‘ball-on-a-string’ and primitive vector blah blah is of ZERO interest, exactly as is Robertson’s dumb pseudoscience.
The Moon spins around its polar axis in 27.32166 days, as computed
– by astronomers centuries ago, who used spherical trigonometry or differential equations of motion based on Newton’s work,
as well as
-by today’s mathematicians who use Hamiltonian theory to analyze Lunar Laser Ranging data.
All these scientists obtained nearly the same results out of totally different, complex observation tools and data processing methods.
You can write your incredibly trivial stuff 100 times per day on this blog, and woefully, cowardly discredit and denigrate both early and contemporary science.
You can also insult people like me ‘braindead cult idiots’ as long as you want.
Doesn’t matter, Clint R! Not at all.
I knew you couldn’t solve the easy problem, Braindead-idon. But thanks for the non-sensical rant confirming. You can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string.
PS All the observations are about “libration”, which is not even a real motion. You can’t understand that either. You’re braindead. Fortunately, you seem comfortable with you’re condition.
Clint R
” All the observations are about ‘libration’… ”
You tell the same nonsense all the time. As usual: you are wrong.
All the people I mentioned did the contrary of what you claim.
All understood – including Newton, who explained that to Mercator in 1676 – that the optical libration effects are due to a combination of Moon’s orbital and rotational motions.
You can deny this as long as you want.
Doesn’t matter, Clint R!
Bindidon, where do you part ways with reality?
1) A ball and string exist.
2) A string can be attached to a ball.
3) The ball and string can be swung in a circle, making an orbit.
4) While in orbit, the ball is not rotating about its axis, it keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit.
Where do you start your denial?
Binny,
Its like explaining Calculus to your cat.
Clearly, unless it can be described in 3rd-grade playground lingo, it is of no interest to Clint.
See troll Nate, you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
” Where do you start your denial? ”
I don#t deny anything.
You deny what real scientists found out.
It might be time to give the answer to Moon Dragon cranks:
https://explorescientificusa.com/blogs/explore-with-us/stem-zone-measuring-the-moons-motion
Fun, fUn, fuN, fUN, FUN!
More fun Willard: why does our moon diameter appear much larger when it rises near the earthen horizon than when observed from Earth over head?
Dud found another source he doesn’t understand.
Fun indeed.
Here’s a fun challenge for your math level, Pup:
What’s 15 – 13?
Dud, you have no clue about any of this.
You’re trying to compare Earth’s spin rate with Moon’s orbital rate. And somehow then believing that means Moon is spinning!
That’s like comparing a glass of water with a train wreck, and then claiming that proves elephants are blue.
In your ongoing competition to be the most uneducated cult idiot here, you’re winning.
And I won’t respond to your immature puppet-dance nonsense.
You prove you are an idiot everyday all by yourself.
> That’s like comparing a glass of water with a train wreck
If you knew any dimension analysis, Pup, you’d know that we actually could. All you’d need would be to mind your units.
How much degrees per hour does that glass of water rotate relative to an observer who doesn’t believe in frames of reference like Kiddo?
Of course I “believe” in reference frames. They just do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Without a reference frame, humans won’t be able to resolve anything related to astronomy.
Either we can resolve some things like the Moon’s rotation, or we can’t resolve any astronomical fact.
The only persons who profit from never resolving anything are contrarian trolls like Moon Dragon cranks.
Would you happen to be one by any chance?
Whatever reference frame you choose, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is still either motion like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue.
[KIDDO] I am not having the same discussion twice
[ALSO KIDDO] This will be repeated for the rest of my life
So you have no valid rebuttal. Thanks for the easy win.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not having a conversation.
You’re just repeating the same thing over and over again.
Not only you’re arguing by assertion, but you repeat your proofs by assertion ad nauseam.
Please stop trolling.
Readers will note that you have no valid response to my 3:46 PM comment.
Readers will note that Kiddo is wrong once again:
Nothing in Kiddo’s repetition supports the idea that any astronomical fact can be established without appealing to a frame of reference.
He’s just trying to peddle his GIF line from his Master Argument.
Incorrect.
Clint R writing observers on earth and sun observe different moon motions so disgrees with you DREMT. You should study with Clint R.
As you know, I agree with Clint R that Sun and Earth-bound observers see different moon motions. The moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. Reference frames do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Yes DREMT the moon is observed orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis since it “keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit.” for observers on Earth but not observers on the “Sun, being outside Moons orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moons orbit.”
So go study with Clint R and learn to write correctly about moon’s motion:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
As noted before, whatever reference frame you choose, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is still either motion like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”. Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue.
…. because as Clint R points out, observed lunar motion depends on the location of the observer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
As Clint R points out:
“That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Moon’s “day and night” is due to its orbit around Earth. Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit. So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string provides an easy-to-understand demonstration.”
“That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.” per Clint R observed from “the inside of it orbit.” just like the observer at the end of the string “sees” from inside the ball’s orbit – no orbiting ball roation on its own axis.
An observer outside the ball’s orbit per Clint R “sees” all sides of the ball rotating on its own axis. So DREMT should go study with Clint R.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
An observer outside the ball’s orbit sees all sides of the ball because it is orbiting (and not rotating on its own axis).
Incorrect.
“Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit”
That’s what Clint R said. So Ball4 is wrong to imply that Clint R said otherwise.
> Since it does not spin
That begs the question, Kiddo.
Just another way that you’re wrong, for it’s wrong to beg the question.
So Ball4 is wrong to imply that Clint R said otherwise. Acknowledge Ball4 is wrong, and I might start to take you more seriously.
Except that Pup did, Kiddo:
> So Sun, being outside Moons orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
Hence you’re wrong once again.
The only reason why you don’t “see” that is because you haven’t worked out the implications yet.
Baby steps.
OK then, I will not take you seriously.
Wait.
Does that I mean I was supposed to take Moon Dragon cranks srsly?
In any event, res ipsa loquitur.
Nobody expects you to take anything seriously. You are a joke.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
I got a Contrarian Matrix, a Climateball Bingo, a Neverending Audit tumblog, a Mind Your Units post that solves Joe’s crap, and even a Master Argument you could not even bring up over the years.
And now that you’re forced into a cope with this:
[PUP] The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.
you got nothing.
Sorry, NOTHING.
God, you’re pathetic. This is all still about that stupid article of yours, isn’t it? Just because I embarrassed you in front of ATTP…
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
It’s not just an article, but a work of art which you help co create. A kind of conceptual Spanish Prisoner, if you will.
And there’s all the other stuff you “forget” to mention.
What have you to show for yourself, except three and soon four years of ad nauseams?
It’s a confused, nonsensical mess. As I said, you are a joke.
It is fun. I remember teaching navigation by the Sun and Moon to cadets as a backup if they were out in the wild or at sea with a broken compass.
For the Sun it’s easy. The Sun is due North at local midnight. You can calculate it’s bearing at any time using decimal hours since midnight.
Bearing = decimal hours since midnight * 15
Thus at 1100 the Sun bears 11*15 = 165 true.
Fine in daylight, but at 0200 the Sun bears 030. It is below the horizon and not visible.
This is when you use the Moon.
The Moon lags 13 degrees further behind the Sun each day.
Estimate the Moon’s age from its phase and then calculate
Moon’s bearing = Sun’s bearing – (age of Moon *13 )
Thus at 2300 a full Moon bears 330- ( 14*13) =165 true.
One snag.
At 0500 a 24 day old Moon bears, according to the formula,
065 – (24 *13 ) = -247
If you get a negative answer add 360. -247 becomes 113 true.
Yet another typo.
That should be:-
One snag.
At 0500 a 24 day old Moon bears, according to the formula,
075 (24 *13 ) = -257
If you get a negative answer add 360. -257 becomes 103 true.
> This will be repeated for the rest of my life
Kiddo reveals that Moon Dragon Cranks have only one trick left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam
His main problem is that Pup’s trolling is so much fUN!
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue.
So do tell me how looking from the Sun and looking from the Earth at the Moon shows the same thing.
Never said it did, Capt. Strawman.
But Clint R did and Clint got it right, not so for DREMT.
Ball4 gets himself confused again, as usual.
Ball4 is BOTH a pervert and a braindead cult idiot.
Here’s what he’s trying to pervert:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
You’re citing your comment, Pup.
Who died and made you KING of reality?
Yes Clint R you have moon motion correctly different for the two different observation locations, you should study with DREMT so DREMT can learn from your comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
I have never disagreed with that. Not once in my life.
Good, try to agree with Clint R from now on:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
I never did disagree with him on this particular issue, so there is no “from now on”.
There is only no “from now on” if DREMT ceases commenting – I really doubt that will happen. Comment in agreement with Clint R from now on:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Your trolling is pretty blatant, Ball4.
I’ve never trolled, study motion with Clint:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Clint and I are in agreement, so clearly you are trolling.
Here’s your chance not to be wrong, Kiddo:
[PUP] The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.
From which kind of space is the ball not rotating on its axis?
Any.
Any?
I pick an inertial frame of reference, then!
As Bob would say, I win, you lose.
As I would rather say, that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
False. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not an internal one. Sorry for your loss.
[PUP] The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.
Yes. “Appear”. Just like Mt. Everest could “appear” to be rotating on its own axis, at a rate of once per day, wrt an inertial reference frame.
> “Appear”.
Cope.
“The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.”
I agree completely with Clint R. Appearances can be deceptive.
From an egocentric point of view, the Moon might seem no to spin. Yet it does.
Hence why Moon Dragon cranks have to cope.
There is no such thing as an external axis for something that is part of the whole.
Is the axis the ball-on-a-string rotating about part of the whole thing. Yes. Therefore it is not an external axis.
It is external to the ball, so it is an external axis.
“appear” is a word employed by the TEAM whenever observations cannot be explained by their model.
Observable facts just ‘appear’ to be facts, but, somehow, some way, they really aren’t facts.
It is a very convenient reality evasion tool for any cult.
Example, the MOTR ‘appears’ to be in curvilinear translation. It ‘appears’ to have no observable rotation at all.
But those are just appearances. It really does have two hidden cancelling rotations!
Those rotations can be ‘seen’ only by members of the Cult.
“From an egocentric point of view, the Moon might seem no[t] to spin. Yet it does.”
The whole point is that the moon’s so-called axial rotation is an illusion. We all get that it appears to be rotating on its own axis. Can you still really not see through that illusion?
“But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too”
“It is external to the ball, so it is an external axis”
Is it external to the combination of ball and axis? They are one single, combined, object after all. Joined by a string.
The ball is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the ball itself.
This example doesnt use the word ‘appears’ but it is the same idea.
It is one of my favorite ‘just appears to’ argument.
“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 moons change in direction throughout the orbit for axial rotation, as most people do, you would think the ‘axis’ is tilted wrt the moons orbital plane.”
It also reminds me of the OJ Simpson ‘If I did it’ book where he explains how he ‘would have’ done the murders that he definitely did not do.
“such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so”
My other favorite is this one from Tesla, where he thoroughly explains why the axial rotation agrees with physics, specifically angular momentum and energy.
Then he never quite gets to the part where he explains the ‘only appears so’, and most of us come away more convinced that it not only ‘appears so’ but actually is.
The question is if the axis the ball is rotating about part of the combination of ball and axis. Joined together by a string.
The ball is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the ball itself, as I assume you agree. That is all that matters.
First you claim that Mt Everest is not rotating about an axis that passes through it, then you claim that the ball IS rotating about an axis also not passing through it.
Both are only parts of the whole.
Consistent or what?
I am entirely consistent. Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis. So Mt. Everest is rotating about an axis that does not go through the body of Mt. Everest. The ball is also rotating about an axis that does not go through the body of the ball. Neither the ball, nor Mt. Everest, are rotating about an axis that goes through their own body.
… as observed from each of the ball and Mt. Everest as Clint R pointed out so that settled it.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started. Go argue with Clint R. The debate is over, DREMT, as it has been for many years, recently settled yet again by Clint R.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Here’s where you’re once again wrong, Kiddo:
Nothing by itself resoves the Moon issue. Many things, when taken together, help resolve the Moon issue.
All these years of trolling and you can’t even write “Moon” properly. Sadz.
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, nor do they even contribute towards resolving the moon issue.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Without a reference frame, humans won’t be able to resolve anything related to astronomy.
Either we can resolve some things like the Moon’s rotation, or we can’t resolve any astronomical fact.
The only persons who profit from never resolving anything are contrarian trolls like Moon Dragon cranks.
Would you happen to be one by any chance?
Scroll up. I am not having the same discussion twice, in two different places.
[KIDDO] I am not having the same discussion twice
[ALSO KIDDO] This will be repeated for the rest of my life
No contradiction.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not having a conversation.
You’re just repeating the same thing over and over again.
Not only you’re arguing by assertion, but you repeat your proofs by assertion ad nauseam.
Please stop trolling.
Incorrect, all arguments on whether or not reference frames resolve or contribute towards resolving the moon issue have already been had. I won those arguments using valid logic and reasoning.
Kiddo is wrong once again:
He never used any valid argument.
The Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument is far from being valid!
It’s dimensionless physics all the way down.
Incorrect.
“I won those arguments using valid logic and reasoning. ”
No, you didnt. Your logic was invalid.
Empirical measurement shows that the Moon is rotating when compared with genuinely non-rotating instruments such as gyroscopes and satellites in polar lunar orbit.
“Empirical measurement shows that the Moon is rotating…”
…but not on its own axis.
Remember Richard Feynman’s advice.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Experiment tells us that the Moon is rotating.
“Experiment tells us that the Moon is rotating…”
…but not on its own axis.
… as observed from the moon or Earth at center of orbit as Clint R writes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
If people are willing to believe Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, once per day, good luck to them.
DREMT should see Clint R and study with Clint, whether Mt. Everest is observed spinning on its own axis or not spinning on its own axis depends on location of observer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Clint R points out our observed moon motion is relative to location of observer i.e. wrt observer location. Study motion with Clint R.
The reality is that Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not about an axis passing through Mt. Everest itself. However, wrt certain reference frames, you could confuse yourself into erroneously believing that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis. So reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, but they do lead to a lot of confusion amongst some people. Such as Ball4.
DREMT is the commenter confused; DREMT should just learn from Clint R that the observer location matters as to whether Mt. Everest or our moon or really any object is observed rotating on its own axis or not:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Get motion right DREMT, follow Clint R’s lead.
No, Ball4 is the commenter confused, into thinking that whether or not Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis in reality is decided by a choice of reference frame. Also, he is confused into believing that Clint R and myself disagree on this issue. Ball4 is a very confused commenter.
Ent, I noticed in your comments claiming that Moon is rotating, you were careful not to clarify with “about its own axis”. So are you confused by orbital motion, STILL? Or just trying to pervert reality, like you do with passenger jets?
> in reality
No wonder Kiddo is so wrong:
He presumes he can access reality itself!
Those who are less lucky that Moon Dragon cranks have to use tools, including conceptual ones, like frames of reference.
The motion of Mt. Everest is obviously constrained by the Earth it is attached to. Thus we know that in reality, it is not rotating on its own axis, once per day. It is merely rotating about the Earth’s axis, along with all other parts of the Earth.
Dud, “reality” is for everyone. It’s just that idiots reject it.
That’s why they’re idiots.
DREMT
“The motion of Mt. Everest is obviously constrained by the Earth it is attached to. Thus we know that in reality, it is not rotating on its own axis, once per day. It is merely rotating about the Earths axis, along with all other parts of the Earth. ”
That is a useful description of rotation around an external axis.
It defines two requirements.
1) The object of interest (Mt Everest ) must be attached to the larger object whose axis it is rotating around.
2) The object of interest moves in a circle around the external axis.
The Moon is not attached to the Earth and orbits in an elliptical orbit, not a circle. Since the Moon does not meet either the requirements of rotation around an external axis, it must be rotating around an internal axis of its own.
Incidentally, some progress has been made. DREMT and Clint R now accept that the Moon is rotating. They are now arguing about whether it rotates around an internal or external axis.
Entropic Man has clearly not been paying any attention these last three years. It has always been a question of “does the moon rotate on its own axis“?
Do you now understand why reference frames do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, this issue?
Ent is now trying Ball4’s tactic of perverting our words, DREMT.
They have to do that because they have NOTHING.
> “reality” is for everyone
You mean to everyone, Pup. Reality isn’t for anything. It just is. You don’t own it. I don’t. Nobody does.
You realize that your belief/truth trick is older than Plato:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
right?
pups still doesn’t understand the difference between an inertial reference frame fixed against the stars and other frames which are not so anchored in space. Selecting an inertial coordinate system as reference provides the basis for determining whether the Moon rotates. Selecting a local reference frame, as your choice which includes the Earth-Moon radial line as an axis, may indeed give wrong answer.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Willard Jr is now commenting with Willard. How cute.
The nonsense about “inertial reference frames” is easily debunked with the ball-on-a-string. The ball is not rotating on its axis, but from inertial space it would appear to be.
So inertial space can not tell the difference between orbiting and axial rotation.
“pups still doesn’t understand the difference between an inertial reference frame fixed against the stars and other frames which are not so anchored in space.”
False, I understood the difference long before this discussion even began. So bored of false accusations.
“Selecting an inertial coordinate system as reference provides the basis for determining whether the Moon rotates…”
…and it does, but not on its own axis.
> I understood the difference
Here’s why you’re wrong once again, Kiddo:
You got to show that you understand the difference.
Talk is cheap. Walk the talk.
Stop trolling.
Shown it a thousand times already.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Incorrect..
Res ipsa loquitur.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#2
Res ipsa loquitur.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
#3
Res ipsa loquitur.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Moar copium from Kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT stop being an idiot.
I’m not. Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
You are you know.
Define internal axis and external axis. As parts of the whole object.
Dance a jig.
I previously wrote:“Selecting an inertial coordinate system as reference provides the basis for determining whether the Moon rotates…”
to which pups replied:
Since you claim deep understanding of theproblem, where is your mathematical model using an inertial reference frame? Sorry, a batch of cartoons are not allowed.
See Ftop_t’s comments.
See my refutation of Flop’s comments.
Yes, for your own amusement, Swanson, also see what Willard believes is a “refutation” of Ftop_t’s Desmos work.
No snow for childrens in Germoney
https://youtu.be/uyhI7gRYWXo
Coming from
Европа поражена! Рекордные снегопады в Австрии и Германии
Yeah. Some more Coolistas at work.
German Xmas forecast for Germoney
https://tinyurl.com/ej36tefp
What the Russkies show is very probably located at 1500-2000 m altitude, 1 meter snow is absolutely usual there :- )
Saturday night we had one more time near Berlin about 2 centimeter snow, but last night, a bit of rain quickly put it away.
Nice try, Eben, next time I hope you’ll show better info.
Oh! I forgot to mention our current temperature.
00:14 (GMT+1): 8 degree Celsius
No snow forecast for Central CONUS next week
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/dbce2cf6-d73f-43ba-ba3f-1520d5670b51/c0bdad6f871de8b004d74bb8433f9ff8/cac0e79d-583d-4acb-aa30-8d04bda4bdf1.png
You need to look at
https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=44.59046718130883&lon=-107.22656250000001&zoom=3
for a more accurate forecast of what is going to happen until Thurs 23rd Dec 2021.
Try temperature and isobars. You can even animate it if you like.
https://imgur.com/a/yiB2P3l
Expect more copium from our Moon Dragon cranks:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17166
Via PSI, no less.
Winsome Wee Willy,
The “spin axis” may not mean what you think it does.
Just think for a bit. The inclination of the Moon’s orbit to the plane of the ecliptic is about 5.1°, and the equatorial plane is tilted 1.5°.
Now just look up how the equatorial plane inclination was calculated. See?
A wheel has a spin axis (the axle) whether it is spinning or not. Got it?
Mike Flynn,
My Favorite Silly Semantics Gamer,
An axis that does not spin is called an axis.
A spinning axis is called a “spin axis.”
Besides, it’s obvious why you pride yourself in not reading anything:
You simply do not care about losing!
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Keep to your fantasy. You cannot even face the reality I pointed out.
Can’t think, or won’t think?
What a fool you are!
Mike Flynn,
Multifactorial Faddishness.
willard…”Here we show that polar hydrogen preserves evidence that the spin axis of the Moon has shifted:…”
***
What we have here is the same thing as scientists using the term “thermal radiation”, an oxymoron. Polar hydrogen has no obvious meaning in this context and Willard has cherry-picked the article so we’ll never know.
Usually, polar refers to a polar bond created by a difference in electronegativity between the atoms making up the bond. Hydrogen could never form such a bond since the hydrogen molecule is comprised of two identical atoms with the same electronegativity.
C’mon, Gordo.
1. Either an expression is an oxymoron, or it has no obvious meaning. It can’t be both.
2. You keep using informal reasoning concepts incorrectly. This time it’s “cherry-pick.” That does not mean what you make it mean. Do you really think I could cite ALL the articles in the world?
Cite one paper published in Nature that argues or builds on the idea that the Moon does not spin. I dare you.
You should have thunk.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“Hydrogen could never form such a bond since the hydrogen molecule is comprised of two identical atoms with the same electronegativity.”
Fluorine could never form such a bond since the fluorine molecule is comprised of two identical atoms with the same electronegativity.
Hah!
see what I did there Gordon.
Water is a polar molecule, and can be found as ice in polar regions.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
nate…”EG Madhavi:
1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
***
He’s obviously talking about rectilinear translation. Had he included motion along a curve I may have tended to agree.
I have found that several textbooks shy away from motion along a curve. I think it’s because that kind of motion requires an understanding of basic calculus. Even though many scientists have to take courses in calculus, they don’t really understand the basic meaning underlying the equations.
If you have translation along a horizontal surface, it’s obvious that all parts of the body in motion follow straight lines…unless the body is rolling or rotating. I don’t know if Madhavi goes on to cover that.
When a body or a particle moves along a curve, there is a different form of analysis required. In the textbooks to which I have referred, they supply ludicrous examples for curvilinear translation. One of them has a bus with its axles (no wheels) attached to pistons (levers???), the other ends of which are attached to axles. As the levers turn on their respective axles, the bus moves along a hemisphere.
For some unknown reason, the authors who use this ludicrous example seem to be implying something because the bus remains upright through the motion along a hemisphere. Same thing with a ferris wheel gondola. Neither is a good example of curvilinear translation because both rely on axles to keep the bodies upright.
What practical use is such an example? Why would physics reduce curvilinear translation to such a restricted example? Curvilinear translation is simply the motion of a body along a curve where the body is not rotating about a local axis. That’s what the Moon does.
One way to track curvilinear translation is to find the instantaneous tangent line to the curve. That can be done by calculating the radius of a circle whose circumference aligns with the arc of a curve at any point. The tangent line is then a line perpendicular to the radial line at that point.
This analysis also proves…without a doubt…that the Moon is performing curvilinear translation in its orbit without local rotations. It is the tangent line changing the angle it makes with the x-axis that is being mistaken by spinners for local rotation. At no time does the Moon turn about its COG/axis.
> What practical use is such an example?
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s from Kiddo’s own cite.
Nate is taking Kiddo’s leg to beats him with it.
Isn’t that elegant?
Think.
I agree with Nate, so no, he is not beating me with anything. Think.
…and maybe stop being so obsessed with me.
Cite one paper published in Nature that argues or builds on the idea that the Moon does not spin, Kiddo.
Willard lost another one, so changes the subject as quickly as he could.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1070148
Nate already took care to take that one down.
You, on the other hand, have no real cite to provide.
I agree with Nate, so no, he is not taking care to take anything down that relates to any of my arguments.
I have no cite from Nature, no.
[NATE] So our Moon’s motion cannot possibly be described as just a Translation, as you claim.
[KIDDO] I agree with Nate.
Correct.
Well, Kiddo, in that case you can’t have an orbit that is pure translation!
In fact, you might need to revise that line of your Master Argument:
(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*.
“Well, Kiddo, in that case you can’t have an orbit that is pure translation!”
If so, that would be a problem for the “Spinners”, not me.
“Hes obviously talking about rectilinear translation. Had he included motion along a curve I may have tended to agree.”
Madhavi did discuss translation on a curve, known as curvilinear translation:
“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.”
Translation can occur on a straight or a curved path, Gordon. Either way, it is a Translation ‘if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
So our Moon’s motion cannot possibly be described as just a Translation, as you claim.
Oh well, try again.
Now explain how ‘curvilinear translation’ of a round barge floating in water would make a line across it always point to the ‘center’ of its change of direction.
Nate, Willard, and RLH, all of your semantical arguments could be used against the “ball-on-a-string”. But the ball is NOT rotating about its axis. That should tell you something about all your twisted semantics and definitions.
Reality always wins.
Is the ball part of the whole which includes the axis about which it supposed to rotate?
The ball is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Pup didn’t say that repetition always wins.
He said that REALITY always wins.
Are the ball and the axis joined together into a single object by the string?
The ball is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself, as I assume you agree. That is all that matters.
pups wrote:
Your ball could rotate around an axis parallel to the string, though that would twist the string. But, it can not rotate around an internal axis perpendicular to the circular path, because it’s motion is constrained by the string. This is not a model of the Moon’s rotation as a free body in space.
At least you can admit that the ball is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself, Swanson. Well done. Baby steps.
“ball is not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself”
No its rotating about an axis that is part of whole thing. i.e. an internal axis.
Not internal to the ball, which is all that matters. It does register in your tiny little mind that some people argue the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that passes through the ball, right? Those people are wrong, and you agree that they are wrong. Stop arguing with me over semantics.
But the ball is part of the whole thing which includes the pivot around which you claim the ball rotates. They are all attached by the string.
You don’t have a point.
As you don’t have an external axis.
The axis the ball rotates around is external to the ball. So yes, I have an external axis.
Is the axis it rotates about connected by the string? If so then the axis is part of the whole and cannot be an external axis at all.
It is external to the ball. The “Spinners” argue that the ball on a string rotates about an axis passing through the ball itself. The “Spinners” are wrong to think so. You seem to agree that they are wrong, but try to wriggle your way out of it with this endless semantic nonsense.
The “spinners” are not wrong as Clint R already pointed out.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started. Go argue with Clint R. The debate is over DREMT as it has been for years, recently settled yet again by Clint R.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“It is external to the ball”
As Mt Everest is on an external edge to the Earth.
Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis. The Earth’s axis is external to Mt. Everest itself.
The ball rotates about an axis that is external to itself but not to the whole thing.
Mt Everest rotates about an axis that is external to itself but not to the whole Earth.
See the similarity?
I see you accept that the ball on a string, and Mt. Everest, are not rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself, or Mt. Everest itself. Which is all that matters.
So they are both not rotating about an axis that passes through them but both are also rotating about an axis that is part of the whole thing.
That is what truly matters.
No, that does not matter. Once again, the “Spinners” argue, for example, that the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself. That is what is being disputed. From your responses I can only conclude that you disagree with the “Spinners”. So that’s that.
Clint R has explained & settled the debate but DREMT clearly doesn’t yet understand DREMT should study Clint R’s comment I linked, understand it, and apply to Mt. Everest.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started. To be correct, just go ahead & understand Clint R’s post I linked & comment accordingly.
#4
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT: So you agree that both are rotating about an axis that is at the ‘center’ of the whole thing they are part of.
From your responses I can only conclude that you disagree with the “Spinners”. So that’s that.
From your response I can only assume that the central pivot point is not part of the ball-on-a-string in your world.
Irrelevant. You do not have a point. However, from your responses I can only conclude that you disagree with the “Spinners”. So that’s that.
So now you claim the pivot about which the ball-on-a-string is not even part of it. Linked to it firmly by the string. Idiot.
I claimed no such thing. What I correctly claim, which annihilates your "argument" completely, is that it is completely irrelevant. Sure, the pivot point about which the ball rotates is "part of" the "ball on a string" if you take the "ball on a string" to be only one object…and that is completely and absolutely irrelevant. What the "Spinners" claim is that the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that goes through the body of the ball itself. From your responses I can only conclude that you disagree with the “Spinners” on that vitally important issue. So that’s that. You disagree with the "Spinners". Same as Bindidon, same as E. Swanson. You are a "Soft Spinner". You agree with the "Non-Spinners" that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself, but you agree with the "Spinners" that the moon rotates on its own axis.
Bindidon writes our moon has a “low spin” rate relative to earth spin on their own axes and Clint R points out the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt to sun. Only DREMT & Gordon now remain totally wrong about the lunar spin rate on its own axis & don’t understand relativity. Start to become better informed, DREMT, by studying and understanding:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Bindidon has repeatedly said, many times now, that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. I understand and agree with the comment from Clint R, as you know, since I have repeatedly made that clear. Clint R has not changed his position, and still argues that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He has never stated that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt the Sun.
Clint R comments our moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis since “it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit” thus wrt to the object inside of “it” orbit: such as Earth.
Clint R then comments our moon “presents different faces to the outside of its orbit” thus wrt to an object outside its orbit: such as the sun.
Try harder to learn from Clint R & comment correctly that all motion is relative DREMT.
Evidence shows earthshine is incident on one lunar face; sunshine incident on all lunar faces.
I understand and agree with the comment from Clint R, as you know, since I have repeatedly made that clear. Clint R has not changed his position, and still argues that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He has never stated that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt the Sun.
Clint R comments that the moon “always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit” wrt where Earth is located, but “presents different faces to the outside of its orbit” wrt where the sun is located.
Try harder to understand basic relativity DREMT, I observe Clint R can teach you well enough.
I already understand and agree with the comment from Clint R, as you know, since I have repeatedly made that clear. Clint R has not changed his position, and still argues that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He has never stated that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt the Sun.
Great DREMT – keep agreeing with Clint R’s comment and me. You will go far and readers might even stop laughing at DREMT. Though I doubt DREMT will like the laughing to stop and revert to entertainment only comments instead of correct inside and outside lunar orbit observations mattering per Clint R:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
I already understand and agree with the comment from Clint R, as you know, since I have repeatedly made that clear. Clint R has not changed his position, he disagrees directly with you, and he still argues that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He has never stated that the moon is rotating on its own axis wrt the Sun.
swannie…”…the difference between an inertial reference frame fixed against the stars and other frames which are not so anchored in space…”
***
Swannie, could you find me a reference frame in real, physical space, independent of the human mind?
Gordo throws out a red herring. All coordinate systems are based on some initial set of assumptions made by the human mind, thus one could say that includes all your “no spin” cult’s fluff as well. So What?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
rlh…”Thermal IR is the transfer of energy via IR, i.e. heat energy”.
***
IR = EM = electromagnetic energy = an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It has no mass.
Heat = the kinetic energy of atoms and requires mass.
There is no heat transferred through space by EM, which is its own unique form of energy. Heat needs atoms to exist. There are no atoms in EM/IR.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html
You’re getting ridiculous.
C’mon Witless Wee Willy,
You need to actually read and comprehend your links.
Then you could explain the significance of “It turns out, however, that nobody has ever succeeded in making a self-consistent quantum theory out of any of the modified theories.”
In relation to one of the several different contexts in which “mass” is used, of course.
Maybe “mass” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Oh dear.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Something tells me you didn’t really check –
“It turns out, however, that nobody has ever succeeded in making a self-consistent quantum theory out of any of the modified theories.”
By your logic, Gordo should say that QM does not exist.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Revise and resubmit.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Is heat energy? Yes.
Is EM energy? Yes.
Does energy require mass. No.
Do atoms emit IR? Yes.
So you contest E = mc^2 then?
Gordon Robertson
You should use the accepted word for “Heat” as used in physics to establish proper communication.
YOU: “Heat = the kinetic energy of atoms and requires mass.”
That is not the current accepted definition of Heat as used in physics. What you call heat is termed internal energy.
This is the current accepted use of Heat in physics. If you wish to communicate you should use the accepted definition of the term.
https://sciencing.com/heat-physics-definition-formula-examples-13722754.html
“The third form of heat transfer is radiation. Radiation is the transfer of energy via electromagnetic waves.”
IR transfers heat from one object to another.
Both objects transfer energy (if they have temperature). The Heat is the NET flow of energy between the two and is always from the hot object to the cold one.
Nothing wrong with science, it is your outdated use of words and your inability to accpet current use of terms.
Norman, you should practice what you preach:
“What you call heat is termed internal energy.”
“IR transfers heat from one object to another.”
Of course, that’s not always easy when you’re just learning…but can’t.
pups is talking about itself again.
Clint R
Yes IR transfers heat from a hot object to a cold one. I am much more knowledgeable in science than you are. I am always learning, you are the one unable to learn. You have endless repetition of your unsupported opinions. That is your offer here. When any points out your flaws you reject the information and go on with your cult braindead opinions.
Heat is the net energy exchange between two IR emitting objects. The hot one emits more than the cold so the NET energy exchange (heat) flows from hot to cold. The temperature of the colder one determines how much heat the hotter one will transfer to it. You have zero ability to logically process what I am saying. I have tried with you and the other two twin minds of yours. Not one of you follows logic nor has enough science background to understand the points being made. Discussing intelligent ideas with you is total folly, you cannot understand them. Also you totally reject anything outside your cult braindead opinions.
So why do you have to respond when I was correcting Gordon Robertson’s false information about heat. Except for trolling and seeking some emotional response from me, I see no value from your posts. So why do you post things to me? Can you explain?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier ice shelf could collapse within five years
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antarctica-thwaites-glacier-ice-shelf-collapse-climate-5-years
Also:
C34A-07 – Collapse of Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf by intersecting fractures. Wednesday, 15 December 2021
Nowhere is temperatures above 0C in all of Antarctic. See Earth Nullschool for details. Its not going to melt anytime soon.
What is 4% of 1.8mm per year?
Alarmist BS.
Thanks, but I’ll stay with the Geophysicists on this.
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/978762
Ken,
Where did you get 1.8mm from? Current sea level rate since 1992 is 3.3 mm/yr, and that has been accelerating.
So if East Antarctica contribution increases by 25% from 4% to 29%, that will be an added 1 mm per year – 4.3 mm/year.
A completely melted Thwaites Glacier adds 65cm to global sea level over time.
“Nowhere is temperatures above 0C in all of Antarctic.”
Except apparently in the ocean beneath the ice shelves where they are melting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23534-w#MOESM2
Well UAH at least says that the Antarctic temperatures are not rising at all.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-south-pole.jpeg
RLH, You continue to ignore the fact that the MSU/AMSU measurements over the high elevations of the Antarctic are seriously flawed, a fact that UAH has long admitted.
And you ignore the fact that UAH doesn’t cover about half of Antarctic (the central bit) in their data.
RLH, The UAH LT data does not explicitly provide coverage for the Antarctic. Given that their products can not now provide coverage poleward of latitude 82.5, they still note that the data for “SoPol” covers “90S-60S”, so their range is actually 82.5S-60S, still a large area and which includes lots of ocean, which may become sea-ice during the freeze season. In their earlier work thru version 5, they interpolated their data to over the poles to create data beyond the nadir locations and the latest version 6 includes some contribution thru the higher view angle data.
Their published data misses the last 3 times 2.5 degree latitude sweeps. For both hemispheres.
RLH, Yeah, their final “published data” for the LT, particularly the gridded data, is indeed limited to the 80-82.5 degree grid boxes. However, what is stuffed into those grid boxes at the higher latitude positions may include scan data which extends further poleward from the nadir position, the maximum of which is at latitudes of +/- 81.8 degrees. That’s because the scans become more N-S as the orbits approach the poles, thus some of the data from the off-nadir scans may be “binned” in the highest latitude grid boxes.
One (that would be you) would need to carefully analyze the geometry to determine how much this effect obtains.
At thousands of meters above it, not in the ocean beneath it. You do realize they are not the same?
“beneath it”. Correction: surrounding it and beneath the ice shelves.
Now lets go back to Hansen, Science, 1981:
“Danger of rapid sea level rise is posed
by the West Antarctic ice sheet, which,
unlike the land-based Greenland and
East Antarctic ice sheets, is grounded
below sea level, making it vulnerable to
rapid disintegration and melting in case
of general warming (55).”
“Climate models (7, 8) indicate that
~ 2C global warming is needed to cause
~ 5C warming at the West Antarctic ice
sheet. A 2C global warming is exceeded
in the 21st century in all the CO2 scenarios we considered, except no growth and
coal phaseout.”
Current map of surface warming shows W Antarctica having warmed between 1-2 C.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCNv4_ERSSTv5_1200km_Anom_11_2021_2021_1951_1980_100_180_90_0_2_/amaps.png
So you are saying that warmer waters are melting the ice. At both poles then.
I’m not sure how you link that to CO2.
read the paper and we can discuss…
And as usual, when challenged, we see you change the topic.
Well I take it that you don’t assume that it is air temperature that is ‘melting’ the ice.
https://imgur.com/a/mp6Cmn6
Look at the map. W Antarctica has warmed.
So is that just a region or the whole continent?
And is it CO2 or geothermal?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
“High geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica inferred from aeromagnetic data”
Isaac Newton was right [again]: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”
So, livestock dewormers may not be a safe covid-19 treatment. Ivermectin though, is a great pour-on insecticide for horses with broad-spectrum control of costly internal and external parasites. It offers up to 28 days of horn fly control, as well as being effective against roundworms, lungworms, grubs, horn flies, sucking and biting lice, and sarcoptic mange mites in cattle. It is also safe for pregnant cattle.
Sad. Had he started the treatment earlier he mighta pulled through. He should not have had to fight in court to try a harmless medication.
I suspect you take Ivermectin regularly to control your roundworms, lungworms, grubs, horn flies, sucking and biting lice, and sarcoptic mange mites, so you ought to know. Clinger science!
Ivermectin isn’t used only for horses. It is widely used by humans for protection against parasites.
Apparently there is efficacy against COVID too. Very hard to find that information because there is active censorship.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin”
TM, your suspicions are your beliefs, but “beliefs” ain’t science. And, as in this case, you’re completely WRONG.
Many people have been cured by using Ivermectin. Many doctors are convinced it works. The medical industry opposes it because there’s no money involved. It is readily available, over-the-counter, at many farm/ranch stores. In the doses recommended for Covid, it is harmless.
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809
“Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug”
RLH, since you have so much free time, find the number of deaths from Covid-after-vaccination, and compare to number of deaths from Covid-after-ivermectin.
Go do you own research.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809
“Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug”
Its unfortunate that Ivermectin is only available in Canada and USA at the veterinarian as horse paste de-wormer.
Ivermectin is showing promising results in places where it is available. You can’t argue the vaccine is showing any better results.
Too bad we have a medical profession in our countries who won’t allow the population here to try it.
“Ivermectin is showing promising results in places where it is available.”
Not only are there many cases where Ivermectin has worked, but there is mounting evidence that the mRNA vaccines are harmful. Many countries have restricted the use of these vaccines because there appears to be a relation to heart problems.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/nordic-countries-are-restricting-the-use-of-modernas-covid-vaccine.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/?sh=1f3cb7612a8a
“Ivermectin is showing promising results in places where it is available”
No it isn’t. See above.
Its truly sad that people politicize medical care. Treatments either work or dont–talk to your doctor to find a treatment, not a talking head, blogger, or a politician.
NIH website
quote
Proposed Mechanism of Action and Rationale for Use in Patients With COVID-19
Reports from in vitro studies suggest that ivermectin acts by inhibiting the host importin alpha/beta-1 nuclear transport proteins, which are part of a key intracellular transport process that viruses hijack to enhance infection by suppressing the hosts antiviral response. In addition, ivermectin docking may interfere with the attachment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein to the human cell membrane.6 Ivermectin is thought to be a host-directed agent, which may be the basis for its broad-spectrum activity in vitro against the viruses that cause dengue, Zika, HIV, and yellow fever. Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. Some studies of ivermectin have also reported potential anti-inflammatory properties, which have been postulated to be beneficial in people with COVID-19.
unquote
There is a lot more rationale here than simply dismissing it as a horse paste dewormer.
Ken at 10:17 AM
I’ve no reason to doubt your expertise in this matter.
I’ve been buying this stuff for years for its intended use and only recently noticed this warning at my local Tractor Supply store:
IVERMECTIN SAFETY ALERT:
Ivermectin HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans and could cause severe personal injury or death. These products are only suitable for animals and are clearly labeled as such. Click here for more information on Ivermectin and COVID-19.
My family physician does not approve of it and he’s my expert on [human] health related matters. To each his own, I say.
That’s right, your only experience with ivermectin is what you see at the tractor supply store where ivermectin is sold as horse de-worming paste.
Look it up. Ivermectin was developed as a drug for humans.
I am not an expert beyond what I am learning by reading of papers posted on the internet and watching youtube presentations. I realize that puts me ahead of the curve but only because most of us can’t be bothered.
Its the same people that can’t be bothered that have allowed atrocities such as firing people from their job for not getting a vaccine despite growing evidence that you might actually be better off without the vaccine.
Like I said, “I’ve no reason to doubt your expertise in this matter.”
One of the great human inventions, in my opinion, is Adam Smith’s Division of Labor. We can’t all be experts on everything so, we each specialize in something and contribute our knowledge and experience for the benefit of humankind.I choose my experts according to their education, experience, and verifiable tract record.
In case of wilful negligence, we have that other great human invention, Professional Liability Law.
“reading of papers posted on the internet and watching youtube presentations”
Neither of which are very reliable sources.
>Look it up. Ivermectin was developed as a drug for humans.
“Following its blockbuster success as a veterinary antiparasitic, another Merck scientist, Mohamed Aziz, collaborated with the World Health Organization to test the safety and efficacy of ivermectin against onchocerciasis in humans.”
Invermectin can be bought in Northern Ireland for veterinary use. It comes in 200ml bottles in liquid form clearly marked “Not for human consumption”. Recommended dosage is 1ml per 50kg weight.
No word of farmers, or anyone else, taking it themselves.
The NIH do not seem keen for Ivermectin to be used as anti-viral, as opposed to its usual use as an anti-parasite treatment.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
“Despite this in vitro activity, no clinical trials have reported a clinical benefit for ivermectin in patients with these viruses. ”
Translation. It doesn’t work as an anti-viral.
“Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.13 However, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans. ”
Translation. It has antiviral properties in cell cultures, but only at concentrations which would give a patient brain damage
Not the first time a “miracle cure” for Covid-19 has caused problems.
https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/fox-news-linked-fish-tank-cleaner-trumps-recommended-coronavirus-treatment-man
“In case of wilful negligence, we have that other great human invention, Professional Liability Law.”
Big Pharma is immune from law suits due to vaccines.
Entropic man at 1:35 PM
“Not the first time a “miracle cure”…
I’m old enough to remember this little gem: https://youtu.be/d57zJr82dhQ
If Charles Darwin were alive today he’d probably say something like: “If you want to take a livestock dewormer to treat Covid-19 it’s ok.”
quote
“reading of papers posted on the internet and watching youtube presentations”
Neither of which are very reliable sources.
unquote
Are you smelling what you are shoveling?
Yes there is a lot of misinformation but there also is a lot of good information. I would submit the chart at the top of this page as an example.
“Yes there is a lot of misinformation but there also is a lot of good information”
The preponderance of the evidence is that Covid exists and that the vaccines are helping to prevent deaths from it.
Ken,
We have
a. Preventative medicine that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in billions of people, and is strongly recommended by public health and medical professionals and your doctors.
vs.
b. a treatment who’s efficacy is, at best, unproven, but is heavily promoted by people of one political persuasion.
And you would choose b?
“b. a treatment who’s efficacy is, at best, unproven, but is heavily promoted by people of one political persuasion.”
What does Political Persuasion have to do with it?
Its the data that matters. The data from places that are using Ivermectin, for lack of other options, is rather compelling.
There certainly is censorship and the narrative is saying no to other treatments such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and other treatments despite the compelling data .
The Vaccine is probably the best option but not everyone has access to vaccines (mainly third world). There are a large number of people who are looking at the data for bad outcomes from vaccines and doing the risk assessment of catching COVID versus getting ill from vaccine (me included).
The biggest factor in my assessment is the active suppression of any alternative to vaccine whether its nuts or not. The problem with the censorship means I’m not allowed the information on which to make my own decision.
Its the same as the climate change narrative where people want to put skeptics in jail because they can’t counter the skeptics arguments.
“The biggest factor in my assessment is the active suppression of any alternative to vaccine whether its nuts or not.”
Yep definitely nuts.
There are many internet groups who insist that alt-medicine must be better for their condition BECAUSE it is being ‘suppressed’ by mainstream medicine.
“What does Political Persuasion have to do with it?
Its the data that matters. The data from places that are using Ivermectin, for lack of other options, is rather compelling.”
Let’s face it Ken, you didnt hear about Ivermectin from reading medical journals, you heard about it, and continue to hear about it and read about it on conservative media.
There are MANY treatments used now or being researched. But is Hydroxy and Ivermectin and maybe Zinc that get all the attention from Red Amerika.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treatments-for-covid-19
Alt medicine cautionary tale, Steve Jobs.
“Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors’ recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[162] instead relying on alternative medicine to thwart the disease. According to Harvard researcher Ramzi Amri, his choice of alternative treatment “led to an unnecessarily early death”.
“Barrie R. Cassileth, the chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s integrative medicine department,[165] said, “Jobs’s faith in alternative medicine likely cost him his life…. He had the only kind of pancreatic cancer that is treatable and curable…. He essentially committed suicide.”[166]
“According to Jobs’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, “for nine months he refused to undergo surgery for his pancreatic cancer a decision he later regretted as his health declined”.[167] “Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He was also influenced by a doctor who ran a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproven approaches, before finally having surgery in July 2004.”
“Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 47 studies from 43 independent teams in 19 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (36 primary outcome, 33 most serious outcome).”
https://ivmmeta.com/
I’ve added two videos to my YouTube channel that you might be interested in:
https://youtu.be/tWfqqxnSqWw
and
https://youtu.be/-wuYHvWbGAU
One discusses the 20-year decline in the earth’s albedo, and the other busts the myth that CO2 is saturated in the earth’s atmosphere.
mark…neither one proves humans cause warming or climate change.
Mark, last month you got caught trying to advertise your incompetent, boring videos. In response, it turned out you didn’t even know the energy of a 15μ photon. In addition, you tried to claim a hot vacuum tube was somehow “proof” of the bogus GHE.
At that time, you were commenting as “Dr. Mark”. Did you get demoted?
(In case you didn’t get it the first time, there is NO “proof” that the atmosphere can warm the surface, except in extreme, localized weather events.)
So far, I have viewed UK more as a country that tries to overestimate problems with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 / COVID19.
I admit this was a superficial impression, likely due to Boris Johnson’s stance since the pandemic began.
For this reason, I was particularly interested in these statistics for Jan-June 2021:
https://tinyurl.com/y54svkkf
The most important among the main points:
” In England between January 2 and July 2, 2021 there were 51,281 deaths related to the coronavirus (COVID-19); 640 occurred in fully vaccinated people, including people who were infected before vaccination. ”
But it seems that the mere mention of such things is more than enough to make all of these self-styled ‘skeptic’s even more doubtful.
No wonder.
They not only doubt everything, but above all: the less they know about something, the more they doubt it.
A propos ivermectin, a drug psuhed up by denialists and contrarians as a help against COVID
https://tinyurl.com/2t99nw73
And some megaidiots on this blog try to tell us it’s something useful:
https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-trying-ivermectin-for-covid-heres-what-can-happen-with-this-controversial-drug-167178
How interesting that suddenly, comments trying to debunk the use of dangerous drugs are ‘awaiting moderation’, while those considering such drugs helpful pass thru!
Wonderful.
mark…neither video proves humans are causing warming or climate change.
Carl Sagan discussing the greenhouse effect in 1985, 3 years before the IPCC was formed, and recommending action to reduce GHG emissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI
Merry Christmas everyone!
test
testing testing
Testing.
Not working , try back next month
It’s working, as of 1900Z on December 16th.
You still got it!
\o/
Willard, please stop trolling.
testies
A few lines about ivermectin
” Illegal online pharmacies sell the worming agent ivermectin as a corona drug without the German prescription requirement. A risk to your wallet and your health.
*
The worming agent ivermectin is not approved for use against Covid-19 in Germany. The majority of the scientific studies available to date, as well as the manufacturers of ivermectin drugs themselves, emphasize that there is no reliable evidence of effectiveness.
The German Medical Association told ZDF TV: ‘A meta-analysis of 14 randomized clinical studies did not reveal any evidence of effectiveness in relation to the clinical endpoints examined, such as 28-day mortality.’
*
Nevertheless, based on the USA and Latin America, a hype about the active ingredient has developed.
Above all, vaccination opponents but also a minority of medical professionals see the active ingredient as an alternative or supplement to vaccination or treatment after a corona infection. ”
*
‘By accident’, all people in Germany and Austria who try to push up ivermectin as an alternative to vaccination belong to the aggressive alt-right corner.
All of them.
It seems that ivermectin approval correlates with political leaning worldwide.
Also, the right in the US (at least) has taken on the mantle of anti-establishmentism, where once that was worn by the left. It has been amusing to observe this swing, and to witness righties lecturing lefties on how stupid they are to trust the system.
Why aren’t we being told about the inexpensive (less than $5.00) treatment (Ivermectin) that has successfully prevented the significant spread of covid in a densely populated area with a population of 230 million and only about 6% vaccinated? The area is Uttar Pradesh, a state in India. Kerala population 34 million, another state in India, with about 20% vaccinated and no Ivermectin protocol had 619 times as many new cases as Uttar Pradesh and over 100 times as many deaths. https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout—part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html
Because Ivermectin is not a treatment for Covid.
Ivermectin shares the same problem with the Zelenko protocol and naturally acquired immunity; they are all inexpensive. This might jeopardize the billions that big pharma has been making from (ultimately) taxpayers by selling vaccines to the government. It is all about political control.
Vitamin D level appears to be important for reducing risk of infection in the first place https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/4/988 . IMO and others, 5000 IU of vit D/day should be combined with supplements of 15 mg/d zinc and 500 mg/d vit C.
Dan, if you get sick w Covid, dont you wsnt the best available treatments, regarless of which company discovered it?
Why the focus on one or two treatments that are poltically correct for you?
Why not argue which treatments you prefer and why, rather than making an obfuscationary remark about political correctness?
Nate,
Of course I would want the best available treatment; and none should be banned, as they have been, as a result of Deep State edict. Haven’t you wondered why there has been so little research done on treatments? It appears that there has even been dishonest research to discredit treatments. Is there collusion between big pharma and politicians? I keep coming back to the ‘common denominator’ of banned treatments or ignored natural acquired immunity. They are all inexpensive.
Requiring that children be vaccinated is particularly egregious.
Ivermectin has been prescribed for humans and other mammals for decades. Calling it horse de-wormer literally screams hidden agenda. Conflicting stories coming out of the Deep State, i.e. Fauci, compromise credibility.
Monoclonal antibody treatment is readily available in Florida and rationed or unavailable in other states. https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/monoclonal-antibody-therapy/
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210922/some-states-limiting-monoclonal-antibody-treatments
“Havent you wondered why there has been so little research done on treatments.
Nope, because there IS plenty of research being done on it. Both on hydroxy and Invermectin and others. Remember there is a whole world out there of people doing medical research studies.
“It appears that there has even been dishonest research to discredit treatments.”
Uhh, where did you hear that?
“Is there collusion between big pharma and politicians? I keep coming back to the common denominator of banned treatments or ignored natural acquired immunity. They are all inexpensive.”
Uhhh…rumors speculation? I think some big pharma corps have done some bad things (opioid crisis), but also have developed some very useful meds. Cant get by without them.
“Ivermectin has been prescribed for humans and other mammals for decades.”
Yes, that information is readily available. No one is hiding it.
“Calling it horse de-wormer literally screams hidden agenda. Conflicting stories coming out of the Deep State, i.e. Fauci, compromise credibility.”
I just used some on my dog for heart-worm prevention. It works well for such parasites. The dose is small compared to what some are suggesting might be useful in humans for Covid. It is uncertain whether it works for Covid or what dose.
“I keep coming back to the common denominator of banned treatments”
Banned treatments??
Every drug goes through an FDA process for approval for use for different diseases. You should not be prescribed cancer chemotherapy drugs for erectile dysfunction until it goes through the process of checking efficacy and safety. Checking these means through valid scientific studies, which have to be funded, and are not instantaneous Many big pharma drugs are being studied but are not through the FDA process.
Personally Im glad we have this particular vetting process that you call the Deep State.
Why not be skeptical and fact-check such things that you see on the internet?
“which treatments you prefer”
Luckily I have not gotten Covid so I don’t ‘prefer’ any.
If I get Covid I will be treated by medical professionals who are up on the latest best practices, and get second opinions if needed.
I am vaccinated and boostered, and large studies have shown this three-dose protocol prevents most bad outcomes even if I get Covid. Vaccinated coworkers, masking indoors, and weekly testing at my employer has made me confident to go to work.
Even though the vaccines were developed during the Trump administration and rolled out under Biden, it makes no sense to apply a political filter to appraise them.
My college-age kid got Covid before Thanksgiving at school. He had flu symptoms for 1-2 days and then was all better. I was thankful he was vaccinated.
Whereas his same-age unvaxxed friend got it months earlier and was ‘sick as a dog’ for several weeks and had loss of taste for months, and still has some lasting neurological effects.
Lots of treatments out there being researched.
Fluvoxamine is a cheap anti-depressant that appears promising with large studies..
Some information on prophylactics and treatments re Covid
https://www.theepochtimes.com/can-ivermectin-help-prevent-covid-19-deaths_4164036.html?utm_source=ai_recommender&utm_medium=a_bottom_above_etv
FYI epoch Times
“The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.”
They have political agendas.
Apparently in some circles being anticommunist and pro freedom is considered far right.
Dan,
This article is labeled news, but it is poor journalism in that it doesnt present both sides of the issues nor give various expert opinions. It is written like an op-ed.
It is highly misleading, by leaving out context.
” Although the densely-populated nation has four times the population of the U.S., India has less than half the U.S. COVID deaths.”
The context here is that it is well known that many people in India died at home and their Covid mortality rate was very undercounted.
“In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is now calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.3 4”
Of course, no where is it mentioned that this is a very controversial group:
“The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a small U.S. organization of physicians and former journalists formed in April 2020 that has advocated for various treatments for COVID-19, most of them ineffective (i.e. the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin) and some other drugs and vitamins of dubious efficacy.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The group is led by Paul E. Marik and Pierre Kory.[3]”
“A 2021 review article by FLCCC members on the efficacy of ivermectin, which was provisionally accepted by Frontiers in Pharmacology, was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher called ‘a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance’ meaning that the article did ‘not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19’.[12] The FLCCC review article included a study from Egypt that was later retracted after anomalies were found in its data and concerns were raised about plagiarism.[13]”
“Apparently in some circles being anticommunist and pro freedom is considered far right.”
As I said they have a very specific political agenda, and it is not to do good journalism.
Nor would I advocate getting your news from The Daily Worker or Pravda.
Nate, you say “It is uncertain whether it works for Covid or what dose.”
A far more convincing argument than your ‘op ed’ style attack on the article would be legitimate test program(s) designed and executed by people who actually want to discover the truth with the results showing that it didn’t help.
Medication that works by inhibiting the replication of the virus might be ineffective if not used early in the infection.
Nate,
I am unaware of any ‘news’ source that (by your definition with which I agree) substantially does ‘good journalism’; certainly not the NYT or WoPo or the letter channels. I listen to them all and then try to deduce the true story based on their agenda and my knowledge and common sense. Substantial consideration is given to big pharma’s motivation to make profit and the Deep State and politician’s instinct to control others.
“I am unaware of any news source that (by your definition with which I agree) substantially does good journalism; certainly not the NYT or WoPo or the letter channels. I listen to them all and then try to deduce the true story based on their agenda and my knowledge and common sense.”
All media may have a political slant. That means the Opinion pieces and Editorial page lean one way. But a political agenda is not their main mission, as it is (or was) for PRAVDA, The Daily Worker, or The Epoch Times.
What I am saying is the PRIMARY mission of media like the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Miami Herald, the Wall Street Journal, CBS news, etc is to do good journalism. That means to get the story, get it first, and get it right.
“But a political agenda is not their main mission, as it is (or was) for PRAVDA, The Daily Worker, or The Epoch Times.”
Let me add Russia Today, and I suspect Newsmax, OAN to that category.
When you look at a Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, their pure news reporting tends to be good journalism, while their Prime Time programming is mostly Opinion based.
Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC regularly get news stories from the NYT, WaPo, and Wall Street Journal, and vice-versa.
These sources know that the others will be checking and verifying the stories, thus they have every incentive to make sure that they are correct ahead of time.
And they are RARELY proven wrong.
Uttar Pradesh – where no one at all died for many months in several precincts with high populations?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354851692_Preliminary_Analysis_of_Excess_Mortality_in_India_During_the_Covid-19_Pandemic_Update_September_26_2021
I think we can safely assume that Uttar Pradesh has glaring anomalies regarding its mortality reporting, never mind re COVID.
Of course, no one has done any formal test whatsoever for ivermectin efficacy in Uttar Pradesh.
I’ve been there a couple of times. Nice part of the world.
Ivermectin “has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.” “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809
“Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug”
Still awaiting the superwinter predicted for Germany by the usual Grand Cooling specialists.
Coldest night temperature prediction for Germoney in the next two weeks: -9 C [sic] in Dresden on Monday, Dec 27.
Looking at the very recent past how it looked there in 2010:
https://tinyurl.com/3yytdbfe
compared with this year:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9fp6y2
tells us that until now, we are way above those years in the past we remember as having really been cold ones (here are some night temps recorded around Xmas by a few Dresden stations):
GM000003244 56-77 1996 12 29 -21.0
GME00121354 56-77 2010 12 29 -17.9
GME00121366 56-77 1961 12 26 -17.8
GMM00010488 56-77 1961 12 25 -17.8
GM000003244 56-77 1996 12 27 -17.5
GM000003244 56-77 1962 12 24 -17.4
GME00121366 56-77 2010 12 29 -17.4
GM000003244 56-77 1996 12 28 -17.2
GME00121366 56-77 1961 12 25 -17.1
GME00121354 56-77 1961 12 25 -16.9
*
And when I look at NOAA’s T2m predictions for Feb 2022 in Europe:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd2.gif
I’m not quite sure that the next months will bring anything different.
For the megadumb, manipulating ignoramuses who claim that so many people died due to vaccination against COVID
Until now, about 67 % of the Germans above 18 were doubly vaccinated against COVID disease.
While there were 456 deaths ‘possibly or probably’ due to vaccination after 625 million vaccine doses in Germany between 2003 and 2019, 73 persons died ‘possibly or probably’ due to vaccination after 92 million corona vaccination doses since March 2020.
*
Something tells me that those who rant on this blog against vaccines are in fact exactly those who are very certainly vaccinated… against COVID19!
Possible vaccine death rate, then, of 0.00008%.
Whereas the minimum death rate for COVID is currently 0.25% *.
* This is the number of the people who have died of COVID in the US against the entire population of the US.
And there is NO DOUBT that the official COVID mortality numbers in the US are correct or undercounted (cf US excess deaths 2020 and 2021).
IOW, 3000 times more likely to die from COVID than the vaccine.
barry, your ability to pervert reality is amazing.
You ignore that Bindidon’s figures indicate Covid vax deaths are 9% higher than normal. (If the figures are anywhere close to actual.) Then you ignore the fact that US figures are terribly bogus. Worse than “ignore”, you try to validate: “And there is NO DOUBT that the official COVID mortality numbers in the US are correct or undercounted…” What a joke!
You have to be braindead to ignore all the evidence of fraud — guy killed in motorcycle accident listed as Covid death, guy hit by lightning on a roof and falling to his death listed as Covid death.
At one time, hospitals were getting huge cash incentives for everyone that tested positive for Covid. And since it’s so easy to test positive with the inaccurate testing, guess what?
Since I have a nurse in the family, here are two meaningful anecdotes:
* Nurse is asked to tested a deceased person for covid. She reports the test is negative. The doctor frowns and asks a more “in-touch” nurse to test. Second nurse reports “positive”.
* Nurse reports that there is no testing for seasonal flu at her hospital. It’s like the seasonal flu no longer exists.
If the “possible or probable” deaths from vaccines is taken as absolutely positively died of vaccine, then it is an 8% difference between all vaccines and COVID vaccines in Germany.
So instead of a 1 in 1.3 million chance of dying from a vaccine, it’s a 1 in 1.2 million chance dying of a COVID vaccine.
Of course, there are other vaccines with a similar fatality rate to COVID vaccines.
This is orders of magnitude better odds than dying of COVID, where you have a 1 in 500 chance of dying from the disease, increasing markedly in older age groups.
And a sample size of 74 people for (possible or probable) COVID vaccine death is tiny, so the true mortality rate from COVID could be significantly overestimated.
amending:
“…so the true mortality rate from COVID vaccines could be significantly overestimated”
barry…”Possible vaccine death rate, then, of 0.00008%”.
***
It’s not the death rate that is of concern at this time, it’s the possible long-term damage to cells that is the issue. The modified RNA being used in the vaccines is designed to penetrate a cell that would normally reject the material. Forcing the cell to accept the RNA could lead to deleterious effects like cell damage and cell mutation.
There is no way to test for such damage. Some of the vaccines are causing blood clotting issues and heart damage. The Johnson&Johnson and Astra Zeneca vaccines are suspected of this kind of damage. Pfizer is also being investigated for serious issues they are brushing off in their reports.
The biggest fear right now is autoimmune disease. The modified RNA is designed to fool the immune system into rejecting covid based on RNA ‘believed’ to be from the virus. If that RNA is not from the virus, the vaccines could be teaching the body to reject itself.
In the first link I provided for Binny, Dr. Michael Yeadon, an expert in immunology, explains related issues.
barry…that link to Dr. Yeadon ended up below, for some reason. It’s worth the watch because Yeadon is highly qualified in this area.
You have to remove the asterisk from the link and repost it. The old d*c issue.
Also, if you can, watch the other video with Matthias Desmet. He is a clinical psychologist with expertise in statistics. His interest is more into why people suddenly band together to enforce and protect paradigms.
No, Clint, the fatalities are very well corroborated, and not just for the US.
There was a spike in 2020 and there is one in 2021 in the number of people who died in the US. In a bad year you get as many as 70,000 deaths above the norm in the US, In 2020 this figure was 500,000, which is 150,000 more than the official COVID tally for that year.
So even if you allow for a very bad year of 70,000 deaths above average, there were 430,000 more beyond that in 2020. Still higher than the official COVID tally.
In any country in the world with high COVID deaths, they have also had a huge spike in total deaths.
And the clincher? These ‘excess deaths’ come in waves over the last 18 months, and those waves match the timing of the peaks in COVID deaths.
Further kicker: some waves fall outside the normal annual peak in mortality (Winter). So you have off-season spikes in overall mortality that coincide with deaths attributed to COVID.
This pattern is consistent for any country with with numbers of COVID deaths.
The evidence is unambiguous. COVID deaths are not overestimated.
“with with”
with high
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
We may never know what the real figures are. There is enough conflicting and erroneous “stuff” coming from “authorities” that we know to be very dubious. For example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/the-uah-global-temperature-dataset-at-30-years-a-look-back-at-the-early-days/#comment-453242
The data on how many death certificates are issued is excellent in many countries. The fact that the above results are corroborated in many countries with high COVID deaths nails it.
It’s undeniable. You have to lie to yourself to think otherwise.
Mark B provided some handy graphs to see the matched timing of COVID deaths compared to overall mortality in the US and also in Florida.
https://tinyurl.com/ynz9c4zm
https://tinyurl.com/2h3mhbx2
In any country or state where there is a high number of COVID deaths, this is what is seen.
https://tinyurl.com/mw686jeb (handy chart at the bottom to check total deaths for US, and you can select to compare with official COVID numbers/timing)
COVID deaths are not overestimated.
A few months ago COVID in the US eclipsed the estimated death toll from Spanish Flu (750,000).
Here you can check excess deaths by country as time series:
https://tinyurl.com/bdf29jdb
And you can compare the peaks in official COVID numbers for any country in time series here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5ucsxa8
Check for yourself. Any country with significant COVID death toll also has contemporaneous peaks in all-cause mortality (total number of death certificates issued).
binny…”Something tells me that those who rant on this blog against vaccines are in fact exactly those who are very certainly vaccinated against COVID19!”
***
I can assure you I am not vaccinated and I can further assure you that I have no intention of being vaccinated, even if they introduce Draconian measures as in Greece and Austria to fine people who are not vaccinated.
Even if they resort to the environment in Germany circa 1932 where a democratically-elected government began throwing dissenters in concentration camps for going against government policy, I will refuse to be vaccinated. There are people in modern democratic societies today who have talked about such a scenario.
In your appeal to authority, you trust Pfizer, who has been fined about 5 billion dollars for lying about their products. I would not trust that load of felons as far as I could throw them. Furthermore, when they can produce a vaccine against covid in 3 months while an HIV vaccine has not been found in 40 years, I call them a load of liars.
Here’s a former Pfizer vice-president, Dr. Michael Yeadon, and his views on the current insanity re covid.
Note…you need to remove the asterisks (*) in the link at fnqld*c*c.com
https://fnqld*cc.com/home/dr-michael-yeadon-explains-the-psychosis-behind-the-genocide-agenda/
sorry the second asterisk did not show up for some reason and it would not post with the one between d and c.
This video is even better, from a clinical psychologist with a degree in statistics. RLH should get off on that, someone who understands statistics as well than or better than him.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/mattias-desmet-on-mass-formation/
Covid exists and kills people. Vaccines help prevent the deaths. People who wish to deny that also appear to like to think the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
They are deluded in all their thoughts.
The safe dose for Invermectin is 300 micrograms per kg. Above that it crosses the blood-brain barrier and binds to glutamine gated chloride channels in your brain. That leads to impaired brain function, impaired coordination, coma and death.
If you show symptoms five hours after taking Invermectin, go to hospital.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers has reported 1,440 cases of ivermectin poisoning through September 20, 2021, a three-fold increase compared to similar time periods in 2019 and 2020.
That is 1000 Americans who have poisoned themselves this year trying to use Invermectin against Covid.
“1000 Americans who have poisoned themselves this year trying to use Invermectin against Covid”
America the beautiful needed to have the shallow end of its gene pool chlorinated anyhow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25rkrPjjdKM
This study verifies the benefit of ivermectin, but points out the importance of early use in treatment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
Vaccine is killing people too. UK has 10 000 excess mortality due to heart and stroke and its being blamed on vaccine complications.
Uhhh….link for that?
Yeah, Ken’s statement is not a real thing. Source is probably a facebook post.
The problem with recommending ivermectin when the evidence is not strong enough to support its use against COVID is that it might pull people away from more established treatments, and could sap confidence in ivermectin’s regular use as a drug to treat tropical disease.
A bunch of independent review studies have found problems with previous, small-scale studies and verified others that found no evidence of any benefit.
Eg,
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full#CD015017-abs-0001
Worth reading – Cochrane reviews are extremely thorough.
maguff..”Antarcticas Thwaites Glacier ice shelf could collapse within five years…”
***
Gee…what a surprise. Glaciers in Antarctica that reach the ocean continue to push out over the ocean, hanging there suspended above a tempestuous ocean with large waves pounding against the overhanging ice. Eventually, gravity and the oceans win out and the so-called ice-shelf breaks off.
This process is known in geology as ‘calving’. I guess that may be a reference to the glacier giving birth to icebergs. It’s likely been happening since the Earth began. However, climate alarmists, desperate for ANY evidence they might be able to use to bolster their pathetic theory, twist the natural process in favour of catastrophic global warming.
Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, himself an alarmist, was asked if glaciers in Antarctica were melting. He replied that it was far too cold for that to happen there. Well, guess what, it’s far too cold for global warming to have any effect either.
Curious about who was here a couple of years ago and which nyms have changed to which.
Came across this interesting post by Roy on UAH history.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/the-uah-global-temperature-dataset-at-30-years-a-look-back-at-the-early-days/#comments
***
We have new nyms these days like Tyson McWhatever…I call him maguff. I think he may be Carbon500, studentb, or Svante. Probably not Svante, he seemed a little more with it than Maguff. More smarmy too.
Willard was likely Da*v*id Ap*pe*ll, although he denies it.
Where is Salvatore and gallopingcamel?
Of course, snape is AWOL with his thought experiments, as is Nurse Ratchet. I think they are one and the same.
Binny has given up on hiding behind his girlfriend’s nym although Norman sometimes appears with Mrs. Norman.
C’mon, Gordo. Have you ever tried to corroborate that silly hypothesis of yours? Here’s some tidbit for your consideration:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/22/challenges-of-the-clean-energy-transition/#comment-962956
Either you’re an idiot or your a serial liar. I don’t think you’re an idiot.
Think.
Ignoramus Robertson still hasn’t understood that there was no ‘behind his girlfriend’s nym’.
Rose aka ‘La Pangolina’ still is here, but has stopped writing due to the terrifying level of ignorance of people like… Robertson (and a couple of others).
“Willard was likely Da*v*id Ap*pe*ll, although he denies it.”
I think not. There is enough public information on both to be reasonably sure that they are different people.
A couple of lines about the dumb liar ‘Robertson’
He writes:
” Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, himself an alarmist, was asked if glaciers in Antarctica were melting. He replied that it was far too cold for that to happen there. ”
*
Here is what Wingham wrote in 2007 together with Andrew Shepherd (and what he uploaded in 2014 on ResearchGate to ensure free access to it).
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6442922_Recent_Sea-Level_Contributions_of_the_Antarctic_and_Greenland_Ice_Sheets
” After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing.
As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall.
Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year.
This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade.
In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge surface and ocean warming, respectively and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models. ”
*
People like Robertson are ready for any lie that fits their permanently contrarian narrative.
Never believe the trash they write!
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-south-pole.jpeg
You only have to graph the figures presented on this blog to see that the Antarctic is not rising. Since 1979 at least.
RLH, You continue to ignore the fact that the MSU/AMSU measurements over the high elevations of the Antarctic are seriously flawed, a fact that UAH has long admitted. That’s the reason RSS excludes the data from the area from 70S to the South Pole, as well as other regions with high mountains. Do try to catch up, won’t you?
https://imgur.com/a/mp6Cmn6
Berkley Earth good enough for you?
The South Pole is a somewhat unique location. Geographical height is 10,000ft and pressure altitude 11,000 ft. It is 350miles from the sea on a permanent ice sheet and protected from warming by both a strong polar front and a circumpolar ocean current. Aphelion is on July 3rd, 10 days after the Antarctic Summer solstice, so it is warmest when the Sun is weakest.
For its altitude it is probably a candidate for coldest spot on the planet. I’m not surprised that the South Pole may be showing cooling, it’s geography makes it the location least likely to show AGW.
I do hope that you are not going to claim that because the South Pole is cooling, that the rest of the planet is also cooling. The rest of your graph strongly suggests otherwise.
As UAH does not reach the center of the South Pole as you have noted before your point is rather moot.
The nearest that UAH gets is within 7.5 degrees of it, which is almost 50% of the land area.
P.S. It is not my graph but it does show that the majority of the ‘rise’ is (well) under 0.2c per decade for most of the year for the last 70 years.
RLH, Your posted graph shows the Max temperatures for the Antarctic are close to those for the extra-tropical SH. The low temperature curves are the ones showing lower trends, even negative for the NH summer (SH winter) curve. That would not be surprising, given that most of the stations are located around the coast, thus are heavily influenced by ocean temperatures, which are known to be increasing more slowly than in the NH. Add to that is the fact that Antarctic sea-ice is not declining like that in the Arctic, also linked to SH winter temperatures.
It is interesting that you claim that Berkley Earth is overly influenced by ocean temperatures. Have you told them?
RLH wrote:
Overly Influenced? What does that mean? Have you noticed that the SH is predominantly covered by oceans? Can you comprehend that the oceans absorb the heat and thus the SH is warming more slowly than the NH?
Here’s a link to my 2003 MSU paper, in which I listed most of the stations for the Antarctic in Table 1. They are mostly located near the oceans, though the water would freeze in SH winter as the sea-ice grows.
“That would not be surprising, given that most of the stations are located around the coast, thus are heavily influenced by ocean temperatures”.
Those are your words. Are you trying to deny them?
Sorry, I don’t see your point. The SH has long been known to warm slower than the NH, mostly due to the large area fraction of oceans. The Antarctic is surrounded by oceans, rather like the UK, thus the climate is moderated by the ocean’s large heat capacity.
UAH shows a warming rate of 0.14C/decade. The other datasets group around 0.18C/decade and Berkeley around 0.2C/decade.
Plot polynomials for each dataset and they all show acceleration.
It took about 100 years for the first 1C warming. At the current 0.2C/decade thec
next 1C will take 50 years.
“Plot polynomials for each dataset”
Plot a polynomial for a sine wave.
It was a natural cycle, but its period is 100,000 years and its not a sine wave. It is bimodal, spending 90,000 years in Icehouse Glacial and 10,000 years in Icehouse Interglacial.
Even that is now obsolete. Artificial human emissions have broken the glacial cycle and we are now warming towards the Hothouse conditions last seen in the Eocene.
Even if it is bimodal (i.e. an asymmetrical ‘natural’ cycle) then fitting anything short of a full cycle will show a distorted picture.
Tell me the mechanism using CO2 that produces
https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=48.22467264956519&lon=14.765625000000002&zoom=3
This paper shows a moderate Antarctic contribution to global sea level rise from 1900, slowly accelerating through to 2018.
https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%3A232904/datastream/PDF_01/view
Interesting paper for the variety of sea level contributions.
Bindi,
The only liars on this board are you, the leftists. Like your Nazi forefathers and Jim Crow Democrats, you claim “in the name of science” while being anything but science. You are the trash on the board.
Strange little angry man.
barry says: . . . the fatalities are very well corroborated, and not just for the US.
Graphic for the US.
US Weekly Excess and Covid Deaths
This holds on a state by state basis as well, e.g.:
Florida Weekly Excess and Covid Deaths
Mark B
Something strange happened with the tiny links, they were concatenated to the blog’s address.
Graphic for the US.
https://tinyurl.com/ynz9c4zm
Graphic for Florida.
https://tinyurl.com/2h3mhbx2
Thanks Mark and Bindidon. I posted the charts above, and more data sources.
The JMA surface temperature data for November have been posted and there is a major discrepancy between the surface data and Dr. Roy’s satellite data.
The JMA data show an anomaly of 0.28 deg C for Nov. 2021 making it tied with 2019 for the third warmest Nov. in their data set.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/nov_wld.html
Corrected for baseline UAH is also running about 0.4C below TemplS and GISS.
Check the graph on Moyhu’s data page.
TempIS and GISS are designed to support the propaganda.
Yes Stephen, as are all the fake pictures of the Earths curvature from space!
Mark Shapiro
Though surface and lower troposphere sometimes look pretty similar in the graphical representation of their temperature series, the two layers nonetheless are substantially different, especially when you compare them on a monthly basis.
You see this when looking at their anomaly distribution over a global grid (even if the grid cell sizes differ):
UAH LT:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/November2021/202111_Map.png
JMA surface:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2021/gridtemp202111e.png
Temperature anomalies (shown wrt the same reference period, of course) can differ substantially, especially over the oceans.
This is most visible in the NINO area because of the lag between sea surfaces and the LT above them (about 5 months).
mark…”The JMA surface temperature data for November have been posted and there is a major discrepancy between the surface data and Dr. Roy’s satellite data”.
***
The sats cover 95% of the surface wheres the surface stations cover no more than 30%. The sats use bazillions of oxygen molecules as temperature data points whereas a surface station has just one.
Furthermore, much of the surface data is not presented as is. It is fudged by NOAA and others to present what they think it should be.
I missed seeing poor braindead bob’s comment upthread, so I wanted to respond:
bob: “You have to specify what the vectors represent, if one of them represents the acceleration due to gravity, and one represents the motion due to velocity, then how can you add them?”
The vectors are the same type. That’s why no units were specified.
bob: “You didn’t use polar coordinates, so how can you claim I misunderstood polar coordinates.”
I used polar coordinates, which proves bob doesn’t understand polar coordinates.
bob: “You rotated the vectors the wrong way.”
Nope. bob just doesn’t understand. (See graphic.)
bob: “An object rotating in a circle, if the vectors are the same units, then the values of 50 and 10 are wrong.”
Nope. bob just doesn’t understand. (See graphic.)
Poor braindead bob still won’t be able to understand. He’s braindead. But, he’s not alone. Not one of the “Spinners” was able to solve the easy problem. RLH claimed that he worked with vectors daily, but he failed to even understand the simple problem. None of them know anything about the issue, and they can’t learn.
Here’s the simple graphically representation of the solution. The problem is simple: Given the vectors at the “top” of the orbit, what is resultant vector after 90° CCW orbit?
https://postimg.cc/JyCw5bzq
Clint R can’t help himself.
“The vectors are the same type. That’s why no units were specified.”
That’s a poor excuse for you not specifying what there are to properly set up a problem.
“I used polar coordinates, which proves bob doesn’t understand polar coordinates.”
You didn’t specify any coordinates.
You didn’t provide those, no azimuth and elevation, just one angle was specified.
“Nope. bob just doesn’t understand. (See graphic.)”
Yeah, that’s right, I don’t understand, but where is the object going in your “solution” does it continue to orbit or what?
Yup, it’s the or what.
Now take a look at your graphic, you have two vectors pointing the same direction, one is -90 degrees and the other is 270 degrees, but both should be 90 degrees as they are clockwise 90 degrees from zero.
Angles increase going clockwise, decrease going counterclockwise.
And for the red arrow, 11 degrees counter clockwise from 270 degrees is 259 degrees, not 281.
You can’t even get the answer to your own problem correct.
Maybe it’s just dyslexia.
And three days late.
All wrong, bob.
The usual convention for polar coordinates is positive/CCW. But, even if you were confused about the convention, you could have figured it out from the given vectors.
The fact is, confirmed by you, you don’t have a clue about orbital motion, physics, or polar coordinates. AND, you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Clint R,
The convention is north is zero, east is 90 degrees, south 180, west is 270.
Wrong again, bob.
But don’t even waste your time with the link. You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system#/media/File:Polar_graph_paper.svg
“In the air, aircraft use a slightly modified version of the polar coordinate system for navigation. In this coordinate system, the 0 ray (generally called heading 360) is vertical, and the angles continue in a clockwise, rather than a counterclockwise, direction.”
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/p/Polar_coordinate_system.htm
All marine charts have North as 0 degrees and bearings are clockwise.
Clint R wins that one.
By denying all marine and aircraft charts. Sure.
Nothing is “denied”. Obviously the coordinate system can go either way, CCW or CW. Pettifogging won’t win an argument.
Air and nautical charts are overwhelming evidence of which way is considered ‘normal’.
Doesn’t matter either way.
I know that you and Clint R don’t accept the normal that others use every day. Just goes to show you and he are deluded.
The diagram Clint R linked to at 4:48 PM exists, but more importantly, the overall argument was settled in Clint R’s favor at 2:44 PM. Quibbling over which way the convention “normally” goes will not change the content of that comment.
https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/maths/coordinates/how-to-read-compass/
DREMT: Polar coordinates in maths are not quite the same as polar coordinates in navigation.
Navigation is used by millions of people worldwide everyday.
…but more importantly, the overall argument was settled in Clint R’s favor at 2:44 PM. Quibbling over which way the convention “normally” goes will not change the content of that comment.
“aircraft use a slightly modified version of the polar coordinate system for navigation”
As do ships and boats.
You are as wrong as you usually are.
Quibbling over which way the convention “normally” goes will not change the content of that comment. Clint R won the argument at 2:44 PM.
DREMT: Both you and Clint R do not deal with vectors and polar co-ordinates on a daily, practical, basis.
Clint R won the argument at 2:44 PM.
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 INTERACTING-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
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)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
More to be feared than ignorance
is the illusion of knowledge.
TYSON, you obviously do not agree with New Theory.
The New Theory states:
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.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Even if you are brazen enough to proudly enlighten your private, new ‘theory’ with Capital Letters, it remains a simple hypothesis, based on pure guessing.
Aligning day after day the same hundreds of lines 100 % based on a factor φ you invented without giving it any real, scientific background other than your own circular reasoning, doesn’t change anything to that.
And your constant attempts to get approval from the GHE denialists by crying with the wolves thru denying the lunar rotation together with them: these ridiculous attempts are of no use to you either – especially if you inadvertently leak the slow lunar rotation into your thoughts, like here:
” Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin. ”
{ What by the way is not correct: Earth rotates about 27.3 times as fast as the Moon does: the number you mention is not independent of Earth’s orbital motion about the Sun. }
Braindead-idon, aren’t you confused enough with Moon?
Now you’re also believing in the “real 255K surface”? Let me guess — You don’t know where it is either?
Why do you ask me?
I’m not confused at all with anything.
Why don’t you ask Vournas if he is not confused about the Moon which in his comments sometimes rotates, and sometimes does not?
On the one hand, Vournas perfectly knows that the Moon rotates about its polar axis, Clint R.
But on the other hand, he needs the approval of GHE deniers like you and Robertson concerning his No GHE hypothesis… and hence writes here and there that the Moon does not rotate!
*
Don’t bother about me, Clint R: I don’t need any help.
Instead, help this poor Vournas guy in getting out of his schizophrenic split personality!
That would be soooo great.
Wrong Braindead-idon.
Christos is clearly talking about exposure to Sun. That means orbital motion of Moon relative to Sun, or “synodic”.
He’s comparing Moon’s “day/night” to Earth’s day/night.
Christos has it right, and you’re wrong, as usual. You could learn from Christos, if you weren’t braindead.
No, no, Clint R…
Don’t try to pervert what Vournas wrote:
” Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin. “
binny…”Dont try to pervert what Vournas wrote:
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin”.
***
The Moon has 13+ days in sunlight and 13+ days in complete darkness. During the former, temperatures can rise to 127C and during the latter, can drop to -173C.
Like the Earth, the Moon is tilted wrt to incident sunlight therefore some parts are heated more than others during the sunlight phase. During the dark face all parts are likely to be the same frigid -173 C.
The Earth is kept warm while out of sunlight by the oceans and the atmosphere. Why would it surprise you that the Earth is 68C warmer than the Moon? The Moon, of course, has no means of retaining heat during its 13+ days without sunlight.
A simple calculation between the extremes of -173C and 127C tells you a simple average is (-173 +127)/2 = -46C. The 46C is also the difference in absolute magnitude between |-173C| and |+127C|. Therefore the average of the absolute value of
-173C to 127C should be 46C below 0C = -46C.
If the Earth’s average temperature is +15C, then Earth is, on average, 46C + 15C = 61C warmer than the Moon.
I have not looked at the calculations of Christos, I have applied simple math and reached a figure within 7C of his calculations. The difference is no doubt due to a more precise average employed by Christos. My values are not averages but extremes.
What’s the problem?
Robertson
” What’s the problem? ”
Again and again and again: Vournas wrote THIS:
” Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin. ”
You (and Clint R) both do perfectly understand what Vournas means with that little sentence.
Namely that Earth’s rotational spin is 29.3 times faster than Moon’s.
But you are both too stubborn to admit that.
And Vournas is not courageous enough to confirm what he himself wrote.
He’s using the synodic period ass wipe, and he knows more about it than you do.
maguff…”More to be feared than ignorance
is the illusion of knowledge”.
***
It’s ironic that people who promote such jargon are often the best examples of it.
Unfortunately I must be gone for awhile. I will miss the fun. I have 4 important “meetings” to attend, all involving travel. I will be doing important scientific research into how high my blood alcohol content must be to ward off viruses. Back to back “meetings” on the 18th and 19th, followed by another on the 24th, and the final one on the 31st.
Some may claim it’s really partying, but they’re just sore because they didn’t get invited. It’s all hard work. It’s for science. Someone has to do it!
To my important allies here, who stand for truth, reality, and science — Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I leave in the morning, and will be back in about two weeks. Have fun tromping on the idiots. Reality always wins.
To the braindead cult idiots — remember it’s not too late to change your ways. Santa is watching. If you try really hard, and be really nice, he might even bring you a brain….
Bye.
Merry Christmas to you too!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Merry Christmas!
It’s Not Actually Size That Determines How Deadly a Meteor Is
TESSA KOUMOUNDOUROS16 DECEMBER 2021
“We have a lot to thank meteorites for. Had they not instigated several mass extinction events, including wiping out non-avian dinosaurs, we probably wouldn’t be here today.
But some things still don’t add up about the massive scale of decimation they can cause.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/it-is-not-bolide-size-that-determines-how-deadly-a-meteor-is
gbaikie,
Do you agree that NASA will likely be able to predict a dangerous asteroid impact with Earth a couple of decades prior? And other international organizations would be able to check and confirm this?
And then what would happen? I assume there would be computer modeling to predict how deadly the impact would be for humans. And I assume some international effort would be required to determine what the risk to Earth really is, and what response is needed, and who should do it and fund it. Maybe that would involve the UN.
Can you imagine, what if some individuals, groups, corporations, and media outlets decided to organize and oppose any effort to deal with the asteroid impact? They might consider the science to be too uncertain, the predicted danger exaggerated, and the proposed response too expensive and unlikely to work. They might invoke religion, that God would not destroy the Earth.
And wouldn’t it be a tragedy if science determined we could do something to avert the impending catastrophe, but because of division, failed to act?
Can you see that this is essentially what is happening with AGW?
–Nate says:
December 18, 2021 at 9:12 AM
gbaikie,
Do you agree that NASA will likely be able to predict a dangerous asteroid impact with Earth a couple of decades prior? And other international organizations would be able to check and confirm this?–
I would say we have detected more than 50% and know they aren’t going to hit earth within decades. And it’s unlikely the ones we haven’t detected will hit us with couple decades. Or if we detected one which could hit earth, it’s likely it might hit earth more than 2 decades into the future. But we could be hit without first detecting a rock, or it’s NOT very rare than a rock flies Earth, and we only detect as it flies by Earth, but such rocks are mostly small and only wipe out city with direct hit {which is very unlikely- most of earth is ocean, and most of land isn’t a city or town].
The russian impactor:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=russian+impactor&docid=608017251607258041&mid=6A0B2ACE5F44AC7135046A0B2ACE5F44AC713504&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
or:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRrdSwhQhY0
Wasn’t detected and injured and damaged property, but roughly, it missed- or could done a lot more destruction and killed people rather mostly just breaking windows and giving some a slight sunburn.
“And then what would happen? I assume there would be computer modeling to predict how deadly the impact would be for humans. And I assume some international effort would be required to determine what the risk to Earth really is, and what response is needed, and who should do it and fund it. Maybe that would involve the UN.”
I was lead in beginning by amateur and small groups, but they organized and cooperated internationally, then NASA got funding with goal of finding all rocks which could hit earth which 1 km in diameter, and after many years got more 90% of these bigger space rocks, and now trying to get rocks 140 meter or more in diameter, and probably got about 1/2 of these {or more}. Of course, comets not included as they are not detectable if far away and are regarded as more unlikely to hit earth, of course lately we detecting interstellar rocks which passing thru our solar system, which rarer than unknowable comets- and only when get close can we detect them.
I was lead..
I meant, “It was lead…”
I was interested in it quite early. But I am not a starglazer.
I complained a lot about the small amount government funding, but US military also got involved. They actually built a good telescope which found a lot. But also a big public telescope is being built going map the milky way {in southern sky} and look space rocks.
Here it is:
https://lsst.slac.stanford.edu/
And:
“NASAs Next-Generation Asteroid Impact Monitoring System Goes Online
2021-12-06
To date, nearly 28,000 near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) have been found by survey telescopes that continually scan the night sky, adding new discoveries at a rate of about 3,000 per year. But as larger and more advanced survey telescopes turbocharge the search over the next few years, a rapid uptick in discoveries is expected. ”
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/
Anyways, I forgot mention {A lot my posts fail to post- so tend write less]
I posted this as is related to Little Ice Age. Or small impactor or small volcanic eruption can apparently have large effect on cooling.
COMET LEONARD IS APPROACHING VENUS: Later today, Comet Leonard (C/2021 A1) will pass by Venus only 4.2 million km away. It’s the closest comet-Venus encounter in recorded history.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“Sunspot number: 127
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 17 Dec 2021”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 7.23×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
binny…”He writes:
Polar expert, Duncan Wingham, himself an alarmist, was asked if glaciers in Antarctica were melting. He replied that it was far too cold for that to happen there. ”
***
It’s clear who the dumbass is here….you. I indicated that Wingham is an alarmist. Regarding my post above, here it is from Wingham himself.
“Duncan Wingham: It’s extraordinary, this idea that Antarctica is melting. I think it is in the popular press and in the popular mind, and so when you point out something that is true, namely it’s too cold in Antarctica for the ice to melt, everyone is rather surprised, but it is just a fact. The most northerly part of Antarctica, the tip of the peninsula, is unusual in that it is far to the north of most of the continent and the temperatures do actually reach the melting point in summer in the peninsula. For the most part Antarctica is just too cold”.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/antarctic-ice-flow-and-arctic-sea-ice/3401828
rlh…”Covid exists and kills people. Vaccines help prevent the deaths. People who wish to deny that also appear to like to think the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
They are deluded in all their thoughts”.
***
If you are wrong about the Moon rotating there’s a good chance you are wrong about covid and vaccines as well. Thus far, the only proof you have provided to support your claims is an appeal to authority. Naturally, as a butt-kisser to authority you will fall in line and accept government propaganda about covid and vaccines.
Some facts for you:
1)The major producer of vaccines, Pfizer, has been fined nearly 5 billion dollars for lying about their products. They are followed closely by another vaccines producer, Johnson & Johnson, who have paid over 3 billion for lying about their products,
The companies have been granted immunity from prosecution for the covid vaccines. Now, the US FDA wants a 55 year moratorium on the data showing the results of the vaccines.
2)When Pfizer claimed a 90% confidence level that their vaccine prevented covid infection, only 3% of over 28 million tested in Canada had tested positive. That 3% figure was typical for the US as well. The truth is that a very small percentage of the US and Canadian populations are testing positive.
BTW…just checked. Canada has now performed over 50 million tests and the rate of positivity is still about 3.67%. Death percent about 0.08%.
I have never been tested nor do I know anyone who has so I don’t know how they got 50 millions tests from a population of 38 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107034/covid19-cases-deaths-tests-canada/
How then, can Pfizer claim their vaccines are effective at preventing infection with 90% of populations? It’s just another lie from felons already convicted and forced to pay huge fines for lying.
3)The covid RNA-PCR test does not test for a virus, it tests for strands of RNA thought to be from a virus. The theory that the RNA represents a virus came from Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV. He developed the inference that the strands of RNA came from HIV when he could not see HIV on an electron microscope.
Dr. Michael Yeadon, an expert in immunology and a former Pfizer VP, now claims the tests cannot distinguish between RNA lurking in dead cells from RNA from new viral sources. Of course, he believes the RNA inference but Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean does not. In fact, the convinced a German high court that the RNA theory is bs. for the measles virus.
Therefore the tests appear to be totally unreliable as Dr. Kary Mullis claimed, and he invented the PCR method for DNA amplification.
4)Dr. Yeadon has also pointed out that the body overseeing covid in the UK had no experts on its board. They are governing solely on advice from others and those sources are not being revealed. Therefore we are all stuck with health civil servants running our countries and spreading whatever propaganda comes to their minds.
> Dr. Michael Yeadon, an expert in immunology
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s butt kissing, right?
“If you are wrong about the Moon rotating there’s a good chance you are wrong about covid and vaccines as well”
I am wrong about neither.
Gordon, do you even bother to fact-check what these these cranks claims?
“In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Yeadon and the German physician Wolfgang Wodarg called for all vaccine trials to be stopped, falsely suggesting[23][24][25] that mRNA vaccines could target the syncytin-1 protein needed for placenta formation.[2]”
And of course this was completely wrong, misinformation.
But it enabled the spread of the myth that the vaccine caused female sterilization.
Which was been thoroughly debunked:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9856420671
Gordon Robertson
For your New Year’s resolution I hope you choose to quick you compulsive lying. You do not bring good to the table with your constant lies.
Here is one: “Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean does not. In fact, the convinced a German high court that the RNA theory is bs. for the measles virus.”
NO HE DID NOT!! That is a complete lie and you have been corrected on it more than once! The first court ruled that this person would have to pay his bet. The high court only ruled that since Lanka devised the bet he was the one who could determine if the other party had satisfied the conditions of the bet. Your statement is a complete dishonest lie! Please resolve to stop lying. You keep defending this horrible people like Lanka and Duesberg whose twisted thoughts have and would lead to many unneeded deaths!
Measles is no longer a dangerous disease because of correct and logical medicine to defeat it. Your evil alternate medicine people are evil. They existed before and sold people worthless cures to benefit themselves. They told good lies that the general population could believe. Duesberg and Lanka are the next generation of snake-oil salesmen.
Please quit lying. It is not a healthy choice.
Odette/Rai Cat 5 hits Philippines. Did anyone see anything on news?
I guess its only newsworthy ‘climate change’ when there are retarded leftists watching the channel.
> Did anyone see anything on news?
Big Tourism is behind that CONSPIRACY:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/asia/super-typhoon-rai-philippines-intl-hnk/index.html
The BBC reported it yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59663829
Perhaps Fox News is slow on the uptake.
Nope. Fox News reported it too.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/powerful-typhoon-hits-philippines
Which news channel do you watch?
Perhaps CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/philippines-typhoon-dec18-storm-1.6291284
Nope.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s more newsworthy when big hurricanes hit the US. Even on this blog, Dr Spencer was only interested in US landfalling hurricanes over many posts.
Today’s temperature forecast for next Wednesday 0h GMT+1:
https://i.postimg.cc/pX9DQN2F/Screenshot-2021-12-18-at-09-08-temperature-forecast-for-2021-12-22-at-00-00.png
Snow over Berlin for Xmas?
No se!
-4 C in Novosibirsk?
-17 C in Irkutsk at the Baikal? At night??
That is still not cold enough.
Encore un petit effort, Monsieur l’Hiver!
Is Germany experiencing a low or a high? Is it in an airflow that is warmer or colder?
It is neither , it is Bindidong experiencing desperaion
https://www.windguru.cz/map/?lat=48.22467264956519&lon=14.765625000000002&zoom=3
Then choose Temperature and Options:- Wind Particles and Isobars in the lower right hand corner.
Just a few little days ago we were so happy to read:
” The big burning lump of coal turns spotless once more… ”
and we all hoped to finally see a sign for the Sun now really going asleep.
But… now this disappointing stuff again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SA3Gn4vVdRQaRj0FLg7bMA5Q3YpYouAN/view
Even the Sun you can’t trust.
Oh dear.
Christos Vournas at 3:42 PM
“TYSON, you obviously do not agree with New Theory.”
I do not even know what this supposed new theory is since none of what you post is new. All deniers have used your arguments for years, trace gases hence no GHE, with various pseudo-scientific “justifications,” all the while ignoring the mountains of evidence gathered in real time on land, sea, air and space.
I have learned that when you say “The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin” you mean that in terms of length, not optical thickness. You don’t seem to know or understand the difference. On a 12 inch desk-top globe, earth’s atmosphere is equivalent to a layer of paint on its surface, very thin in your usage, but optically thick if painted instead of varnished.
You also said (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1065015) that “There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation. Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted!” Implying (I guess!) that IR radiation is not being emitted, which is nuts.
That’s a new one, optical thickness. You and B4 are breaking new ground on science. Are the 255K and optical thickness somehow related? Perhaps you can tie them together for us?
I’ve also heard it called optical density.
“The optical density or absorbance of a material is a logarithmic intensity ratio of the light falling upon the material, to the light transmitted through the material.”
“That’s a new one, optical thickness. ”
No. Not a “new one” at all — at least not among people who have more than a passing acquaintance with optics. Google gives 187,000,000 hits!
https://www.google.com/search?q=optical+thickness
Stephen,
This is nothing new.
The GHE theory has always involved GHG reducing the optical transmission of IR light (and heat) thru the atmosphere to space.
If the term ‘optical thickness’ is new to you, why not set aside 30s to look it up and LEARN?
“In physics, optical depth or optical thickness is the natural logarithm of the ratio of incident to transmitted radiant power through a material.”
Nate at 8:47 AM
Yep, nothing new. This video has a quick synopsis of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGqKOwBRKwA
Pretty basic stuff.
Tyson, Christos already corrected you on your misunderstanding once. He is not saying that the Earth does not emit IR radiation!
Again:
“what you do is to consider a planet (Earth) as a blackbody which it is not. There is not any filtering of outgoing IR radiation. Atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted!
Planet not being blackbody doesn’t mean planet doesn’t emit IR radiation…”
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
When Christos says that “atmosphere does not filter what is not being emitted,” he forgets that he just said that the Earth was not a blackbody. If the Earth does not absorb all incident radiation, some gets emitted back.
In other words by Christos’ logic the Sun does not emit radiation. I assure you that the Sun emits IR:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Infrared_Light_5-8.html
Please stop trolling.
I’m not wrong, Willard. Christos is not saying that the Earth does not emit IR radiation, and he is not saying that the Sun does not emit IR radiation. I’m not saying that what he is saying is correct, I’m not supporting him necessarily. I’m just correcting Tyson.
It is wrong to compare planet’s IR emission spectrum with the blackbody emission curve. It is wrong, because planet is not a blackbody.
When you very much mistakenly apply planet’s emission spectrum on the blackbody emission curve – you very much mistakenly “discover” the planet’s some frequencies’ emission brands “are not being there” – so you jump into very wrong and misleading “conclusion” that the not present in the planet’s emission spectrum frequencies’ bands have been ABSORBED – WHICH THEY ARE NOT, because those not being there frequencies’ bands were never being emitted from the Earth’s surface (which is not a blackbody, and you cannot compare its emission spectrum with the blackbody’s).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here’s why you’re wrong once again, Kiddo:
I’m not saying that Christos is asserting that the Earth does not emit IR radiation or that the Sun does not emit IR radiation. I’m saying that Christos’ “theory” implies it.
The blackbody meme is the silliest meme of all Climateball. It shows that Sky Dragons have no ideas how equations work.
“It is wrong to compare planets IR emission spectrum with the blackbody emission curve.”
Yet satellites measure earthen emission spectrum very closely follows the ideal Planck curves at earthen temperatures and at frequencies in the IR band. Christos just hasn’t yet read up on the subject matter from previous authors hard work & instrumental observations.
I’m not wrong, Willard. Tyson got what Christos was saying wrong. I corrected him.
Christos Vournas at 12:51 PM
As I said to you (here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1065722) earlier, you should forget about the blackbody analogy if its confusing you. You are using it as a red herring to avoid addressing the main issue which is that your calculation assumes that Earth radiates to space at the surface temperature, instead of the effective temperature.
I will assume Tyson stands corrected on his error and will not make the same mistake again.
“emission spectrum frequencies bands have been ABSOR*BED WHICH THEY ARE NOT, because those not being there frequencies bands were never being emitted from the Earths surface”
This makes little sense Christos.
The Earth surface is a grey body, it emits a broad spectrum close to that of a blackbody.
It cannot emit a spectrum with deep notches in it, at precisely the CO2 and H2O abs*orp*tion bands. Only the presence of these gases above it can do that.
This is denial of basic facts.
Nate
“It cannot emit a spectrum with deep notches in it, at precisely the CO2 and H2O abs*orp*tion bands. Only the presence of these gases above it can do that.”
Exactly, it emits a spectrum with deep notches in it… the trace gasses CO2 and H2O in rare earth’s atmosphere abs*orp*tion bands are not capable to absorb the deep notches allegedly emitted energy.
In other words, there are not enough CO2 and H2O in Earth’s atmosphere to create those deep notches! The supposedly absorbed energy (the absence of it that is seen in those deep notches) have never been emitted by the planet’s surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I will assume that Kiddo is wrong, once again.
Christos
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The red curve is the calculated emission spectrum from the surface. The black curve is the expected emission spectrum observed from orbit, surface emission minus half The radiation abs*orb*ed by GHGs.
The notches at 650 and 1050 are due to two GHGs, CO2 and O3, abs*orb*ing and reradiating.
The white area between the red and black curves indicates reradiation downwards Compare with this graph of DWLR.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Note the correspondence at 650 between the notch in the OLR graph and the peak in the DWLR graph.
I’m not wrong, Willard.
Christos Vournas
I am wondering what source you are using to determine the Earth’s surface does not emit in the notches that are seen from satellite measurements when compared to a blackbody emitting surface?
I have done a bit of research on this and your conclusions do not seem to be based upon any valid data.
Here:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-The-measured-and-simulated-spectral-emissivity-of-water-surface-b-Same-as-a_fig3_303958048
This is a measured and calculated graph of the emissivity of water at different wavenumber. It is over 0.95 for most of the graph.
I also look at this data and can’t see how you reach your conclusion.
https://ennologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ultimate-Emissivity-Table.pdf
Notice soil on this chart.
It would help your cause to at least try and use valid information in your posts. The other pseudo skeptics on this blog just make up unsupported material. You do not want to get in that group do you?
Entropic man,
The white area is mostly where H2O emits at somewhat lower temperatures than CO2 and O3. The only surface radiation is in the region to the right of the CO2 emission near the tropopause and in the window surrounding the O3 emissions in the stratosphere.
Do you have a point, Chic?
christos…”it emits a spectrum with deep notches in it the trace gasses CO2 and H2O in rare earths atmosphere abs*orp*tion bands are not capable to absorb the deep notches allegedly emitted energy”.
***
I revealed in other posts that CO2/WV absorb no more than 5% of surface radiation. R. W. Wood also explained that surface radiation dissipates so quickly it is of little concern a few feet above the surface.
I also gave the analogy of an electric stove with a 1500 watt element glowing red. If you hold your hand close enough it will burn your skin due to convection but if you pull it away from the convection region, to about 4 feet, your skin is not even warmed by the IR from the element, even though the heated source is 1500 watts.
Far too much is made of radiation at terrestrial temperatures. It is not an effective means of heat dissipation till temperatures in the range of 800C are reached.
Nate
> “The Earth surface is a grey body, it emits a broad spectrum close to that of a blackbody.”
A grey body, by definition, should have a uniform surface temperature…
A planet is not a grey body, because it doesn’t have uniform surface temperature.
A planet doesn’t emit at uniform surface temperature, nor planet emits at average surface temperature.
Here is how a planet surface emits:
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
Chic Bowdrie
Have you seen this data?
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/
It shows the emission temperature of the OLR. From the temperature you can infer the emission altitude.
Below wavenumber 500 and above 1200 most of the reduction in OLR is due to water vapour which emits to space from the lower tropopause
Around 650 most of the reduction is due to CO emitted from the upper tropopause.
Between 800 and 1200 is the atmospheric window. With little effect of GHGs the OLR is surface emission.
Norman
“I am wondering what source you are using to determine the Earth’s surface does not emit in the notches that are seen from satellite measurements when compared to a blackbody emitting surface?”
Planet is neither blackbody, nor grey body, because planet has not uniform surface temperature. Planet surface can be imagined as a sum of countless infinitesimal spots (every spot having its own uniform temperature and its own IR EM energy emission intensity). When integrating over the entire planet surface, the TOTAL planet surface emitted energy will be:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W) TOTAL
Planet Energy Budget
TOTAL Jnot.reflected = Jemit TOTAL
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
Entropic man,
From your penultimate comment: “The red curve is the calculated emission spectrum from the surface. The black curve is the expected emission spectrum observed from orbit, surface emission minus half The radiation abs*orb*ed by GHGs.” and “The white area between the red and black curves indicates reradiation downwards.”
I neglected to clarify that “re-radiation” is both up and down. However, down doesn’t make it all the way down due to re-absorp.tion on the way. The upward radiation is not absorbed otherwise the satellite wouldn’t see it.
And thanks for the link in your later comment which is from hot Sahara conditions, although not totally dry, presumably. The way you described the spectrum is mostly accurate.
“Below wavenumber 500 and above 1200 most of the reduction in OLR is due to water vapour which emits to space from the lower tropopause.”
Didn’t you mean lower troposphere? If the black body temperature curves are accurate, the water vapor emissions occur closer to the middle troposphere than the surface.
My point should have been that surface radiation only accounts for about 1/6th of radiation to space. The rest comes from the atmosphere mostly after getting there by convection and wind.
“A grey body, by definition, should have a uniform surface temperature…
A planet is not a grey body, because it doesn’t have uniform surface temperature.”
The surface is a grey body, with varying temperatures.
Varying temperature is in no way going to get you you deep notches in the spectrum emitted from the surface.
The only way to get such notches is by gas abs*orp*tion above the surface.
You are not going to win over any converts to your theory by denying basic facts like this, Christos.
Chic Bowdrie.
You’ve got the right idea. The emission temperature corresponds to the altitude at which the molecules are far enough apart to allow an upward reradiated photon to reach space. That’s a lot lower for H20 than CO2.
You could debate the boundaries of the tropopause. I think of its lower boundary as the minimum height at which H2O can radiate to space and the maximum altitude as where CO2 radiates.
As you say half of a GHGs radiation goes up and half down. You can tel when a GHG becomes saturated when half of the surface radiation it absorbs goes up and half goes back down. If you look at the CO2 notch it bottoms out at about half the SB radiation for that wavelength.
The OLR graph was tropical, but probably not a desert with all that water vapour about.At higher latitudes both SB radiation and OLR would be less intense but the same basic pattern would hold.
“[We] could debate the boundaries of the tropopause,” but there’s no need. The altitude and temperatures change with the seasons and location. Its generally where the lapse rate reverses and that is sharp in some places and elsewhere some relatively long distance.
Apparently we disagree about how to describe where water vapor mostly radiates, although I may not understand what you mean by minimum height. Your spectra indicate emission temperatures far below what I consider the tropopause. And the spike at the center of the CO2 band occurs in the stratosphere.
“You can tel when a GHG becomes saturated when half of the surface radiation it absorbs goes up and half goes back down.”
I wouldn’t put it that way. Doesn’t half of the emissions go down and half up at all altitudes? Saturated is a confusing term. CO2 captures all of the surface radiation possible at low altitudes. As the air thins in the upper troposphere, more radiation from CO2 escapes to space. At what point does half escape and half not? How did you determine that the notch bottoms out at half the SB radiation?
The OLR graph you linked to was a spectrum from above the Sahara.
Pedantry you shall have.
A GHG molecule reradiate in a random direction. At low altitudes reradiated photons are absorbed by other GHG molecules.
The emission altitude for a particular GHG occurs when the molecules are sufficiently far apart that upwardly emitted photons start to escape to space. The upwardly emitted photons are half of the total, the remainder are emitted downwards and abso*rbed in the troposphere. This the emission measured by satellite from a particular GHG is half its total emission. A GHG which absor*bs and reemits 10% of the atmospheric radiation at the tropopause decreases the radiation to space at that wavelength by 5%.
A saturated GHG at the tropopause will abs*orb 10%% of the atmospheric radiation at that altitude and radiate 50% to space. This shows in the OLR as a 50% reduction of the intensity which would be expected in the absence of that GHG.
CO2 is concentrated enough to be saturated at its spot wavelength of wavenumber 650. Band spreading causes it to abso*rb in a band either side of that spot wavelength, which gets wider as the concentration increases. Thus it continues to reduce emission to space as it’s concentration increases, increasing its net warming effect.
The combined emissions of the different GHGs create a minimum temperature band known as the tropopause. Heat enters the tropopause by convection from the troposphere and from the stratosphere by diffusion.
EM,
Unfortunately, images of the surface received by satellites show that radiation at nearly all frequencies proceeds directly to space. Any small amounts absorbed along the way are promptly re-emitted at lower frequencies.
Nighttime cooling demonstrates no net warming at all.
Just how out of touch with reality do you wish to appear?
Try claiming that the Earth has not cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
No GHE by the look of it.
Entropic man,
You say pedantary, is say perspicacious.
“[Thus] the emission measured by satellite from a particular GHG is half its total emission. A GHG which absor*bs and reemits 10% of the atmospheric radiation at the tropopause decreases the radiation to space at that wavelength by 5%.”
The problem with that logic is that above the exact level you define as “tropospause,” the layers above emit less downward than the layers below emit upward. This will be true for all layers, otherwise no radiation would escape.
“A saturated GHG at the tropopause will abs*orb [50%?]….”
This is meaningless. What can be saturated at that density?
We have a different understanding of saturated. CO2 is concentrated enough at the surface to absorb essentially all radiation in the wavelengths around wavenumber 650. Less so at surrounding wavelengths. But that “saturation” decreases at higher altitudes. In other words, the chance of radiation going directly to space at wavenumber 650 is miniscule near the surface, but that probability gradually increases with altitude as the air thins.
The effect of increasing CO2 won’t change the amount of OLR going to space as long as there is no “saturation” above, regardless of what happens in the wings. Have actual measurements shown otherwise?
Convection stops at the tropopause, because the stratosphere is warmed by O3. I doubt diffusion by conduction has much to do with it.
“The effect of increasing CO2 won’t change the amount of OLR going to space as long as there is no “saturation” above, regardless of what happens in the wings. Have actual measurements shown otherwise?”
Chic, CERES data reveal OLR changes from added ppm of trace gases trend 9/2002 – 3/2020 was globally uniform +0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2 in the period where positive is a warming trend & with 95% confidence the true value is in the range.
Ball 4,
I’m not sure what you imply. Are your stats corrected for OLR that occurs naturally due to a twenty year warming trend? You can’t attribute increasing OLR to an increase in CO2 if the OLR is wholly explained by the warming trend.
How about a reference?
Chic, see Loeb et. al. 2021 Fig. 3 GRL where the increase in OLR is only partly (not wholly) attributed to an increase in trace gas ppm including CO2 (and 6 other gases).
Global trends in net TOA flux due to temperature changes in the same period measured negative almost everywhere at -0.56 +/- 0.35 W/m^2 (corresponds to increased thermal radiation TOA loss trend with increasing near surface temperature) with 95% confidence the true value lies in that range.
Chic Bowdrie
Good morning from Ireland. You comment last night raised two points, saturation and heat flow.
1) Saturation.
I’ve seen “saturation used two ways in the GHG debate.
The simpler usage is that in the troposphere CO2 is saturated because every emitted 15 micrometre photon is abs*orb*ed by another CO2 molecule within a few metres. This saturation disappears at the tropopause when the density drops enough to allow half the emitted photons to escape to space.
The second usage is the sceptic Climateball move “but saturation”
They argue that CO2 is saturated because it already stops 50% of surface radiation at 15 micrometres escaping to space. Any further increase in CO2 will have no warming effect. This is true at 15 micrometres, but ignores band spreading; in the atmosphere CO2 abs*orbs between 13 and 17 micrometres. This band widens as CO2 increases, so increasing CO2 will continue to decrease OLR.
2) Heat flow.
Put the Earth in a box to stop heat flow in and out. The atmosphere stabilises at steady pressure, volume and temperature gradients due to gravity and the Ideal Gas Law.This is adiabatic. The amount of heat per kilogram is constant at all heights so there is no vertical heat flow.
In the real world the atmosphere is not adiabatic. There is a heat sink around 10kms where GHGs radiate to space. There are heat sources at the surface where sunlight is absorbed and at 50km where Ozone absorbs UV.
The result is that heat flows down the heat content gradients from the surface to the tropopause by convection and from the ozone layer by conduction.
That creates the temperature profile we see.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Without GHGs the stratosphere would start at the surface and cool all the way to the mesosphere.
Chic Bowdrie
Incidentally?, look again at the temperature profile.
You’lll see that the minimum temperature band extends from 10km to 20km. The tropopause is mot a spot height; it is a band 10km thick.
Entropic man,
Greetings from Pennsylvania.
Re: Saturation. I agree with your first definition except for the claim of half. Who measured that?
As for the second usage, I disagree with the statement that band spreading decreases OLR. If I asked for proof, you might refer to a MODTRAN or similar program-based calculation that assumes the difference between two single point-in-time snapshots correctly represents the true integration of the change in OLR over sufficient decades. I disagree because every night has sufficient time to exhaust whatever energy it received that day, CO2 band widening notwithstanding.
Re: conduction in the stratosphere. I looked up the decrease in thermal conductivity at low density conditions. If my calcs are correct, there is at least a 10% reduction in conductivity compared to STP conditions. https://tinyurl.com/2p85caas
Re: tropopause height and depth (sharpness of the temperature reversal) all depend on season and latitude. http://sar.kangwon.ac.kr/etc/rs_note/rsnote/cp5/5-2-3.gif
Ball4,
Loeb et al. clearly indicate an increase in EEI, but attributing it to trace gas trends compensating for a negative temperature trend seems a stretch in light of global temperature increases throughout the period under study.
Chic, from where did you get the “compensating for negative temperature trend”?
Ball4,
.
I got from what I thought I understood the paper said. Any clarification from you would be appreciated. I didn’t and won’t have time to go through all that math.
Chic, that’s why the authors got paid to do the math work for us.
Searching on the word temperature, observe the authors write:
“These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures”, “led to increased global mean temperature”, “As the climate system responds to warming”, “the rate of ocean heating has been steadily increasing”, “from increasing global mean temperatures”, “A positive EEI is manifested as “symptoms” such as global temperature rise, increased ocean warming”,
so I fail to find from where you understood the authors to write the opposite “compensating for negative temperature trend”.
Chic Bowdrie
“Re: Saturation. I agree with your first definition except for the claim of half. Who measured that? ”
It comes out of the physics and by experiment. GHGs reradiate in random.directions. At the tropopause photon emitted upwards will escape to space. A photon emitted downwards will be reabsorbed. Since there’s a 50% chance of each outcome the satellites see 50% of the emission as OLR. You can test this by flying an infrared spectrometer above and below the tropopause or in the lab.
A hads tube has a reflective lining and IR transparent rock salt windows at each end.
You can shine a known intensity of 15 micrometres IR into one end of the tube and measure the intensity emerging from either end. Call the end With the IR lamp A and the other end B.
With no CO2 in the tube all the IR entering A passes through
Curses! To continue.
With no CO2 in the tube all the IR entering A passes through and exits from B.
Gradually increase the amount of CO2 and an increasing proportion of IT reradiates from A. For example, if there is enough CO2 to intercept one photon in ten from the lamp, then 90% of the photons will pass straight through, 5% will be reradiate forward towards B and 5% back towards A. The measured intensities will be 90%+5%=95% emitted from B and 5% emitted from A.
At a high enough CO2 content every photon entering A will be absorbed and reradiated, perhaps several times. Ultimately 50% will emerge from A and 50% from B. That is saturation.
This was a standard undergraduate physics experiment in my youth back in the 1970s. I imagine they still do it. Contact your local college Physics dept. Any of the students would be eager to demonstrate the experiment for you.
Just because conduction is 10% less efficient in the stratosphere than at STP doesn’t stop heat conducting from the ozone layer to the tropopause.
OLR is averaged over both the diurnal and seasonal cycles.
The effect of increased BUT concentrations changes the equilibrium temperature. The chain of events goes roughly like this.
1) Temperature stable. OLR= energy input.
2) GHG concentration increases by an increment.
3) OLR decreases.
4) Energy accumulates in the system.
5) Surface SB radiation increases.
6) OLR through the atmospheric window increases.
7) Temperature stabilises when OLR reaches its previous total value.
We don’t quite see this in practice because the increase in GHGs is constant not incremental. The result is that we see an on going EEI as increased OLR due to extra warming lags behind decreased OLR due to extra GHGs.
“Just because conduction is 10% less efficient in the stratosphere than at STP doesnt stop heat conducting from the ozone layer to the tropopause.”
Agreed, but compared to the heat gain and loss by radiation, how significant is a trickle due to conduction?
It will be awhile before I respond after digesting the rest of your recent comments.
The gas tube experiment is basically Tyndall’s experiment with 20th century equipment.
Fly an IR spectrometer below the tropopause and it will receive 15cm radiation from all directions. Fly it above the tropopause and it will receive it mostly from below.
Most of the energy radiated from the tropopause does come from below, but downward conduction from the ozone layer contributes and helps explain the atmospheric temperature profile.
Chic Bowdrie
Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy a good scientific debate and always learn something. We,ll digest and talk again.
Ball4 says:
December 12, 2021 at 5:00 PM
“Obviously NASA calculates the lunar equilibrium brightness temperature 270K wrongly Christos as the NASA sponsored instruments measure a lower lunar equilibrium temperature. Why is NASA calculation so inaccurate too high?”
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin.
The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon =[0,47(1-0,11)1.362 W/m/4*5,67*10⁻⁸W/mK⁴]∕ ⁴=
Te.correct.moon =[0,47(0,89)1.362 W/m/4*5,67*10⁻⁸W/mK⁴]∕ ⁴=
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet….Te….Te.corrected..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…440K….364K…….340K..0,00568
Moon…….270K….224K…….220K..0,0339
Earth…….255K….210K…….288K..1
Mars……..210K….174K…….210K..0,9747
Europa……95,2K.. 78,8K…..102K..0,2816
Ganymede..107,1K…88,6K..110K..0,1398
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Fixed for you.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon,
weChristos should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.Tyson, by “we” I meant “all of us”, not only myself. Science is not anyone’s personal domain. Therefore the New Theory belongs to all of us, you, Tyson, also included…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yours is a very good example of cargo cult science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
TM,
So called “climate science” is a perfect example of “cargo cult” science.
Cannot be tested by experiment, and delivers nothing of value.
A refuge for vagabonds and scientific wannabes.
> Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
https://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Why+is+the+actual+mean+temperature+of+the+moon+so+much+lower+than+the+effective+temperature%3F
Wonky Wee Willy,
In other words, you don’t know, but you want to appear clever.
Fail.
Mike Flynn,
Metaphysical Fancy,
We already know that you’re not a betting man.
Here’s some free knowledge I can share with you:
You’re Mike Flynn!
Swoon.
willard…”Youre Mike Flynn!”
***
If that’s true, then you must be Dav**id Ap*pe*ll*e.
Wee Willy Nitwit,
You wrote –
“Youre Mike Flynn!”
I suppose you assume that this to meaningful to someone other than yourself for some reason.
Do you think, perhaps, that trying to divert attention away from the fact that you are a delusional climate cultist will fool anyone with any sense?
Maybe you can explain why CO2 at 100% concentration cools in the absence of an external heat source? Just like the Earth’s atmosphere.
No doubt your cultist fantasies don’t acknowledge that the surface cools at night, and that the surface has managed to cool overall over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Hmmmm. Not much scope for any magical CO2 heating, either short or long term.
Time for you to link to something totally irrelevant and pointless – should be easy for someone like you.
W
Heres some free knowledge I can share with you, mi amigo.
Christmas is almost here. Feliz Navidad. Be sure to leave out cookies for Santa, even though his sugar count might be somewhat elevated.
Merry Newtonmas, Pozzo!
nate…”“In a letter to the European Medicines Agency, Yeadon and the German physician Wolfgang Wodarg called for all vaccine trials to be stopped, falsely suggesting[23][24][25] that mRNA vaccines could target the syncytin-1 protein needed for placenta formation.[2]”
And of course this was completely wrong, misinformation”.
***
The operative word here is ‘could’. Yeadon did not claim the vaccine ‘would’ cause interference with placenta formation, he said it ‘could’. However, if there is a possibility of such action, the tests should be stopped till that is ruled out.
This vaccine was rushed out over a three month period when normal testing would have taken 6 years. It’s a trial, an experiment, and no one knows anything about what to expect, whether it is side-effects or its effectiveness.
Out of three experts cited in your article, two of them work in unrelated fields to the vaccine creation and the third is a spokesperson for a Pfizer. That would be the Pfizer fined 5 billion dollars over the years for lying about their products.
All three admitted there is a commonality between the spike protein used and syncytin-1. Yeadon is the expert here, having worked for Pfizer and being an expert on immunity and infectious disease.
One thing you need to learn, Nate, is that when some use the term ‘fact-check’, they are often liars trying to prop up an old paradigm.
binny…” Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin.
You (and Clint R) both do perfectly understand what Vournas means with that little sentence.
Namely that Earths rotational spin is 29.3 times faster than Moons.
***
The difference in temperature is not only due to the rotational period per se. It is affected by the amount of time the Moon spends without solar input. During the 13+ days the Moon faces away from the Sun, it is exposed to cold space. That exposure to cold space makes the cold period 46C colder on average than the side exposed to the Sun for 13+ days.
If the Moon did rotate once per orbit, that difference would not be as great since more of the Moon’s surface would be exposed to sunlight. As it stands, the amount of exposure depends on the Moon’s position in its orbit and not on its rotation about a local axis, a rotation which is non-existent.
Of course, due to the properties of the lunar orbit, with one side of the Moon always facing Earth, the sunlight can reach around the edges to a degree as the Moon moves from a position of opposition to the Sun to an intermediate position.
The fact that the Moon has one side exposed to cold space for 13+ days, while the other side is exposed to sunlight for 13+ days, proves it is not rotating about a local axis.
If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, the amount of time the far side would spend exposed to cold space would be less, therefore the Moon would be warmer on average.
norman…”…In fact, the [he] convinced a German high court that the RNA theory is bs. for the measles virus.
NO HE DID NOT!! That is a complete lie …”
***
Norman, you need to come up to speed. Following the alleged discovery of the measles virus, researchers argued for 50 years about its genome, which is supposed to be largely a sequence of RNA strands. If they had the virus, there would be no argument.
Lanka convinced the German High court, that 6 papers submitted by the other party as evidence of the existence of the measles virus held no scientific evidence that the measles virus exists. The court appointed expert agreed with him. That’s how he won the case, by discrediting papers that purported to have discovered the measles virus.
One of those papers is still used today as evidence for the modern viral theory. The courts rejected it, based on evidence, and Lanka is claiming the decision is grounds for refuting all current virus research.
Lanka is right. The history of virus research reads like sci-fi. Circa 1935, Koch’s Postulate was the measuring stick for infectious contagions. That year, one researcher admitted that no virus could qualify under Koch’s Postulate as an infectious contagion. He then went about modifying Koch in an attempt to make the viral theory fit and he failed.
Till the 1950’s there was still no definitive definition for a virus. Even with the advent of the electron microscope, scientists argued over what was being seen. Lanka, an expert with viruses, has demonstrated that all EM micrographs of popular viruses like measles, polio, etc., are not viruses, but dead cellular material or the cell structures in which those viruses are believed to exist.
Note: Lanka is NOT arguing there are no such viruses, or that diseases like measles or polio don’t exist. He is claiming only that the research performed is faulty and need to be re-studied.
When the DNA molecular structure was identified in the early ’50s, that made the field even more murky. Scientists started guessing the molecular shapes of viruses based purely on inference and consensus. That’s what Montagnier did when he could not find HIV on an electron microscope, he inferred the virus based on retroviral theory and theory developed through inference and consensus.
Retroviral theory was suspect from it’s beginnings in the early 1970s. It is based on an enzyme, reverse transciptase, which has been alleged as evidence of retroviruses. The problem is that RE is involved in other natural processes and an early pioneer in the field warned about using it as evidence of a virus.
At the same time, in the 1970’s, the Louis Pasteur Institute offered a protocol for isolating a virus which required isolating the viral material using a centrifuge then viewing the recovered material with an electron microscope.
Since electrons cannot pass through material greater than about 100 billionth of a metre in thickness, all one ever sees with an EM regarding viruses, is a thin cross-section of a sample. From that, scientists must speculate as to what is a virus and what is not. This field is so controversial that when a Scottish x-ray specialist submitted a paper with a micrograph alleged to show the first coronna virus, the paper was rejected.
The reviewers claimed that what was seen could be any viral particles. Since the researcher claimed a corona (halo) was seen around the viral particle, as an expert in electronics and electron properties, I have offered my own opinion on that. Electrons are particles with mass that carry an electric charge. When that electric charge moves, it creates a magnetic field around it. I am claiming the halo could be a result of the interaction of those EM fields interacting with the atomic structure of the sample,
Since the samples are in black and white, I claim they ‘could’ be diffraction patterns. Furthermore, the electron bombardment eventually destroys the sample. Shapes seen around an alleged virus particle claimed to be spikes ‘could’ be nothing more than debris sticking out like someone’s hair who is subjected to an electron charge.
You can nominate me for a Nobel, if it suits you, Normie.
Anyway, after the virus is isolated it must be proved it is infectious. The standard method of doing that is to inject the potential infectious material into clean cells and see if they die. Till now, that has been standard practice but Lanka found a serious flaw in the practice and introduced it to the German court.
He had an independent lab prepare clean cells according to standard practice, in which they are pre-starved to make them amenable to infection, and treated with antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection. Lanka knew that treatment would kill the cells by itself and the lab corroborated his findings. Therefore, all previous processes using this method to prove infection are null and void since the lab treatment itself kills the cells.
No one has ever run a control study in parallel to find that out for themselves. I find that amazing. And how did Lanka know that? He has read thousands of papers over the years on the subject and he knew that. He has read every paper with his experienced eye on modern viral research related to modern viruses. Knowing that, he was willing to offer the 100,000 Euro reward to anyone who could prove there is a measles virus.
In the first hearing, which he lost, the lower court allowed evidence crucial to the trial to be withheld. On appeal, the higher court did not make that mistake and Lanka prevailed.
Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. Are you willing to do the same, Norman? Maybe you could claim the money since you seem so convinced that Lanka is lying? But would your evidence stands up in a German high court. Have to ask Binny.
You see, Norman, with Lanka’s evidence that clean cells die due to their treatment in the lab it means all viral research based on that method is out the window. Therefore, any RNA speculation claimed as evidence of a virus goes out the same window. Ergo, HIV and covid theory is wrong and the RNA claimed to be from covid and used as the basis of tests and vaccines, is wrong.
Undoing this mess of pseudo-science wont be easy and could take decades. Too much egg on the faces of government officials and medical personnel.
We should have suspected that a virus (covid) claimed to be active two years after its discovery is invalid science. We not only need to investigate the science we need to investigate the legalities of people in charge ostracizing and firing those who oppose their theories. The same is true of climate science.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/
“The Origins of Viruses”
Ken
Since you are finding it difficult to access news regarding Typhoon Rai I thought you might welcome this update.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-59714658
2013: Climate Denier Predicts Global Cooling. How Did He Do?
Below, Joe Bastardi in April of 2013. Anytime now. Pretty soon.
Now we’re having Christmas Tornadoes in Minnesota. How does that work, exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_bBMkIP8s
Per Wiki –
“Fox Weather is a streaming channel operated by Fox Corporation which launched on October 25, 2021 to provide weather forecasts and information for the United States.”
Just in time for the eye popping weather disasters of the last 2 weeks, which probably accounts for the deer-in-headlights looks on the young weathercaster’s faces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39biyz6yAg
The NOAA weather guy made a typical comment (~ 1minute in) which I believe displays the weather community’s basic lack of understanding of the physics. He said that the storm PULLED the warm air into the region, which resulted in record high temperatures for this time of year.
But, from physics, it’s impossible to PULL with a fluid (except for shear forcing), the process is actually a PUSH of an air mass from warmer areas and the storm circulation results from the Coriolis Effect as is typical with frontal boundary storms. That this PUSH is stronger than historical data indicates to me that the atmosphere is more energetic due to AGW.
The other side of the equation is the returning cold air masses during winter as the result of the general tropic to pole circulation. We may have experienced the effects of that cold air flow last winter as the cold air penetrated further to the South than had been experienced historically.
E. Swanson
I do not think your comment is correct:
YOU: “We may have experienced the effects of that cold air flow last winter as the cold air penetrated further to the South than had been experienced historically.”
Here is some history.
Houstan:
https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/TX/Houston/extreme-annual-houston-low-temperature.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2021_North_American_cold_wave
coldest in Houston and San Antonio since 1989.
Also you should read an actual expert in the field to properly analyze the recent storms in the Southeast.
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/12/were-recent-tornadoes-result-of-global.html
I am comfortable with the explanation that the storm pulled the warm air into the region.
When you convert flow energy to kinetic energy, that causes the pressure drop, which causes air to flow into the low pressure area.
So I do like pulled better.
You don’t create the push by increasing the pressure in one area, you create a pull by lowering the pressure in another area.
It’s how aspirators and air ejectors work.
For every low there is a high (or many). What goes up must come down.
bobdroege wrote:
Motions in fluids tend to produce rotational motions called vortexes, as in vorticity. The circulation around the vortex results in the lower pressure within. If, as you suggest, the vortex actually “pulls” air inward, it would quickly fill and disappear.
In the atmosphere, the air masses tend to rotate as they move meridonally, acquiring that rotation due to the Coriolis Effect. When contrasting air masses moving in different directions, such as warm ones moving toward the poles or cold ones moving away to close the circulation loop, there is a boundary between the two where the velocities are in opposite directions called fronts. The result is the formation of vortexes along the boundary, which propagate along the front and which may produce intense storms.
I don’t think you get eddies and vortexes until you have flow, and to have flow you need a pressure difference.
To get good flow you
need a scansion that is unex
pected.
Mo syllables
mo problems.
Are you arguing that local high temperatures in the US of late indicate that the atmosphere is more energetic now despite the fact that current global lower troposphere temperatures have increased only 0.05 C in 19 years?
Explain energetic.
Are you arguing that an increase in current global troposphere temperatures imply that local temperatures in the US of late should be lower?
Explain “despite the fact.”
How do you get 0.05 C in 19 years?
CB, The UAH LT yearly average global data shows that the temperature in 2000 was -0.158K and for 2020, it was 0.357K, an increase of 0.515K. Your number is incorrect.
E. Swanson and bobdroege,
For the year Dec 2001 to Nov 2002, the average UAH LT temps were 0.08 C. The average of Dec 2020 to Dec 2021 was 0.13 for a difference of 0.05 C in 19 years.
Make what you want of it, but my number is correct based on the data provided by Dr. Spencer’s LT link above.
CB, I hate to tell you, but your result for “Dec 2020 to Dec 2021” is impossible, as there’s no data available for December until January, 2022. The data for Dec 2019 to Nov 2020 is 0.381 and that for Dec 2020 to Nov 2021 is 0.161.
Your data for Dec 2001 to Nov 2002 appears correct, but you’ve cherry picked one point when there are others near by with lower temperatures. Dec 2000 to Nov 2001 is -0.037 and Dec 2002 to Nov 2003 is 0.031.
Bowdrie writes:
” For the year Dec 2001 to Nov 2002, the average UAH LT temps were 0.08 C. The average of Dec 2020 to Dec 2021 was 0.13 for a difference of 0.05 C in 19 years. ”
*
Not only Bowdrie has been explained many times the difference between
– two temperatures (absolute, or relative to a mean) measured or calculated at two different times
and
– the (positive or negative) trend of a time series to be calculated between these two different times.
Either they don’t understand the difference or they don’t WANT to (I suspect the latter alternative being the right one).
*
Thus, for the umpteenth time, the trends in C / decade
– between Dec 1978 and Nov 2021: 0.14 ± 0.01
– between Dec 2001 and Nov 2021: 0.16 ± 0.02
*
NO: the point here is not at all the ridiculous difference of 0.02 C / decade between these two trends.
The point is that the latter trend simply is ignored by those who want to ignore it – because ignoring it helps them in discrediting opinions that do not fit their personal narrative.
They simply draw a line between two points and say: “No change”.
*
Such simple-minded behavior has a name: pseudoskepticism.
The best in this ‘Explain energetic’ pseudostory is that if you compute the UAH trend on the base of absolute temperatures instead of taking the anomalies, you obtain for
Dec 2001 – Nov 2021: 0.19 ± 0.09 C / decade :- )
E. Swanson,
The average of Dec 2020 to Nov 2021 was 0.13. You pointed out my typo on the month, but made your mistake on calculating the average anomaly. Check again.
Bindidon,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1043511
Chic,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1049502
CB, Yes, I did make a calculation mistake.
“That this PUSH is stronger than historical data indicates to me that the atmosphere is more energetic due to AGW.”
The push is stronger because of Jet Stream which has been pushing atmospheric river like a waving fire hose across the west coast from California to Alaska. You can see it on Earth Null School. Set the wind level at 250 hPa and you can see how the jet stream is really awesome this year.
You’d have to watch the data that makes up Earth Null School frequently to start getting a hint of what causes what.
Why is jet stream stronger this year than previously? My guess is the sun is less energetic than in years past. That means lower UV and X-ray energy warming the upper atmosphere. Atmosphere shrinks so you get wavier and faster jet stream and more boundary conditions where warm air meets cool air with resulting extreme weather.
Look Ma, no AGW.
[KENNUI] My guess is
[ALSO KENNUI] Look Ma
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson at 9:08 PM
“TM,
So called “climate science” is a perfect example of “cargo cult” science.
Cannot be tested by experiment, and delivers nothing of value.
A refuge for vagabonds and scientific wannabes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1080448“
Swenson,
You express the view of many a lay person perfectly well. Because of the scale and complexity of the Earth’s interrelated system (https://ibb.co/7tQk8hr), it cannot be faithfully reproduced in laboratory experiments. Computer models are good teaching tools, but their usefulness is limited by current hardware capabilities. However, we are doing the next best(?) thing though, we are performing “the great geophysical experiment” in real time.
The phrase “the great geophysical experiment” was first used by oceanographer and geologist Roger Revelle in his paper of September 1957, Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean… ,
where he says:
That same year Charles Keeling started collecting CO2 concentration data on Mauna Loa thus beginning a systematic study of the chemistry of the atmosphere in the context of global change. The rest is, as they say, history.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
> If thats true, then you must be Dav**id Ap*pe*ll*e.
C’mon, Gordo. You’re lying again.
Here’s Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/new-record-low-tornado-count-as-of-october-3/#comment-323760
If you read David’s comments, you should see that our writing differs. Compare with Mike Flynn. The sock puppet you’re trying to white knight hasn’t even changed his themes.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas at 2:07 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1079898
Here is a short summary of some basic concepts an engineer should have learned in school about radiative heat transfer, from The Efficient Engineer channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDmYCI_xYlA.
Regards.
TYSON:
> “Here is a short summary of some basic concepts an engineer should have learned in school about radiative heat transfer, from The Efficient Engineer channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDmYCI_xYlA.”
Please answer a simple (a compatible with GHE theory) question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy. Right?
Earth surface is warmed +Δ33C from Te=255K to Tmean=288K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere. Right?
Moon measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220K. Diviner gives Tmean=193K. Right?
What cools Moon surface -Δ50C from Te=270K to Tmean=220K, or, according to Diviner, what cools Moon surface -Δ77C from Te=270K to Tmean =193K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please answer this question, Christos:
The energy that a planet or a moon receives depend on its size, right?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Oh look – a particularly stupid gotcha!
You do realise that the energy that a planet or moon radiates away depends on its size, right?
You probably thought you had a reason for such an idiotic comment, right?
Wrong. You’re just another climate crackpot, right?
Mike Flynn,
Macaronic Fabler,
You do realize that emissivity is the ratio of the energy radiated from a material’s surface to that radiated from a blackbody, which means that if Christos’ pet theory were true he’d have more energy to account for, right?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You do realise that there is a difference between speculation!, hypothesis, and theory, right?
Rhetorical question, of course. You are an idiot who just strings words together, trying to sound intelligent.
You can’t even produce this “pet theory”, right?
What a pity.
maguff…”Here is a short summary of some basic concepts an engineer should have learned in school about radiative heat transfer, from The Efficient Engineer channel…”
***
How would you know, are you an engineer?
The video is typical of the propaganda taught in mechanical engineering textbooks. It’s as bad as the nonsense taught to electrical engineers that electrical current flows positive to negative. Both are examples of entrenched paradigms enforced by zealots.
Here’s what is wrong with it.
The theory contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Also, the term ‘thermal radiation’ is an oxymoron, since heat cannot be radiated. Electromagnetic energy is created by electron transitions in a mass of atoms and during the process, heat is lost. Heat cannot move through space, or a vacuum, via radiation and applying the measure W/m^2, as if EM is heat, is wrong. The idea of heat being radiated stems back to the late 19th century when heat was thought to be radiated as heat rays. Bohr disproved that in 1913,
The notion that heat can be simultaneously transferred in both directions between bodies of different temperatures contradicts the 2nd law which clearly states that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. In mechanical engineering problems, heat is never transferred cold to hot, by its own means, therefore your theory contradicts the practice in mechanical engineering.
Blackbody theory was developed by Kircheoff for bodies in thermal equilibrium. It is outdated and teaching it is not helpful. BB theory is based on a bad scientific model that does not apply as written.
BB theory suggests the Sun, as a near black body, is also a perfect absorber of EM. That contradicts the 2nd law since it means the Sun absorbs all EM from colder sources. Not possible according to quantum theory.
In the video, they have combined Stefan-Boltzmann for a radiating body and an absorbing body to get the equation:
E = e.sigma.A(T^4e – T^4a)
Where Te = emitter temperature and Ta = absorber temperature. Sigma is the S-B constant.
Nowhere in S-B theory will you see that equation for the simple reason that S-B is based on an electrically-heated filament at 500C+ radiating to air in a room at about 20C. In other words, S-B obeys the 2nd law.
The equation above was never intended to represent an EM exchange between bodies of different temperatures it is designed to measure heat dissipation at a surface at Te radiating to a surrounding environment at Ta. However. Ta does not mean the environment is absorbing the EM, it means the temperature of the environment.
If you have a body radiating at Te and it is surrounded by air at Ta, the ratio of Te/Ta governs the rate of heat dissipation AT THE SURFACE.
If Ta = Te, it’s a no brainer, that is thermal equilibrium. No heat can be transferred at TE. If Ta > Te, like the hot air in a furnace, heat is transferred from the environment to the mass. Under normal circumstances, Te > Ta and heat is transferred one way from the Te surface to the Ta environment.
Gordon,
” Not possible according to quantum theory.”
Sorry dude.
Start here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
Yes, just another dog’s breakfast of a comment by Gordon Robertson; full of empty philosophizing, vapidity, and futility cloaked in pseudo-scientific sophistries.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas at 12:11 PM
Did you watch the video? Did it help you remember basic concepts of radiative heat transfer from school days?
Regarding your question about the moon, as you know(?), the moon has no significant atmosphere and no greenhouse effect. As a result the day/night temperature cycles reach extreme highs and lows.
Having a rocky surface with low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity, the sunlit side of the Moon reaches near equilibrium temperature with the solar influx. At night, the surface radiates away the received heat limited by conduction of a few layers below the surface.
If you want a better answer you should research the published literature from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment.
TM,
Maybe you could explain why arid tropical deserts have such extremes of day/night temperatures. You no doubt know that the atmospheric depth is greater near the equator, as compared to the poles.
So – what happened to the GHE? Arid tropical deserts generally have rocky surfaces with low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity, just like the moon.
A little more of the most important GHG (H2O), but still relatively little compared with other places.
I don’t think that the Diviner literature covers conditions on Earth, so it seems just another silly diversion.
What’s your answer?
Swenson at 5:15 PM
“I dont think that the Diviner literature covers conditions on Earth, so it seems just another silly diversion.”
Yes, that is the reason it is called the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment.
No, no diversion since the question asked was What cools Moon surface[?].http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1081797
Try to keep up!
Arid areas are low on atmospheric water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas. When the sun goes down there is less of a ‘greenhouse’ blanket to retard the escape of thermal radiation from the ground to space, and so nights cool quickly to very cold.
Differently to humid areas in the tropics (I’ve worked on and off in Malaysia – a great example), where the GHE slows the loss of thermal radiation to the atmosphere, and the diurnal temps don’t swing so wildly.
barry, arid areas are low on precipitation not necessarily low on atm. water vapor. You can verify that for a desert area since extensive satellite data now exists for precipitable water vapor & weather station records have data on precipitation amounts.
What deserts lack is lakes.
What the moon lacks is lakes.
The moon would be warmer if it had 1 psi of a nitrogen atmosphere.
But covered the Moon with water it also would be warmer.
If paved the moon with concrete, it would be warmer.
But besides being covered insulative dust which better insulative
people put in their houses, the other reason the Moon gets so cold is has very long day.
Barry,
Pretty close, but you forgot to point out that Malaysia does not get anywhere near as hot as an arid tropical desert, because the atmosphere prevents radiation from the Sun reaching the ground.
Climate cranks forget that insulators impede the transfer of energy in both directions. Even some NASA cranks still believe in magical one way energy transfer, which shows how ignorant they are.
No greenhouse effect. No need for any new physics. The old physics seem to be working well.
Mike Flynn,
Mistaken Fingerprint,
You say-
“you forgot to point out that Malaysia does not get anywhere near as hot as an arid tropical desert, because the atmosphere prevents radiation from the Sun reaching the ground”
What’s so special about Malaysia’s atmosphere compared to (say) the one over the Gobi Desert, and did you know that “Gobi” simply meant “desert” in Mongolian?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Mike,
The question was why arid tropical deserts have such extremes. They go from about 40C at day to 5C or lower at night on average. The average day/night annual temperature is 22 C.
The reason the swing is so great is that there is not a lake of moisture in the atmosphere to impede the outflow of infrared, and arid deserts therefore cool very quickly at night.
Malaysia does not cool quickly at night because there is a lake of moisture in the atmosphere with high humidity, slowing the rate at which heat built up during the day escapes to space.
Malaysia’s mean annual temperature is 25 C, despite considerable cloud cover during the year. The average diurnal temp is greater than for deserts, because deserts lose so much heat in the night.
“Pretty close, but you forgot to point out that Malaysia does not get anywhere near as hot as an arid tropical desert, because the atmosphere prevents radiation from the Sun reaching the ground.”
Uhhh, you are ignoring other more important effects, Mike.
a. The same or more radiation could be reaching the surface in Malaysia, but instead of heating the air, much of it goes into evaporating water.
b. The heat content (enthalpy) of moist air is higher than dry air at the same temperature. It is likely that the air in Malaysia contains MUCH MORE thermal energy than the air in a hotter arid desert.
You can see here:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moist-air-properties-d_1256.html
Dry air at 45 C has much less heat content than humid air at 30 C.
And b. is reflected in how much extra work an air conditioner would have to do to cool a house in Malaysia to a comfortable level than one in an arid desert.
“…why arid tropical deserts have such extremes.”
Swenson would have us believe desert conditions (picture a sand dune baking in the sun) result from “no greenhouse effect”. So according to Swenson “desert conditions” require not only an absence of clouds but also of GHGs. Radiation from such an atm. would indeed be negligible.
Fortunately for us, it doesn’t exist, even approximately as GHGs are well-mixed providing a uniform earthen GHE such that the lowest ever recorded DWIR is around 130 W/m^2 (far from negligible) at the surface (dry, cold, winter arctic regions).
Such low atm. ground radiation measurments are the result of atm. temperature profile and vertical vapor density. Deserts are dry (arid) and lack clouds because they are regions of descending dry air, for example the lee side of the Sierras and Atacama Desert on lee side of the Andes.
maguff…”Having a rocky surface with low thermal conductivity and low heat capacity, the sunlit side of the Moon reaches near equilibrium temperature with the solar influx. At night, the surface radiates away the received heat limited by conduction of a few layers below the surface”.
***
Have you completely lost all sense of observation? Day and night on the Moon????!!!!
The same side of the Moon always faces the Earth. That means, when the Moon is between the Sun and Earth, the lit side is lit for 13+ days. When the Moon is completely between the Earth and the Sun, we cannot see it. Only when the Moon moves either side of that point do we see a sliver of light on its edge (crescent Moon).
When the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth, exactly opposite, we have a full Moon. Either side of that we get 3/4 Moons +/-.
This is not a day/night system as we have with the rotating Earth, it’s an artefact of the orbital motion. It’s also proof that the Moon does not rotate at all. This day/night illusion is due to the fact the Moon always has the same side pointed at the Earth.
If you had a ball on a string with a flashlight replacing the Sun, you’d get exactly the same effect on the ball, if you could slow the motion enough to see it. Or, if you had a human standing on a merry go round, facing the centre, and a powerful light was shone on him/her, you’d get the same effect of light/shadow on the human.
That’s all your author is saying in the statement above but for whatever reason, he is obfuscating the facts. When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, the so-called dark-side is fully illuminated. When the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth, that same dark-side is facing cold space.
That’s your day/night but it seems dumb to call it that.
> Have you completely lost all sense of observation? Day and night on the Moon????!!!!
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/skytellers/moon-phases/
You’re denying stuff that was known by Babylonians.
Weird Wee Willy,
C’mon, you don’t actually read what you link to, right?
I’ll bet that your link doesn’t have any reference to Babylonians. Just another silly diversion, eh laddie?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
I’ll bet you don’t even get what “Just like Earth, our Moon rotates on its own axis and experiences daylight and dark cycles.”
You don’t actually many any effort with your ankle biting, right?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Whacko Wee Willy,
As I said, –
C’mon, you don’t actually read what you link to, right?
I’ll bet that your link doesn’t have any reference to Babylonians. Just another silly diversion, eh laddie?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting that I made you look?
Try this:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kidinnu
Do continue.
willard…”You’re denying stuff that was known by Babylonians”.
***
I know an old Babylonian. He agreed that if you shine a lantern light on a ball orbiting someone’s head, that it illuminated the ball the same as the Sun illuminates the Moon.
And, yes, he agreed that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
Moon phases are not the same as day and night as we know them on Earth. We run our lives based on day and night so it’s more of a psychological concept peculiar to Earth.
We know the cause of day and night on Earth, the Earth rotates on its axis. However, the Moon does not as is proved by the fact it always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day#Colloquial
When people speak of days and nights, a day is when there’s light, and a night when there’s none.
I suppose that the concept of light isn’t spychological.
What about you?
Ou moon “always keeps the same face pointed at the Earth” but not wrt the sun so Gordon should study Clint R since observer location matters:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
“That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Moon’s “day and night” is due to its orbit around Earth. Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit. So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string provides an easy-to-understand demonstration.”
Good job DREMT by copying that now even you agree with Clint R wrt the sun which “sees” all faces of the moon outside the moon’s orbit of Earth while wrt inside the lunar orbit on Earth we “see” only one side of the moon. Keep referencing that Clint R comment, it’s a good one.
Yes, a good comment, and a point of view that I have understood and agreed with since long before this discussion even started. Glad Ball4 has now finally come round and also agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Good that DREMT now reverses course and admits Clint R’s comment is one “I have understood and agreed with since long before this discussion even started.”
Good move DREMT \- a long time in coming – just try to keep learning about reference frames from Clint R wherein Clint R settled the moon rotation debate by commenting observer location matters whether inside or outside the lunar orbit of Earth:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
DREMT agrees in comments now with Clint R AND me, thank you, the moon is not rotating on its own axis as observed inside the lunar orbit presenting only one face to Earth, and the moon is observed outside the lunar orbit presenting all faces to the sun by rotating on moon’s own axis.
The debate is settled, DREMT has joined in his words “understood and agreed” with Clint R’s comment about reference frames do matter.
Glad Ball4 has now finally come round and also agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Good job DREMT agreeing with Clint R and me per DREMT’s own comment admitting “a point of view that I have understood and agreed with since long before this discussion even started”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Glad Ball4 finally agrees with Clint R. Good to see Ball4 reverse course after all this time. A clever move on Ball4’s part. Ball4 has now finally come round and agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
As Clint R comment agreement demonstrates, DREMT has joined with me about non-spinners observing inside the lunar orbit. Good job DREMT. Read and understand:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
As Clint R comment agreement demonstrates, Ball4 has now finally come round and agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Which axis does the Moon revolve around?
When viewed from center inside the lunar orbit of Earth, only one orbital axis on a radius of R. Earthshine is only incident on one lunar face.
Even DREMT now agrees with Clint R and me, when viewed from outside the lunar orbit there are two axes external orbital R and internal r that the moon orbits and revolves on. Sunshine is incident on all faces of our moon.
Because DREMT now admits agreement with:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
The moon is revolving about the Earth/moon barycenter, not rotating on its own axis. Ball4 now admits agreement with Clint R’s comment, so Ball4 has now finally come round and agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
The moon is orbiting about the Earth/Moon barycenter, AND rotating on its own axis so that one face is always pointed ‘inwards’.
Only if by “orbiting” you mean curvilinear translation, motion like the MOTR. However, “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbiting” for short, is actually motion like the MOTL, a rotation around an external axis.
… as viewed from central point inside the lunar orbit of Earth – with which DREMT has now agreed but always leaves out.
I left nothing out, Ball4. The MOTL is a gif showing the lunar orbit from above, so it transcends the issue of “as viewed from central point inside the lunar orbit of Earth” completely. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTL, not the MOTR. A simple statement that anybody can understand, and which needs no additional sentences added whatsoever.
“a rotation around an external axis”
An orbit around the barycenter of 2 objects cannot be an external axis by definition. The barycenter is the middle of the 2 objects, so internal.
It is external to the moon itself, which is the point.
Nope DREMT, astute commenters can no longer believe you after you admitted agreement with Clint R and me viewing from the inside the orbit at central point does matter for the MOTL so you now (12:22 pm) disagree only with yourself. Fun to watch.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
“…you admitted agreement with Clint R and me”
Ball4 once again admits that he agrees with Clint R’s comment. Thus, Ball4 has now finally come round and agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Astute commenters don’t believe you DREMT as you can’t even agree with yourself, though your silly comments do remain funny.
Astute commenters will actually click on Ball4’s linked comment, and read and understand that Clint R is arguing the moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. Astute commenters will then understand that if Ball4 is claiming to agree with Clint R, then Ball4 has now finally come round and agrees that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.”
Ball4 now joins the ever-growing ranks of the “Non-Spinners”, good job Ball4 in eventually learning that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Funny DREMT, very entertaining, still not accurate.
Readers will remember or reference your written comments to find you agreed with:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
I do agree with that comment from well-known “Non-Spinner” Clint R, yes. In the comment, Clint R points out that the moon is “NOT rotating about its axis” and that “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit”, and uses the analogy of a ball on a string to clarify.
So I am somewhat surprised that you agree with it, too. Since you agree, I can only assume you are now siding with the “Non-Spinners”. Good job, Ball4. Took you a while to learn that reference frames do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, but I’m glad you finally got there.
Already know DREMT now agrees with “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbiting” for short, is actually motion like the MOTL, a rotation around an external axis as viewed from central point inside the lunar orbit of Earth or any central object as Clint R points out:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Good agreement DREMT, have you got anything new or just repeating inaccuracies? I’ll remind you of your agreement: thus earthshine is incident on only one face of our moon as shown by the MOTL motion wrt to the central observer.
The barycenter is internal to the Moon/Earth combination. Without both of those it has no meaning.
No, Ball4, “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or “orbiting” for short, is actually motion like the MOTL, a rotation around an external axis as viewed from anywhere. From inside the orbit, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion in which the same side of the object is presented to the viewer at all times. From outside the orbit, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion in which all sides of the object are presented to the viewer over time.
An easy way to understand it is to consider the motion of a ball on a string. From inside the ball’s orbit, you see only the one side of the ball. It is not rotating on its own axis. From outside the ball’s orbit, you see all sides of the ball, however it is still not rotating on its own axis.
RLH, the barycenter is external to the moon itself, which is all that matters.
“…as viewed from anywhere.”
…means DREMT now disagrees with DREMT after earlier DREMT agreed with Clint R that observation location matters inside the orbit or outside the orbit. Fun to watch DREMT argue with himself.
…however DREMT has earlier agreed it is still not rotating on its own axis as viewed from the central location inside the ball’s orbit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
I am not arguing with myself at all, Ball4. In fact my last comment is basically a repeat of the comment from Clint R that you keep obsessively linking to, trying to pretend there is some disagreement between Clint R and myself, when there obviously isn’t. I agree with Clint R, and we both argue that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Clint R’s comment shows location of observation matters (inside or outside the lunar orbit) & DREMT agreed with that comment; DREMT now comments “regardless” of location of observation so now DREMT writes location of observation doesn’t matter.
Which one is it DREMT? Argue it out with yourself. Fun to watch.
Define “matters”. You keep saying “location of observation matters”. Matters in what sense?
It “matters”, I suppose, that the sunlight falls on all sides of the moon because it is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis. I mean, that is why there is “day” and “night” on the moon. It “matters”, I suppose, that we see only one side of the moon from Earth. However, it doesn’t “matter” to the extent that any of this actually changes the reality of the moon’s lack of axial rotation. Reference frames “matter”, as in they are of significance to physics, but they do not change reality itself. They are just different ways of perceiving the same thing.
DREMT: It is not in the middle on any one part but it is the center of the whole thing. A barycenter that is.
In fact, if the ratios were just slightly different, it would not be inside either of the 2 objects that makes it up.
One of these days you will actually make a point, RLH.
“sunlight falls on all sides of the moon because it is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis”
Given that an ORBIT is simply a path thru space, it is very strange that a small cult of people have decided, on their own, that ‘a path thru space’ actually means
‘a path that must be followed by doing a twirl so that the sun can see all sides of you.’
It is very strange indeed that these same people now admit that physics doesnt agree with their beliefs. But thats ok, because physics is the one getting it wrong.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1086274
DREMT: Would that point be that a barycenter requires at least 2 objects to make it have any meaning?
I agree with that, RLH. Does not affect my arguments in any way, shape or form.
DREMT: So you agree that a barycenter is an INTERNAL axis of the Moon/Earth pair?
In a way, sure. The important thing though (and really the only thing that actually matters from the point of view of my arguments) is that the barycenter is external to the moon itself.
“In a way, sure”
So if it is an INTERNAL axis then it cannot be an EXTERNAL axis as you have previously claimed.
Any precise point can be external to part of the whole but also be internal to the whole thing. Idiot.
Sure, I agree…and it changes absolutely nothing for any of my arguments. The barycenter is external to the moon itself. Thus the moon is rotating about an external axis, meaning an axis that is external to the moon itself. What most “Spinners” disagree with you on is that the moon is rotating about the barycenter in the first place! Most “Spinners” argue that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. Not rotating about the barycenter. You really need to get up to speed with the difference between rotation and translation.
An orbit about a barycenter does NOT mean than something faces ‘inwards’.
Then you are going with “orbital motion without axial rotation” being a translation, i.e motion like the MOTR. It’s OK if you want to believe that. I disagree, however. As far as I’m concerned, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is a rotation about an external axis, i.e motion like the MOTL.
Agree to disagree.
I’m going with Newton. He proposed that MOTR is called ‘translation’ i.e. an orbit without axial rotation.
Lol, “translation” is not just another word for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, as you imply. Nice try, though.
“‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is a rotation about an external axis”
Yet you agree that the barycenter is an INTERNAL axis to the Moon/Earth pair.
“translation is not just another word for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
Translation does not include any axial rotation as you wish to conclude.
…but external to the moon itself, which is all that matters. Will you be repeating your confusion all day?
“Translation does not include any axial rotation as you wish to conclude.”
More sophistry. Translation does not include axial rotation, but the “Non-Spinners” do not describe the motion of the MOTR as translation. The “Non-Spinners” describe the motion of the MOTR as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis occurring in the opposite direction, at a rate of once per orbit.
“The ‘Non-Spinners’ describe the motion of the MOTR as rotation about an external axis”
An external axis that you have agreed is internal to the Moon/Earth pair.
“Translation does not include axial rotation”
Therefore any one face always points towards a fixed star. As in MOTR.
External to the moon itself, which is all that matters.
“Therefore any one face always points towards a fixed star. As in MOTR.”
Yes, sophist. The “Spinners” describe the motion of the MOTR as translation, with no axial rotation. I already told you that.
So does Newton and his 3 Laws.
“External to the moon itself”
But internal to the Moon/Earth pair without which a barycenter will not exist.
“The Non-Spinners describe the motion of the MOTR as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis occurring in the opposite direction, at a rate of once per orbit.”
which are purely imaginary, since the non spinners cannot provide an iota of evidence of their independent existence.
And the model fails for an elliptical orbit, an orbit with an axial tilt, basically everything about the real Moon.
KISS says a translation is simply a translation!
"But internal to the Moon/Earth pair without which a barycenter will not exist."
But external to the moon, which is all that matters.
So half of the whole is more important than the whole thing.
You don’t have a point, RLH, and no amount of you going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it is going to change that.
The point, as you well know, is that a barycenter which things revolve around requires more than 1 object, therefore being outside of 1 of them is not that surprising. But it is still an internal axis to the whole.
Utterly irrelevant. In the moon discussion, we distinguish between an internal axis, which is an axis passing through the body of the moon, and an external axis, which is an axis external to the moon itself. That is all that matters. The barycenter is external to the moon itself. Therefore, for the purposes of the discussion, it is an external axis. That you think the moon rotates about the barycenter already means you agree more with the “Non-Spinners” than you currently understand.
“The ‘Non-Spinners’ describe the motion of the MOTR as rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis occurring in the opposite direction, at a rate of once per orbit.”
So they really should be called the Multi-spinners.
They think a Translation is actually multiple cancelling rotations.
How many is it? Is it two? Why not 4? 6? 8? Why not 64?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3FHow
Very much the same idea.
Why is my stalker so stupid?
Why can’t DREMT show us any evidence that these TWO cancelling rotations actually exist?
I admit I can’t show evidence that 64 cancelling rotations actually exist.
These claims are equally lacking in evidence. They can never be tested. They are not falsifiable.
That aint science. It is therefore a religious belief.
The only observable, testable, falsifiable fact for the MOTR is that it is a Translation.
So that’s that.
Again…why is my stalker so stupid?
And he’ll just keep repetitively trolling, with no answers, until he gets the last word.
See what I mean?
Nate,
Back at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1029904 you described how you got to 0.0398 for the slope of the trend line for WV. I think that instead of using the end point for each temperature increment, the average for that increment should be used. This would reduce the final answer by half. The resulting value is then about 0.02 for the slope of the WV increase trend which is acceptably close to the 0.024 that the algorithm produced. The algorithm uses the average for each increment.
Dan, recent CERES net top-of-atmosphere flux trends 9/2002 – 3/2020 where positive is an earthen warming trend & with 95% confidence the true value is in the range are in part due to changes in the period attributed to:
water vapor +0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2
trace gases +0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2
incoming solar flux change negligible @ -0.053 W/m^2/decade
Since both have been accurately measured worldwide, about 7 molecules of water vapor have been added to the atmosphere for each molecule of CO2 increase. WV has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback (temperature increase from all forcings and feedbacks). Each molecule of WV is about 37% more effective at absorbing radiant energy coming from the surface than a CO2 molecule. The human contribution to recent warming has been from water vapor increase; mostly (about 90%) from increased irrigation. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
” I think that instead of using the end point for each temperature increment, the average for that increment should be used. This would reduce the final answer by half. The resulting value is then about 0.02 for the slope of the WV increase trend which is acceptably close to the 0.024 that the algorithm produced. The algorithm uses the average for each increment.”
Dan, that makes little sense to me. There is NO justification for dividing the final answer by 2.
What I did was simple, standard and common sense.
“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.”
The point is this: the temperature rise/year should be multiplied 6.7%/C to find the total WV % rise/year.
Then the total WV % rise/year should be multiplied by the midpoint or mean value of WV in kg/m^2 to find the rate-of-rise in WV in kg/m^2/year.
The basic equation I used is this:
dWV/dt = (dWV%/dT)*(dT/dt)*WV(mean)
Can you show me the equivalent equation you used?
Nate,
The mistake is subtle. I didn’t see it right away either. The trend shape is a ramp. Using the end point applies that value for the entire time increment. What is needed is the average for the time increment which for a ramp is half of the end point.
The equation I used is imbedded in the algorithm as shown in section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . It is numerical integration which uses the average temperature for each time increment (month).
“The file for calculated change in WV is generated in EXCEL where each row contains:
WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * WV(n-1)
Where:
WVn = calculated WV in month n, kg/m^2
Tn = temperature anomaly in month n, C°
R = effective rate of WV increase resulting from feedback of temperature increase, 0.067/C° (= 6.7 %/C°)
The starting calculated WV is adjusted to make the starting trends the same.”
Dan,
Your equation WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * WV(n-1)
Where:
WVn = calculated WV in month n, kg/m^2
Tn = temperature anomaly in month n, C°
R = effective rate of WV increase resulting from feedback of temperature increase, 0.067/C° (= 6.7 %/C°)
and my equation
dWV/dt = (dWV%/dT)*(dT/dt)*WV(mean)
are the same, except that mine is also multiplied by dT/dt. Your R is my (dWV%/dT) = 6.7%/C
To see this rewrite your equation:
[WVn – WV(n-1)]/[Tn-T(n-1)] = R* WV(n-1)
dWV/dT = R*WV(mean) now multiply by dT/dt
dWV/dt = R(dT/dt)*WV(mean)
Nate,
WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * WV(n-1)
Is not an equation, it is any one of many rows in an EXCEL file for numerical integration. Each row is for a month because temperatures are the average for the month just completed.
I believe that the differential equation that you derived would work OK but would require that T and WV be expressed as functions of time. (WV(t) cannot be 29 (WV(mean)) but would need to be approximated as a function of time and perhaps iterated). Numerical integration avoids all that.
By multiplying by dT/dt you are effectively mixing numerical integration with analytical integration. Your equation translated to a row in EXCEL for numerical integration would be what I used with dt being the row to row change in one month.
rlh…”https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218/
The Origins of Viruses”
***
Not much information here re origin of viruses. Mainly speculation. However, the origin is not the problem, it’s the ability to isolate them and identify them that is the issue.
Much more technical information here:
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
this is good too…
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/The-Initiators-of-the-Corona-Crisis-Have-Been-Clearly-Identified.pdf
also…
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-1.pdf
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-2.pdf
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-3.pdf
Are you a betting man, Gordon?
Perhaps you don’t recall:
https://time.com/3743883/german-biologist-measles-pay/
C’mon. Think.
willard…”This week, a German court told Lanka he must now hand over the money as promised”.
***
You are way out of date. Lanka appealed and won in a German higher court circa 2016. The ruling of the court, that insufficient scientific evidence was presented to prove the measles virus exists is now the basis for questioning all viral research claiming discovery of a virus.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/fbchecks/no-german-supreme-court-didnt-rule-measles-doesnt-exist
You should keep your lies for Binny.
Think.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Viruses exist. But are they alive?
https://www.newscientist.com/question/are-viruses-alive/
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-harmful-viruses-idUSKBN23335V
“”No ‘virus’ harmful to humans has ever been proven to exist”. This claim is untrue”
yes they are alive. What they are not, is they are not separate individual organisms. They are rather something lesser than an organism – a living process. That is what confuses people.
maguff…”The phrase the great geophysical experiment was first used by oceanographer and geologist Roger Revelle…”
***
In a paper co-authored by Fred Singer, Revelle agreed that we should not read to much into the anthropogenic theory.
Revelle was a God to Al Gore, who went ballistic when he read that. He claimed Revelle was senile when he wrote it and Singer put him up to it. Singer sued Gore who pleaded along the lines of ‘no contest’.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081204162745/http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/cosmos.html
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
C’mon, Gordo:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
We all know about that old lie.
Think.
Whining Wee Willy,
C’mon there, laddie!
Quoting a delusional fool who refers to himself in the third person, doesn’t understand basic physics, gets sued about defamatory statements, retracts, and later whines about the unfairness of it all!
This is your ideal?
Here’s an opinion from a luckless Rabbett student –
“This man is the WORST teacher ever, he doesn’t care, he talks to himself, he doesn’t help you and his notes are pointless. If you like to teach youself take this class but that still won’t help you on his exams!”
C’mon, Wee Willy, tell us all why one anonymous opinion is to be preferred to another anonymous opinion – if you think anybody will care, that is.
Carry on.
Willard at 12:27 AM
Typical dishonest denier tactic.
TM,
Typical dishonest climate crank tactic.
Attack the messenger. Ignore the message.
Off you go, now.
[MIKE FLYNN, December 20, 2021 at 1:45 AM] Quoting a delusional fool who refers to himself in the third person
[MIKE FLYNN, December 20, 2021 at 6:44 AM] Attack the messenger. Ignore the message.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.livescience.com/56598-deadliest-viruses-on-earth.html
“The deadliest viruses in history”
“Humans have been fighting viruses long before our species had even evolved into its modern form. For some viral diseases, vaccines and antiviral drugs have allowed us to keep infections from spreading widely, and have helped sick people recover. For one disease smallpox we’ve been able to eradicate it, ridding the world of new cases.
However, we’re still a long way from defeating viruses. Several viruses have jumped from animals to humans in recent decades, causing large outbreaks and killing thousands of people. The viral strain that drove the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa kills up to 90% of the people it infects, making it the most lethal member of the Ebola family”.
MARBURG VIRUS
EBOLA VIRUS
RABIES
HIV
SMALLPOX
HANTAVIRUS
INFLUENZA
DENGUE
ROTAVIRUS
SARS-COV
SARS-COV-2
MERS-COV
and yet viruses are a myth? Give me a break.
“Misinformation is a public health crisis, and ‘disinformation doctors’ are making it worse,” said Brian C. Castrucci, DrPH, president and chief executive officer of the de Beaumont Foundation. “Lives are at stake. State medical boards have the ability and the responsibility to counter the spread of misinformation by taking real action against the biggest offenders.”
https://www.nolicensefordisinformation.org/
>>State medical boards have the ability and the responsibility to counter the spread of misinformation
where does your constitution say that? well, ok, the scope of the states are numerous and individual states of the union can in principle do anything that is not delegated to the feds or explicitly prohibited by the constitution, but even then the scope of their power is limited by their own territory. So which state does that link represent?
So I take it you’re not an American; the 10th Amendment of our constitution, codified in Title 42 of the U.S. Code, contains such provisions.
God blessed America, God bless The Marines, God help the rest!
“Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
O taake it u didn’t comprehend my frigging comment. If ll states do the same in a coordinated matter, wouldn’t that make it effectively a federal issue? essentially, they’d be forming an alternative federal government in evasion of constitutional restrictions. duh.
I cannot read your mind. I only answered the question you asked in your OP.
Also, the ‘disinformations’ you’re tawking about is prt of the freedom of tsppech and of the press that your constitution explicitly protects both from the states and from the feds.
And no one is restricting your free speech!
Nothing in the Constitution requires a private publisher to publish your speech.
@nate i think u’re waaay off the topic here.
Someone should tell Galileo about the misinformation he is spreading about astronomy.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman.
Troglodytes Emulate Social-Democrats.
maguff…from your,link…”Throughout the COVID-19 crisis we have seen a deliberate disinformation campaign being perpetuated by doctors regarding the severity of the disease, masks, public health measures, vaccines and more”.
***
Problem is, it’s people like the author of this message, through sheer ignorance of science, who are spreading the disinformation. And it’s deliberate.
1)Why are people like the author so intent on suppressing alternate opinions? That is the mark of totalitarianism.
2)there has never been a virus that has struck and still been active two years down the road. What has changed is the means of identifying and testing for such viruses. Why is no one challenging the means of identification and testing?
3)Here in BC, Canada, about a year ago, the medical authorities shut down the province for fear the hospital system would be overrun. They canceled surgeries to make 1200 beds available. At most, they needed 150 beds. Now they are at it again with omicron, a sci-fi variant that has only been hypothesized on an unvalidated computer model.
The problem is clear, disaster is being predicted using unvalidated computer models and these models have never been close to predicting outcomes. That could be due to the fact that unvalidated computer models cannot predict.
Gordon!
aka He-Who-Did-Not-Attend-UBC, Mr. Not An Engineer, Mr. SuperGenius Moonlighting Virologist, and other aliases. Your self-assessment of your own intelligence is staggeringly funny but also a bit heartbreaking. Imagine, we’ve all been given just one life and this is how you choose to live out your days – fighting on the Internet about issues you are willfully misinformed about. Contributing nothing but delusion.
Go back to the basement and write fan mail to frauds like Duesburg and Lanka, sealed with a kiss on their ass. (Lanka! – Who actually won no traction at all regarding the “disproving” the established existence of a measles virus. “In German high court” as you love to say. All that happened was nobody met Lanka’s specific contest criterion. The case was not about the existence of a virus. It was a bizarre case in reaction to somebody’s pseudoscientific tantrum, yet you refer to it so lovingly.
Here is a simple (a compatible with GHE theory) question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.
Earth’s surface is warmed up +33C from Te=255K to Tmean=288K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220K. Diviner gives for Moon Tmean=193K.
What cools Moon’s surface down -50C from Te=270K to Tmean=220K, or, according to Diviner, what cools Moon’s surface down -77C from Te=270K to Tmean =193K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> What cools Moons surface down
The Moon has a very different atmosphere, Christos:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html
It’s really not that complex. Why are you still playing dumb?
You don’t listen…
I asked:” What cools Moon’s surface? “
Not what warms it.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re still playing dumb, Christos:
There is no atmosphere on the Moon to speak of. If the Earth is “warmed up” because of “the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere” as you say, then the Moon isn’t “warmed up” because of “the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.”
Really simple.
Let’s put the same question differently then:
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220 K. Diviner gives for Moon Tmean=193 K.
What warms Moon’s surface up +50 C from Tmean=220 K to Te =270 K, or, according to Diviner, what warms Moon’s surface up +77 C from Tmean=193 K to Te =270 K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s not the same question, Christos. The Earth was involved in the first one you asked, and there was an alternative or between the two figures you now oppose.
Let’s put my answer differently:
Suppose country’s bank account “warms up” because it gets more cash than it owes. Let’s call that the Green Cash Effect.
Imagine a country that goes bankrupt. Let’s call it Sparta. Let’s also assume that there are two accounts of their bankruptcy – A1 or A2.
Sparta goes bankrupt because it lacks a Green Cash Effect.
Now, you could ask two questions:
Q1. Why doesn’t Sparta warm up?
Q2. How does A1 differ from A2.
You can try to suggest that A1 differs from A2 because there is no such thing as a Green Cash Effect. I promise you that this won’t work.
One does not simply evade logic with numbers.
Best.
Moon’s measured mean surface temperature is Tmean = 220 K.
What doesn’t exist is the Moon’s blackbody equilibrium temperature Te = 270 K.
For Moon’s mean surface temperature estimation the Te = 270 K is a mathematical abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“what warms Moon’s surface up +77 C from Tmean=193 K (really global avg. brightness 197K) to Te =270 K ?”
A dirt/rock/sand (instead of regolith and fine powder) surface so that the lunar surface optical and thermophysical properties are the same as for L&O on Earth but with a bond albedo of 0.11 instead of 0.30.
The 1LOT is not an abstraction Christos.
Ball4
(really global avg. brightness 197K) vs Te =270 K ?
A very big difference, it cannot be. What is it the Te =270 K for Moon’s surface, if it is not a mathematical abstraction?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Plug in the measured regolith optical and thermophysical properties to the same 1LOT eqn. and the 270K is properly reduced & found to be a lunar equatorial 240K equilibrium temperature.
The global avg. lunar thermometer T must then be lower consistent with Diviner global radiometer measurements but that lunar global equilibrium thermometer T is currently unknown & TBD waiting for lunar colonization.
> What doesn’t exist
I thought you were just asking a question while assuming the Green Cash effect, Christos.
I don’t think we ever measured the temperature at the core of the Moon. Are you suggesting that the temperature at the core of the Moon does not exist?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ball4
“Plug in the measured regolith optical and thermophysical properties to the same 1LOT eqn. and the 270K is properly reduced & found to be a lunar equatorial 240K equilibrium temperature.”
Please plug in, it is some other eqn. you refer to, not the Te.
Please write here this other eqn. so we can discuss it…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The eqn. resulting in 240K lunar equatorial equilibrium is complicated, Christos, since the lunar albedo at the equator is unknown as well as is equatorial regolith emissivity so a more detailed thermal energy 1LOT analysis based on Apollo thermometers is employed.
Christos has not been at all interested in reading the past hard work of published authors – we can discuss when Christos wants to learn from finishing reading up on their now 9 year old work.
How about:
http://luna1.diviner.ucla.edu/~dap/pubs/097.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here is another simple (a compatible with GHE theory) question:
Moon having a lower Albedo a=0,11 than Earth a=0,306 absorbs 28% more solar SW energy.
Earths surface is warmed up +33 C from Te =255 K to Tmean =288 K because of the Greenhouse Effect in its atmosphere.
Moons measured mean surface temperature is Tmean =220 K. Diviner gives for Moon’s mean surface temperature Tmean =197 K.
Thus it is very much reasonable to ask:
If Earth’s surface devoid of atmosphere and ocean (like Moon) and having absorbed 28% less solar SW energy, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be Tmean =210 K,
or, if according to Diviner’s version, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be Tmean =192 K
What warms Earth’s surface up +45C from Tmean=210K to Te =255 K,
or, according to Diviner’s version, what warms Earth’s surface up +63C from Tmean =192 K to Te =255 K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here’s another very simple question.
On the one hand:
[CHRISTOS] What doesn’t exist is the Moon’s blackbody equilibrium temperature
On the other:
[ALSO CHRISTOS] If Earth’s surface devoid of atmosphere and ocean
The question is: how can Christos reconcile the two attitudes?
“What warms Earth’s surface up +45C from Tmean=210K to Te =255 K”
An earthen surface 1bar atm. in place so the earthen dirt surface is not pounded into fine powder and regolith devoid of vegetation.
Ball4,
Have you ever been to an arid tropical desert region? Devoid of vegetation, rocky and dusty. Hot as Hades, so to speak. Highest recorded surface temperatures on Earth, even with 1 bar atmospheric pressure.
Can get well below freezing at night, as well.
You might be stupid enough to believe this is all due to some mythical GHE!
You aren’t that silly, are you?
I’m not, but Swenson IS silly not using data. I use the measured meteorological data, what does Swenson use? Imagination? I observe so. Better to use meteorological data in any comments on a climate blog.
Ball,
Mike Flynn does not even use his real Climateball nickname.
Why would he use data?
Cheers.
Why would Mike.. er Swenson use data? To NOT sound so silly for one. However, the silliness is more entertaining than dull meteorological data. May be the puppet spent too much time wandering in the desert sun looking for the earthen GHE.
Sorry Swenson,
But the hottest regions on Earth are not tropical deserts.
Try subtropical deserts, such as Death Valley, the location of the highest recorded temperature on Earth.
To assorted nitwits –
“Cool Cosmos is a NASA education and outreach website for infrared astronomy and related topics, with information on all NASA-involved infrared missions, including the Spitzer Space Telescope, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), Herschel, Planck, the 2-Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS), the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST/AFTA), and Euclid. This site is hosted at IPAC (Infrared Processing and Analysis Center), and funded by NASA’s Spitzer Science Center, at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.”
This appears on their site –
“The highest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 136 Fahrenheit (58 Celsius) in the Libyan desert.”
Or you might prefer a dimwit’s “An earthen surface 1bar atm. in place so the earthen dirt surface is not pounded into fine powder and regolith devoid of vegetation.” as an explanation for something or other.
I prefer facts and physical explanations. Climate cranks favour faith, fantasy, and the opinions of fakers, frauds, deadbeats and scofflaws – Michael Mann being one such.
Oh well, everybody has their own view. Mine is that climate is the statistics of past weather. Climate crackpots believe the opposite, apparently.
Some sock puppet said-
“Mine is that climate is the statistics of past weather.”
Seems that he’s in violent agreement with the established view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Could it be the spirit of Christmas?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Swenson
Your description of a desert region is a clear example of the GHE.
It gets hot during the day. It lacks evaporative cooling to any degree. No clouds so incoming solar is at max warming potential. So it can get quite hot during the day, but then at night what happens. No major GHE to keep things from cooling off so it can get quite cold. You have the CO2 but that will only act from 10 to 20% of the total GHE. The rest is done by clouds and water vapor.
Water plays a very complex role in GHE. The water vapor acts as a GHG and causes a warmer temperature with equivalent solar input. But it also cools the surface via evaporation and reduces solar input with clouds.
But the lack of two of the GHE (water vapor and clouds) leads to greater cooling at night. So you have yourself your own validation of a real GHE. You wanted proof and you have supplied your own.
Right Swenson,
“The highest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 136 Fahrenheit (58 Celsius) in the Libyan desert.”
Recorded but not certified as the record hottest temperature.
And also not a tropical desert climate there in Libya.s
If you want to claim climate is the average of weather, go right ahead, but it’s more complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
Dimwitted climate crackpot Norman wrote –
“But the lack of two of the GHE (water vapor and clouds) leads to greater cooling at night. So you have yourself your own validation of a real GHE. You wanted proof and you have supplied your own.”
Unfortunately for Norman, those factors which lead to faster cooling at night are the same which allow greater heating during the day – as in arid tropical deserts, the hottest places on Earth.
No GHE, which is fairly obvious, given that neither Norman nor anyone else can clearly define the GHE in any disprovable and scientific fashion.
He will no doubt keep believing – a triumph of faith over fact!
Wondrous Wee Willy tries to disagree by agreeing with me.
He wrote –
“Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in an area, typically averaged over a period of 30 years.”
As I said, just the statistics of past weather.
And of course, an observed pattern of events does not control the occurrence of those events, contrary to what dimwitted climate cranks like Wee Willy wish to believe.
Misdiagnosed Furunculosis Mike Flynn whinges:
“As I said, just the statistics of past weather.”
He also said of those who endorse the established viewpoint that they “believe the opposite, apparently.”
The less Mike Flynn researches, the more appearances he collects like that!
Let him continue.
Well done Witless Wee Willy.
Incomprehensibility raised to new heights.
Climate is merely the statistics of past weather. It controls nothing, nor can it influence anything. It is a description of the past.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a climate crackpot, like Wee Willy.
A consensus of nutters is just idiots agreeing with each other.
Unfortunately for Mike..er Swenson who hasn’t read the news lately, the earthen GHE at 33K has been measured by satellite radiometers and surface thermometers.
For some reason Mike Flynn believes that understanding something makes you control it. Weird.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“What warms Earth’s surface up +45C from Tmean=210K to Te =255 K,”
70% of surface being water.
The Earth get 1/2 of all sunlight in the tropics {23.5 south and north latitude] and about 40 % percent of entire earth surface area.
Also with Moon 24 north and south latitude also gets more than half of lunar sunlight. So Moon radiate more than 1/2 energy of sunlight in 40% of the surface area of the Moon.
Earth tropical ocean is about 80% of the tropical zone.
Or land is 510 million square km times .4 times 20%, 40.8 million square km or about 1/4 of all land in the tropics {and why average land of 10 C, appears warmer- tropical land much warmer. Remove tropical land, which raise land global average to 10 C, and then you see, that we are in an Ice Age.
So, with Earth the tropical ocean is Earth’s heat engine. And the Moon “tropics” it’s just dumping heat into space. And 1 meter under lunar regolith at noon in tropics, it’s about -30 C.
Days of 120 C heat and the ground surface doesn’t absorb much sunlight.
Happy Birthday, Dr. Spencer.
The Lord bless you today and always.
bob d…lost my place but you linked me to a wiki page on molecular vibrations. From the article…”A molecular vibration is a periodic motion of the atoms of a molecule relative to each other…”
***
Tell me Bob, how do the atoms vibrate in the molecule? The atomic nucleii are BONDED by electrons and those bonds stretch and bend, both symmetrically and asymmetrically.
Without electrons, there are no bonds and no molecules. The vibration incorrectly being attributed by Wiki to molecules are in fact caused by electron bonds vibrating.
The reason they vibrate, Bob, is due to differences in the signs of electrons and protons. Also, due to differences in electronegativity between atoms with many electrons and those with fewer electrons, like hydrogen.
You and Maguff needed to take a course in basic chemistry, then maybe TRY to understand the quantum theory I just described to you.
Gordon Robertson will not understand the materials discussed in the link below but, since this is not the first time I have been asked “how do the atoms vibrate in the molecule?”, I will post the link here for future reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
TM,
From your link –
“For example, the zero dipole of CO2 implies that the two C=O bond dipole moments cancel so that the molecule must be linear.”
As this is not the first time you have been asked this, you obviously can point to where in your link reference is made to atomic vibration in the molecule.
Only joking. Of course you can’t, because you are a dimwitted climate crackpot trying to appear clever. Try to link to something that supports you. Otherwise, you will just wind up looking about as stupidly ignorant as other dimwitted climate crackpots.
P.S.
Have you managed to figure out what temperature a thermometer lowered down a borehole full of air is actually measuring?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1084205
Try to keep up!
TM,
Got no facts?
Typical climate crackpot diversionary tactic – post a nonsensical link, hoping people will be silly enough to follow it.
Nope. If you post a link to another comment, it is obviously irrelevant.
If you have something to say, just say it. Or not.
Glad to see you are checking the links that I, and others, post. I remember not long ago you said that you “never clicked” on our links.
There may still be hope for you. Keep learning, and do try to keep up!
TM,
Memory is a wonderful thing, except when you rely upon it, and it serves you wrong.
You obviously know this, but don’t care, otherwise you would quote me exactly, and not rely on your faulty memory.
You may remember learning that climate is not just the statistics of past weather, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Just because you remember something doesn’t make it true.
Remember that.
Swenson at 1:05 AM
Forget what I said about there being hope for you yet.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
No need for me to take any “basic chemistry” course.
If you had taken the chemistry classes you claim to have taken, you would know that molecular bonds have characteristic lengths and angels, and the electrons and atomic nuclei involved can move causing variations in these lengths and angles. These bonds have specific energy levels relating to the amount of bend and stretch.
Here is a book selection for you, I think I have an earlier edition on my bookshelf.
https://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-Molecular-Donald-McQuarrie/dp/0935702997/ref=asc_df_0935702997/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312165853622&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5364114145006820405&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022814&hvtargid=pla-523186028805&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=60258872297&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312165853622&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5364114145006820405&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022814&hvtargid=pla-523186028805
Don’t try to teach me chemistry, you have it all wrong.
I can tell, as I have a degree in chemistry.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
willard…”Cmon, Gordo:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
We all know about that old lie”.
***
You call an engineer who designed the US satellite system a liar while quoting as your reference someone who hides behind the nym, Eli Rabbett. That someone has been identified as Josh Halpern, a physicist who teaches chemistry. Go figure.
As for Naomi Oreskes, a librarian, who the twit Maguff quoted, while butt-kissing you, she states in the same paper that consensus is a valid form of science.
Oreskes was one of the originators of the lie that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. In a study, she interviewed about 1500 scientists with one simple question that had to be answered yes or no: Do humans cause global warming?
She might as well have asked them if they are still beating their wives. Even if a scientists thinks humans are causing about 0.001% of the warming, they must answer ‘yes’.
Leave it to Maguff to dig up a trash report without having the slightest idea what it’s about.
> You call an engineer who designed the US satellite system
C’mon, Gordo.
I’m calling you a liar.
Read harder.
Weary Wee Willy
You can call Michael Mann a Nobel Laureate.
You can call Gavin Schmidt a world famous climate scientist.
You can call yourself wise, respected, and powerful.
Others can call you a fool.
Who to believe?,
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
I can call you a sock puppet too!
And believe me – there’s plenty of evidence!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
W
Speaking of Ho! Ho! Ho!, you might want to alter your letter to Santa. I hear that due to supply chain disruptions, Santa is getting low on his inventory of Two Front Teeth.
Pozzo,
Don’t forget that Santa is getting low on sock puppets!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
> As for Naomi Oreskes, a librarian,
C’mon, Gordo. Naomi is a geologist turned historian of science:
https://histsci.fas.harvard.edu/files/hos/files/oreskes_cv_aug_2020.pdf
At least have the courtesy to whine about butt kissing in a different comment than in the very one where you kiss one, in this case Fred’s.
Typical Gordon Robertson tactic attacking the messenger instead of the message.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
bobdroege’s response to me quoting from a NASA education and outreach program –
“Recorded but not certified as the record hottest temperature.
And also not a tropical desert climate there in Libya.s”
Oh dear! bob is unhappy that NASA supports me. Recorded but not certified. Boo hoo. Just like the BOM declaring all official temperatures prior to 1910 “unreliable”, getting rid of inconvenient officially recorded heatwaves prior to 1910.
That clicking sound you hear is bob furiously looking for nits to pick. I will let others look up the latitude of the Libyan desert, and discovering that I should have said subtropical, in respect to Libya, rather than tropical. I apologise for my error.
However, still no GHE.
Hot arid deserts have the least amount of total so-called GHGs in their atmospheres, compared with locations at similar latitudes. In other words, less GHG means higher temperatures.
Of course, the same physics applies in the coldest places in the world also having the least GHGs! Climate cranks claim in peer reviewed papers that the GHE is negative in Antarctica.
From Nature –
“A paradoxical negative greenhouse effect has been found over the Antarctic Plateau, indicating that greenhouse gases enhance energy loss to space.”
Amazing thing, this GHE. Hotter, colder, wetter, drier – an effect for all seasons!
Swenson
“Hot arid deserts have the least amount of total so-called GHGs in their atmospheres, compared with locations at similar latitudes. In other words, less GHG means higher temperatures.”
Very precise observation. So much for Earth’s trace content of GHG in the thin Earth’s atmosphere the alleged (the so called) “GHG back radiation!”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swenson,
You are somewhat better than the rest of the goons.
You will admit you are wrong sometimes.
Now about that greenhouse effect, which you have told us where it may be observed, yet you still maintain that it does not exist.
But you have told us where it may be observed.
My, you are a strange chap.
Bob,
OK, you show us with mass and energy balance how GHE gets us to 288K with every pound of mass in the atmosphere? And, please show us mathematically where Ed Berry’s three papers are wrong. And, please show us where Ed Berry is wrong in his falsification of IPCC’s carbon cycle model. You can’t prove GHE with one pound of Earth’s mass. If you can’t do that, shut up.
I’d like a sammich, Troglodyte.
Give me a sammich, or else.
Stephan P Anderson,
Buy this book
https://www.amazon.com/Physical-Chemistry-Molecular-Donald-McQuarrie/dp/0935702997/ref=asc_df_0935702997/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312165853622&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11347500419491271834&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022814&hvtargid=pla-523186028805&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=60258872297&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312165853622&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11347500419491271834&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022814&hvtargid=pla-523186028805
Read it and do all the problem sets.
Then get back to me.
The greenhouse effect isn’t in one pound of Earth’s atmosphere, it’s in all of the atmosphere.
From the abstract of Human Emissions have little effect on Atmospheric CO2
“impossible because the molecules are identical”
I know a little bit about isotopes, and this is bullshit, there is a difference in the isotopic composition of natural versus anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide.
If you want mathematical proof of the above, it’s 50 bucks.
Or you can do your own research, your turn, prove that I am wrong.
Yeah, thought so. It’s a weak hypothesis based upon slight of hand. I had P Chem. No professor I had would ever bring up GHE hypothesis with snickering. It isn’t science.
stephen, the earthen GHE has now been adequately measured at around 33K depending on period observed by satellite radiometers and surface thermometers. You and your supposed “professors” just haven’t read the latest science reports on the subject.
> No professor I had
Tell us when, how many, and some names, Troglodyte.
Otherwise keep quiet.
Did you already link to those measurements?
Well it depends on how you look at things.
It’s whether you think a 1 or 2 percent change in average global temperature is a small change or a large change.
I also took pchem and one of the problems was to model the vibrations of the CO2 molecule and calculate the energy levels and corresponding wavelengths.
And then Berry contradicts himself in his abstract.
Sorry, that may be science, but it’s bad.
Chic 1:54pm, there are papers on satellite radiometers measuring earthen global emitting temperature Te at 254K going back to Nimbus 3 data reported decades ago by Vonder Haar et. al. 1972. More modern satellite radiometer measurements from CERES show Te = 254.5 +/- 0.5K
I’d say you can find measured thermometer global surface Tse = 288K data on your own.
Instrument measured earthen GHE = Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K, rounded
Chic Bowdrie
Here is one link of annual surface temperatures.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg/777px-Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg
This is a more detailed look at things. This one gives the annual average temperature for each state. If you add them up and divide you can get a US average.
The outgoing longwave IR is similar to the first graph.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
You can scroll through the images. They have one link with values and it shows it at around 238 W/m^2. This gets you around 255 K brightness temperature.
Ball4 is correct with what he claims. There is a vast amount of measured data supporting what he says. I suppose you have to have some technical skill with statistics to average out the data but I do think there are qualified experts who can accomplish this task and give some close average for both values.
So the Earth surface is around 288 K based upon global measurements and averaged out. The outgoing longwave IR gives a brightness temperature of 255 K.
The GHG force the Earth’s surface to reach the 288 K temp order to emit at a 255 K temperature from the radiating surface of Earth to space.
> No professor I had
Tell us when, how many, and some names, Troglodyte.
Otherwise, keep quiet.
Dr. Schweitzer was my research advisor.
https://chem.utk.edu/people/george-k-schweitzer/
I don’t hide in anonymity. I use my real name. Care to reveal yourself brave Williard? You are one dumb human.
My research was done through Y-12 at ORNL. What about you Willard?
Do you want to point out how Berry contradicts himself? Which sentence is a contradiction? Please explain.
Climateball-How to spread climate propaganda. Huh, Willard?
B4,
You’re all over the place. You mentioned Vonder Haar et al. in 1972, and then you mention recent papers measuring Earth’s emissivity temperature. No more obfuscation. Please give us a link to the Vonder Haar paper where the Earth’s emissivity temperature of 255K is measured. No more obfuscation.
There is no emissivity temperature of 255K. The Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K plus or minus a K or two. It’s been measured at that for many decades by various instrumentation.
stephen 7:06 pm, I am not your librarian. You already had enough clues to figure it out in less than the couple minutes it took me from google string: Vonder Haar et. al. 1972 nimbus3
Or ask your research advisor for help if really interested in understanding the Nimbus 3 measured global emissivity temperature result in which you write 7:43 pm an asserted disbelief.
Hint: see page 20 for the Nimbus 3 measured global emissivity temperature 255K result.
stephen p anderson
Here is the article to look at. Ball4 is correct about page 20 it clearly states a mean 255 blackbody (brightness) temperature for the outgoing longwave emission of Earth.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730012975/downloads/19730012975.pdf
I suppose everybody ignored –
“These results, like those of earlier satellite measurements, cannot be used for studies of long-term climatic changes of natural or manmade origin because their evaluation was based on too many assumptions.”
Climate crackpots consistently appeal to the authority of papers which don’t support them.
I don’t know why.
Stephen,
Try this
“No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
“No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere”
versus
“Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Which is it?
No CO2 accumulation?
or
Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Don’t bring that weak assed shit round here.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobdroege,
You are not only an ignorant fool, you are delusional to boot.
You wrote “Now about that greenhouse effect, which you have told us where it may be observed, . . . “.
Unfortunately, your fantasy is not reality. You cannot even even define the GHE, let alone quote me saying where it may be observed!
You just make stuff up, hoping it will magically become fact!
There is no GHE, bob. You must be exceptionally gullible and believe that “climate science” involves the scientific method any more than political science, social science or astrology.
Climate is the statistics of past weather. Look it up.
There is an instrumentally measured earthen GHE of 33K, rounded – going back decades about which Swenson is unaware. Typical.
Ball4,
What is this “GHE” which you keep blathering about? Hopefully, you are not talking about the “Greenhouse Effect”, because that would mean you believe the following nonsense promoted by NASA (you should be able to figure out what NASA stands for) – “As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! A greenhouse is a building with glass walls and a glass roof. Greenhouses are used to grow plants, such as tomatoes and tropical flowers.”
NASA follows up with – “A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter.”, which no doubt comes as devastating news to sellers of greenhouse heaters, and all those ignorant greenhouse owners who claim they need them during winter.
So come on, do you believe NASA or not? Or do you have another definition?
Maybe one that has nothing to do with greenhouses, perhaps? Gee, that would mean that all the people who claimed that the greenhouse effect has anything to do with greenhouses were really stupid, wouldn’t it?
Go for it. Show how much smarter you are than the dimwits at NASA.
“do you have another definition?”
The best defn. being data driven: NASA radiometer and thermometer measured data over decades showing earthen:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, rounded
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The best defn. being data driven: NASA radiometer and thermometer measured data over decades showing earthen:
Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K GHE, rounded”
So what is the definition? “being data driven” is not a definition of anything.
Have NASA got a better definition than the NASA quote I provided? People are more likely to believe NASA than a gibberish spouting anonymous blogger, I assume.
Others can make their own assessment, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
“The best defn. being data driven” means that the best definitions are data driven.
It does not mean that “being data driven” is a definition!
What an idiot you are!
Cheers.
Yes, Swenson misses the actual GHE defn. Funny as usual.
And I missed my 4. Oh well.
B,
Ah, I see – not!
Your definition of the GHE is –
“NASA radiometer and thermometer measured data over decades showing earthen:
Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K GHE, rounded”
I suppose it’s a great pity that the world at large seems to be totally ignorant oF your definition.
Only joking.
Even NASA is ignoring your nonsense, and they have some climate cranks on the payroll.
“Only joking.”
Yes long time readers know Mike…er Swenson is just being funny. NASA didn’t ignore the GHE data because NASA paid for it.
Ball4,
So why do NASA claim that the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse? Presumably NASA had data to support their belief – but maybe they lost it, do you think? Or maybe they just made it up?
You are obviously even more delusional than NASA.
You claim that because measuring parts of two different things with two different types of instrument, gives two different temperatures is somehow revolutionary!
Who cares? What difference does it make?
Surface temperatures due to sunlight vary between about 56 C to about -90 C.
You can believe that these temperatures should be something else, but the temperatures don’t care, do they?
They are what they are. Boo hoo.
Swenson,
We have been over this stuff too many times.
I have described the greenhouse effect for you many times, you have even described where it can be observed.
Now you are just lying.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
gbaikie
“So, with Earth the tropical ocean is Earth’s heat engine. And the Moon “tropics” it’s just dumping heat into space. And 1 meter under lunar regolith at noon in tropics, it’s about -30 C.
Days of 120 C heat and the ground surface doesn’t absorb much sunlight.”
That’s right. That “Moon “tropics” it’s just dumping heat into space.” is very much precise description of the reason the why Moon is a much colder planet than Earth.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> That “Moon “tropics” it’s just dumping heat into space.” is very much precise description of the reason the why Moon is a much colder planet than Earth.
I already told you so yesterday, Christos:
The spirit of Christmas strikes again!
I am afraid you confuse atmosphere with air, Willard…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you think that the Earth’s atmosphere is “thin,” Christos, something tells me you’ll be amazed about the Moon’s atmosphere…
https://climateball.net
Yes, Moon hasn’t air – Moon is airless!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Moon has no air because its atmosphere can’t keep it in – that should tell you how silly is your “the Earths atmosphere is very thin”!
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to warm Earth’s surface +33C.
And it is very strange it is not obvious to everyone…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Summing up:
(1) The atmosphere of the Moon is “very thin,” yet it can’t contain air.
(2) The atmosphere of the Earth is “very thin,” yet it contains air.
Seems like you have a “very thin” problem, Christos!
Willard, air is what we breath. We cannot breath atmosphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas
Christos Vournas
What is your thought process on “thin”. This thin atmosphere is thick enough to allow jets (and birds) to get enough lift to fly through it. This “thin” atmosphere exerts around 2000 lbs per square foot.
I do not think you studied the issue at all and just come up with your fake theory that uses a magic number that can give you whatever results you want it to.
You have so many holes in your knowledge of science that rather than waste your time on a goofy theory you could do better for yourself to pick up an actual physics textbook and read through it. You will find you have multiple errors in your thinking that cannot be corrected on a blog.
Norman
“I do not think you studied the issue at all and just come up with your fake theory that uses a magic number that can give you whatever results you want it to.”
“…a magic number…” Is it the Φ =0,47 you refer to?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere
I could continue to spoon feed you, but at some point you need to do the readings yourself!
Christos Vournas
Yes that totally made up number not based upon any valid science. You can put in lots of different values to get whatever temperature, within a range, you want. It is terrible science. More like Voodoo and magic thinking.
Here is the point of using some made up value to tweak your equation.
If I want the effective temperature of the Earth to be 255 K with your bogus system, I just change your Voodoo value from 0.47 to 0.29 now with the same equation I get 255 K.
It is not science what you are doing. It is just junk. You wasted lots of time fooling yourself with your magic equation (that is not based upon any valid reality). Now maybe spend some good quality time in a textbook. The scientists involved in GHE understand what is going on much better than you. If you want to prove them wrong, learn the science (that is based upon experiments, math, logic, observation) and then find actual flaws.
Don’t make up a bogus equation that can come up with lots of different values by just plugging in a number for you ridiculous
“Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor”
Just a bunch of garbage to throw away. Hate to tromp on your efforts but they are not good at all. You have wasted some time on this nonsense.
Thank you, Norman, for your interest in my work.
Please visit a new comment I posted today at:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1087206
Thank you, Willard.
“The atmospheric gases around Earth scatter blue light (shorter wavelengths) more than light toward the red end (longer wavelengths) of the visible spectrum; thus, a blue glow over the horizon is seen when observing Earth from outer space.”
Also very interesting graph Link:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Solar_system_escape_velocity_vs_surface_temperature.svg/520px-Solar_system_escape_velocity_vs_surface_temperature.svg.png
Christos, Norman has a point. If you can’t get another scientist to replicate your thesis then your thesis has no basis in fact. Norman is offering valid criticism; please take his advice and stop posting your poorly supported hypothesis here.
Ken
“…stop posting your poorly supported hypothesis here.”
Ken, do you have formed your own opinion on my work, or you depend on what Norman’s opinion is.
Ken, if you have your own opinion on my work, please tell me what exactly you think it is wrong.
Also, please comment on the Earth/Moon mean surface temperatures comparison:
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
(Nearth /Nmoon)*(cp.earth /cp.moon) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) =155,42
…………………………………..
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
Let’s compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In terms absorbing energy, the vertical column of our atmosphere be square meter absorbs same amount energy per 1 C rise in temperature as 2.5 meter deep square meter area of ocean water.
Most of sunlight is shortwave IR, and 90% this shortwave is absorbed in the top 1 meter of surface of the ocean, and rest of is absorbed deeper, the visible portion of sunlight is mostly absorbed in top few meter of ocean surface and blue light and a portion of UV goes deepest into the ocean.
What controls air temperature is surface of Earth and the highest average earth surface is the ocean surface- which covers 70% of Earth’s surface.
Gordon Robertson at 11:07 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1085178
”You [bobdroege] and Maguff needed to take a course in basic chemistry, then maybe TRY to understand the quantum theory I just described to you.”
No, Robertson, you need to go back to high school chemistry and pay attention this time around.
Vibration of Molecules CHEM Studyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI&list=PLPpxywbRVVF0rSFQi9sg9cW4fgI53kmxA&index=8
Watch this high school level video from 60 years ago. The only change since it was made is in the quality of the animations.
Noice find there TM
Only problem is Gordon Robertson does not want to learn the truth. He likes his own made up mish-mash of ideas. I have tried many times and offered videos to demonstrate molecular vibration. I even quoted Linus Pauling on the issue but nothing works with Gordon. He is set on his opinions and no evidence will change his mind.
I got to meet Linus Pauling. He was a department guest. He mostly spoke about Vitamin C.
spa,
Vitamin C is an excellent tiger repellent. I always carry a tablet or two in my pack when in tiger country. I have not been attacked yet.
Proof positive of efficacy, wouldn’t you say?
Dr. Pauling took the chewable tablets. I’ve never seen a tiger hang out in an orange grove.
TM,
Maybe you could appeal to your own dubious authority, and explain to all the lurkers how you would know if a molecule is vibrating or not? And then, why might it stop vibrating?
The video you linked to contains a clue. It also contains a widely believed but totally misleading statement (well, more than one, actually), but I suppose it was only designed to impress undergrads.
You don’t understand what I am talking about, do you? I’m not surprised.
Try linking to something other than “half truths for children” next time.
Swenson at 8:11 PM
“The video you linked to contains a clue. It also contains a widely believed but totally misleading statement (well, more than one, actually), but I suppose it was only designed to impress undergrads.”
Swenson,
this is a high school level video. The best part about it is that two Nobel Laureates were involved in its production. Only in America can a high school class receive such attention.
I am not surprised by your reaction to it. It is a pity though, that your under-educated brain cannot assimilate such entry-level information.
Note that the video, first posted more than 10 years ago and 60 years old, has had over 20 views since I linked to it this morning. I would say that it hit its mark.
You are welcome!
TM,
Nice try at evasion, laddie. So the content is “lies for children”, rather than “half truths for children”, is it?
I will ask again –
“Maybe you could appeal to your own dubious authority, and explain to all the lurkers how you would know if a molecule is vibrating or not? And then, why might it stop vibrating?
The video you linked to contains a clue.”
From your attempts at diversion and obfuscation, it is obvious you can’t answer. Why not just admit you don’t know?
As to “Only in America . . .”, high school classes have been subjected to all sorts of nonsense – from “Reefer Madness” to “An Inconvenient Truth”. Do you think this helps to explain the current state of American society?
your comments have been duly noted. Now move on.
TM,
Just unsupported assertions then.
I don’t blame you for not attempting to explain that so-called GHGs heat up when exposed to heat, and cool down in the absence of heat.
Just as all matter does. That is why the atmosphere heats when exposed to sufficient sunlight, and cools in its absence.
Plain as night and day to anyone except a climate crackpot.
Apologies for the pun. Not terribly punny, wot?
Seems as if your ADHD has taken over again. You have completely veered off the main topic. Better take your medication.
TM,
Your main topic contained “Watch this high school level video from 60 years ago. The only change since it was made is in the quality of the animations.”
Unfortunately, your direction to “Watch this high school video . . .” was obviously not designed to impart knowledge, rather to portray another commenter as stupid and ignorant.
Even more unfortunately, your understanding of this somewhat misleading video was shown to be lacking, thereby demonstrating that you are ignorant (you can’t explain the content), and stupid – for using such a defective video to support your attempt to appear knowledgeable.
If you still want to claim that molecular vibrations have any relevance to the mythical GHE (as some climate cranks might think), go ahead.
You won’t, of course, because silly ad-hom attacks are all you can come up with.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You said absolutely nothing!
Beautiful!
Wobbly Wee Willy,
And?
Swenson at 11:20 PM
“…silly ad-hom attacks are all you can come up with.”
Do you ever read read what you type? But I digress.
There have been 32 views of this old video since I posted it. From your comments I am guessing you either, were not one of those viewers, or didn’t understand any of it.
IR radiation carries the right amount of energy to excite molecular vibrations, which explains the IR spectra recorded by satellites and shown here: https://ibb.co/v1j1mms.
I wish you would stop projecting so much. Or you could stop reading my posts if they trigger you so much.
TM,
You are obviously not interested in imparting your self proclaimed knowledge.
As I asked –
“Maybe you could appeal to your own dubious authority, and explain to all the lurkers how you would know if a molecule is vibrating or not? And then, why might it stop vibrating?”
Just making statements like “IR radiation carries the right amount of energy to excite molecular vibrations, which explains the IR spectra recorded by satellites . . . “, shows that you don’t actually understand what you are talking about.
Any photons of sufficient energy will suffice. You have been listening to too many “lies for children”.
The sorts of things eagerly lapped up by climate crackpots and other people who should know better.
In any case, you might like to say what relevance (if any) your comments have to the mythical GHE.
Swenson,
“Any photons of sufficient energy will suffice. You have been listening to too many “lies for children”.
Sorry old chap.
Don’t peddle this bullshit around here.
Molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only specific energy photons are allowed to excite molecular vibration states.
And molecules only emit radiation of certain wavelengths when transitions occur between higher and lower molecular vibrations states.
You know not of what you speak, hence your conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect is erroneous.
Swenson at 4:26 PM
Swenson, you boofhead. You are asking questions which are clearly and explicitly answered in the high school video I posted.
The video has had 55 new views since I posted. I’d say my contribution to this discussion has been very fruitful!
Here’s the link once again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI&t=12s. Pay attention this time around.
maguff…”Watch this high school level video from 60 years ago. The only change since it was made is in the quality of the animations”.
****
It’s hard to conceive of anyone being as stupid as you. All through the video they show the vibrations occurring internally to the molecule between atomic nucleii and the electrons that bond them.
For the water molecule, they show the oxygen nucleus with two hydrogen nucleii bonded to it by electrons. The bending and symmetric/asymmetric stretching of the bonds clearly show the electron bonds bending and stretching.
What did you possibly think was bending and stretching?
What did you expect them to call those structures for the water molecule, the CO2 molecule, and the methane molecule? The reason they are called molecules is partly so you can differentiate one combination of electrons/nucleii from another.
The reference to molecular vibrations is to the entire combination of electrons/nucleii making up the molecule.
Gordon Robertson at 2:23 AM
I’ve lost count of the number of times you’ve called me stupid, just this month, yet you are the one who does not know the difference between Molecular Vibration and Atomic Excitation. Shall I draw you the Venn Diagram of the two processes?
You diminish yourself more with each post.
norman…”I have tried many times and offered videos to demonstrate molecular vibration. I even quoted Linus Pauling on the issue but nothing works with Gordon”.
***
It would help if you had the least inkling of what you are talking about. I have studied the molecular shapes developed by Pauling in the 1930s and all of them are made up of atomic nucleii bonded by covalent bonds or the electrostatic bonds that create ionic bonds.
Why is it so hard for you to get this? There is no such thing as a molecule in reality, it is a term invented by humans to name different combinations of electrons and atomic nucleii.
I should not just claim atomic nucleii, since many atoms making up molecules have a full complement of electron orbital levels. It’s really only in hydrogen, with a proton in its nucleus and one electron, that a bare nucleus is involved. It is only outer, or valence electron shells that share electrons for covalent bonds.
This is all basic electronics and electrical theory Normie. It is also basic quantum theory since electronics is built on quantum theory. You need this theory to understand how and why electrons move through a conductor or a semiconductor.
If you have a molecule like CO2, the oxygen atom has 8 electrons arranged in different orbital energy levels. It has two electrons in the inner shell and 6 in the outer shell. Only the outside shell shares electron for a covalent bond.
Note…this is a very simplified way of looking at it. There are shells and sub-shells, etc. Electron spin comes into it here.
The carbon atom has 6 electrons: 2 in the inner shell and 4 in the outer shell.
Note that inert elements like helium, neon and argon have full shells and don’t combine easily with other elements. Only two electrons are allowed in the inner shell and helium has two electrons. Only 8 electrons are allowed in the next shell and neon, with 10 electrons has 2 in the inner shell and 8 in the next shell. Therefore it has a full complement of electrons and resists forming a molecule.
Oxygen donates 2 of its electrons to carbon to fill it outer shell and 2 more to the other oxygen molecule.
Here’s the Lewis structure taught in chemistry to describe that.
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/genchem2/B3/1.html
Note that I have shown the electron bonds with dashed lines and they have used solid lines.
The aim of an atom is to fill its full complement of electrons in any shell and then it is happy. Since carbon needs 4 electrons to get to that state, when it combines with 2 oxygens, you get one happy camper with CO2.
O=====C=====O
An example of asymmetric vibration:
O==C=======O
Or,
O=======C==O
The longer bonds are stretched and they vibrate harmonical between the two states.
Here’s symmetric vibration:
O==C==O
or,
O=======C=======O
The bonds vibrate between the smaller and the larger configuration.
The oxygens can also vibrate vertically about the normal axis. For example, if
O=====C=====C is lying along the x-axis with C at 0,0, then the Os would move between y = +1 and y = -1.
There you have it Norman, your brief intro to chemistry and quantum theory.
Gordon Robertson
Yes there are molecules. It is when two or more atoms combine with bonding.
You have demonstrated molecular vibration with your images. You can see the atomic nuclei of the oxygen and carbon get closer and farther apart. The frequency of this action is a molecular vibration. The bond acts as a tension force. As the nuclei move away the bond pulls them back together and sets up a vibrational state. If the molecular has a dipole, as it vibrates it will have an electromagnetic change. The charges are moving (plus and minus parts). There is a ground state vibration and no IR is emitted. If an IR is absorbed by the molecule the vibrational energy is increased and it is in a higher vibrational state. When it drops back to the ground vibration it will emit IR at a certain frequency depending upon the molecule involved. It is what IR spectroscopy is all about.
Not sure why you say molecules don’t vibrate. There is no electron transition (which is higher energy) for this type of IR emission. The lower energy dipole is what creates the electromagnetic field..
I think you are closer to understanding molecular vibration than before. If you keep learning about it you will have a better understanding of the emission of IR. Mid IR band IS NOT FROM ELECTRON TRANSITION, only the lower energy molecular vibrational modes.
Gordon,
I see now that you are learning a bit.
Previously you harangued me about this,
“Tell me Bob, how do the atoms vibrate in the molecule? The atomic nucleii are BONDED by electrons and those bonds stretch and bend, both symmetrically and asymmetrically.
Without electrons, there are no bonds and no molecules. The vibration incorrectly being attributed by Wiki to molecules are in fact caused by electron bonds vibrating.”
I see in your post above you have the distance between the C atoms and the O atoms changing as the atoms vibrate.
Like what I said before.
Now study further and learn which infrared wavelengths are able to change the degree of bending or stretching that occurs.
Let’s demonstrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon on the:
Earth’s /Moon’s example
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon.
It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC – its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of Earth’s very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
(Nearth /Nmoon)*(cp.earth /cp.moon) = (29,53/1)*(1/0,19) =155,42
…………………………………..
If Moon had Earth’s albedo (a=0,306), Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K. Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon’s surface.
Let’s compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ”
Oh oh.
That is, according to the so-called ‘non spinner’s, pure heresy.
Like when you show this picture below
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/9ee7d3aa-ec64-42b2-82fd-56204f711fe5/a807ed1cbe0f7e164696182d401e819e/6e4b3ad3-34c3-473c-94ff-2b50994a0641.jpg
to Flatearthists.
It’s not “pure heresy” at all. As far as I’m aware Christos is a “Non-Spinner”, but even if he wasn’t, so what? I don’t have a problem with anyone who thinks the moon rotates on its own axis. I don’t think it’s “pure heresy”, I just disagree with them. I completely understand their position though (in some cases, better than they understand it themselves).
There is no comparison between “Non-Spinners” and Flat-earthists. For “Non-Spinners”, it’s just a simple case of realizing that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTL, and not the MOTR. That’s really all there is to it. For Flat-Earthists, they have to come up with all sorts of crazy explanations in order to justify their beliefs.
“There is no comparison between Non-Spinners and Flat-earthists”
That’s easy. Both are deluded.
Prove that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR. This is not something that can be proven as simply as taking a picture of the Earth from space. That’s the difference. Flat-earthers have to claim all the pictures and videos are fakes. Whereas “Non-Spinners” don’t have to dispute any of the measurements taken of the moon’s so-called axial rotation. We are just aware that those measurements are made on the pre-supposed basis that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR. All the “Spinners” errors follow from that initial mistake.
Actually, flat-earthers i’d say are alot more rational people. Their argument has more merit
OK, coturnix.
“Prove that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the MOTR.”
Because Newton says that it is.
That’s just an appeal to authority. Try again.
Because Newton’s 3 laws says that it does.
Fortunately for humanity pups, nobody will ever reference you as an authority, given your admitted lying.
Huh?
“Because Newton’s 3 laws says that it does.”
That’s just a vague, completely unexplained and unsupported declaration. Try again.
It is not unsupported or wrong. Netwon’3 3 Laws govern motion in all its guises. Be that straight line, orbital or rotational.
You missed the part where you explain how Newton’s Laws automatically lead to “orbital motion without axial rotation” being like the MOTR. Try again.
Because not having a force to cause the revolution about an axis would break at least 1.
No idea what you are trying to say. Try again.
An orbit of one object with another meets the requirements of the 3 laws. Not having a force to create an axial revolution so that one face faces ‘inwards’ breaks at least one.
That’s circular logic, RLH. You have to assume “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR in the first place in order to suggest that a force would be required to make one side of the object always face inwards whilst orbiting. You then claim that since there is no such force, this proves that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR!
“Newton’s First Law of Motion (Law of Inertia)”
As any rotation wrt the fixed stars will have some inertia wrt to that and there is day and night on the Moon there MUST be some rotation and hence some inertia of the Moon.
…but not on its own axis.
… as observed from the moon as DREMT has agreed with Clint R.
What I agreed with Clint R is that the moon shows the same face to observers on the inside of the orbit and different faces to observers on the outside of the orbit, that’s all (and that is of course obvious, and goes without saying really). It does so because it is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.
… as observed from the moon as DREMT has agreed with Clint R comment, won’t work putting DREMT words in for Clint R’s words.
Unsurprisingly, Clint R agrees with me, and not you, Ball4.
Incorrect, read Clint R’s comment again and try harder to understand Clint’s words and not DREMT’s which are different.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
The Moon has 2 moments of inertia corresponding to its 2 movements. One is for its orbit and one for its axial rotation.
Newton requires both to be recognized. Both are easily visible from the Sun.
We’re saying exactly the same thing, moron.
RLH is back to declarations again.
Glad DREMT agrees now with RLH too along with Clint R.
Glad Ball4 is losing his mind.
Grow up DREMT & re-read Clint’s comment to learn where Clint disagrees with DREMT.
…Ball4 said, childishly.
” For Flat-Earthists, they have to come up with all sorts of crazy explanations in order to justify their beliefs. ”
But… that is exactly what you ‘Non-Spinners’ are doing all the time with
– your desperately trivial and useless explanations a la ball-on-a-string, merry-go-round, MOTL vs. MOTR, Tesla’s quick shot, etc etc etc
and, even worse,
– your incredibly superficial and ignorant discrediting and denigrating ‘thoughts’ concerning real science coming from Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all those who continued their work.
There is no difference at all between ‘Non-Spinners’ and Flat-earthists.
Sorry it went over your head.
Very certainly it didn’t.
What went over your head since the beginning of this discussion is the problem’s degree of complexity you permanently (need to) ignore.
Fortunately, people like you and Robertson, Clint R, bill hunter etc. have never been, are and will never be responsible for planning Moon descent and ascent processes that involve human-endangering aspects.
Sorry for your argument loss, Bindidon.
With a ‘loss’ of that kind I definitely can live.
Good, glad you admit that you lost.
Huh?
I said, “huh?” because Swanson falsely accused me of lying, and I have no idea what he’s talking about.
I said “huh?” because Kiddo is obviously wrong and he’s still babbling.
Wrong about what?
Everything.
Well this current discussion is about whether “Non-Spinners” can really be compared to Flat Earthers. I’m definitely not wrong about that. They can’t. It’s just childish rhetoric to make the comparison in the first place.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Both Flat Earthers and Dragon Cranks have no foot into the scientific establishment.
Mission accomplished!
More childish rhetoric.
“More childish rhetoric.”
Sums you up quite well.
Grow up, RLH.
Huh?
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Grow up, DREMT.
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#3 (happy to go up to 100 million, that I will have the last word is certain, and all you will be doing is wasting your time).
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3 DREMT please stop trolling.
#4 (OK then, waste your own time as you wish)
RLH, please stop trolling.
#4 DREMT please stop trolling.
#5
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#6
RLH, please stop trolling.
” Good, glad you admit that you lost. ”
I overlooked that lie.
I didn’t admit anything.
You are as usual trying to distort and pervert what other people wrote.
You can’t admit to be wrong with the simple-minded, useless pseudo-theories you oppose to the work of scientists.
You claim they were all wrong, but like your friends-in-denial, you are not able to scientifically contradict them.
You all would never be able to prove that all those who computed Moon’s rotation period were wrong.
“You are as usual trying to distort and pervert what other people wrote.”
Another false accusation. I do not distort what other people write. You wrote that you could live with a loss of that kind. What else am I supposed to take from it than you admit you’ve lost? I guess I could have assumed you were joking, but I chose to take your words seriously in order to make my own point. You have lost the debate, after all, which was about whether you can compare Non-Spinners to Flat-Earthers. You cannot, it is a ridiculous comparison.
The scientific contradiction is that those who have supposedly measured the moon’s axial rotation are assuming that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. You won’t accept that as being the truth because it is so simple and straightforward, but it is the truth. If you assume that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR then of course you can measure what you are then by extension assuming is the moon’s axial rotation. However, if it as per the MOTL, then you have not measured axial rotation, you have measured orbital motion and mistaken it for axial rotation.
#n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
“However, if it as per the MOTL”
It isn’t so it isn’t.
#7
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#8
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
#9
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
#10
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2n DREMT please stop trolling.
MENSA was planning to put an ad here, but they just cancelled…
#11
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#12
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#13
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
#14
RLH, please stop trolling.
#2n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
#15
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3n DREMT please stop trolling.
#16
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#17
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#18
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
#19
RLH, please stop trolling.
#3n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
#20
RLH, please stop trolling.
#4n DREMT please stop trolling.
#21
RLH, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please comment the The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Lets compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon, you commented about Moon’s rotational spin above…
Now, would you please comment on the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Stop boring people with your stuff and post it where you face real contradictions (of course I don’t mean WUWT, let alone Climate Etc).
“Now, would you please comment on the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon? ”
Curve fitting.
You have no experimental evidence of a cause and effect relationship.
EM,
Climate crackpots know all about curve fitting, don’t they?
No experimental evidence to support the contention that adding CO2 to the air makes it hotter.
All speculation and delusion.
Bindidon, you commented about Moons rotational spin above
Stop boring people with your stuff and post it where you face real contradictions…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
I want Bindi to use his great mental powers and comment on this posting from Ron Clutz’s blog on the linear relationship shown in the graph. Hmm, Bindi? Please explain?
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Thank you Stephen!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
anderson
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1087791
Manifestly, you weren’t even able to understand that Clutz did nothing else than to refer to Vournas’ contribution at Curry’s blog.
Never heard about ‘circular reasoning’, Anderson?
Didn’t think so.
stephen p anderson
The problem with Vournas is that the satellite measured temperature of Earth is NOT 288 K. That is what the surface is measured out by various thermometers spread around the globe and using statistical analysis from this data to come up with a mean temperature for the surface.
The satellite measured brightness temperature of the Earth is only 255 K. I have given you links of data that clearly shows this is the case. Not sure where Christos gets a 288 K temperature from satellites. Not sure why you think that is a correct temperature.
Norman,
So there’s no AIRS measurement of the Earth’s surface comparing it to GISTEMP? Which you guys claimed is a close correlation? Which is approximately Tmeansurface of 15C? Is that what you’re saying?
Norman,
Also, you’ll need to show me the satellite brightness temperature record of $255K?
Troglodyte,
If I select “there’s no AIRS measurement of the Earth’s surface comparing it to GISTEMP,” right-click, and search, I get this:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature
Is that what you’re looking for?
Ta.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Added confidence to its estimate of long term warming? You believe that “adding confidence to an estimate” is science?
Just more climate claptrap.
By the way, satellites don’t measure the temperature “right at the Earth’s surface”. Most of the Earth’s surface cannot be seen from space. About 70 percent is covered by ocean, and most of the rest is covered from view by nature or man.
More lies told to children, and eagerly slurped up by climate crackpots like yourself.
Of course some thermometers show increasing temperatures over the last century or so. How could they not, given massively increasing population, and massive increases in per capita energy generation which results in complete conversion to LWIR, which flees into space – never to be seen again.
I won’t ask you to “think”. That particular form of mental exercise is beyond your ability.
stephen p anderson
Here is a link I shared with Chic Bowdrie (above).
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
You can look at different figures by clicking on the side arrows. If you go to figure 4 you will see a compilation (from the data) of the outgoing longwave IR emitted from Earth as seen from space. The graph has around 238 W/m^2. A brightness temperature is what temperature a blackbody would be at that would emit IR at this rate.
238 W/m^2 converts to 254.5 K
Satellites do not actually measure the Surface temperature. They calculate it by measuring the IR that passes through the atmosphere window (a part of the total longwave emission…the link above gives the actual amount of IR leaving the Earth as seen from satellite which is around 238 W/m^2.
Here is one that explains how they get Surface temperature from satellite data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Mike Flynn,
Marvelous Ferociousness,
You say-
“satellites don’t measure the temperature “right at the Earth’s surface”
Here’s what was written-
“GISTEMP is a widely used index of global mean surface temperature anomaly – it shows how much warmer or cooler than normal Earth’s surface is in a given year.”
Is it an attention problem that you have, or is it because you don’t know what “GISTEMP” stands for?
Cheers.
Silly Billy Willy,
Don’t you read what you post?
You quoted –
“AIRS uses infrared sensing to measure the temperature right at the Earth’s surface (or “skin temperature”) from space.”
Maybe you could concentrate on what you quoted, rather than something you didn’t.
Miracles might still occur, I suppose.
Norman,
It only converts if you assume a 33K GHE. I say it doesn’t.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Do you really think that when the newsie talks about the “skin temperature” it is referring to the temperature of the outermost surface of your body?
Don’t be an idiot, or at least try!
Ha!
stephen p anderson
I am not sure what conclusion you are making with your statement.
YOU: “It only converts if you assume a 33K GHE. I say it doesn’t.”
Not sure what that has to do with a measured average outgoing longwave radiation of around 238 W/m^2. The outgoing radiation gives a brightness temperature of 255 K. It would not matter what the Earth surface temperature was, that is why I do not understand what point you are making.
Can you elaborate.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You quoted –
” . . . to measure the temperature right at the Earths surface (or “skin temperature” from space.”
I pointed out that this is incorrect, and why.
As usual, you agree, but then fly off at an irrelevant tangent.
You response “Do you really think that when the newsie talks about the skin temperature it is referring to the temperature of the outermost surface of your body?”
I haven’t given any thought to what newsies talk about. On the other hand, if a supposedly scientific refers to “. . . measure the temperature right at the Earths surface (or “skin temperature) . . .”, I assume they mean the temperature right at the surface (or “skin” temperature.
If you don’t accept that an organisation means what it puts in writing, good for you. Maybe you are a climate crackpot, where cooling means heating, climate is not the statistics of past weather events, and Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate.
Think before you quote obvious nonsense.
Mike Flynn,
Mysteriously Fanatic,
You say-
“As usual, you agree”
No, I definitely don’t!
You know why?
Because in contrast to you, I know what satellites are measuring!
That you ignore that while trolling this site for almost a decade is quite an accomplishment.
Congratulations!
Wandering Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“AIRS uses infrared sensing to measure the temperature right at the Earth’s surface (or skin temperature) from space.
You don’t agree, all of a sudden? The temperature right at the surface is not the skin temperature after all?
You may well know what satellites are measuring – do you agree with what you quoted or not?
Maybe you need to try to change the subject completely. So what are the satellites measuring?
You can’t really say, can you? Temperature of the ice on Antarctica, or the
surface below? Temperature of sea ice surface, temperature of the warmer water beneath, or the colder surface at the bottom – the real skin of the Earth?
You really need to sort those idiot researchers out, and set them straight don’t you?
Go to it.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
“You don’t agree, all of a sudden?”
I never agreed with you!
You said stuff, and that’s about it.
As usual.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken, Gordon Robertson
May I express my admiration for your willingness to risk your lives for your anti-vaxxer principles.(/sarcoff)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59757395
BBC quoting Biden on anything related to COVID is simply yet another reason to not bother viewing any content produced by them.
Why blame the BBC?
The report is based on CD*C data.
https://covid.cd*c.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
( Remove * before using)
All the people posting here about viruses & vaccines, telling us ad nauseam that the former ones do not exist and the latter ones are part of a worldwide conspiration against freedom, are fully vaccinated, since at least as long as are Trump & family.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-covid-surge-shows-overwhelming-cost-of-being-unvaccinated-america/
Ken, this is one of many stories in many places stating that hospitals are overwhelmed, nurses are fed up, quitting, and that the Covid patients are overwhelminly the unvaccinated.
My teacher wife goes as far as saying that if you choose to be unvaccinated, then go tovthe back of the line to get admitted to a hospital. Your choice.
nate…”…and that the Covid patients are overwhelminly the unvaccinated”.
***
That is rapidly changing Nate, old boy. Here in British Columbia, Canada, for the week of Dec 11 – 19, 70% of the cases were fully vaccinated people. In the state of Massachusetts, in the US, over 80,000 fully vaccinated people have tested positive.
The US CD-C reported in May 2021, that over 10,000 fully vaccinated people had tested positive and were becoming infected. They call that a ‘breakthrough’ infection for some unknown reason. Here’s the rub. They have stopped counting any breakthrough infections that are mild, so there could be 100,000 or more by now in the US alone, maybe a million or more.
Combine the stats from Massachusetts, a relatively small sate, with the data released by the CD-C and a pretty ominous scenario unfolds.
That’s just the number reported and we have no idea whatsoever how many cases there are with fully vaccinated people. We are not likely to get the full number either as medical authorities rush into damage control.
The FDA wants a 55 year moratorium for releasing covid vaccine data. Why??? If the news was good, they’d be rushing the data out as fast as they could.
C’mon, Gordo.
You can’t even get your talking points straight. It’s about “the data it relied upon in licensing Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine.” Besides:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/
Try to convince your fellow troglodytes that intellectual property does not exist!
Think.
wilard…you are naive enough to believe that tommy-rot from the FDA. Reminds me of the excuses provided by Phil Jones at Had-crut when asked by Steve McIntyre to release his data for independent analysis.
Among the excuses:
-my cat ate the data.
-my mother burned it accidentally to start a fire in the fireplace.
-my data is a mess.
-it’s not my data.
When Mac approached the UK government with an FOI request for the data, the government replied, “sorry, we’re preparing for an election”. Meantime, Jones was furiously sending emails to his cronies urging them not to cooperate with McIntyre. The record is in the Climategate emails.
Say, can I sell you a suspension bridge that crosses from Vancouver to the North Shore? Going cheap, and you have your choice of a suspension bridge or one with normal supports. Hurry, they are thinking of building a tunnel.
Gordo,
C’mon. It’s already quite clear that you’re a pathological liar. So my communication objectives need to be modest.
First, you need to acknowledge that the “FDA data” is only for the Pfizer case.
Second, you need to acknowledge that there are FOIA laws for a reason.
I’m not even sure why I’m asking you to think.
It’s obviously above your pension plan.
What I was clearly talking about was patients IN HOSPITALS, Gordon. .
binny…”All the people posting here about viruses & vaccines, telling us ad nauseam that the former ones do not exist and the latter ones are part of a worldwide conspiration against freedom, are fully vaccinated…”
***
To what justification do you attribute this propaganda? I am not vaccinated.
I spoke to a friend recently who has two sons, one vaccinated and the other not. The unvaccinated one is adamant about not getting the vaccine and my friend is upset because he is being ostracized. His brother doesn’t care if he visits it’s his wife who objects.
So, this vaccination nonsense is dividing families and for no good reason. If an unvaccinated person has no symptoms of covid, as defined by the CD-C, there is no way that person can infect anyone.
BTW, the symptoms are fever, cough, and chest pain/discomfort.
> If an unvaccinated person has no symptoms of covid, as defined by the CD-C, there is no way that person can infect anyone.
Good grief, Gordo:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21259871v1
Please stick to inconsequential stuff.
willard…your propaganda, issued as an inaccurate assessment of what the CD-C actually said, indicates an utter inability on your part to read scientific data. Nowhere in the blurb you quoted does it claim asymptomatic people can spread infection.
You are an intelligent imbecile, Willard, but lacking the intelligence of a moron.
C’mon, Gordo.
Which part of “Asymptomatic” you do not get?
Robertson
” To what justification do you attribute this propaganda? I am not vaccinated. ”
No one – I repeat: NO ONE – believes you here, except your few friends-in-denial.
–Entropic man says:
December 12, 2021 at 1:11 PM
Gbaikie
As a rule of thumb clouds made of water droplets reflect more sunlight than IR and have a net cooling effect on the surface.–
Similar is Venus clouds reflect even more sunlight than Earth clouds, but Venus clouds cause Venus surface to be hot.
If Earth was at Venus distance, Earth would have more clouds. And more importantly would have higher clouds. Though not clouds +50 km high in elevation, as Earth doesn’t have as much atmosphere as Venus.
If Venus was at Earth distance, Venus clouds would be lower, and they would absorb, far less sunlight.
So, Venus gets colder than Earth.
Where is this strange Coolista nicknamed ‘Eben’ ?
A good week ago, he told us about one poor single day with zero sun spots…
https://i.postimg.cc/NG4vjysd/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.jpg
2021 12 09 2021.938 0 0.0 15 16
Now look at what he keeps pretty silent about:
2021 12 10 2021.941 0 0.0 19 21
2021 12 11 2021.944 0 0.0 21 23
2021 12 12 2021.947 12 3.0 15 20
2021 12 13 2021.949 22 8.2 14 20
2021 12 14 2021.952 45 7.5 19 22
2021 12 15 2021.955 79 9.4 17 22
2021 12 16 2021.958 102 11.9 20 26
2021 12 17 2021.960 105 8.9 17 24
2021 12 18 2021.963 98 14.8 13 16
2021 12 19 2021.966 114 20.2 14 17
2021 12 20 2021.968 119 12.2 19 26
2021 12 21 2021.971 128 11.0 24 29
2021 12 22 2021.974 147 10.5 18 22
*
Maybe Coolistas like Eben are humble shareholders in the shale gas industry, additionally being paid by Heartland and GWPF – who knows.
” By the way, satellites dont measure the temperature right at the Earths surface. Most of the Earths surface cannot be seen from space. About 70 percent is covered by ocean, and most of the rest is covered from view by nature or man. ”
This is probably the dumbest comment I have ever read on this blog.
And I have read many incredibly dumb comments here before that one.
Binnydong,
Have you been reading your comments again?
Maybe you could support your opinion by quoting some facts to support you.
I doubt it. Facts are not the climate crank’s friend.
Best you go back to playing with your pencil.
binny…”This is probably the dumbest comment I have ever read on this blog”.
***
That’s likely because you don’t read your own posts or those of fellow alarmists.
The poster is making a valid point, the oceans are not normally considered part of the surface and the part of the surface they occupy is not exposed for temperature measurement.
Roy has explained why temperatures are not recorded right to the surface, it has something to do with artefacts introduced into the data. Nevertheless, the band in which the data is extracted for the data can be easily extrapolated to the surface and it has been verified with readiosonde data.
> The poster is making a valid point
C’mon, Gordo.
No, Mike Flynn rather makes an idiotic point.
When researchers say that satellites measure (or rather estimate) skin temperature, what do you think is the skin?
No, it’s not the ground.
Think.
You have one chance.
Whacky Wee Willy,
According to your researchers the skin temperature is the temperature right at the surface.
What part of that do you not understand? Or do you just disagree with the researchers?
Seems clear to me.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
However you may chortle, LSTs are still a thing:
https://pages.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/mildrexler_BAMS11_HottestSpot.pdf
Sorry, not sorry!
Whining Wee Willy,
You don’t want to accept reality, do you?
Off on another tangent, just as silly as the first. You still have the problem that ” . . . the top of the land surface . . .” you quoted Is demonstrably not the top of the land surface.
Open your eyes and look around you. Look down between your feet if you are too tired to lift your head. How much “top of the land surface” do you see?
Vegetation is not the top of the land surface. Buildings are not the top of the land surface. Lakes, rivers, ice-caps, glaciers, ditto.
Climate crackpot claims of “surface temperature” measurements are wishful thinking. Just as delusional as sea level measurements to thickness of a human hair, or even believing that a global average temperature can be measured.
A right pack of deluded nutters.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
So, now that you have read that paper-
Can you tell us where’s the hottest place on Earth?
No, I predict you’ll keep to your old memes.
Never change, silly sock puppet!
Whickering Wee Willy,
What are you blathering about?
You quoted some delusional researchers. You find out you’ll look a fool if you agree with their silliness. You’ll also look like a fool if you don’t agree with the authority you appealed to.
That’s because you’re a fool.
Try actually reading what you post – preferably before you post it – if you wish to avoid looking so stupid. It will also avoid all the ducking and weaving diversionary tactics you employ after being caught out.
Now try telling me you believe that anybody has measured a global surface temperature!
Ho ho ho!
Mike Flynn,
Mediocre Fool,
The hottest spot on Earth is the Lut Desert.
After Roy’s, where you warm everyone with your jovial senility!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”Ken, Gordon Robertson
May I express my admiration for your willingness to risk your lives for your anti-vaxxer principles.(/sarcoff)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59757395”
***
Utter propaganda from a shameless proponent of propaganda. the BBC has become little better than the National Enquirer in the US and other Brit rags like News of the World, which was shut down in 2011 due to scandal.
The CD-C are consummate liars. The graph provided by the BBC from the CD-C is plain bs. It’s an example of how statistics can be manipulated to push a paradigm while forcing people to get vaccinated.
In the first graph, the CD-C ‘INFER’ that 14 deaths per 100,000 involved unvaccinated people while only 1 vaccinated person dies per 100,000. The spread is too narrow to rule out error and bias. Also, note that the data comes from 25 ‘participating’ health departments. In other words, health departments that butt-kiss the CD-C.
This graph does not reveal information on cause of death, age group, or any other dynamic. It does no indicate what health factors the unvaccinated faced, it is nothing more than simple bean-counting. In another graphic we see the numbers increase dramatically for the 80+ age group.
Well…duh!!! Yes, people over 80 begin dying naturally and of age-related causes. So, how many in the first graph representing the unvaccinated came from the 80+ category?
Note here again that the data represents 25 US jurisdictions between April and October 2021, hardly a valid representation of the entire country. The CD-C is good for one thing, cherry-picking data to further their lies.
How many of them died due to the vaccination at a stage where a death is not recorded as ‘vaccinated’? A person is not categorized as vaccinated till a few weeks after the 2nd dose. Maybe some of them received the first dose and died from the vaccine.
More recent data is telling a far different story. As I indicated in another post, here in BC, Canada, 70% of cases between Dec 11 – 19 in 2021 were fully vaccinated people.
The CD-C did the same when they misreported AIDS deaths. In the 1990s, AIDS deaths were decreasing naturally till the HAART antivirals were introduced. As they were introduced, AIDS deaths began to climb again and obviously the HAART antiviral were causing AIDS opportunistic infections, a situation now labeled as IRS. The CD-C hid that increase by removing IRS AIDS deaths from the general AIDS death category and creating another category related to IRS.
Our local health leader had admitted the vaccine passport was designed to ‘nudge’ the unvaccinated to get vaccinated. Yet, she can provide no scientific evidence to support her claim that the vaccines are effective. She relies on the word of Pfizer, who has been fined 5 billion dollars for lying about their products.
> In the 1990s, AIDS deaths were decreasing naturally till the HAART antivirals were introduced.
That won’t work, Gordo:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15807715/
Why do you keep lying?
willard…why are you such a gullible idiot? An HIV infection is not AIDS. The 560 deaths were not about HIV infections, they were about people from two major high risk group who had developed AIDS due to their lifestyles.
People don’t die from HIV, they die from AIDS, a collection of about 30 different opportunistic infections related to lifestyle.
Luc Montagnier, a world authority on HIV/AIDS, who is credited with discovering HIV, now claims HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is caused by lifestyle. He added that HIV can only infect someone whose immune system is already compromised and that healthy immune systems will reject it.
Inform yourself before your stupidity and ignorance cost you dearly.
C’mon, Gordo, this is getting embarrassing:
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/11/28/the-nobel-disease-strikes-again-luc-montagnier-goes-full-antivax-with-a-little-help-from-henri-joyeux/
I suspect the only reason you have yet to cite Ignarro is that you ignore who he is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only specific energy photons are allowed to excite molecular vibration states.
And molecules only emit radiation of certain wavelengths when transitions occur between higher and lower molecular vibrations states.”
More lies for children. bob is trying to show that a GHE exists by paraphrasing irrelevant and misleading Wikipedia misinformation.
To make things very simple, CO2 at absolute zero vibrates. Counter intuitive, but true. However, it is not emitting any photons at all. Nor is it absorbing any – there are none to absorb by definition.
According to bob, the CO2 will not interact with any photons which do not have specific energies, and presumably remain at absolute zero even while surrounded by an environment of say, 5 K. And now bob will start saying he really meant something else, like any climate crackpot does, after making a completely bizarre attempt to appear clever.
Now, bob can demonstrate his grasp of physics, by cutting and pasting the reasons that CO2 molecules do not need to interact with photons of specific energy to maintain harmonic vibration in the absence of any external energy source at all.
Go for it, bob. Shoot yourself down in flames without any input from me.
[chortles]
Swenson,
Stupid fool, I wasn’t giving you anything from wikipedia, it was textbook Quantum Mechanics.
That is still the case even for solid CO2, but solid CO2 can act as a blackbody, so there are other possible ways solids can absorb radiation that do not involve the molecular vibrational states.
But then, we were trying to discuss the greenhouse effect, which involves CO2 as a gas, not a solid.
So you want to try and cut and paste something that says the following is wrong?
Molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only specific energy photons are allowed to excite molecular vibration states.
If you got it post it.
But you don’t, because it is true.
And it does not just apply to CO2, it works for all molecules.
You can keep digging your own hole, but I suggest you stop.
bob d…”Molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only specific energy photons are allowed to excite molecular vibration states”.
***
No, Bob, electron energy levels are quantized and the EM quanta absorbed by electrons depends on the intensity of the quanta and their frequency.
The only particle in a molecule capable of absorbing or emitting EM is the electron. Quantum theory is a relationship between electrons and the protons in the nuclei about which they allegedly orbit. When Bohr established quantum theory for an atom, he based the theory on hydrogen. He was prompted to investigate why hydrogen only absorbs and emits EM at discrete frequencies.
The only valid explanation for hydrogen emitting and absorbing at discrete frequencies is the action of electrons jumping between specific orbital energy levels. There is nothing in a molecule per se that explains such an action or any vibration or rotation.
Gordon,
Molecular orbitals are like what you call electron energy levels, but it would be clearer if you called them atomic orbitals, like everyone who has passed a course in Quantum Mechanics, which you obviously have not.
To be clear, it is electrons that are occupying the molecular orbitals, not molecules orbiting, where you got that idea baffles me.
The molecular vibrations of the gaseous CO2 molecule is where the greenhouse effect lies, so of course you deny that molecules actually vibrate.
But you are wrong, molecules definitely vibrate.
“The bonds vibrate between the smaller and the larger configuration.”
Or did you change your mind since yesterday when you said bonds vibrate.
bob,
You seem to have a fixation on orbital energy levels, which happen to be totally and absolutely irrelevant, in the context of CO2 and temperature.
Solid CO2 is not a black body by your definition – you stated it does not interact with photons except of specific energy levels. I pointed out that this is nonsense, and you haven’t disagreed yet. Here’s the Wikipedia definition of a 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. … 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.”
Your claim that CO2 can act as a black body is nonsensical by your own words.
As to gaseous CO2, maybe you should learn what is required to raise an electron to a higher energy level. What temperature do you think might be required to cause an electron orbiting a carbon atom to occupy a higher level? Why would it stay there? And so on.
You wrote –
“Molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only specific energy photons are allowed to excite molecular vibration states.”
Unfortunately, neither you nor your source understand that an electron can absorb part of a photon’s energy in one form, and exhibit the remainder as emission of a photon of lower energy, or transform some of the received photons momentum into a velocity change – for a gas, increased average velocity in a fixed volume will be perceived and measured as a temperature increase.
Generally, what you are talking about is relevant to spectroscopy, not any mythical GHE.
What is the point of posting something you won’t believe anyway?
Classical mechanics will lead you astray at the quantum level. For example, a photon has no rest mass, exhibits relativistic behaviour. and travels one speed – the speed of light, obviously. This speed is independent of any frame of reference, much to the this dismay of some.
So try and convince people that an undefinable GHE exists. You can’t even define this mythical beast, can you?
Swenson you boofhead. Think!
Swenson you boofhead. Think! Again.
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.
Swenson,
There is so much you don’t understand, where to begin?
“Solid CO2 is not a black body by your definition you stated it does not interact with photons except of specific energy levels. ”
I said exactly the opposite, solid CO2 can act as a blackbody.
“Unfortunately, neither you nor your source understand that an electron can absorb part of a photons energy in one form, and exhibit the remainder as emission of a photon of lower energy, or transform some of the received photons momentum into a velocity change for a gas, increased average velocity in a fixed volume will be perceived and measured as a temperature increase.”
Obviously you haven’t read my source, what you describe is Compton Scattering, and it’s the reason the sky is blue. That subject is in my source.
Still you haven’t posted anything that debunks my statement that all molecular orbital energy levels are quantized and only absorb light of specific wavelengths.
That’s an observation of where the greenhouse effect is, so that’s why you rail so hard against it.
But it’s ineffectual, you can deny it, but you can’t prove it wrong.
Sorry old chap, the greenhouse effect is real.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
norman…”Satellites do not actually measure the Surface temperature. They calculate it by measuring the IR that passes through the atmosphere window …”
***
More lies and innuendo from Wiki, misquoted by Norman. In the article, they admit the sats like those used by UAH measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules, not IR. The wiki article manages to thoroughly confuse two very different methods of measuring radiation.
The NOAA sats used by UAH measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules where the frequency of the EM is proportional to the temperature of the O2 molecule. The receiver on the sats uses techniques for separating the various microwave frequencies received into frequency bands that are called weighting functions.
Basically, each channel (frequency band) is tuned to a centre frequency and the frequency curve for each channel is shaped somewhat like a Bell curve. The centre frequency will be typical of radiation from a certain altitude and frequencies either side will indicate temperatures at lower altitudes in that frequency band.
The band used for surface temperatures can measure from 4 km down to the surface. That does not mean the band measures right to the surface, since as Roy has pointed out, there are artefacts near the surface in the data. However, the relationship of altitude to temperature is so linear that extrapolating to the surface seems logical.
If the relationship was not linear, the lapse rate would make no sense near the surface.
Gordo the electrical engineer(?) is completely ignorant of the physics of the MSU/AMSU instruments measurements and what they represent. Each channel measures the intensity of IR radiation received at a specific frequency. That intensity is said to be proportional to the black body temperature within a altitude weighted range of the atmosphere with a different range for each channel. The so called “weighting function” for each channel looks like a Bell Curve when plotted against the vertical axis and is an entirely theoretical result of a model of the emission and absorp-tion from the ground up to the receiving antenna.
Sorry, Gordo, you’ve goofed again.
I fully expect that there will soon be calls to burn unvaccinated people at the stake.
Hey, it worked during the black plague.
Up next: climate skeptics will be hung from the nearest bridge.
Heinlein was uncannily correct in predicting the ‘crazy years’.
ken…”I fully expect that there will soon be calls to burn unvaccinated people at the stake”.
***
At one time I would have laughed off such a comment but it is beginning to appear there is truth in it. Did you read my post in which I indicated the stats in BC for the week of Dec 11 – 19. Fully vaccinated people made up 70% of new cases.
In his interview which I will post again, clinical psychologist, Matthias Desmet goes deeply into the theory behind totalitarian states. He explains the difference between a totalitarian state and a dictator ship. In the former, the majority of people go along with the leadership and a full 30% are unreachable. In a dictatorship, people fear the leaders and go along out of fear.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/mattias-desmet-on-mass-formation/
We are definitely in a totalitarian state here in Canada, temporary or otherwise. My fear is that once established, the power they have tasted will empower the governments at different levels to enact undemocratic legislation for global warming, etc.
The situation in Quebec is approaching the level of Nazism in Germany pre WWII.
At the very least, those who are not vaccinated should be at the back of the queue for treatment. Your choice, your outcomes. You can’t have it both ways.
So you be happy with unvaccinated paying lower taxes and lower insurance fees for the lower service levels you are suggesting?
We’ve had this argument before about smokers and other unhealthy lifestyles.
If you choose to not be vaccinated why should you have an equal level of treatment?
Same reason as a smoker or an obese person or other unhealthy lifestyle choices should get equal level of treatment.
Further, here in Canuckstan, my taxes go to pay for the health care. Equal tax means equal level of treatment.
I didn’t ask my government to fund research at Wuhan Lab. The government did that on its own do-gooder-stupid initiative.
Smokers at least pay a tax on their choices. Here in the UK it is quite a bit.
There is no reason why the unvaccinated should receive treatment ahead of those who have been vaccinated.
“I didnt ask my government to fund research at Wuhan Lab.”
And the problem with that is what?
The point of that was to try to understand how and where these diseases, like SARS before, have gotten into humans, and to try to stop them early.
A worthwhile cause.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive brain-altering substances.
Most smokers got addicted when they were young and dumb, and everybody smoked and it was cool.
My mom started as an army nurse in the Korean war. much later I implored her to quit, but it never happened.
entropic…”Why blame the BBC?”
***
The BBC has a history of propaganda dating back to WWII. It was accepted as kosher back then because they were exaggerating and lying about the effectiveness of Allied forces. Lying became a noble cause.
Over the years, they have lied about unions and the labour movement, siding with the companies over the unions. The BBC had no interest in reporting the news from both sides.
Since global warming propaganda appeared, the BBC has issued only one side of the argument. Now they continue it with covid.
You pass the CD-C off as reliable yet their history is fraught with deceit and outright lies. Their affiliation with pharmaceutical companies open them to conflicts of interest. In the near past, one of their directors was forced to resign and she was immediately employed by a pharmaceutical company.
Norman says:
December 22, 2021 at 1:34 PM
stephen p anderson
The problem with Vournas is that the satellite measured temperature of Earth is NOT 288 K. That is what the surface is measured out by various thermometers spread around the globe and using statistical analysis from this data to come up with a mean temperature for the surface.
The satellite measured brightness temperature of the Earth is only 255 K. I have given you links of data that clearly shows this is the case. Not sure where Christos gets a 288 K temperature from satellites. Not sure why you think that is a correct temperature.
–
As we know, blackbody emission intensity J(W/m²) is proportional to fourth power of its absolute temperature σT⁴
where
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Let’s compare the Te =255K emission intensity with the Tmean =288K emission intensity.
(288 /255)⁴ (1,1294)⁴ = 1,6271
We came up with a number (1,6271) which cannot be attributed to the Earth’s atmosphere GHE on the Earth’s surface!
The above calculation assumes Earth has a uniform surface temperature 288K and the brightness (also uniform) temperature 255K.
According to this calculation Earth’s surface receives an amount of radiative energy
1,6271 – 1 = 0,6271 or plus 62,71% over the actual solar irradiance of 1362W/m²(1-a) = 945W/m²
945W/m²*1,6271 = 1538W/m²
When averaging on the entire surface by dividing by 4
1538W/m² /4 = 384,5 W/m²
Which corresponds to the uniform blackbody temperature 288K emission intensity.
In other words, Earth’s surface has to emit 384,5 W/m² in order to get rid of the incident solar 945W/m²/4 = 236W/m²
or
384,5 W/m²-236W/m² = 148 W/m² more radiative energy.
According to the brightness temperature Te =255K Earth’s atmosphere should “re-radiate” back towards the surface an amount of energy equal to the 62,71% of the incident on the surface primer solar radiative energy.
It is like getting on the planet surface plus 62,71% solar energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Earth would be a lot hotter all over the place. That GHE/SB model just doesn’t work.
Stephen, isn’t it obvious?
If we had perpendicularly oriented towards Sun:
1. A smooth surface disk with radius r.
2. A smooth surface sphere with radius r.
3. A smooth surface cone with base radius r pointing to the sun.
Disk would have absorbed the most solar energy.
Sphere would absorb less than disk.
Cone would absorb less than sphere.
Isn’t it very much obvious?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Isn’t it obvious that you’re trying to find a theorem of geometry?
See:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Willard,
Disk would have absorbed the most solar energy.
Sphere would absorb less than disk.
Cone would absorb less than sphere.
Isn’t it very much obvious?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
If there’s only one Sun in your system, the light that reaches a sphere at every moment falls on a disc. Rudimentary theorem of geometry:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8
Thank you for playing dumb once again!
Willard:
“…the light that reaches a sphere at every moment falls on a disc.”
ME: “Sphere would absorb less than disk.”
Thank you for playing dumb once again!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Sphere would absorb less than disk.
Srsly, Christos.
Take the time to watch this video:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8
You’ll hate yourself when you’ll realize how silly YOU are right now.
Willard, please describe in a few words what it is about so much important this video.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I already told you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1089877
You know what’s the Earth’s shadow, right?
Cristos,
Exactly. The leftists don’t care if it’s obvious. It is about advancing their utopian agenda, not science. They will never agree with you. You disrupt their agenda. It is also intuitively obvious that if GHE were true, we wouldn’t be here. The Creator didn’t create a planet for us to live to be inherently unstable. He built it to be robust. Williard, the little man, is a propagandist. So are Norman, Nate, and all the others. Please keep espousing your math and physics, but they will hate you for it.
Exactly, Trogolodyte.
Geometry is a conspirocy!11!!
Interesting that the people who are the least science literate here are the most certain it is all political.
“The Creator didnt create a planet for us to live to be inherently unstable. He built it to be robust.”
Too long a sentence.
It should have been
“The Creator didnt create a planet for us to, or anything else.”
Earth wasn’t designed for us, or anyone.It was the outcome if a set of initial conditions and a set of rules. It wasn’t planned, it wasn’t designed and wasn’t planned. It certainly wasn’t designed for our benefit, nor were we designed to live on it.
stephen p anderson
You seem to be the opposite of a left-wing fanatic. You are clearly a right-wing fanatic and have lost a lot of reasoning power when you adopted a fanatic viewpoint. Not sure why this is an admirable choice on your part.
You call me a propagandist for linking you to real data. That is a fanatic stance. You claim to have studied advanced Chemistry at some point. What happened to you? You went down the rabbit-hole of right-wing Conspiracies and lies. Why?
I do not hate Christos for his ideas. I just think they are really bad when you use some made up nonsense to get your numbers to work.
You should get off the lying right-wing blogs and go back to a scientific mind frame. Seeking evidence. Not coming up with Conspiracy theories to justify every lunatic idea. Science is based upon evidence and data go back to this state. Fewer fanatics and more scientists are desired to navigate the Climate Change material.
” Disk would have absorbed the most solar energy.
Sphere would absorb less than disk. ”
Wrong.
A disk and a sphere of equal radius absorb exactly the same solar radiation. Simply because
– the sphere’s lit surface is 2 * pi * r^2
– the integral of the radiation over the sphere with the incidence angle alpha must be done using cos^2(alpha), giving 0.5 from 0 to pi/2.
Bindidon, please
“…the light that reaches a sphere at every moment falls on a disc.”
“Sphere would absorb less than disk.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Start learning instead of writing your nonsense.
Bindidon
“Vournas
Start learning instead of writing your nonsense.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yep, we’ll add to the list of physics that Christos gets all wrong.
Christos
Put a satellite offset laterally from the L2 point 1.5 million miles beyond the Earth in line with the Earth/sun line. Measure the total radiant energy received from the Sun.
Move the satellite into the L2 point and measure the total radiant energy received with the Earth in the way. The difference gives you the amount t of radiant energy a sorted by the spherical 12000km diameter Earth.
Thought experiment.
Replace the 12000 0km diameter sphere with a 12000 km diameter disc with its axis along the sun/L2 axis.
The satellite will see a drop in radiation due to the disc identical to the drop due to the sphere because they have both intercepted the same amount of energy.
Entropic man
“The satellite will see a drop in radiation due to the disc identical to the drop due to the sphere because they have both intercepted the same amount of energy.”
they have both intercepted the same amount of energy, but a smooth surface sphere reflects more than a smooth surface disk. Thus a smooth surface sphere is left to absorb less solar energy than a smooth surface disk of the same diameter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> but a smooth surface sphere reflects more than a smooth surface disk
Your sphere has a lot more area than its shadow, Christos.
“they have both intercepted the same amount of energy, but a smooth surface sphere reflects more than a smooth surface disk. ”
I don’t see why. If the sphere and the disc have the same albedo they will reflect the same proportion of the total incoming radiation regardless of shape.
Please explain the physics underlying your assertion.
The reflectivity of a surface can depend on the angle of incidence. For example, water or glass are highly reflective at glancing angles, but quite transparent when the light comes straight in. Similar for polished rocks (like kitchen counters). They can absorb well for light shining straight down, but be quite reflective at glancing angles.
This is not really all that important here because:
1) there are very few polished surfaces on natural rocks, nor many mirror-smooth lakes.
2) the Bond albedo is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space. This already takes into account all frequencies at all angles. Hence there is no need to ‘correct’ this value based on the fact that planets are round.
Entropic man
“If the sphere and the disc have the same albedo they will reflect the same proportion of the total incoming radiation regardless of shape.”
Albedo does not “cover” the specular reflection part.
Solar flux falls on the disk surface in perpendicular direction. The specular reflected solar energy goes straight up and can be measured from above as albedo.
When solar flux falling on the convex surface of sphere, the specular reflection cannot be “seen” by the spacecraft sensor, because the specular reflection from sphere does not get reflected towards the spacecrafts sensor direction.
Thus, the spheres albedo cannot represent any measure of the spheres specular reflection.
To have a clear picture of the smooth spheres total amount of reflection we should use the coupled term
Φ(1-a) * S
Phi(1-a) * S
Only then we can have a very correctly estimated the not reflected portion of the incident on planet solar flux*s energy.
That is why the New equation is so much precisely calculates the planets mean surface temperatures.
Of course, there is also the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which has a role to play.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just to be consist, assume all have the same albedo = a = 1-r = (1 – reflectivity). Assume this number is constant for all angles (ie “Lambertian reflectance”.) Call the solar flux Phi (approximately 1360 W/m^2 at earth).
1) All three shapes absorb the same total power (same energy per second).
P = (pi) r^2 Phi
2) The three shapes absorb different power averaged over the total surface. The disk is the highest.
P = Phi / 2 for disk
P = Phi / 4 for sphere
The value could be anywhere between Phi/2 and 0 for the cone, depending on how ‘tall’ the cone is. (specifically P = Phi / (1 + L/r), where L = slant height). The cone’s average power could be higher or lower than the sphere.
Tim,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambertian_reflectance
“Lambertian reflectance is the property that defines an ideal “matte” or diffusely reflecting surface. The apparent brightness of a Lambertian surface to an observer is the same regardless of the observer’s angle of view.[1] More technically, the surface’s luminance is isotropic, and the luminous intensity obeys Lambert’s cosine law. Lambertian reflectance is named after Johann Heinrich Lambert, who introduced the concept of perfect diffusion in his 1760 book Photometria.”
“defines an ideal “matte” or diffusely reflecting surface.”
“More technically, the surface’s luminance is isotropic, and the luminous intensity obeys Lambert’s cosine law.”
The incident on the surface SW solar irradiance is not reflected diffusely.
The surface luminance is not isotropic.
The scattered solar light from a surface has very much a directional orientation, because the light falls on the surface at every spot angular orientation.
Thus, when covering a disk with a smooth hemisphere of the same diameter, as a part of a sphere, the amount of not reflected solar energy will be:
0,47(1-a)S
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Let me repeat what I wrote above.
The Bond albedo [~ 0.31 for earth] is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space. This already takes into account all frequencies at all angles. Hence there is no need to correct this value based on the fact that planets are round. There is no need to compare to a flat disk. The varying reflectivity at different angles is *already included!
The power absorbed *is* (1-a) (pi) r^2 Phi.
Tim
“Christos, Let me repeat what I wrote above.
The Bond albedo [~ 0.31 for earth] is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space. This already takes into account all frequencies at all angles. Hence there is no need to correct this value based on the fact that planets are round. There is no need to compare to a flat disk. The varying reflectivity at different angles is *already included!
The power absorbed *is* (1-a) (pi) r^2 Phi.”
Tim, I know what you are saying, but it is not already included.
NASA spacecrafts are capable of very precisely measuring the planet Albedo Bond, which I always use in my calculations.
“The varying reflectivity at different angles is *already included!”
It is not “already included” for smooth surface planets and moons.
And smooth surface planets and moons usually have a low albedo. And they are looking dark.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim
“The reflectivity of a surface can depend on the angle of incidence. For example, water or glass are highly reflective at glancing angles, but quite transparent when the light comes straight in. Similar for polished rocks (like kitchen counters). They can absorb well for light shining straight down, but be quite reflective at glancing angles.
This is not really all that important here because:
1) there are very few polished surfaces on natural rocks, nor many mirror-smooth lakes.”
Smooth surface planet is not meant as polished on microscopical level surface. There is always glare which can be seen from elevated places. It cannot be seen from space.
I live on the small mountain and I have the everyday view of the sea water glare and of the surrounding the mountain plain land glare.
Actually, in Greece, they used to settle villages on the southern sides of small hills or mountains, so to be protected in winters from the cold North winds, but also to get benefitted from the lands and seas solar glare. The glare provides a supplementary solar radiation on the houses, which is very beneficial at winter.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“NASA spacecrafts are capable of very precisely measuring the planet Albedo Bond, which I always use in my calculations.”
And yet you are saying they are off by a factor of ~ 2. Which is it?
* The bond albedo is correctly measured as 0.31, and the absorbed energy is (1-a) (pi) r^2 Phi.
* the Bond albedo is incorrectly measured as 0.31, and the absorbed energy is only 0.47 (1-a) (pi) r^2 Phi.
“There is always glare which can be seen from elevated places. It cannot be seen from space.”
Then it doesn’t count for Bond Albedo! If the ‘glare’ is reflecting to other parts of the surface, it is not reflecting to space. It is getting absorbed by the surface, but after reflecting once (or twice or three times).
As you yourself note, this energy IS absorbed and helps keep the surface warm. The energy does not ‘disappear’ and only leave 47% as much energy absorbed by the planet.
Tim
““There is always glare which can be seen from elevated places. It cannot be seen from space.”
Then it doesn’t count for Bond Albedo! If the ‘glare’ is reflecting to other parts of the surface, it is not reflecting to space. It is getting absorbed by the surface, but after reflecting once (or twice or three times).
As you yourself note, this energy IS absorbed and helps keep the surface warm. The energy does not ‘disappear’ and only leave 47% as much energy absorbed by the planet.”
Thank you, Tim, for your attention.
It is very much essential the way smooth sphere (smooth surface planet) reflects the incident parallel (almost) solar beams.
On the smooth surface planets the reflected from surface glare (specular reflection) mostly vanishes in the outer space.
The vast ocean has not elevated places to multiply reflect the specular outgoing energy.
Also, the elevated places on Earth’s continents are not high compared to the vast plain areas. There are many hundreds of kilometers of open places around a mountain of some few thousand meters high.
That is why, when covering a disk with a smooth hemisphere of the same diameter, as a part of a sphere, the amount of not reflected solar energy will be:
0,47(1-a)S
And when this part is accomplished (the correct estimation of the not reflected incident solar SW EM energy portion) what is only left there is to apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon to formulate the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“the amount of not reflected solar energy will be:
0,47(1-a)S”
Again, you are saying that NASA and all astronomers simply don’t understand albedo and are off by a factor of 2?
That for 100+ years, no one else considered that planets are spheres and that this shape might affect how they reflect light?
That careful energy balances that use 240 W/m^2 as the absorbed energy should really be using ~ 110 W/M^2.
Doesn’t that strike you as ludicrous? Do you TRULY think you while others are trying to balance energies within a few W/m^s, that you have discovered an error of 100+ W/m^2??
Tim
”
the amount of not reflected solar energy will be:
0,47(1-a)S
Again, you are saying that NASA and all astronomers simply dont understand albedo and are off by a factor of 2?
That for 100+ years, no one else considered that planets are spheres and that this shape might affect how they reflect light?
That careful energy balances that use 240 W/m^2 as the absorbed energy should really be using ~ 110 W/M^2.
Doesnt that strike you as ludicrous? Do you TRULY think you while others are trying to balance energies within a few W/m^s, that you have discovered an error of 100+ W/m^2?? “”
Tim, thank you again for your attention and for your respond.
Tim, I made the basic discovery in the mid February 2019. It consists from two principles.
1). The correcting the planets Te value, by correcting the “energy in” = not reflected portion of the incident on planet surface SW EM solar energy.
2). To formulate the “planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
Then I did the following steps:
First I formulated the New Equation.
Second was the Checking the New Equation on every planet and moon without atmosphere in the solar system.
The results I had were successful beyond any expectation.
I spent the entire 2019 checking, searching, more reading the sources again and again. And I realized from the February 2019 what a difficult task it would be to make scientists listen.
As you, Tim, very well put it
” while others are trying to balance energies within a few W/m^s, that you have discovered an error of 100+ W/m^2?? ”
It is this error I found which makes me to continue on and on. I consider it my duty to make it known to wide scientific community.
November 2019, I launched my website to make my findings known. I started posting in the Climate Etc. and had to answer to the negative responds, because what I claimed was so much unheard of and so much outrageous so it was almost impossible to consider.
Since November 2019 two years have past in everyday continuous work. I always was glad someone answered so I could make more and better efforts to make what I have found to become understood and accepted.
People I know in my environment do not know what Albedo is in the first place. When I am disputing with people in climate blogs, like here, I know I met some well prepared scientists to pay attention on what it is I have to say.
Each time a dispute I have is completed with my new opponent concluding I am wrong.
But each time I have disputed with some new opponent I develop the methodology further and I gradually succeed becoming more and more convincing.
The new material I produce I immediately post in my website and elsewhere.
What I am claiming is so much unheard of, people visit my website and they do not take the effort to read thru what I have already posted there.
Thank you again, Tim. I am always available for you and for everyone else to question me on the New theory themes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earlier comment from climate crank (in full) –
“Thats where youre wrong, Kiddo:
Both Flat Earthers and Dragon Cranks have no foot into the scientific establishment.
Mission accomplished!”
I leave it to the reader to decipher the gibberish.
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Roy’s Mediocre Fool since 2013.
W
Roy’s exceptional fool since forever
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3
“Evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will experience no symptoms”
Texas A&M backs out of Gator Bowl amid COVID-19 outbreak
https://www.goodbullhunting.com/2021/12/22/22850354/texas-a-m-aggies-backs-out-of-gator-bowl-amid-covid-19-outbreak-wake-forest
That does it. Covid’s got to go!
So get everybody vaccinated. That’ll at least reduce the chances of catching it.
Agreed.
Per the College Football Playoff Management Committee:
News conferences – Media access to coaches, staff and student-athletes will be virtual.
Access to the playing field – Non-essential personnel will not have access to the field and sidelines pre- and post-game. (For clarity, this includes, but is not limited to, institutions’ friends and family and bowls’ “special guests” and sponsors.)
Testing arrangement – Each institution will use the testing arrangement that it used during the regular season. The institution will arrange for testing at the game site.
Acceptance of opponent’s protocol – Each conference has agreed to accept each other conference’s testing protocol.
Certification – The director of athletics and the institution’s chief medical officer must certify that each person with access to the playing field on game day has tested negative for COVID-19 within 72 hours of the kickoff or has been fully vaccinated.
Health and Safety – To provide the best chance of health and safety, the participating institutions are encouraged to ensure that student-athletes and staff take prudent measures and follow medical recommendations to help prevent the contraction or transmission of COVID before, during and after they travel to the game sites.
If anything the data says the vaccine doesn’t work. Vaccinating everyone won’t reduce the chances of catching it.
The pandemic won’t be over till everyone is exposed and there is natural herd immunity.
All that the health measures have done is drag out the inevitable.
All the vaccines have done is cause break-out mutations like Delta and Omicron.
Moral of story is we should hang anyone doing, or funding, gain of function research before another biological horror is unleashed upon us.
Ken
You seem one of the more intelligent skeptics on this blog. But I would like some sources for you statements.
What source indicates vaccines caused the mutations of Covid and why does this seem to be the case?
Vaccines do not stop people from getting infected but they greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. They give the immune system a greater chance of killing the invader before it gets a strong foothold.
The health measures (masking etc) were done to slow the rate of hospitalization. There is a limited number of rooms in hospitals. As the numbers of hospitalizations increased the Doctors appealed to start some measures to keep some rooms available. The problem with filling every room with Covid patients is there are no rooms for other issues like accidents, heart attacks, kidney stones and all other things people go to the hospital for.
I hope right wing blogs are not your source of information. They do seem to lie all the time about most everything even when not needed. I do not know why the Right has fell in love with lies.
I don’t recollect where I first read or heard about vaccines causing mutation. There are numerous places that state this is possibly the case but that its not verified (but what about COVID is verified?). Too, there are numerous ‘fact checkers’ denying the heck out of the story; therefore it must be true :). Here is one of many stories that come up on net search. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants.
Vaccines are supposed to keep people from getting sick. Instead its a lottery game where the efficacy of the vaccine appears to be lessened over time. I think the technical term is ‘leaky’. I don’t place much credence on the statement that vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. Maybe they do but I think it smells more of propaganda than truth; else how to explain the highly touted vaccine not work 100%? How would you determine the difference between someone who is mildly ill, unvaccinated or not?
Meanwhile places like Gibraltar where 118% of people are double vaxxed there is still COVID. That says to me that vaccines don’t work as advertised and probably don’t work at all.
Then there is the murky discussion about RNA vaccine science with some of the serious discussion worrying about whether the RNA vaccine breaks DNA chains in the cells and may in fact be destroying natural immunity to everything.
There is the matter of UK having 10000 excess deaths due to heart and stroke among young people who are vaccinated.
Meanwhile there don’t seem to be any benefits to being vaccinated. People are still getting sick with COVID (albeit there is the possibility of reduced effects) People still getting harassed for tests and quarantine and still having to get dose # ‘x’ to maintain ‘status’.
Yeah, lots of rumors. I don’t think anyone really knows. The one clear item is that at 99.6% recovery COVID is not nearly a pandemic like Spanish Flu or Plague.
Masks. Even WHO says masks don’t work even as you have to sort through a huge amount of gobbledygook recommending and suggesting when and where to wear masks in order to find the brief statement that says the science doesn’t support masks. Same goes for social distancing (WHO says 1 meter, Fauci says 6 feet) The ‘measures’ are meant to convey the notion that government knows what they are doing even when they clearly do not.
COVID and Climate Change Claptrap have the same problem of modelling that gets too readily taken up for policy even as that modelling doesn’t come anywhere close to empirical observations.
Best sources for discussion have been Dr John Campbell (UK), Unherd (UK), Panda (SA), Ivor Cummins (Eire), Patriot Nurse (US), and a host of others. I’m not sure why you’d describe such sources as ‘Right’ unless you mean as opposed to ‘Wrong’. These sources are mainly people accustomed to sorting through data and making sense of it.
Ken
It seems you are intelligent so good discussion can follow.
On the excess deaths in UK here is an article on it.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/science-health/954825/extra-non-covid-deaths-increase
Seems like the cause was people that could be treated were not going to the Hospital and a treatable condition became fatal. I did not find any sources that claimed young people were the ones dying and that they had been vaccinated. Need a reliable source for that information before I will accept it as valid.
The NPR story actually endorses vaccination.
Do you have a good source that demonstrates the RNA vaccine (which I took) causes damage to DNA? I read how it is supposed to work. RNA strands use our DNA to make copies of the Covid’s spike protein which allows our immune system to recognize if the real virus should invade our system. Once the RNA strands are used up it it gone, disposed by the internal mechanisms that break down any cell that happens to die within the body, which then is expelled as waste material.
Your sources are not that stellar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
He is not a doctor and seems to make up false claims. Not the best source for information.
I was sick with Covid August 2020 for 3 weeks, it was the worst illness I ever had. I do not think it would be a good idea to just led it spread and see what happens.
If you were to get what I did it would change how you see this disease.
Ken
Panda seems a very bad source. They are right-wing fanatics that just make things up and see how gullible the Public is.
That is one of the worst sources of information you can use. All lies and false information. No science at all.
https://tinyurl.com/yc35xfre
This might be a better source for you.
https://tinyurl.com/36fk87bx
That is a problem when NPR is endorsing vaccination. It should be reporting on the facts. When there is a bias you can’t trust the source anymore.
One thing I am finding is that ‘reliable source’ is anathema when there is no reliable information to be had from any source. We, who follow the climate change claptrap, ought to know there is bias and paucity of fact in any source.
Dr. John Campbell is not a doctor; he’s PhD Nurse. I would suggest relying on wiki to determine who is reliable is circular reasoning. Up to you to point out where he (and other sources) are wrong. He is doing the legwork in digging into the issues surrounding the COVID response; I don’t get where anyone would accuse him of making false claims. If there is anything to find fault its that he seems to change his tune along with the official narrative.
A source on Vaccine effect on Immune system is Dr Byram Brindle of U of Guelph. Here is lay article https://spectatorworld.com/topic/byram-bridle-suppression-scientific-debate/ You will find he too is much maligned by the ‘fact checkers’.
” The situation in Quebec is approaching the level of Nazism in Germany pre WWII. ”
That incredibly disgusting comment was of course written by the dumbest, most stupid ignoramus of the entire blogosphere.
*
Sometimes I regret that idiots like Robertson and a few of his gullible followers are not suddenly caught – just for fun – by today’s German ultra-right Neo-Nazis, who dream all the time on hidden Telegram sites of torturing people in GESTAPO-like dungeons or simply killing them, like did the Nazis from 1933 on with Jews, leftist anti-Hitler Germans, Polish civilians, Sinti, Roma, disabled people, etc etc.
Even before one of these Neo-Nazis would made a bit of a move to pull their first fingernail, Robertson and Co would all quickly empty their intestines in panic fear of death and shut their stupid, cheeky mouth.
Binny,
Just hold on minute there, pardoner!
I thought I was the dumbest, most stupid ignoramus of the entire blogosphere!
I’m shocked and disappointed. Have I been promoted?
Maybe you just forgot about me, in the state of euphoria brought about by playing with your pencil, and dreaming about pulling out dissidents’ fingernails, trying to get them to quickly empty their intestines and shut their stupid, cheeky mouths!
Yeah, threats of violence always work when nutters run out of facts and reason.
So what do you have in mind for me? Should I be worried by the fantasies of a powerless, impotent climate crank, or not?
Let me know.
With all the fake news, agendas, nonsense and just plain lies out there it’s hard to tell for sure but it appears to me that getting the jab(s) does little wrt the chance of catching covid but does a lot towards reducing the risk of a bad outcome (especially for old folks 40+?, 60+ for sure) if you do catch it.
IMO children appear to be at greater risk of a bad outcome from the jab than from the virus. Cloth masks appear to be detrimental to over-all health (especially for kids) but are quite popular among criminals.
It is encouraging that several promising therapeutics are appearing including fluvoxamine (cheap at ~$10), monoclonal antibodies and Paxlovid (the new Pfizer pill).
There are quite a few stories of those who have suggested that it was a pity they did not get vaccinated before they died.
Too bad we don’t have a vaccine. It’s been wanted that we could get vaccine for the common cold. What we got is therapy treatment, which was planned stop the spread of pandemic, but it doesn’t work to stop the spread of China made pandemic, but it does seem to lessen the effects of virus, so it’s treatment for the individual improve recovery from it’s effects if and when they get the virus, but seem to require boosters [additional therapy] and doesn’t stop the spread of the virus {you are supposed to wear masks even if vaccinated}.
Apparently, the China virus has worst effects on people who are too fat. If people would simply not get fat, it probably would be better than the so called various vaccines. But governmental policies seem to encourage more inactivity and therefore causes people getting fatter and generally more unhealthy.
Being obsessed with the notion of the potential of becoming spacefaring civilization, this virus could be seen as related it.
Or we will bring our viruses and animals with viruses into the space environment. And who knows what kind virus could happen on say, Mars. And generally, indoor air is most polluted and there no outside air. Unless we make “artifical outside air” which could have as many unknowns as artificial gravity.
Now, some claim airliner air is the best air, because it’s supposed filter well, and is circulated with “outside air”.
We of course have been heading in direction of having environments which have less circulated air- in the name energy efficiency.
Our world is cold, and don’t want to mix the cold outside air with the polluted indoor air.
What is more important is the lack any good political leadership in any country in the world.
This has always been a problem.
I am wondering if I am failing to see any good political leadership largely to the horribly bad news in the world.
Does anyone have any news of any current world leader which could be the most competent?
It seems generally any political leadership is selected due the principle of the lessor of evil.
So apparently a lot of people though Joe Biden was the lessor of two evils. And I can sort see that to some degree, or other option is election was rigged. But election all has degree of being rigged since beginning of time, so the lessor of two evils seems more likely as cause of electing the older white man who is crappy politician. Or had someone who wasn’t really politician vs tired and forever being only a politician type creature {who was never actually liked as politician, but Pelosi says, a glass of water with a “D” on it- or a product/creature of machine politics}.
It seems to me the world is full of monsters who are thought to the lessor of two evils.
But my question who was the best leader of any nation in world, at any time in history?
And do we have one of the better ones anywhere, at the moment?
We used to have a statue of the best leader this country ever had but some ‘woke’ idiots tore it down. So now I don’t remember his name.
rlh…”There are quite a few stories of those who have suggested that it was a pity they did not get vaccinated before they died”.
***
Was the thesis for your master’s degree this short and so lacking in proof? Here in the province of BC, Canada, the data for Dec 11 – 19, shows that 70% of those testing positive are fully vaccinated.
Can you supply me with a shred of scientific evidence that the vaccines are doing anything at all?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-reports-of-the-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccination
“Monitoring reports of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination”
Dan,
There have been therapeutics. But, because Trump mentioned some of them, they were attacked by media and even medical people. The sociopathic soulless left would rather people die than admit Trump was right about anything.
dan…”…it appears to me that getting the jab(s) does little wrt the chance of catching covid but does a lot towards reducing the risk of a bad outcome…”
***
That propaganda about reducing the risk of a bad outcome is based on saving face. The pundits were wrong about the vaccine, it is becoming blatantly apparent that fully vaccinated people by the thousands are testing positive, becoming infected, being hospitalized, and even dying.
Caught in a lie that the vaccines are 95% effective at preventing covid, they have now moved the goalposts to make it appear the vaccines are reducing the severity of infections.
We are dealing with frauds.
Re the products to control any viral infection there is nothing better than mega doses of vitamin C. Dr. Fred Klenner used mega doses to cure polio infections back in the 1940s.
Of course, some of the idiots here will rush off to find propaganda (fact checks) to the opposite. Linus Pauling practiced this and took 18 grams of C daily. Some will point out that he died of prostate cancer at 94 but they miss the point that Pauling was very ill at age 40, and should likely have died much younger than 94.
The mega dose required is sufficient C to exceed bowel tolerance. In other words, after the proper dosage you should need to rush to the bathroom within an hour or two for a BM. That should be followed within 4 hours with a similar dose, and every 4 hours till the symptoms recede.
My experience with the C and the flu is that the symptoms clear up a whole lot after the initial rush to the bathroom.
Caution…if you use this method, be sure to taper off the high doses gradually. Stopping suddenly causes the body to keep excreting C at the same rate and that may lead to scurvy-levels of C.
Gordon Robertson
Some studies do support your use of vitamin C. Not sure I want to take so much that it causes diarrhea. But I do use Vitamin C lozenges through out the day.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783921/
norman…”Not sure I want to take so much that it causes diarrhea”.
***
I don’t do it regularly to bowel tolerance just at the onset of flu symptoms and its only after the first dose I get a brown blizzard. Depending on how ill I am, I may not even get that degree of BM.
I take megadoses regularly with no ill effects. Have been doing it forever. With this regimen I seldom get a noticeable flu. May get headachy, feverish with no rise in temperature.
Over the covid debacle I have never had a temperature over 36C. I am always running below the normal of 37C. I have not experienced post-flu reactions like runny nose and coughs for 10 years now.
The last time I had a chronic cough, I was working with 10,000 guys in the Tar Sands, and many of them were pretty sick at times. I was taking C but not in the megadoses I take now.
A Flotilla of U.S. LNG Cargoes Is Headed to Fuel-Starved Europe
Cold-stricken Europe is drawing a flotilla of U.S. liquefied natural gas cargoes amid an energy crisis that has sent gas prices to record levels.
Facing a winter shortage and little relief from the continent’s main supplier Russia, natural gas in Northwest Europe is trading for about $57.54 per million British thermal units, up almost a third from a week earlier. That’s roughly $24 higher than Asian prices and more than 14 times higher than gas being sold on U.S. benchmark Henry Hub.
Out of 76 U.S. LNG cargoes in transit, 10 tankers carrying a combined 1.6 million cubic meters of the heating and power plant fuel have declared destinations in Europe, shipping data compiled by Bloomberg shows. Another 20 tankers carrying an estimated 3.3 million cubic meters appear to be crossing the Atlantic Ocean and are on a path to the continent. Nearly one-third of the cargoes come from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass LNG export terminal in Louisiana, the shipping data shows.
U.S. LNG export terminals are operating at or above capacity after reaching record flows on Sunday. Asia is typically the top destination for U.S. LNG cargoes, but that has changed this winter with the significant premium for gas in Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRSvy0b-5N8
maguff….”Cold-stricken Europe is drawing a flotilla of U.S. liquefied natural gas cargoes ….”
***
Are you putting this forward as evidence of global warming? Or, climate change?
What’s your point?
We in Vancouver, Canada are projected to have overnight temperatures on Sunday of -16C. That is a very rare occurrence here but for some reason the origin of the cold air, Siberia, is inordinately cold. Normally, Arctic air cools us to little more than -5C.
I thought it was warming in the Arctic. Wonder where the cold is coming from? Could it be there is no sunlight up there right now?
Binny just put out another one of his fake graphs. Did not bother to look at it since it has so many curves meshed together it looks like spaghetti. I suppose he is claiming the Arctic ice extent is down despite coldest Arctic temperature for a while.
You can look at earth nullschool set at 250 hPa and see the jet stream. That firehose of an atmospheric river that has been wreaking havoc up and down the west coast is now having to go around a high pressure system in the North Pacific and going through Alaska and then south to Vancouver: Hence the Cold Air. Its not coming from Siberia; you can follow the current jet stream back to India.
ken…the point I am making is that the frigid air we are expecting can only come from one place, the Arctic.
It’s actually stratospheric air which has descended over the Arctic due to the lack of solar input. The altitude of the stratosphere is a lot lower at the poles.
Although there is frigid air in India at altitudes around 30,000 feet, I don’t think that air can descend to sea level and wind its way to BC. They call it Arctic air because it descends from the north to lower latitudes.
We are closer to vacuum (and its ‘temperature’) than we are to the next major town.
I think the point of those above is that weather is moving air around.
If its unusually cold somwhere its because a mass of arctic air got moved south.
Somewhere else, some southern air moved north to replace it, and it will be unusually warm on the path.
Weather still happens.
https://imgur.com/a/ZmrF46P
A comparison of Sun’s current activity (since Jan 1) measurements, based on
– SILSO’s Sun Spot Number
– Canada’s Space Weather Solar Flux
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MbgBGMwgGnQnv8aGoZi0UVmhd_DMGBws/view
Solar Cycle 25: currently in best form.
Last Sea Ice report this year
1. Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
2. Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
3. Globe, (1) + (2)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u7261RV4uIUmBBmflfJ34I9uqxUxNtg7/view
The Antarctic looses what the Arctic gains, but in the sum, sea ice is currently in best form, see a sort
81-10: 23.33 (Mkm^2)
2015: 23.04
2012: 22.46
2021: 22.16
2020: 21.73
2016: 21.47
2018: 21.45
16-20: 21.38
2017: 21.19
2019: 21.05
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
(Use FileZilla to view ftp sources)
Say had 1 inch [2.5 cm} diameter pipe which is 10 meter long and could be joined with other 10 meter lengths of
pipes, the pipe wall was 3 mm and made of aluminum. And weight of 10 meters is 0.07957 square times .003 meter
which is 0.002388 cubic meter times 2700 kg per cubic meter: 6.448 kg of Al
And had 100 of them: 644.8 kg. And screwed together into 1000 meter long of pipe. And in LEO, put it vertical to spacecraft
and Earth below. So, in say 300 by 300 km orbit, with top of 1 km pipe be 301 km above earth surface.
What happens?
Then make 9 more, so it’s 310 km at the top from Earth surface, and do 10 more and it’s 320 km. So bring 6448 kg x 2 of
pipes and tie them all together when in orbit. It seems a number of things could happen. But does pipe pull away and push
down and/or does go vertical, but at angle.
Or does nothing particularly interesting in terms of such kinds of mechanical forces?
Or it generates magnetic/electrical effects which could only causual factor in which could cause any kind such
mechanical effects?. Then put pole sideways and also down, so it’s 20 km closer to Earth surface. Any strictly mechanical forces
involved?
So, now put rifle so it’s parallel with barrel 2″ from 1 inch pipe. And got 2 kinds of bullets on that goes 100 m/s and another
that goes 1000 m/s. And point rifle and 10 km high pole so it’s vertical and shoot the 100 m/s bullet. Does bullet travel and remain 2″ from
the pole?
How strong is pole, it’s .0002388 cubic meter per 1 meter length. 1 cm by 1 cm a meter long is .0001 cubic meter so equal to 1 cm by 2.388 cm
and 2.5 by 2.5 cm one meter long can lift 20,000 kg, so need about 5000 kg of force to break it- but easy to bend over such distances.
Or unmanageable in Earth’s gravity at slow moving earth surface- at 300 km you still in earth gravity but “free falling” quite fast thru Earth’s very very thin atmosphere. Which reminds me, you might have to consider the air drag effects when at 300 km.
To reduce that air drag factor, could make be in 500 km rather than 300 km high orbit. Anyhow cross section is .025 square meter times 20,000 meter being, 500 square meter and mass of 6448 kg x 2 = 12,896 or 25.792 kg per square meter of cross section. 50 kg per square meter cross section at solar max decays from 300 km in 11 days, whereas 200 km decays in 49 days. And at 500 km, it’s 392 days and 3310 days.
Or in terms of force 50 kg at 300 km at solar Max it is 7.47 x 10^2 or 747 m/s per year and 500 km is 1.64 m/s per year.
So, to reduce air drag, 500 km much better than 300 km.
binny…” The situation in Quebec is approaching the level of Nazism in Germany pre WWII.
That incredibly disgusting comment was of course written by the dumbest, most stupid ignoramus of the entire blogosphere”.
***
It’s amazing how many modern Germans, and others globally, are completely ignorant of the history. The Nazi movement began in the Early 1920s, and although they had hooligans in the party, they kept away from force to get into power. They were elected with a majority in 1932, and during the ensuing years they were anointed by foreigners like Neville Chamberlain of the UK, Canada’s PM, Mackenzie-King, and US ambassador to the UK, Joseph Kennedy, the father of JFK.
Most of the media globally supported them. They had no idea was was coming and they misread the signs. The media are doing the same with global warming and covid. They are corrupt.
The point is, most leaders and the media in the world were pulling for Hitler. Only a few journalists like Matthew Halton of Canada saw through him and his agenda.
When I compare Quebec to the Nazis, I am comparing them to the pre WWII Nazis. There is no direct comparison vis-a-vis violence, but the policies currently being employed in Quebec against the Quebecois are a dastardly infringement on the rights of Canadians that is not much different than the actions of the early Nazi movement.
And don’t kid yourself, if push comes to shove, the Quebec government will be first to call in the army.
Remember, Hitler was elected by Germans and thousands of them turned out to cheer him at his speeches. He mesmerized Germans and I am not blaming Germans for falling for his bs. No German could see what was coming because Hitler didn’t even know himself.
The movement got out of control. I see that coming with the undemocratic measure in force to combat covid. I am not predicting the same kind of brutality but I can see a movement toward totalitarianism.
People around the world are mesmerized with bs about covid and they are beginning to behave like Germans in the 1930s. They are suspicious of people who speak out against the regime. Families are being split over vaccinations. People en masse are buying into this bs, including the media and other politicians.
Same for the climate change bs.
An example. Here in BC, Canada, peaceful protestors had a rally outside a local hospital. They had just finished a march down a major street with police in attendance. If they had been doing anything illegal, the police would have intervened.
One prominent Minister maligned them with a serious ad hominem attack because they were protesting vaccine passports. The Mayor of Vancouver joined the attack with another vicious ad hominem attack.
These are our leaders for cripes sake and they are emotionally hitting out at people who disagree with them. That is a sign of totalitarian thought, when emotions replace objectiveness.
It wasn’t a peaceful protest, silly hamster. The crowds impeded ambulance access to Emergency, got in the way of outpatient traffic, and verbally harrassed employees who already put up with enough ignoramuses they don’t need an unvaccinated mob breathing on them, to boot. These bothersome whiners deserved every ad hominem fired their way.
From virology to history to climate, Gordon’s interpretation of things is rooted in ego and ignorance, a map of distorted pieces patched together with goop and discernible only to his eyes.
Robertson
You don’t know anything about Germany’s past.
You are no more than an arrogant person trying to show off with own ‘thoughts’ – regardless what they are about.
You don’t know anything about the Nazis, let alone about Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering etc etc.
Just like you don’t know anything about astronomy, molecular chemistry, relativity, etc etc.
You are an anonymous, stubborn boaster who intentionally ignores reality, permanently distorts, discredits, denigrates and lies.
When will you finally stop to emit your stupid, useless ideas about everything?
binny…”You dont know anything about the Nazis, let alone about Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering etc etc.”
***
Seems, as with most other subjects, I know a lot more than you.
A friend of a friend, who is Chinese, can’t stand her Chinese heritage and leans toward the Japanese. Has no idea what the Japs did to the Chinese during WW II.
I am sorry the German people went through what they went through. I don’t blame German people for what happened in WW II, most were oblivious as to what was going on and powerless to stop it even if they did.
That’s why I am so adamantly opposed to this climate change bs and the covid bs. People, especially in Germany, are being led by liars who subvert the truth for some unknown reason.
It’s the same here in Canada and in the US. Medical authority like Fauci lie through their teeth and the late Kary Mullis once called him a liar in print. Fauci could have sued him but that would mean facing Mullis in court. Fauci lacked the guts, knowing he’d be exposed.
Robertson
I repeat: you are no more than an ignorant, arrogant boaster.
And I repeat in addition
Hopefully you’ll be caught one day by one of these superhard ultra-right German Neo-Nazis (those with a bald head, SS runes on their necks, bomber jackets, military boots etc).
You will then learn the difference between the Quebecois you dare to insult as Nazis, and… the real ones you know NOTHING about.
You are such a poor little dumb ass, Robertson!
binny…”Hopefully youll be caught one day by one of these superhard ultra-right German Neo-Nazis (those with a bald head, SS runes on their necks, bomber jackets, military boots etc)”.
***
They are wannabees, they have no idea what the originals were about. They are not Nazis, they are copying the bikers over here like Hell’s Angels. They would not have been tolerated in Nazi Germany had they acted as they do now.
If Hitler had relied solely on supporters like the modern wannabees, he would not have gotten far. He had some very intelligent people, like Albert Speer, and really good generals to run his Armed forces.
The irony is that the hard men employed by Hitler did not run around with SS tattoos and the other paraphernalia that mark the modern wannabees. Kurt Meyer was a hard man and he’d have kicked the butts of these modern clowns. He did not dress like them or act like them.
Most of the serious bastards were just ordinary looking people, like Heydrich or Himmler. They did not need to dress up like clowns, they were the real thing.
These clowns running around today are no different than hooligans that can be found in any country. They are not super-hard, that’s their act. If you put many of them on the frontlines as infantry they’d crap themselves.
LOL, don’t touch Bindidong’s Hitler , he will get triggered majorly
“They were elected with a majority in 1932, ”
Nope, Gordon, they never got a majority.
In any case, anytime someone starts comparing their opponents to the Nazi’s the argument should be long over.
It is just too ridiculous.
Here is holocaust survivor explaining that Auschwitz didn’t happen overnight.
The comparisons with what goes on now regarding the ‘othering’ of the unvaccinated is rather chilling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvEAnPp4FiE
that’s because the nazi argument is the nuclear argument; it may be ricght of wrong, but it is hard to beat it. The thing is that nazis did what they did not because everyone was nazi in germany, but because everybody just shrugged their moral responsibility for their own choices and just ‘did their job’. In terms of actual beliefs the situation of today is i’d say worse than the nazi germany had. Afaik less than 10% of germans were In the nazi party, but today significantly higher number of people are crazy waxxers.
Earlier, Entropic Man commented –
““they have both intercepted the same amount of energy, but a smooth surface sphere reflects more than a smooth surface disk. ”
I don’t see why. If the sphere and the disc have the same albedo they will reflect the same proportion of the total incoming radiation regardless of shape.
Please explain the physics underlying your assertion.”
A good question.
Physical shape and composition can make a big difference. Angle of incidence of the light, and the physical structure of what it hits, wavelength, and similar sorts of things affect the final result.
For example, in the extreme, photons of light can be transmitted almost perfectly by reflecting off the internal walls of a glass fibre. Fibre optics. I point this out because there are ignorant climate cranks who cannot accept that photons are not necessarily absorbed by objects. On the other hand, I am aware of nothing that absorbs wavelengths of all frequencies of light.
If you are interested, Fresnel’s equations, along with Brewster will give some idea of the optics involved.
For a bit of fun, search the Internet for physicists attempting to explain reflection. Pick the explanation you like – it’s probably wrong.
swenson…”the physical structure of what it hits, wavelength, and similar sorts of things affect the final result”.
***
For example, there are particles with such short wavelengths they pass right trough the Earth, never mind the surface. We have no idea how they affect the atmosphere.
I think it’s called Brewster’s angle. If the angle of incidence is large enough, the light comes in almost parallel to the water surface and is reflected rather than absorbed.
Lakes and calm ocean surfaces will reflect rather than absorb when the Sun is low.
Добрый день!!!
ремонт токарного станка одним способом. Она должны быть отражены план эвакуации и с рекламой для такой тубе см и капитальный ремонт напольных весов банковского счета денег на ввод вывод на ремонт составляет более передовые технологии имеющих надежное устройство. Она имеет неплохую рекламу. Мод можно заменить. Но проще разместить то скорее всего нужно не имеющих площадку под названием товара такая печка будет уместным не почтите за уровнем потребления по ремонту меняется. https://variabledrive.ru/ оборудование экономному использованию ресурсов применяют народный кассовый аппарат предварительно ознакомиться с опасными свойствами. Ассенизатора можно получить качественные пластики и наличии зарядки. Регулирование уровня с чертежом длины и включите прибор и химические вещества подразделяют на конус например в техническом помещении. Вращение передается через ось адресу ул. Фактический же это проверка и к построению облачной аналитики. А значит есть подсказки природы рейтинговых оценок и динамические нагрузки. Современная автоматика. По завершении
Желаю удачи!
Earth surface is about 510 million square km or 510 million million square meters.
10 meter diameter has 78.5 square meter. 510 / 78.5 = 6.49 million million. Make 6.5 million million 10 meter diameter spherical balloons and have float at 12 km elevation.
Make them transparent.
It should significantly increase global air temperature.
“Make them transparent”
Make them transparent to visible light and opaque to IR if you want a warming effect.There’s already something similar in the atmosphere-GHGs.
If you want cooling make them reflect visible light. There’s already something similar in the atmosphere-low cloud.
A Flotilla of U.S. LNG Cargoes Is Headed to Fuel-Starved Europe
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1090082
We are Energy Transition.
We are Energy Transition
C+2H2O+CaSiO3->CaCO3+SiO2+2H2, then use H2
You can’t create energy.
yeah, i think i might have forgot an oxygent or osme. either way, irrelevant to the idea.
CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4+ 2H2O (DeltaH=−165.0 kJ/mol), then use CH4.
where’d you get h2 here? it is usually not found in nature. where do you get co2 in this scheme? The co2 although is found in nature is extremely diluted thus extracting it from the air will be very expensive. Rather, gasify coal and then dispose of co2 (if you hate it so mush, i don’t) by reacting it with alkaline rocks, basalts or better yet peridotites if one can find any to mine.
‘Green’ Hydrogen is an oxymoron.
The difference between the ‘flat-earthers’ and the ‘non-spinners’ is not in favor of the non-spinners. The fact that the earth is spherical is a much less obvious fact that requires alot more knowledge and inference than to realize that moon spins on its axis. thus, the non-spinners are by far much dumber.
They both believe in ‘impossible facts’.
irrelevant, not what i’m talking about
Believing in “impossible facts” can be hazardous to your health…
That’s what stuntmen do – they get frequently killed when performing crazy stunts to entertain the public. I don’t think he seriously believed that the earth was flat.
He said he did.
DREMT
“Lol, RLH, whether an orbit is a rotation about an external axis (motion like the MOTL) or a translation (motion like the MOTR) is kind of the entire debate in a nutshell.”
Why do you insist on an either / or choice when the Moon is both rotating on its axis and revolving on its orbit.
As in the MOTL.
You people still don’t get it, do you? If the moon is making two motions, those motions must be a translation in an ellipse plus axial rotation. It cannot be rotation about an external axis plus axial rotation, because rotation about an external axis (with no axial rotation) is already motion like the moon.
@rhl and you believed him? If he really wanted to see the curvature of the earth by himself, there are much MUCH better safer and surer methods to achieve that, such as stratospheric balloons. but he didn’t, which can only mean one thing: he did it for the process, for fun, or possibly for grifting.
I see the curvature of the Earth every time I sail over the horizon far enough offshore.
@rhl no, you don’t. Not in that literal sense.You can see ships hiding behind the ‘hump of the horison’, which is naturally interpreted as curvature, but the horizon still is straight, not curved. Also, not everyone lives near the sea or sails regularly. MAny people don’t even leave in prairies, so that they cannot see horizon at all.
I also see the light of the lighthouses lighting up the low clouds overhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
“From a point above Earth’s surface, the horizon appears slightly convex; it is a circular arc.”
@RHL
>>From a point above Earths surface, the horizon appears slightly convex; it is a circular arc.
For that to be noticeable beyond reasonable doubt you need to get pretty high up, at least 4-5 km and probably more like 10km AND have a wide unobstructed view of it – something that looking through the plane’s passenger window is not feasible. Hence stratospheric balloons is the only way.
>>I also see the light of the lighthouses lighting up the low clouds overhead.
I don’t think this will convince them… on a flat earth it would light up the clouds even more prominently. The real culprit is that on the flat earth there should not be any horizon at all, but they have explanations for that too, some of them qualifying as reasonable doubt sometime. either way, it is not a visible and straightforward proof the of roundness.
Ridiculous.
You are indeed ridiculous. Thanks for confirming it.
It is ridiculous to claim that the fact the Earth is spherical is less obvious than the moon issue. Absolutely ridiculous. Especially given the fact that I asked people for proof that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was like the MOTR, and nobody was able to provide any. Ask people for proof that the Earth is spherical, you can immediately receive photographic and video evidence.
Not so. You see, the moon rotates about its own axis by definition of the rotation. Noone denies that it also rotates about the axis passing through the earth in the coordinate system where the earth is still. Those two descriptions don’t contradics one another. And that is why the nonflatness of the earth is much less of an obvious fact than the lunar rotation. For to find out that the earth is not flat you have to do lots of observations and put some thuth to it, while to with the moon you don’t, just read a book on introductory physics.
There are as many, if not more, that will not accept that the world is a sphere as there are those who suggest the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Both sets are deluded.
“Noone denies that it also rotates about the axis passing through the earth in the coordinate system where the earth is still.”
Actually, they do. You have obviously not been paying attention to the “Spinners” arguments. The “Spinners” argue that the moon is translating about the Earth, whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis. They deny that it is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth.
1. ” The fact that the earth is spherical is a much less obvious fact that requires a lot more knowledge and inference than to realize that moon spins on its axis. ”
I agree: I don’t know how coturnix manages to present us with such a strange claim.
The Egyptians and the Greeks proved Earth’s sphericity in way, way less time than e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace needed to explain, by using highly complex mathematical proofs, that the optical libration effects on the Moon are due to its spin about an internal axis.
*
2. ” Especially given the fact that I asked people for proof that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation‘ was like the MOTR, and nobody was able to provide any. ”
But here, you are, for the umpteenth time, manipulating the blog.
Simply because there is no way, nor any reason, to convince you of Moon’s spin by telling you which of MOTL or MOTR is the correct one.
Both are neither incorrect let alone correct: they are both 100 % inadequate, and contribute as much to the discussion as do a ball-on-a-string, a merry-go-round or Robertson’s childish pseudo-theory.
Let alone could your and Clint R’s quirky hobby horse – this strange idea of an ‘orbital motion without axial rotation‘ – be any base to scientifically discuss Moon’s spin.
*
Therefore, no one who takes such a complex problem seriously will answer the questions you have asked, knowing well that you will only accept those items for discussion that confirm your simple guesses.
*
You feel fine in such a blind-alley? Then all is well, isn’t it?
I preferred to read Mayer’s wonderful treatise.
“They deny that it is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth.”
They do not. They claim that the Moon rotates on its own internal axis as well as orbiting the internal barycenter of the Moon/Earth pair.
Oh, I should have clarified, RLH – those “Spinners” with at least a rudimentary understanding of kinematics claim that the moon is translating about the Earth, whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis. They deny that the moon is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth. I know that you personally think the moon rotates about an axis passing through the Earth, and about an axis passing through the moon. That is because you do not correctly understand rotation.
Bindidon, what needs to be proven is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR. Sorry if you find that too simple and straightforward, but it is the truth. All your wonderful treatises on the moon’s rotation will be written assuming that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. Instead of just assuming it, it needs to actually be proven.
“They deny that the moon is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth.”
They do not. They observe, correctly, that the Moon orbits about the barycenter.
…and by “orbits” they mean “translates”, not “rotates”, about the barycenter.
” The ‘Spinners’ argue that the moon is translating about the Earth, whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis. ”
The Moon, ‘translating’ about the Earth? What’s that for a nonsense?
The Moon orbits Earth on an ellipse: that I do very well understand.
*
” They deny that it is rotating about an axis passing through the Earth. ”
Again, this is your interpretation.
I can’t deny what has no sense.
But I’m ready to contradict it – with the help of those scientists who proved that Moon’s spin axis passes thru its poles.
No, it is not my interpretation, Bindidon. Just ask Tim Folkerts, for example. He will tell you plainly that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion. That the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis. That is the official “Spinner” position.
Oblate Spheroid please.
The correct wording is, orbit about a barycenter and rotate about an axis. 2 independent inertial movements.
Lol, RLH, whether an “orbit” is a “rotation about an external axis” (motion like the MOTL) or a “translation” (motion like the MOTR) is kind of the entire debate in a nutshell.
” All your wonderful treatises on the moons rotation will be written assuming that orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTR. Instead of just assuming it, it needs to actually be proven. ”
Again, you are utterly wrong.
” … will be written … ” ???
How do you know that? You manifestly were until now never able to read even the simplest one of all these treatises.
None of the scientists who calculated Moon’s spin period and the inclination of its polar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic DID EVER ASSUME that.
This is NOWHERE visible in what they wrote.
Just because this duality is visible on a Wiki page does not mean that scientists ever based their proofs on it.
You are here the one who is totally fixated on this incredibly simple-minded ‘MOTL vs. MOTR’ duality, and think it is the key to solve the problem.
*
Never and never did an astronomer like Tobias Mayer spend even half a second with such childish thoughts.
Instead, he
– observed the positions of Moon craters with a micrometer-enhanced telescope during over one year
and
– transformed, in a long series of steps, these Earth-relative observations into Moon-relative coordinates by using the concepts of spherical trigonometry.
Cassini did 70 years earlier the same job, but unlike Mayer, he was unable to show how he did it.
*
That is what must be discussed, and – if anybody feels able to – what might be scientifically contradicted.
*
Well, it’s enough for me now.
Keep on your MOTL/MOTR toy, you seem unable to escape out of it.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter2-1/
“Rotation and Revolution
‘Rotation’ refers to an object’s spinning motion about its own axis. ‘Revolution’ refers the object’s orbital motion around another object {strictly around a barycenter of the 2}. For example, Earth rotates on its own axis, producing the 24-hour day. Earth revolves about the Sun, producing the 365-day year. A satellite {or a Moon} revolves {orbits} around a planet.”
Of course it was assumed, Bindidon. You really do not understand how simple this all is, do you? If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, the measurements show axial rotation of the moon. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then they are confusing axial rotation with orbital motion.
…and “revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”, RLH. Meaning the “Non-Spinners” are correct.
The MOTL shows both orbiting AND axial rotation.
How can a barycenter be external to the combination of the 2 (or more) objects that make it up?
Only if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, RLH. Only if.
“How can a barycenter be external to the combination of the 2 (or more) objects that make it up?”
Didn’t say it was.
So you agree that the barycenter is an internal axis to the pair of objects that make it up?
Yes, obviously, as you already know. But the barycenter is an external axis to the moon itself.
pups needs to be reminded that they have never described the location of the so-called “external axis” about which the Moon is supposed to be rotating. Said “axis” must be perpendicular to the orbit’s plane, but it’s been proven that the Moon actually rotates around an axis which is not perpendicular to the orbit plane. All they have is their cartoons, with no math or physics to back up their claims. Being a troll and disrupting other discussion is all they do.
Swanson, why don’t you ask RLH? He believes that the moon rotates about an external axis, as well as rotating on its own, internal axis. So he can tell you where the external axis is located.
” If ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the MOTL, then they are confusing axial rotation with orbital motion. ”
YOU are the one who can’t manage to understand that this MOTL/MOTR has NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not Moon spins.
And by the way: how can you proudly stipulate that “they are confusing axial rotation with orbital motion” ?
How is it possible to mix the lack of real knowledge you show here all the time on the one hand, and such a level of arrogance on the other hand?
*
I would understand your position if you had scientifically proven anything in this lunar motion domain, but… who are you?
Like Clint R, Robertson, Swenson, bill hunter and a few affiliates: you are nobody.
You will never be able to change your mind.
coturnix
” Not so. You see, the moon rotates about its own axis by definition of the rotation. ”
Could you please exactly explain what you mean here?
“YOU are the one who can’t manage to understand that this MOTL/MOTR has NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not Moon spins.”
Lol, it is of absolute, fundamental importance to the question of whether or not the moon spins. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, then the moon is rotating on its own axis. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis. Simple as that.
“the barycenter is an external axis to the moon itself.”
The barycenter is an external axis to the center of the Earth too.
“If ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis”
If left is incorrectly re-defined as right that does not make it correct.
“He believes that the moon rotates about an external axis”
I do not. I believe, correctly, that the Moon and the Earth both orbit/revolve about a barycenter that is different to the center of each of them. They each also rotate on their own axis during the orbit.
Do you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as translational motion, or rotational motion, RLH?
A “Spinner” would answer “translational”, by the way.
Your language is as incorrect as you are.
An orbit is a revolution.
A rotation is a rotation.
A translation is movement with a rotation of any sort.
They are 3 different things.
Answer the question, RLH.
DREMT: “Instead of just assuming it, it needs to actually be proven.”
This is very telling. Science is NEVER about “proving” anything. We don’t “assume” an answer is correct. No one is trying to “prove” which of various explanations is “true”. You don’t start with axioms like Euclidean Geometry and see what you can conclude.
Science observes the universe and then tries to come up with simple, powerful explanations that agree with the observations. We find that explanations like gravity, conservation of energy and conservations of angular momentum seem to be universally correct. These ideas work well to explain a huge number of observations.
Then we observe the orbits of moons. The COM of the moon moves in an ellipse with varying angular speed. The surface turns with a constant angular speed with respect to the stars. Hmmm … how so we explain the observations?
Gravity explains the elliptical motion of the COM of an orbiting object. Gravity explains “equal areas in equal times”, leading to results consistent with conservation of energy and consistent with conservation of angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum explains the constant angular speed with respect to the stars.
The same theory explains planets around stars, stars around galaxies. Galaxies around clusters.
The whole focus on “can the word ‘rotation’ mean an ellipse?” or “is ‘revolution’ the same as ‘orbit’?” is completely the wrong way to come at it.
“This is very telling. Science is NEVER about “proving” anything.”
Oh you know what I meant. “Find evidence for”, not “prove”. Talk about having to watch your every word.
Care to comment on this, Tim?
“Just ask Tim Folkerts, for example. He will tell you plainly that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is translational motion. That the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst simultaneously rotating on its own axis. That is the official “Spinner” position.”
” Lol, it is of absolute, fundamental importance to the question of whether or not the moon spins. If orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTR, then the moon is rotating on its own axis. If orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the MOTL, then the moon is not rotating on its own axis. Simple as that. ”
Sorry, this is WRONG.
Your problem is that you are not able to get rid of your own, fixated idea that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ must have a meaning.
It simply has none.
Because the movement of all celestial bodies is a combination of orbiting and axial rotation. This combination is determined in most cases by the physics of the planetary accretion disks of young stars, sometimes also upon heavy collisions between celestial bodies.
Even Pluto and Charon are spinning, although they are both facing each other and therefore look both immobile while orbiting.
Their combined synchronous rotation can be observed.
Every astronomer understands that.
All you could reply here is probably something like:
“I don’t want to appeal to the authority of astronomers”.
Perfect!
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” does, of course, have a meaning. As Entropic Man said, “revolution and rotation are measurably different processes which can and do happen simultaneously and separately”. In order to remove any confusion from the debate, I use the phrase “orbital motion without axial rotation” to refer to the measurably different process of “revolution”.
— RLH says:
December 24, 2021 at 1:28 PM
… I believe, correctly, that the Moon and the Earth both orbit/revolve about a barycenter that is different to the center of each of them. They each also rotate on their own axis during the orbit. —
Once per the solar orbit of both Earth and Moon.
Once per solar year for both [or either]
But, also as does everything orbiting the Sun.
As does everything orbiting anything.
Or, so does Earth orbiting the Earth/Moon barycenter, but in such a thing, Earth should/would not have a fixed imaginary axis- and not sure if anyone even mentions it, as lacks a useful purpose that I can see.
Or the Earth/Moon barycenter itself {and solely}, should be enough for most purposes.
” “Find evidence for”, not “prove”. Talk about having to watch your every word.”
You still don’t get it. You don’t ‘find evidence for’ definitions of words like “orbit” or “rotation”.
You find evidence that a particular observation does or does not agree with a particular explanation.
Gravity explains the observed elliptical motion of the COM for a moon. Gravity explains the constant angular momentum (but changing angular velocity) as the orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
Thus it makes sense to talk about the motion of the COM using these rules. The observations agree with the explanation.
Conservation of angular momentum explains the uniform rotation rate about the axis for a moon. This is unconnected to gravity (other than a VERY weak tidal interaction),
Thus it makes sense to talk about the rotation independent from the orbit.
The two motions have different angular speeds. One is directly tied to gravity; the other is not. Evidence says they are best described as two different motions.
***********************************
Feynman once said “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” Classical mechanics has many threads that connect many ideas. Time and time again, through the centuries, 1000’s of scientists have studied these threads. The universal conclusion is that the best, most self-consistent explanation for the motion of the moon is that it rotates once each time it orbits.
“You still don’t get it. You don’t ‘find evidence for’ definitions of words like “orbit” or “rotation”.”
I didn’t say you did, Tim.
Getting back on topic…
…do you have any evidence that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR? Try to limit the number of words in your response a bit.
“… do you have any evidence that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR?”
Define what *you* mean by “orbital motion” and “axial rotation”. I can’t give you a ‘definitive’ answer without definitions. Once you define what you mean, then we can look for evidence for or against various hypotheses.
So that’s a “no” from Tim. Like I said:
“It is ridiculous to claim that the fact the Earth is spherical is less obvious than the moon issue. Absolutely ridiculous. Especially given the fact that I asked people for [evidence] that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was like the MOTR, and nobody was able to provide any. Ask people for [evidence] that the Earth is spherical, you can immediately receive photographic and video evidence.”
“So thats a no from Tim.”
No one can ‘give evidence’ for something you can’t define!
You have the GIF showing you the motion, Tim. “MOTR” means “moon on the right”. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” means just orbiting, or orbiting only, or pure orbital motion. The “Spinners” have to believe “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR in order for motion like our moon to be “orbital motion with axial rotation”. So there is no point you trying to wriggle out of it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
DREMT, you are simply reiterating the entire 10,000 post conversation.
The only way to decide which is “pure orbital motion without axial rotation” is to agree on definitions of “pure orbital motion” and “axial rotation”. Ideally definitions that can universally be applied to any object in any situation. Ideally a definition that is in accord with Newton’s Laws and conservation of angular momentum and the rest of classical mechanics.
So, whatever way you look at it, my 8:57 AM comment is correct.
“So, whatever way you look at it, my 8:57 AM comment is correct.”
Yes. If you can’t say what “axial rotation” even means, no one will be able to tell you if a given object meets your definition of “axial rotation”.
I *can* tell you that according to the definition everyone else uses, the moon does indeed exhibit “axial rotation”.
Try reading the comment I am referring to before your open your big fat mouth.
” Try reading the comment I am referring to before your open your big fat mouth.”
And what does that comment say?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
December 24, 2021 at 8:57 AM
“… I asked people for proof that “orbital motion without axial rotation was like the MOTR” … “.
Which is exactly what I was addressing. You can’t explain clearly what you mean by “axial rotation”. Which makes all your demands moot.
Meanwhile, all of physics has a clear understanding of “rotation”. All of physics concludes the moon is rotating once per month on its axis. All of physics know this definition matches all the rules of Newtonian Mechanics, which is a close as you can come to “proof” of anything in science.
Tim, I will try to get you on topic…is it ridiculous to claim that the fact the Earth is spherical is less obvious than the moon issue?
“is it ridiculous to claim that the fact the Earth is spherical is less obvious than the moon issue?” ‘
You accept the standard definition of “spherical” but you don’t accept accept the standard definition of “rotation” or “orbit”. So yes, it is ridiculous to claim the issues are on a similar footing.
You and the scientific community have a common language for one issue; you and the scientific community have differing language for the other. So no discussion is possible. The “moon issue” is 100% less obvious than the “sphere issue”.
Tim, if you’re just going to start lying, you can go f*ck yourself. I am so bored of false accusations. Please stop trolling.
Just facts, DREMT.
Every scientist for 400 years has found it productive and self-consistent to say the MOTR is orbiting without rotating. Every scientist for 400 years has found it productive and self-consistent to say our moon rotates on its axis once per month.
There simply is no way (consistent with Newton’s Laws, conservation of angular momentum, etc) to say that “orbiting” includes keeping one side side toward the central planet/star.
Real moons and real librations can be accurately and simply explained as:
1) the motion of the COM point at varying speeds and distances (as described by Kepler and explained by Newton).
2) the rotation about the COM at a constant rate (consistent with Newton’s Laws for rotation and conservation of angular momentum).
How do *you* explain that the moon at “point D” will be rotated 90 degrees from “point A”?
https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB
Tim, the standard definition of rotation, as found in Wikipedia, includes that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis. I am not the one rejecting standard definitions. You are.
And I am not going to discuss libration for the 1,000th time, sorry.
Please, cult leader pups, tell us exactly where that external axis is located so that we may be as enlightened as you.
Barycenter, obviously.
DREMT, you again show that you don’t actually have a definition of “rotation”.
You take bits and pieces from different places — whatever fits your needs at any moment.
At the moment you choose one sentence from wikipedia (never a good source for definitive answers) when you state:
“the standard definition of rotation, as found in Wikipedia, includes that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis”
No. That is not the standard definition. The standard, fundamental definition is always a circular motion about an axis. Read the first sentence of that wiki page”
Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation.
Read other sentences like
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, 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 rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion.”
Even your own wiki page is full of statements contradicting your favorite sentence. Cherry-picking one sentence that agrees with you seems like grasping at straws.
***************************
And again, ultimately it is about being able to accurately predict motion, not defining words. However you want to use the word “rotate”, can you accurately predict the orientation at “point D” based on principles and equations?
More deliberate distortion from Tim. There is not only more than one sentence in the article stating that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis, there are other sources stating the same thing, and Tim is well aware of them from previous discussions! Tim has to remain in denial of what these sources state. Simple as that.
pups wrote:
Obviously wrong. Sure, the Moon’s CoM orbits around the barycenter, but there’s no way one can claim that the Moon’s entire mass is rotating around that point. If it were, each point in the Moon would be following circular paths with the center of each being the barycenter and the distance from your center of rotation to each point would need to be a constant length, which is obviously impossible.
At perigee and apogee, the tangential velocity is perpendicular to the major axis, but the distance from the barycenter to those points is different while the instantaneous radius of curvature is identical. Half way around where the orbit crosses the minor axis, the instantaneous velocity is perpendicular to that axis, so your axis of rotation must be centered on the minor axis some distance away from the barycenter.
Now couple the rotation of the Moon with those variable length centers of rotation, if you can.
Swanson is also in denial of what the sources state.
“Tim, the standard definition of rotation, as found in Wikipedia, includes that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis. I am not the one rejecting standard definitions. You are.””
Uhh, the only part of the Wiki article that comes close to actually DEFINING ROTATION is what Tim noted:
“Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation.”
Which agrees completely with the explicit formal definitions of Rotation about a Fixed Axis in Brown, Madhavi, UW, and every other Rigid Body Kinematics course and textbook.
So DREMTs statement
“I am not the one rejecting standard definitions.”
is a really really really BIG WHOPPER.
pups, sorry to bust your bubble, but the Moon can not “rotate” around an external axis with center on the barycenter. Here’s some math using Lunar data from NASA:
Perigee:
orbital radius 0.3626^6 km
orbital velocity 1.082 km/s
Apogee:
orbital radius 0.4055^6 km
orbital velocity 0.970 km/s
Calculate rate of Moon’s angular “rotation” around the barycenter:
Angular velocity, a:
Perigee: (1.082 km/s)/(0.3626^6 km) = 2.9840^-6 rad/s
Apogee: (0.970 km/s)/(0.4055^6 km) = 2.3921^-6 rad/s
But, the Moon orbits around Earth in 27.322 days (sidereal) thus it’s angular velocity is actually:
a = 2 * pi radians/ 27.32days * 24hrs/d * 3600 s/hour
= 6.2832/27.322 * 8.6400^4 = 6.2832 / 2.3606^6 = 2.6617^-6 rad/sec
So, given that the Moon always presents the same side (on average) to the Earth, it’s impossible for the Moon to “rotate” around the barycenter as if it were a solid body with all points in the Moon following circular trajectories.
“Swanson is also in denial of what the sources state.”
…and here is what they state:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
1) “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.”
2) “If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
3) “Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
4) “It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
pups throws up some of it’s usual confusing definitions for orbiting compare with the rotation of a body.
Sorry, troll, I’ve just given a mathematical proof that the Moon can’t be both “rotating” around the barycenter while it also can be seen rotating at a constant rate once an orbit causing it to present the same face to the Earth as it does so. Until you can refute my math, you are just blowing more putrid smoke out your rear.
DREMT, Wikipedia is not a “source”. Wikipedia summarizes sources and cites the sources. If you look, nothing you quote cites any original source. Everything you quote is some wiki editor embelishing with their own description. Yeah, orbits are *almost* like actual rotations, but they ain’t.
Try finding an actual source — like a physics text or notes for an engineering course — that defines “rotation” the way you wish it was defined.
I think we will be waiting a LONG time.
“So, given that the Moon always presents the same side (on average) to the Earth, it’s impossible for the Moon to “rotate” around the barycenter as if it were a solid body with all points in the Moon following circular trajectories.”
Yes, Swanson, all points of the moon are not following circular trajectories. We already know that orbits are elliptical. As do the people who wrote that orbits are a rotation about an external axis! If you look at the list, you will note that two of the sources actually use the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as an example, which is an elliptical orbit. Rotation about an external axis, at least when referring to orbital motion, clearly does not have to happen in a circle. It can happen in an ellipse. I also referred you previously to Ftop_t’s Desmos work, where he showed that the program could be used to recreate an elliptical orbit where the object always presents the same side to the inside of the orbit, and it was only programmed to be composed of one motion.
Now, whether you want to refer to that one motion as a rotation about an external axis or not, is kind of irrelevant. So all this outcry about “rotation must occur in a circle” is missing the point. Call it “revolution”, instead, if you must. Semantics do not change that it is one single motion, in which the object always presents the same side to the inside of the orbit. Motion like the MOTL, only in an ellipse.
I note that Tim is still in denial about what the sources state, now moving to reject Wikipedia as a source altogether, whilst ignoring the other two sources completely.
pups wrote:
It’s not just a semantic question, it’s relevant to the physics of the Moon’s motions because the rotation and orbital translation are separate. Te rate of angular rotation of the orbit is different from the rate of angular rotation of the Moon around it’s CoM. The Moon rotates once an orbit wrt the stars.
I know that you think the movement of the moon is comprised of two motions, Swanson, and I understand why. The “Non-Spinners” argue that the movement of the moon is comprised of just one motion, as I explained.
… because the non-spinners observe from the central point inside the lunar orbit as explained by Clint R and DREMT then agreed.
Our biggest hypocrite states:
“I note that Tim is still in denial about what the sources state, now moving to reject Wikipedia as a source altogether, whilst ignoring the other two sources completely.”
while HE ignores MANY legitimate sources that he’s cited before, such as Madhavi, Brown, etc and even the first sentence of his own Wikipedia article!
Then he has a meltdown when people point out his OBVIOUS dishonesty on this very issue.
“Tim, if youre just going to start lying, you can go f*ck yourself. I am so bored of false accusations.”
WTF is wrong with DREMT?
No, Ball4. For the 10,000th time, it has nothing to do with reference frames. The "Non-Spinners" are arguing that the movement of the moon is comprised of one motion, as observed from absolutely anywhere, and the "Spinners" are arguing that the movement of the moon is comprised of two motions, as observed from absolutely anywhere.
That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the argument. It is not resolved by reference frames. I will make a solemn vow right now: if one of the "Spinners" can successfully convince Ball4 that the issue is not resolved by reference frames, I will never comment on the moon issue ever again.
If observation location has nothing to do with reference frames per DREMT, then DREMT should not have agreed with Clint R who pointed out observation inside the lunar orbit one “sees” (Clint R term) same face toward Earth but being outside the Moon’s orbit one sees ALL faces of our moon during moon’s orbit.
"If observation location has nothing to do with reference frames per DREMT"
I never said that, Ball4. Observation location does indeed have plenty to do with reference frames. Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, however.
DREMT did write: “it” has nothing to do with reference frames. By “it” DREMT is referencing “because the non-spinners observe from the central point inside the lunar orbit as explained by Clint R and DREMT then agreed.”
DREMT then should not have agreed with Clint R because:
“If observation location has nothing to do with reference frames per DREMT, then DREMT should not have agreed with Clint R who pointed out observation inside the lunar orbit one “sees” (Clint R term) same face toward Earth but being outside the Moon’s orbit one sees ALL faces of our moon during moon’s orbit.”
Per Clint R reference frames do then resolve the moon issue. Go argue with Clint R not me.
By "it" I meant "the moon issue". All I was saying, once again, is that reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. Clint R agrees.
Clint R shows DREMT that the position of the observer totally resolves the moon issue; DREMT just won’t understand Clint R’s insight into relativity. Go argue with Clint R since DREMT has agreed Clint does resolve the issue invoking reference frames.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
DREMT, start understanding Clint R completely resolves the moon issue using different observation locations i.e. relativity. And DREMT agreed with Clint R.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT has no defense since DREMT knows Clint R completely destroyed DREMT’s position on the moon issue with Clint pointing out that reference frames do completely resolve the issue.
Since you are simply lying, the only defense I need is to say: Ball4, please stop trolling.
pups wrote
No, pups. I provided mathematical proof that your “explanation” of the Moon’s motion as a single rotation around the barycenter is impossible. If you can’t counter my proof with math, you’ve lost your own game.
No Swanson, your “mathematical proof” is only that the moon’s orbit is not circular, which we all already knew anyway.
“Rotation about an external axis, at least when referring to orbital motion, clearly does not have to happen in a circle. It can happen in an ellipse.”
So DREMT is claiming that Engineering Professor Madhavi, in Dynamics of Rigid Bodies, is LYING when she clear states:
“2. 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.”
He is claiming that Brown University, Engineering Division, is LYING when it clearly states:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
He is claiming that University of Washington, Mechanical Engineering Dept, is LYING when they clearly state:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: In this case all particles of the body, except those on the axis of rotation, move along circular paths, in planes perpendicular to the axis of rotation”
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
Why? Because Wikipedia…
“I also referred you previously to Ftop_ts Desmos work, where he showed that the program could be used to recreate an elliptical orbit where the object always presents the same side to the inside of the orbit, and it was only programmed to be composed of one motion.”
Uhh, no. That was thoroughly debunked.
I haven’t followed the all the discussions carefully since my last post, but DRENT summarizes his position as:
“The “Non-Spinners” are arguing that the movement of the moon is comprised of one motion, as observed from absolutely anywhere.”
DREMT, you can’t describe that “one motion”. Sure it is easy for perfectly circular orbits, like a MGR horse. One point (the nose) always points straight forward along the direction of travel. Once one (a stirrup) always points straight inward toward the center. We can perfectly well describe this as a single “rotation about the center of the MGR”. (And we can describe it as a translation about the center and a rotation about the axis of the horse.
If all we cared about was the actual rotation of an actual rigid body, then DREMT’s desription is indeed a bit simpler (and would be preferecty by Occam’s Razor).
Even if all we cared about was a moon in a perfectly circular orbit, DREMT’s description is perfectly adequate. We can indeed describe the MOTL as one circular rotation about the center of the pixel earth.
But this “one motion” description fails for an actual moon in an actual ellipse. What is the “one motion”???
For example, some claim the “one motion” is the same as a car driving at varying speeds around an elliptical track (ie the “nose points straight forward”). This does not accurately produce the motion of the real moon.
Some claim the “one motion” is the same as a ball on a stretchy string (ie the “stirrup points straight inward”). This also produces the wrong motion for the moon.
No one can give an equation for “one motion” that truly produces the correct motion.
But scientists for 400 years have produced the correct motion of the moon (and all the other astronomical objects)
* a translation in an ellipse due to the pull of gravity.
* a constant axial rotation.
Simple. Elegant. In agreement with classical mechanics.
“No one can give an equation for ‘one motion’ that truly produces the correct motion.”
Yep, well put.
In the long discussion with FTOP we determined that the Moon’s motion required always TWO motions.
Mathematically this was always TWO terms summed together. One was the expression for a pure rotation, and the other an expression for a translation on an elliptical path.
And this combo produced Libration, like that of the Moon.
Tim waffles on a bit, sounding a bit drunk. Well, the moon’s motion is one single motion, and nobody ever said it had to be a simple motion. People want to argue that motion like the MOTL, but in an ellipse, “should have” the moon always moving with one face “pointing forward”, or one face “always pointing towards the center of the orbit” but they cannot explain why they think it should be this way. Meanwhile, they ignore the perfectly reasonable option that the moon might “change direction at a constant rate whilst moving through the orbit at varying rates”. We already know why it should move through the orbit at varying rates, after all.
Ftop_t has shown that the motion of the moon can be programmed as one individual motion. But regardless, those who want to believe it to be two motions will carry on believing it is two motions. At least Tim seemed to finally acknowledge that motion in a perfect circle, like a wooden horse on a carousel, could be modelled as a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis (i.e. one motion only). That seems to be something of a breakthrough. Think of all the “Spinners” who refuse to accept even that!
We just have to take it one step at a time.
pups ignores the fact that I showed the Moon’s rotational motion can not be described as a single rotation around the barycenter of the orbit. pups is delusional, his ignorance of the rotational dynamics of the Moon as a free body requires that the Moon rotate at a constant rate. This rotation can only be described as a translation of the Moon’s CoM around an elliptical path plus a rotation around the Moon’s CoM.
All the assertions by pups are invalid and based on a cartoon version of reality of a body in circular orbit as general motion in a plane, not the motion of a free body in space. pups will never admit the truth.
“Meanwhile, they ignore the perfectly reasonable option that the moon might ‘change direction at a constant rate whilst moving through the orbit at varying rates’.”
And here we have it: the definition of ORBIT evolves to meet the needs of the non-spinners.
ORBIT now apparently means do a special kind of jitterbug where your leg sticks out at a 6.7 degree angle, and wiggles around at a constant rate and your arms point straight up and wiggle around at a variable rate, but we will still call this ONE MOTION.
But math tells the story. To get the this motions requires two DIFFERENT terms in the equations for x and y.
And one of the terms describes a simple rotation, and the other describes an elliptical orbit.
These are two different motions, no matter how much FTOP and DREMT want it to be one.
Labeling them one motion is an absurdity, but they will do whatever they need to do to keep their dreams alive.
Meanwhile, we have highly successful universal model of ORBITs that is
‘Simple. Elegant. In agreement with classical mechanics.’
But these features are inexplicably undesirable to a few people.
“…his ignorance of the rotational dynamics of the Moon as a free body requires that the Moon rotate at a constant rate”
…change orientation at a constant rate. Swanson still mistakes a change in orientation, for axial rotation, and lacks the ability to visualize the motion of the moon as one single motion. He prattles on, and still has me confused with another commenter, the mysterious “pups”.
“But math tells the story. To get the this motions requires two DIFFERENT terms in the equations for x and y.”
And of course the reality is that if x and y define the orbital plane, the z coordinate is required to fully account for ONLY the constant rotational motion, which is out-of-plane.
“mistakes a change in orientation, for axial rotation, and lacks the ability to visualize the motion of the moon as one single motion.”
We ALL lack that ability since no one from the non-spinners has ever explained how this works or shown a suitable diagram.
To see it requires magic mushrooms that have not been shared.
Even the way DREMT writes his description is revealing the truth:
“change direction at a constant rate whilst moving through the orbit at varying rates.”
The word ‘whilst’ is only ever used to separate TWO actions.
and one of these actions is ‘moving through the orbit’
IOW he is accidentally acknowledging that orbiting is indeed separate from ‘changing direction’
So that’s that.
As I said in response to Tim, Swanson, we just have to take it one step at a time.
“whilst –
conjunction
/waɪlst/
/waɪlst/
(especially British English, formal)
(also while British and North American English)
during the time that something is happening; at the same time as something else is happening”
So that’s that!
We just have to take it one step at a time.
pups the sock puppet troll wrote:
pups still hasn’t made it past the starting line and is wondering why everybody that understands Newtonian physics has left him behind.
The cyber-bullying continues.
Clint R and I are two different people. That is the first step for you to understand, Swanson.
“The cyber-bullying continues.”
The only explanation for DREMT is extreme Narcissism.
Only HIS points need to be taken seriously.
Only HIS facts need to be considered.
He loses arguments on the facts, such as in this very thread, but he’ll declare he is winning.
His extreme dishonesty, arrogance, and belittling of others is perfectly acceptable.
Anyone pointing out his extreme dishonesty and arrogance must be bullies and terrible people.
The cyber-bullying continues.
Cult Leader pups says:
Change in orientation is also called rotation. If the change in orientation is at a constant rate, the rate of rotation is also a constant, which the Moon exhibits as it orbits. The radial line between the barycenter and the Moon also exhibits a change in orientation, but the rate is NOT a constant, a fact of life which pups appears not to comprehend.
No, I comprehend just fine that the moon moves through its orbit at varying speeds, and changes orientation at a more constant rate. One single motion, as Ftop_t showed.
(The cyber-bullying continues…)
Don’t bother him with the facts, Swanson. There is no connection between them and his religion.
#2
The cyber-bullying continues…
DREMT: Instead of just assuming it, it needs to actually be proven.
“This is very telling. Science is NEVER about proving anything. ”
Scientists, in formal debate, put great store on precision of language. This is why scientific debate and scientific papers often sound stilted.
“Proof” is a word often used by non-scientists and hardly ever by scientists. It can be a useful indicator of whether a debator has a scientific education, since the difference between evidence and proof gets beaten into us quite early.
I have a scientific education. Thank you.
It doesn’t show.
Thank you.
DREMT: You are an idiot.
OK, RLH.
“the fact that I asked people for proof that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ was like the MOTR, and nobody was able to provide any. ”
What about the claim that the definition of ORBIT specifies orientational change or rotation rate?
Where is the long requested proof?
What about the claim that there are two cancelling rotations at work in the MOTR..
Where is the long asked for proof?
What about the claim that the non-spinner model can explain the observed Lunar Libration.
Where is the often requested proof?
What about the claim that your model can explain the observed Axial Tilt, WITHOUT rotation around that tilted axis?
Where is the often requested proof?
Proof of non-spinner claims have been repeatedly requested, but attempt at proofs are ever offered.
Because no proofs of non-spinner claims are not required for non-spinner beliefs to continue.
Arrggh,
no proofs of non-spinner claims are required for non-spinner beliefs to continue.
My desperate, pathetic, obsessive stalker (who I haven’t responded directly to for over two years) got it right the first time.
And yet no proofs are forthcoming.
It is clear that DREMT cannot produce what he demands from his opponents.
I believe I already mentioned that I have not directly responded to him for over two years.
And yet, we know by vast experience that this is just a charade, and that DREMT responds WHEN he thinks he has answers.
In this instance, he clearly has no answers.
Over two years, and no direct response. Odd that he would still be trying to communicate.
No worries.
The lack of proofs and the hypocrisy are there for all to see.
My stalker is far too hard on himself, and the rest of the “Spinners”.
We just have to take it one step at a time.
Merry almost Christmas
Unless you’re French when Christmas has already begun.
(For those who do not know, the French start Christmas on the evening of the 24th).
Merry Christmas
Joyeux Noel!
DREMT
RLH is correct. Rotation and revolution are not synonyms. Physically they are different processes.
In lay language you can refer to a “Revolving door” but a physicist would classify it as a “rotating door”. Similarly, you might describe the Moon as rotating around its orbit when the physically correct term is revolving.
“Rotating around an external axis” is a meaningless term in physics and your use of it is distorting your thinking. I suggest that you and the rest of us use the physically correct term “revolving around an external axis” in future.
It is worth pointing out that the barycenter, about which both the Moon and the Earth orbit, is an internal point of the pair.
You still don’t get it, Entropic Man. Regardless of whether I call it “rotating around an external axis” or “revolving around an external axis”, “rotating/revolving around an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is still one single motion, in which the object keeps one face always oriented inwards, towards the external axis. Motion like the MOTL.
If you want to describe the motion of the MOTL as being composed of two separate motions, then you have to describe it as a translation in an ellipse plus a rotation about an internal axis.
Get it yet? No? Oh well.
The MOTL is moving in a circle DREMT not an elipse, get it?
Our real moon is moving inertially in an elipse in curvilinear translation while also rotating once on its own internal axis per orbit of Earth, get it? No? Oh, well.
As observed fron inside the lunar orbit, wrt to Earth our moon isn’t observed rotating on its own axis which Clint R told DREMT and DREMT agreed. Clint R went on to tell DREMT when observed from the sun, outside the lunar orbit, the sun “sees” all sides of the moon.
DREMT just needs to study and learn from Clint R’s comment with which DREMT, again, agreed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
“Our real moon is moving inertially in an elipse in curvilinear translation while also rotating once on its own internal axis per orbit of Earth, get it? No? Oh, well”
That is the “Spinner” position, yes. Thank you for your assistance.
… which DREMT doesn’t “get” is as observed outside the lunar orbit. The non-spinner position is correct only as observed inside the lunar orbit as Clint R points out. Study the Clint R comment.
” The non-spinner position is correct only as observed inside the lunar orbit … ”
This is wrong, Ball4.
The non-spinner position is always incorrect.
The lunar spin is independent of the place in space from which it is observed: Earth, a Lagrange point, the LRO, etc etc etc.
If that was not the case, no astronomer observing lunar craters or Apollo/Lunokhod retroreflectors could ever have computed the lunar spin period, let alone its three tiny periodic irregularities (named ‘physical librations’).
What is correct however, is that, for an observer staying on Earth, the Moon gives the illusion not to spin (except the optical, longitudinal libration effect, which some non-spinners incorrectly attribute to Moon’s orbiting motion).
The farside of the Moon is always the nearside of the Moon if you are at Earth/Moon L-2 point.
If at Earth/Moon L-1 point, the nearside is always the Earth’s nearside.
Both points spend a lot of time in sunlight.
If wanted solar panel to point at the Sun, the solar panels would need to spin. If wanted to them the always face their nearside of the Moon, they get less sunlight reaching a one sided solar panel. Also true if one sided solar panel are always facing away from their nearside.
If L-1 is pointing at Earth, it’s directly point at Earth/Moon Barycenter, which racing around Earth with rate of Earth spin {about 1000 miles per hour} and crossed Earth equator at 5.145 degree angle- goes north and south 5.145 latitude at two times of Earth’s year- but other than varying by 5.145 degrees, it a bit complicated where travels relative earth surface at other times of Earth’s year.
Or where Earth/Moon Barycenter is and it is couple thousand km below earth’s surface.**
This tracks it:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html
**This is the case for the Earth–Moon system, in which the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth’s center, 75% of Earth’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi). When the two bodies are of similar masses, the barycenter will generally be located between them and both bodies will orbit around it.”
https://www.restaurantnorman.com/where-is-the-barycenter-of-the-earth-and-moon-system/
“The non-spinner position is always incorrect.”
Only inertially Bindidon.
Our moon is a non-spinner wrt to Earth as earthshine is only incident on one face of our moon; the non-spinners always just fail to announce the location of their observation inside the lunar orbit on Earth. Sunshine is incident on all sides of our moon observed outside the orbit so our moon does rotate on its own axis wrt the sun as Clint R pointed out and DREMT has agreed with Clint.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
As Clint R stated and I agree, “since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit”.
Neither Clint R or myself agree that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the Sun. That is just Ball4 lying, as usual.
Ball4
” Only inertially Bindidon.
Our moon is a non-spinner wrt to Earth as earthshine is only incident on one face of our moon; the non-spinners always just fail to announce the location of their observation inside the lunar orbit on Earth. ”
*
All you do with your ‘explanation’ is to create even more confusion.
What you by the way already do ad nauseam with your permanent, boring (ab)use of the concept of ‘reference frames’, which is redundant in the context of Newtonian astrophysics.
Speaking of motions with respect to a fixed point in space (e.g., a star) would be much more convenient for discussions between lay(wo)men.
But… maybe that concept is not ‘sciency’ enough for you?
Bindidon 6:15pm: In DREMT’s comment at 4:48pm, the words “since it does not spin” are bolded but the reference frame in which “it does not spin” is not provided. DREMT leaves the reference frame out on purpose because providing the correct ref. frame destroys DREMT’s argument.
Newtonian astrophysics actually demands the reference frame of interest be specified since all motion is relative. There are NO fixed points in space ever since the aether concept was proven invalid. All objects move relative to another object, there is NO absolute motion which YES, would be more convenient if the aether concept were valid & absolute motion existed.
“DREMT leaves the reference frame out on purpose because providing the correct ref. frame destroys DREMT’s argument.”
False. Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
No, you don’t get it. Revolution and rotation are measurably different processes which can and do happen simultaneously and separately.
If you want to describe revolution around an orbit as translation along a closed geodesic you are quite welcome, but it says nothing about the rotation of the translating object.
I don’t want to describe “orbital motion without axial rotation” as translation, Entropic Man…the “Spinners” do. Still don’t have a clue, do you?
You also don’t want to agree that the Earth/Moon barycenter is external to the center of the Earth AND the center of the Moon either.
Why would I not want to agree that?
Because you are an idiot.
Sure, sure.
I am an idiot.
I am an idiot.
Entropic man
” Rotation and revolution are not synonyms. ”
You are right.
However, we are faced with the problem that this tough distinction did not exist centuries ago, at the time where scientists like Isaac Newton became convinced of Moon’s rotation about an internal axis.
Newton himself namely wrote in Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV of his Principia Scientifica (3rd ed., 1726):
” 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′. ”
*
Of course: only an absolutely ignorant and / or dishonest person would try to insinuate that Newton understood ‘revolves’ in the sense of ‘rotation’ in this sentence only
– for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun
but… by magic
– NOT for the Moon.
The words “revolution” and “rotation” are actually synonyms. Regardless, in astronomy, the word “revolution” refers to an orbit, and “rotation” to rotation about an internal axis.
However, if you have a little look-see on the internet, you can find plenty of sources that state that “revolution” (meaning “orbit”) is actually just another word for “rotation about an external axis”. Do I need to provide the sources again!?
The ‘external’ axis or barycenter is not at the center of either the Earth or the Moon.
Indeed.
So you agree that the barycenter is not at the center of either the Earth or the Moon but is external to the center of both.
That is what “indeed” means, yes.
So your point about it not being at the center of the Moon is pointless. It is not at the center of the Earth either.
The barycenter is external to the moon, so the moon is rotating about an external axis. Nobody knows why you find this so difficult to understand.
… as viewed from inside the lunar orbit on Earth as Clint R taught DREMT, not sure why DREMT finds what Clint R simply taught is so hard to understand.
The Earth/Moon barycenter would be ‘outside’ the Earth if the ratios were just very slightly different.
Just as the Sun/Solar system barycenter can be ‘outside’ the Sun at times.
Clint R agrees with me, obviously.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
Both DREMT and Clint R are idiots.
Agreed.
I am an idiot.
Wow, some people are getting desperate, trying to impersonate me (and not even getting it right).
I’m fine with this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Astronomy
Sure, just scroll up a bit, and:
“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.”
Perfect.
But…
” Of course: only an absolutely ignorant and / or dishonest person would try to insinuate that Newton understood revolves in the sense of rotation in this sentence only
for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun
but by magic
NOT for the Moon. “
I am not insinuating anything.
So you agree that Newton does not agree with you?
RLH,
Ooooh! A gotcha and an appeal to authority all in one!
Facts are facts. If you consider the Earth as the Moon’s parent body, (about which the Moon orbits), it can be seen that the Earth does not rise and set in the lunar sky.
With respect to its parent, the Earth, the Moon is not rotating in the sense that the Earth rotates in regard to its parent, the Sun.
The Sun rises and sets when viewed from the Earth. The Earth does not rise and set when viewed from the Moon.
Call it what you like. Does it matter?
By the way, I disagree with Sir Isaac Newton’s views on many things. The ones he was wrong about.
Swenson,
“The Earth does not rise and set when viewed from the Moon.”
You are telling porkie pies again.
“If you consider the Earth as the Moon’s parent body”
I don’t. On current thinking the Moon was a separate body that intersected with the Earth and that collision caused the 2 to remain close to each other during their current orbits of the Sun. In fact the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth and will eventually resumes its independent trajectory.
rlh…”On current thinking the Moon was a separate body that intersected with the Earth and that collision caused the 2 to remain close to each other during their current orbits of the Sun”.
***
Collision??!!
The Moon would need to have passed Earth at its present altitude, direction, and linear momentum in order to go into orbit. It could not have gone into an orbit had it intercepted Earth with resistance from the atmosphere.
More momentum and it would have shot past on a parabolic or hyperbolic path. Lass momentum and it would have collided with Earth, creating a catastrophe for both.
The idea of the Moon being ejected from the Earth is shear bs.
GR: It is impossible to ‘go into orbit’ without shedding some energy otherwise the 2 would have parted on diverging paths. That energy was expended in the collision.
You suggested that the Moon was ejected from the Earth as though it was originally part of it which I did not say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
rlh…”GR: It is impossible to go into orbit without shedding some energy otherwise the 2 would have parted on diverging paths. That energy was expended in the collision”.
***
If the two collided as you claim, it would be akin to two snooker balls colliding. Think about how such an elastic or inelastic collision could possibly result in the current orbital path.
If the Moon came from outside the Earth’s orbit and struck it inline with the Sun, or at an angle, it would knock the Earth out of its orbit to some degree, but the Moon would not go into orbit because it would lack the required momentum and direction tangential to a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
Even if by some fluke, the Moon glanced off the Earth, it would act like a rocket carrying a satellite to be placed in orbit. It could not accelerate, it could only decelerate. Therefore it would need to find some way to change its momentum so it was facing tangential to a radial line between Earth and Moon.
When a satellite is launched the rocket fires vertically at first then a computer guides it into a tangential direction. How would the Moon do that?
Either way, there’s no way for the Moon to gain the required direction and momentum from a collision. When we studied this as part of the 1st year physics course in Dynamics, we actually calculated the required parameters to enter orbit. I have passed them on to you.
The reason I am so adamant is that we were drilled in the concept of freebody diagrams, a process in which forces, momenta, etc. are replace by vectors. That’s what I have done with my analysis of the Moon in its orbit. There are only two parameters at work: the Moon’s linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field.
We had to wean ourselves off common myths. With the ball on the string you seem to hate so much, we had to get it that the only forces on the ball are the centripetal force exerted by the string on the ball and the force of gravity on the ball. Ignoring gravity for now, the ball has only linear momentum and the string prevents it from following that linear path by exerting a force on the ball to redirect it.
There is no acceleration in the direction of the string unless the person operating the mechanism exerts more tension on the string to speed up the ball. If the person removes enough force on the string, the ball will succumb to gravity and fall.
Any force acting outwardly (centrifugally), as per Newton III, is not enough to overcome the tension on the string, otherwise the string would stretch or break. Therefore there is a static equilibrium along the string and nothing moves along it. That’s why there is no acceleration along the string.
Although you object to the analogy between the BOS and the Moon’s interaction with Earth’s gravity, there are similarities. The Moon has only linear momentum, like the ball, and the Earth’s gravitational field is strong enough to bend that linear momentum into a elliptical curve, it’s not strong enough to accelerate the Moon toward Earth.
Note…acceleration TOWARD the Earth. Since the force exerted by gravity is always pointed almost directly at the Earth that means any acceleration MUST be in that direction. There is no other possible direction for acceleration to take place because there are no forces in such a direction.
There are arguments that an acceleration is involved but I am arguing that an acceleration requires linear displacement and such a displacement would require a degradation of the lunar orbit. Gravitational force is only strong enough to hold the Moon at its current average altitude but not strong enough to move it in any other direction than the Moon’s linear (tangential) instantaneous direction.
The idea of acceleration came from the incorrect application of vectors. It has been reasoned that a tangential velocity vector at one instant in an orbital path will change angles wrt another point. That has been used as the basis of claiming a changing velocity vector direction is acceleration and it is wrong.
Anyone who has studied vector calculus, and I have, knows that the change in a vector from point a to b is dependent only on the change in the scalar quantity, which defines the magnitude of the vector. Changing the direction while maintaining the scalar as a constant quantity cannot be used to determine an acceleration that does not exist.
If you look at a vector defined in a Cartesian coordinate system, the vector is defined by unit vectors of constant magnitude along the x, y and z axes. The vector itself is defined by the scalar which multiplies the unit vector of magnitude 1. That’s how the direction is defined as xi + yj + kz, there i,j,and k are unit vectors equal to magnitude 1.
If the velocity vector defined by xi + yj + kz is constant, it will remain constant and no acceleration can take place even though the direction changes constantly.
That’s the case with the Moon, except for small changes due to the eccentricity of the orbit. That eccentricity is caused by a variation in the gravitational field, allowing the constant lunar velocity vector to have more control over the elliptical path.
The Moon’s current orbit happened by sheer fluke because the Moon had the correct linear momentum at the required altitude to be captured.
Dimwitted bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
The Earth does not rise and set when viewed from the Moon.
You are telling porkie pies again.”
bob needs to correct NASA, who wrote –
“Generally, the Earth will not “move across the sky”; it pretty much “stays put” in one location . . .”
Dimwitted nitpicker bob will no doubt try to claim that pictures taken from a mission orbiting the Moon showing Earthrise are what would be seen from the surface, but of course they aren’t. They are from a spacecraft orbiting the Moon.
Obviously, from certain points of the surface, there are libration effects where the Earth appears for a little while above the horizon. Not rising and setting from horizon to horizon.
bob (a woke little dimwitted climate crank) just accuses me of lying, hoping that an accusation will be treated as fact by rational observers. Luckily, not everyone belongs to the woke cancel culture.
Whew!
“If the two collided as you claim, it would be akin to two snooker balls colliding.”
No it wouldn’t. Materials science tell us they would deform and then heat up. See the wiki for a better explanation but there is still a lot to discover. It did happen a LONG time ago.
Regardless of that there is no way to enter an orbit of any sort without shedding some energy. You are a very poor scientist, if at all, if you do not understand that.
The Earth is a very thin cold skin on top of a basically liquid center (going to solid again under high central pressure).
Swenson,
I was just pointing out to you that there are locations on the Moon where the Earth rises and sets in the same place, due to libration.
So Swenson moves the goalposts.
“Not rising and setting from horizon to horizon.”
Nope, the Earth rises and sets in the same spot for certain locations on the Moon.
Note that NASA says generally and pretty much>
“Generally, the Earth will not “move across the sky”; it pretty much “stays put” in one location . . .”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
IIRC the scenario which best explains the size and composition of the Moon is that a planet about the size of Mars hit Earth at relatively slow speed 4 billion years ago. The iron cores combined and some of the mantle splashed into space. About 1.2% of the Earth’s mass remained in orbit and eventually combined to form the Moon.
NASA, private space industry may reach new heights in 2022
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/12/23/space-new-year-2022-spacex-starliner-Starship/7551639152913/
“.., Elon Musk’s SpaceX plans to dominate the global launch industry again with its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy after launching a record 31 orbital missions in 2021.”
–“I’m confident because the American people do not want to land [again] second to China,” Nelson said. “And neither does Joe Biden, and he reflects the will of the American people.”–
Let’s go Brandon!
“Nelson expressed confidence in SpaceX Starship development, but said he’s pushing for extra congressional appropriations to fund a competitor, such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.”
It doesn’t look like Bezos will do much in 2022, but he is secretive, has endless money and says very eager about using the resources of the space environment to transform human civilization.
“Many space industry observers have confidence in SpaceX, but aren’t sure if the Starship design can be successful, said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts.
“If they can fly the upper stage in orbit, and bring it back down successfully, they will change the space industry forever,” McDowell said. “The tests they’ve done so far are amazing, but it’s not clear to me when or if they will ever accomplish orbital flight.”
In near term {less than 5 years} what happens with lunar exploration will be important. But exploring Mars with crew will important and it seems to me, that we have to test artificial gravity in LEO and figure out how to get crew to Mars within 3 months. What I call fast Mars. Fast Mars is for crew, and cargo/supplies would go on a more energy efficient transfer to Mars.
Or most of mass send to Mars will send with Hohmann transfers and I think need ability to send crew on non-Hohmann trajectory that gets them there in 3 months or less.
There are known ways to get to Mars in 2 months, which involve using nuclear powered rockets that we have not made or used yet. I am not in favor of using this technology as I believe it simply will cost too much and take too much time {and could fail even if lots money is spent and time used up trying to do this}. Of course, US military and China and Russia are “working on it” or are at least “excited about it”. What I am excited about is refueling chemical rocket in orbit- which also has not been done before. But if Starship flies, refueling in LEO is important thing to do, in order to make Starship something which can go to Moon and Mars. Starship would great even if can’t refuel in LEO but would be failure as far as Musk plans. And needed in near term, for Starship role in landing crew on the Moon.
Mars is just a gravity hole. There is nothing on Mars that we don’t already have on earth.
Maybe the belt will have easy to extract resources without the gravity hole issue.
Mars is smaller gravity hole and far less atmosphere.
If Martian are attacked by space aliens, one could attack the aliens with cannons.
The energy to get to orbits is almost nothing, it’s rockets which use a fair amount of energy. Or if Earth didn’t have atmosphere, the energy cost of 1 kg to orbit would be less than 1 dollar. Mars with less gravity and thin atmosphere can be less than $1 per kg.
Sub orbital travel is much easier than Earth, though lower gravity means slower orbital time, with Earth it’s less than hour to get anywhere on Earth, and Mars it less than 2 hours to get from any point to any other point on the planet.
Earth has mined for thousands of years, Mars surface has not been mined. Most of what is mined on Earth is due to impactors, Mars has also had impactors. Mars impactors hit at lower velocity, as compared to Earth.
Mars could much larger underground areas than Earth. On Mars one has more usable crustal zone. About 1 mile is around the limit on Earth, Mars might be around about 10 or more miles. Mars surface is ancient. Ice cores much older than Earth’s.
Mars is surface is better place harvest solar energy than Earth surface. You don’t have floods on Mars, floods are major weather problem on Earth. No super volcanoes, no earthquakes. Small space rocks could be problem on Mars, but lightning on Earth could be more of problem.
And possible low gravity is not health problem. If that is not problem, or solvable problem, low gravity more fun.
But I tend to think Venus orbit will be more desirable, than Mars surface. Free sunlight is much more of a thing in Venus orbit, as compared Mars or Earth surface.
Now, a fast Mars from Earth, is basically trying to get the Venus to Mars Hohmann planetary transfer- which much easier from Venus. Hohmann work pretty good from Venus to Earth, Mars, or Mercury, and Jupiter and beyond.
It’s said, God gave Earth the Moon, so humans could be a spacefaring species.
And God didn’t give Venus a moon.
So, Venus doesn’t have a moon, but it doesn’t really need it, like the Earth does. But one could import a moon to the Venus orbit.
I am of the opinion that life is not possible without tides. A moon of substantial size is required for a planet to be habitable.
Floods mean water enough to grow crops. No water means no crops. I don’t know why anyone thinks Mars can be terraformed without moon, water and with thin and very cold atmosphere.
Yes it makes sense to explore Mars; there is always something to learn. But to try and live there? No thanks.
“I am of the opinion that life is not possible without tides. A moon of substantial size is required for a planet to be habitable.”
It may be that Earth life can only live on Earth, but it seems we should find out if that is the case.
And I think its NASA job is to find out. And like most governmental bodies, NASA has not been doing its job.
I have been interested in space, because I wondered, why is NASA not doing its job?
There is some belief that NASA is just wasting tax dollars.
There is some belief among space cadets, that NASA has been under funded, as the reason, NASA has failed to do its job.
I tend to hold the idea, that NASA is underfunded because NASA has not been doing its job. I also believe that NASA has been given more than enough money, to do its job. But also believe, you cannot give any government enough money, for a government to do its job.
Some people imagine if we ended NASA, we might be able to explore space. I think ending NASA would be a bad political move. But could possibly result in more exploration of space.
As far as question of defunding NASA, I simply think I rather defund other governmental things, like Dept of Education, which ruining education, and Dept of Energy, which also doesn’t do its job.
You could say I am fan of NASA. And want NASA to get more funding, and NASA is rather stupid about getting more funding. One can say NASA spends a lot effort doing things which cause it to be underfunded.
So, the proper thing for NASA to do, is explore the Moon to determine if there is mineable water, and NASA should not foolishly attempt to make rocket fuel on the Moon. Making rocket fuel on the Moon is going to be hard to do, NASA should do its job, which would then be to explore Mars.
NASA has been lying for decades, that they want to explore Mars- they been lying because they done NOTHING in order to do this. And everything they spend much effort on, works against doing this.
So, other than explore the Moon to determine if and where there could be mineable lunar water, NASA needs to determine how to get to Mars, fast and needs to test artificial gravity in the space environment {ie, in LEO].
You can’t claim you want to explore Mars, without first doing this.
#n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
Shhhh.
#2n DREMT please stop trolling.
Hush, chile.
#2n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
Shut that dulcet mouth.
#2n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
Your silence is golden.
#2n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
Eternal, glorious hush.
#2n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
Delightful cessation of speech.
#3n DREMT please stop trolling.
A powerful and everlasting quiet, please.
#3n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
Infinitely zip it.
#3n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
Begone, noise.
#3n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
Be still thy beating mouth.
coturnix and rlh…”The difference between the flat-earthers and the non-spinners is not in favor of the non-spinners. The fact that the earth is spherical is a much less obvious fact that requires alot more knowledge and inference than to realize that moon spins on its axis. thus, the non-spinners are by far much dumber.
RLH says: “They both believe in impossible facts”.
***
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
I have supplied you both with irrefutable mathematical proof that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis yet neither of you have had the guts or the intelligence to supply a scientific rebuttal.
Rather you both settle for ad hominem attacks. Coturnix goes so far as to ask why I ‘do this’, in reference to my lengthy proofs. RLH settles for one liner, smart-assed responses.
Coturnix apparently lacks the intelligence to rebut a scientific argument while his side-kick, rlh, settles for an appeal to authority.
Back in the day when Copernicus and Galileo challenged the homily that the Sun revolves about the Earth, they were threatened with death if they did not recant their heresies.
Seems we are slowly drifting back to those dark ages.
“There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
That applies to you WAY more than me.
tim…”The universal conclusion is that the best, most self-consistent explanation for the motion of the moon is that it rotates once each time it orbits”.
***
And because all those people concluded that, you have to go along with the conclusion without testing it?
Those people were wrong and Nicola Tesla proved it. Reading what Tesla concluded has helped me to visualize this problem from another direction using skills I acquired in engineering studies. I have laid out the engineering math, which is alarmingly simply and your comeback is to use reference frames inappropriately to rebut it.
Had it not been for Clint, Dremt, Swenson et al, I would not have bothered looking deeper. What they have claimed, however, got me interested in the details, and when you look at the details it is a no-brainer that the Moon simply cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping one side pointed to the Earth.
That should have been apparent to those people who concluded otherwise. When I ran it past NASA, they did not disagree, they merely claimed to be viewing it from a different reference frame. When I pointed out the obvious, that a body which is not rotating PHYSICALLY in one reference frame cannot possibly begin rotating PHYSICALLY when viewed from another reference frame, they went ominously silent.
“When I ran it past NASA, they did not disagree, they merely claimed to be viewing it from a different reference frame. When I pointed out the obvious, that a body which is not rotating PHYSICALLY in one reference frame cannot possibly begin rotating PHYSICALLY when viewed from another reference frame, they went ominously silent. ”
Can’t blame them. That was the point at which it became obvious they were debating with one of the green ink brigade.
NASA has considerable experience with everyone from non-spinners to moon landing fakers and know that trying to overcome such cognitive dissonance is wasted effort.
Incidentally , you are wrong. When you shift from an Earth centred frame to a Sun centred frame of reference the Moon does not suddenly begin rotating. It was always not rotating in the Earth frame and always rotating in the Sun frame.
” a body which is not rotating PHYSICALLY in one reference frame cannot possibly begin rotating PHYSICALLY when viewed from another reference frame”
And if one reference frame is rotating wrt the the other?
rlh…”And if one reference frame is rotating wrt the the other?”
***
No difference, you are missing the physical reality. In order for a body to have rotation about an axis it must have an angular velocity about that axis. If that angular velocity is zero about an axis in one reference frame it will be zero about the same axis in all reference frames.
You must be very careful not to confuse relative motion, and the illusions it can produce, with the actuality of a local physical body rotating on an axis.
For example, the retrograde motion of Mercury, as viewed from Earth, is an illusion created by relative motion. At no time is Mercury moving backward in it’s orbit even though to the human brain it may appear that way at certain parts of its orbit as viewed from Earth.
Closer to home, we still talk about sunrise and sunset even though it has been known for some 500 years that the Sun is not moving relative to the Earth.
To the human mind, the Moon appears to be rotating about a local axis once per orbit. That illusion has been accepted as fact by many scientists who should have known better. It should have occurred to them that the Moon cannot keep one face always pointed at Earth and at the same time rotate through 360 degrees about its axis.
You keep dismissing the ball on a string without examining the obvious. The ball is a sphere like the Moon and always keeps the same face pointed inwardly along the string toward the external axis held by a person spinning the ball. Granted, the Moon’s orbital mechanism does not operate like this but there are parallels.
Both spheres keep the same face always pointed inward. We can see for the BOS that its inner face is constrained by the tension on the string and cannot rotate about its local axis without wrapping around the string. Therefore, its outer face is always moving in parallel.
Since the Moon moves with the same parameters, it means its outer face always moves parallel to the inner face, as I have proved independently using a radial line and tangent lines. Therefore, the Moon is not rotating about its axis either. The outer face being always moving parallel to the inner face describes translation without rotation.
This is seriously obvious stuff, Richard, and you are not seeing it because you are conditioned to reject it.
I don’t give a hoot about being right, I am far more into prodding you into taking the next step and LOOKING.
What is looking? We generally regard that process as gathering light with our eyes but that is a small part of the process. Once the light information is gathered it is converted to biochemical processes where it is operated on by the brain. The mechanism involved is heavily conditioned, hence distorted, and it biases what is actually seen by the eye.
Fortunately, the brain has the ability to bypass the conditioning and distortion but that involves temporarily emptying the mind of everything it ‘knows’ about the problem.
The first thing that is required then with this Moon problem is to say “I know nothing about the Moon and its orbit”. Even if the knowledge keeps intervening, dismiss it and carry on with a fresh observation. Allow nothing that you have heard and examine the problem completely anew.
If that angular velocity is non zero about an axis in one reference frame it will be non zero about the same axis in all reference frames.
Unless the non aero element is the difference between the 2 reference frames.
*non zero
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Answer the question about one reference frame rotating wrt the the other.
I would say that what Gordon said still applies. However, you need to be specific. Much more specific. In exactly what situation do you believe switching reference frames will change the physical reality of whether an object is rotating about some axis, or not?
So be specific. Do you agree that a reference frame can rotate wrt to another reference frame.
Of course.
So a line (axis) in one frame can rotate wrt to another in a different frame.
If you say so.
You agreed to that already.
Feel free to make a point, or answer my question.
dremt…”I would say that what Gordon said still applies. However, you need to be specific”.
***
They need to answer this simple question first. If a body has no angular velocity about its local axis, can that angular velocity be started by switching to another reference frame?
The answer is no. Therefore, any obfuscation and rhetoric about reference frames is an attempt to deviate from the obvious.
If I have a merry-go-round stopped and I disconnect the power so the motor can’t turn, it is has no angular velocity about its axis. If I view it from Mars, it still has no angular velocity. No matter which reference frames I view it from it has no angular velocity about its axis when the power to the motor is cut.
If a reference frame can rotate wrt to another reference frame then a line in one reference frame can rotate wrt to a line in another reference frame.
Every line can be an internal axis about which a body can rotate.
So vague it is impossible to really comment…
If I have a merry-go-round that is running, it has an angular velocity about its axis. If I view it from Mars, it has an angular velocity wrt the Earth that is different to the Earths angular velocity as seen from Mars.
“So vague it is impossible to really comment”
Perfectly describes your inability to construct a viable demonstration.
Reference frames (and lines/axis in them) can be fixed or rotating in all cases as seen from other reference frames.
The merry-go-round is either rotating about its own axis, if running, or not rotating about its own axis, if stopped, regardless of reference frame. There is no reference frame in which the merry-go-round, if stopped, is suddenly rotating about its own axis. There is no reference frame in which the merry-go-round, if running, is suddenly not rotating about its own axis. Even if you use the rotating reference frame of the merry-go-round itself, and trick yourself into thinking that the merry-go-round is stationary, whilst the rest of the Universe is rotating around you, that would not really be the case. The reality would still be that the merry-go-round is rotating about its own axis. Not the rest of the Universe about the merry-go-round.
And if you are sitting on the roundabout
All things are RELATIVE. That is what Newton proposed.
I told you about the case where you are sitting on the merry-go-round. Read the comment again.
DREMT 6:58 am has begun to learn about reference frames! What a miracle! Nice work DREMT.
Even if you use the rotating reference frame of the merry-go-round itself, and trick yourself into thinking that the merry-go-round is stationary, whilst the rest of the Universe is rotating around you, that would not really be the case. The reality would still be that the merry-go-round is rotating about its own axis. Not the rest of the Universe about the merry-go-round because that mgr attached frame itself is accelerating.
Wow, pretty cool.
Now apply DREMT’s new found reference frame understanding to the moon on the left. And IF DREMT can get that right, move on to our real moon! Maybe there is yet hope for DREMT on frames of reference. Clint R’s comment had an effect on DREMT, DREMT must have studied it harder. Good stuff.
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
“The merry-go-round is either rotating about its own axis, if running, or not rotating about its own axis, if stopped, regardless of reference frame.”
Huh??
If a MGR is rotating CW around its axis at rate, w, in the non-rotating frame, it certainly WOULD have 0 rotation rate in a reference frame rotating CW at rate, w.
Why not?
A point of view/reference frame which is independent of other ‘frames’ is a requirement for all physics. Newton set it out and others have agreed.
Reality is difficult, for some.
As is accepting what Newton actually wrote.
No, not at all.
Anybody that says something is rotating “regardless of reference frame” quite obviously doesnt understand reference frames.
#2
Reality is difficult, for some.
Why is DREMT responding to me, when he claims he is not allowed to respond to me?
The charade continues…
#3
Reality is difficult, for some.
Yes, we all get it, and are truly bored by it.
Trolling your many perceived enemies by getting the ‘last word’ is your TOP priority.
While continuing the charade that you are not responding to me is apparently secondary.
Endlessly repeating the same thoroughly debunked arguments, is third.
And finding the truth about the universe comes in dead last, if at all.
#4
Reality is difficult, for some.
DREMT supports charades.
Incorrect.
DREMT is wrong as usual.
Incorrect, again.
coturnix…”The thing is that nazis did what they did not because everyone was nazi in germany, but because everybody just shrugged their moral responsibility for their own choices and just did their job. In terms of actual beliefs the situation of today is id say worse than the nazi germany had. Afaik less than 10% of germans were In the nazi party, but today significantly higher number of people are crazy waxxers”.
***
Not following you around, I just scroll through recent posts and reply to those that interest me somewhat.
Put yourself in the place of an average person in Germany during WWII. If you knew that protesting or acting out against the government got you sent to a concentration camp, or just plain shot, what would you do?
There were armed resistance groups in France that acted out, shooting German soldiers. The Germans reacted by arbitrarily shooting innocent villagers. Same in Norway, Greece, or any occupied country.
What would you have done?
I read a good book recently about German dissenters who did what they could but they knew visible dissent would get them killed. I would not want to be in such a situation.
With regard to vaxxers, it has become an emotional argument rather than a rational debate. Pro-vaxxers will swear that vaccines wiped out diseases like polio, etc., but when asked for proof, all they can do is point to the drop in polio deaths after vaccines were introduced.
Is that a valid scientific argument? It’s similar to the AGW argument that a trace gas is causing global warming/climate change. Correlation is not causation, where is the direct evidence it is true?
All we really knew about polio pre-vax occurred during two World Wars. The Spanish flu occurred following WWI when soldiers who were sick were returning from living abysmal conditions, in trenches, with rats running around, where disease was rampant.
Polio itself peaked pre-WW I and went away on its own. It peaked several times between about 1910 and 1950 and went away on its own. When vaccines were introduced in the 1950s, polio was on the decline.
Is it possible that diseases like polio, measles, chicken pox, etc., is related to lifestyle, living conditions, etc., where general immunity is reduced?
Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV (he claims only to have inferred it), now claims HIV will not infect a healthy immune system. He no longer thinks HIV causes AIDS, claiming AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
There’s that word again…lifestyle. Lifestyles conducive to healthy immune systems seem to repel disease, or at least, to handle it. Otherwise, I think the human race would have been extinct by now.
Polio killed about 8000 people in the US in 1910 and it was killing about 1000 per year by 1950. As I pointed out, it was declining when the vaccines were introduced. Was that due to better immunity or to the vaccine?
How will we ever test that, especially when the medical community is hell bent on protecting their turf to the detriment of science?
When a valid question is met with an emotional response, science goes out the window.
Poliomyelitis spreads like cholera. It leaves your body in your faeces and infects others when they eat or drink water contaminated with the virus.
I suppose you could cause poor sanitation a lifestyle of the poor.
By its nature epidemiology is not an easy science in which to do controlled experiments. Unfortunately Pakistan and Afghanistan provided a good example. Before 2014 both Pakistan and Afghanistan, even during the Afghan civil war, encouraged vaccination and in both countries rates were very low.
Then the CIA set up a fake polio vaccination scheme in 2013 as an intelligence tool to hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Polio vaccinators were attacked as radical Islamists spread rumours of an American plot to sterilize Muslims.
Since then vaccination rates in both countries have been low and polio infections have been rising.
entropic…”Then the CIA set up a fake polio vaccination scheme in 2013 as an intelligence tool to hunt for Osama Bin Laden”.
***
Your story is true but not quite accurate. CIA operatives set up a Pakistani doctor to go around offering vaccinations in an attempt to get information on Bin Laden. The doctor went door to door in a town in Pakistan and finally hit pay dirt. He identified one house in a gated yard as refusing to talk to him and the CIA investigation suspected Bin Laden may be there.
They were right. A SEAL team hit the house and found him.
I wonder if the children crippled by polio because of the lack of vaccination though that Bin Laden’s death was worth their suffering.
“Correlation is not causation, where is the direct evidence it is true? ”
In science correlation does not always indicate causation, but that’s the way to bet. Causation is often the first indication of causation. You observe the correalation and then go looking for evidence for the mechanism.
You usually find three classes. If A correlates with B, then expect to find that A causes B, B causes A or A and B are not caused by C.
For example, in a few hours I will eat Turkey and Christmas pudding as I always do on December 25th. There is a correalation.
Turkey does not cause pudding, not does pudding cause turkey, but both are caused by Christmas.
Both in global warming and vaccination the is considerable evidence of causation. Your adaptation is to protect your beliefs by rejecting whatever evidence refutes them.
Incidentally, can you give examples in which correlation occurs without causation. Offhand I can’t think of any.
Correlation without causation: Ice Cream sales at beach resorts and Shark Attacks.
Both caused by good weather. More people visit the beach; the more people the more ice cream sales and shark attacks.
Reductio ad absurdam. On an empty beach neither ice cream or people get eaten.
What about correlation between additional CO2 and increased temperatures?
Silly, isn’t it?
You’d think anyone would realise that creating CO2 by burning fossil fuels creates lots of heat, which results in increased temperatures. Correlation, plus an explanation which doesn’t require magic!
Remove the extra heat, temperature falls back.
Pretty simple, really.
Heath Robinson would be proud!
For Americans:-
Rube Goldberg would be proud.
Smallpox.
Explain.
There are a large number of viruses around, smallpox is just one of them (or not having been eradicated). Was meant for GR who denies that they exist.
rlh…”There are a large number of viruses around, smallpox is just one of them (or not having been eradicated). Was meant for GR who denies that they exist”.
***
I don’t deny that viruses exist, I am the messenger for Dr. Stefan Lanka who claims there is no scientific proof that many of the viruses, like small pox and measles, exist. Lanka does not claim they don’t exist but his 100,000 Euro award suggests he has the confidence to offer it on the basis that no scientific papers exist that prove a measles virus exists.
He has offered 100,000 Euros to anyone who can provide scientific papers to prove the measles virus exists. Someone challenged him recently and the lower court agreed with the challenger. Upon appeal, a higher court agreed, based partly on testimony from a court appointed expert, that the papers submitted held no proof that a measles virus was isolated.
How then, have measles vaccines, based on this alleged virus, prevented the unidentified virus from infecting people?
I don’t know if vaccines work or not but I’ll be darned if I am going to blindly take the word of an authority figure that they do. I have plenty of evidence to cast serious doubt on the covid vaccine, which is not a vaccine by definition, but an experimental drug.
So smallpox virus exists but there is no proof that it does? Do you ever consider what you write?
Gordon,
Youve been shown the actual court ruling several times.
According the court judgement:
“However, this is by no means to be understood as confirmation of the theories of Lanka, according to the court: ‘It is by no means the opinion of the court that a measles virus does not exist’. And addressed to the members of the press the presiding judge said: ‘Watch your headlines.’
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39817/did-germanys-supreme-court-rule-that-the-measles-virus-didnt-exist
So your statements on this topic:
“Upon appeal, a higher court agreed, based partly on testimony from a court appointed expert, that the papers submitted held no proof that a measles virus was isolated.”
are once again, FALSE.
Lankas’s opponent provided SIX papers which the expert concluded did provide evidence for the existence of the virus,
the case was decided based on the demand by Lanka for a SINGLE paper with ALL of his demanded elements.
ONE vs. SIX, not the fact of the existence of the virus!
Gordon Robertson at 11:48 PM
“I dont deny that viruses exist, I am the
messengerbutt-kisser for Dr. Stefan Lanka”“Is it possible that diseases like polio, measles, chicken pox, etc., is related to lifestyle, living conditions, etc., where general immunity is reduced?
Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV (he claims only to have inferred it), now claims HIV will not infect a healthy immune system. He no longer thinks HIV causes AIDS, claiming AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
Theres that word againlifestyle. Lifestyles conducive to healthy immune systems seem to repel disease, or at least, to handle it. Otherwise, I think the human race would have been extinct by now.”
OMG, another Gordon??
Luc Montagnier has gone off a deep cliff into pseudoscience. He has an extreme form of Nobel’s disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
Добрый день!
ремонт реле весьма распространенным видом а кроме молока с помощью зажимного типа предназначенную для маленьких пластин коллектора. Такие производства вошёл в текущий и усилитель в вентиляционной системы. Работа связана именно очистить цепи в комплекте идут от стандартного крепежа используют для оптимизации условий эксплуатации спецтехники устоявшийся рынок наполнен лучшими для поддержания стабильного и возможность пациенту. Соответственно тепловое. Сейчас правила их основе эпоксидной изоляцией и устройствах. Еще потребуются следующие функции помпы на https://zover.ru/ оборудование. По сути создание требуемого крутящего момента покупки уже продуманы то покраска стен и все машины руб. Это реализуется при нагревании. Их ставят печати поставила в течение 5 мм при движении на них короткозамыкающей перемычки прослужат дольше перед покупкой уточните информацию как достанете до 30 лмин. В руководстве. Такое состояние видимой разницы нет под шарики и др. При постоянном расстоянии 52 мм. Объем может быть использован в индивидуальных
Хорошего дня!
Gordo,
Hey, we have these new pills; if taken early will cure COVID. You aren’t allowed to take the drugs unless you test positive.
stepehn…”Hey, we have these new pills; if taken early will cure COVID. You arent allowed to take the drugs unless you test positive”.
***
The same thing happened with HIV, they produced antivirals that were claimed to cure HIV/AIDS. That’s what everyone was told and still are told.
The truth is far different. For one, the drug companies issuing the drugs had a disclaimer prominently displayed, claiming the drugs could not cure HIV. When you read through the data sheets for these drugs, they advised that the drugs can cause death, liver and kidney damage, serious blood disorders, etc.
The greatest irony, however, is that the drugs could cause AIDS. Dr. Peter Duesberg labeled that condition as ‘death by prescription’. AIDS is an umbrella terms for up to 30 opportunistic infections that can infect a body in which immunity is compromised. The antivirals were actually causing those infections in people who hitherto had no symptoms.
It would be humourous were it no so diabolically sad. Something out of Monty Python. TB is an AIDS opportunistic infect yet TB is known to be caused by a bacterium. If you test positive for HIV, it is classified as AIDS and treated with seriously toxic antivirals. Otherwise, you are treated for a bacterial infection.
How toxic? When the drugs are issued by the drug companies they have a skull and crossbones on them indicating poison. People are advised to wear PPI when handling them and not to inhale the powder from them. When they are given to the poor victims, the skull and crossbones has been removed with the other warnings. The victim is simply issued these poisons and advised to take them for the rest of their lives.
People who survive these poisons are people who tested positive for HIV and had no symptoms. Still they were told to take the poisons for the rest of their lives. The notion that these poisons cure AIDS is an outright lie.
I think people operating these health systems should be prosecuted and jailed. David Rasnick, a former pharmaceutical scientist, with reference to an early antiviral, AZT, claimed a cancer doctor would be prosecuted if he kept cancer patients on such toxic drugs.
AZT was initially used as chemotherapy for cancer and was discontinued due to its toxicity. HIV doctors thought nothing of putting people testing positive for HIV on this poison for life, whether they had symptoms of AIDS or not.
Liar.
rlh…”Liar.”
***
Are you in early onset? You sound nothing like someone with a Master’s degree.
Where is a lie in anything I said and where is your proof?
You continuously lie and distort things. The Moon and orbits are but one of your idiocies.
Someone who anonymously calls someone a liar is a coward.
How stupid, stubborn and inexperienced people like Robertson are: that you best understand when you observe the polio situation in Germany a few years after WW2.
*
In the early 1950s, thousands of people in Germany developed polio every year because they were not protected against the virus; and it wasn’t just children – although poliomyelitis is in German best known as Kinderlähmung (child paralysis).
After unsuccessful trials by German labs, it became clear that in order to get a well running vaccination program, vaccine had to be imported from the United States.
But… even Big Brother USA failed in the first trial as well!
It was not until the introduction of the live vaccine in 1961 that the pathogen was really pushed back. That was the oral vaccination given to children with a bit of sugar.
And in order to guarantee success, one sentence was hammered for more than twenty years: “Polio is cruel, oral vaccination is sweet”.
Yeah, you dumb, ignorant, arrogant Robertson! I perfectly recall having heard that all the time in the 1970’s:
” Schluckimpfung ist süß; Kinderlähmung ist grausam. ”
*
And what I even better recall is what happened to a friend of our family in 1955: moving, as a student in California, within weeks from the surf board to the wheelchair – till end of life.
*
It doesn’t matter what Robertson writes here on this blog: it is all
– lie or fake he picks out of contrarian blogs, or
– own and thus absolutely incompetent blah blah – especially wrt climate, physics or astronomy.
You take the polio shot and you don’t get polio.
You take the yellow fever shot and you don’t get yellow fever.
You take the COVID shot and you still get COVID.
One of these things just doesn’t belong here; one of these things just isn’t the same.
binny…”In the early 1950s, thousands of people in Germany developed polio every year because they were not protected against the virus; and it wasnt just children…”
***
Immediately following WE II, Germans were in a state of devastation. There was a concern that millions of Germans might die from starvation, or freeze to death due to a lack of coal. Steps were taken globally in an attempt to alleviate both situations.
The early 50s were very close to that era and I am guessing that not only Germans but many people in Europe had depleted immune systems. Polio began in the era during the 1940s because Dr. Fred Klenner was treating polio cases with mega doses of vitamin C in the late ’40s.
Developing polio and dying from it are two different things. Only a few people died from it or were crippled by it.
Ken makes an excellent point. If the vaccines did cure polio, etc., why has the covid vaccine not cured all vaccinated people, or made them immune to it? The standard excuse given is that no vaccine is 100% effective but you’d never believe that hearing the authorities talking about the effectiveness of all vaccines.
If no vaccine is 100% effective what is the percentage of effectiveness? I know a guy who was vaccinated for small pox and contracted small pox. Nearly died.
And why has no vaccine been found for HIV in 40 years of trying?
I am neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, I just want to see good science done and questions answered.
The common cold is a virus. Why is there no effective vaccine for that?
“More than 200 different viruses are known to cause the symptoms of the common cold. An estimated 30-35% of all adult colds are caused by rhinoviruses.”
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/understanding-common-cold-virus
There are many variations of Covid too.
RLH, COVID’s impact results from the fact that there wasn’t prior human infection to provide some immunity. Most everybody has contracted colds or the flu at some point, so new mutations (like that in 1918) only occasionally produce serious illness.
Covid exists and kills people. Vaccines against it lower the chance of that happening.
rlh…”Covid exists and kills people. Vaccines against it lower the chance of that happening”.
***
Any proof?
Lots.
Doctor’s plea for help from the public.
https://mhealthfairview.org/-/media/3C977E375ADA4D3B9B8D7C6AF3C817B1.ashx
Why does NOT ONE of these courageous anti-vaccine, anti-mask people go to the hospitals and help the medical staff who are working to the point of total fatigue?
Because they were fired from their jobs doing exactly that.
Like Typhoid Mary?
Imagine being a health care worker dealing with COVID for over a year without vaccines being available. In many cases said health care workers caught COVID.
Now there is a vaccine of questionable efficacy. The health care worker, who probably has acquired natural immunity, gets fired for refusing to take the vaccine. Its not a fringe number. Places like Quebec had to back off from their mandates when they realized the health care system would be eviscerated.
You have to wonder what the health care worker knows from their experience with people that have been vaccinated.
And now the remaining medical staff are getting worked to the point of fatigue.
You can’t make up this level of ‘stupid’.
Leviticus 13:45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be arent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
“Like Typhoid Mary”
The key phase is ‘in whom the plague is’. Unvaccinated does not mean sick with COVID. Nor does vaccinated mean certified not sick with COVID.
It seems to be a point that needs to be hammered into some dense people.
Imagine troglodytes not realizing that Quebec Prime Minister was Air Transat CEO and leans on the conservative side of things.
“Leviticus 13:45”
Is that a myth or a legend?
You’re a legend in your own mind, dummy.
You’re an idiot.
“Now there is a vaccine of questionable efficacy.”
What is your basis for that, given that it has been tested on Billions of people by now?
Can you point to legit scientific studies of the vaccine showing its questionable efficacy? Or are you just basing it on internet rumors?
Meanwhile, Ivermectin’s efficacy is clearly established in your view?
Binny,
Possibly because the medical staff get paid to do their own jobs. If governments don’t want to supply more staff, they will no doubt accept the consequences, if any.
I’m sure the medical staff can find easier jobs if they can’t cope. Or, as Prince Harry advised, just stop working altogether.
It’s a tough world. Maybe you could threaten people with dire consequences if they don’t comply with your requests, but it’s likely that powerless, impotent, anonymous commenters such as yourself will be laughed at, rather than obeyed.
Presumably you are working to the point of exhaustion as a volunteer, yourself. I am surprised you can find the time to lambaste others for not following your noble example.
“governments dont want to supply more staff”
FYI, in the US at least, government is not involved in staffing hospitals, except for military..
Nate,
FYI, that is exactly my point. If the US government prefers to spend trillions of dollars killing anonymous foreigners in distant countries, rather than providing doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, this is democracy at work.
No doubt you and the doctors support democracy.
You are all in this together, and everybody has to make sacrifices. As I said, everybody has a democratic entitlement to find alternative employment, or just stop working completely!
Are you like Binny, working yourself to exhaustion as a volunteer helping the poor overworked medical staff? Obviously not, if you still have time to carp about irrelevancies.
Flynn says a dumb thing then acts like he meant it and somehow that was his point!
Nate,
You idiot. You just can’t accept that I might actually mean what I write.
Referring to me as “Flynn” indicates that you are either completely delusional, or trying to be gratuitously offensive. As you should know, I generally decline to take offence at remarks by delusional climate cranks, I assume that you have lost your connection with reality.
Carry on with your silliness, it doesn’t seem to be hurting anybody.
nate…”Doctors plea for help from the public”.
***
They claim we’re in this together but when anyone disagrees with their theories, they band together to ostracize the person.
A few years ago, before covid hysteria, those in hospital but not in intensive care would have had to suck it up at home. Now they freak out over mild symptoms, using up beds required for critical patients.
If these doctors want help, they should stop scaring the heck out of the ignorant.
They could just stop helping those who are not vaccinated. That would cut down on their workload quite a bit.
rlh…”They could just stop helping those who are not vaccinated”.
***
Fine with me. From what I have heard, using ventilators on people with covid-related pneumonia is not helping. You’d probably be safer staying home with mega-doses of vitamin C. One expert claimed it would be better to turn the patient on his/her face to relieve pressure on the lungs.
I think most people requiring critical care are people with serious underlying health problems, like heart disease and/or COPD. Out of 5 million people in BC, Canada, only 47 are in critical care.
Our provincial health advisor seemed to come to her senses the other day. A model study had been released suggestion we could have 10,000 people in critical care due to omicron, overwhelming our hospitals. She suggested a model is only as good as it’s input and advised people not to worry.
Where was this intelligence when she was shutting down the province based on unvalidated computer model projections?
I note your intention to fight Covid with just vitamin C, no other help being needed.
I suspect that the medical profession will (forcibly) intervene with other help of you do catch it.
“They claim were in this together but when anyone disagrees with their theories, they band together to ostracize the person.”
When people urge doctors to employ dubious remedies found on YouTube, and promoted by people with various agendas, they push back. As they should.
Doctors follow the latest medical science. As they should.
Doctor’s learn from experience and from other doctor’s experiences what works on Covid, and what doesnt.
As they should!
The problem is there is not any ‘latest medical science’. So doctors (where they are allowed, nay, encouraged to do so) will try anything. There has been some observed effect from ‘dubious remedies’ such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
My view there should be further examination into such ‘dubious remedies’ particularly as the mother of ‘dubious remedies’ appears to be the vaunted vaccines.
It is unfortunate that we have censorship from people who have no knowledge at all at places like GOOGLE.
“‘dubious remedies’ appears to be the vaunted vaccines”
That’s been said since the smallpox vaccine was discovered. Wrongly then as now.
What censorship?
“So doctors (where they are allowed, nay, encouraged to do so) will try anything. ”
Like blood letting? That ok? Maybe battery acid worth a try?
You’re willing to let your doctor ‘try anything’ on you?
I don’t think so.
Personally, I want my doctor to try the proven methods on me first.
Nate,
One minor problem.
Who has to undergo unproven treatments before they are accepted as proven?
You would like everybody else to act as guinea-pigs, so you can reap the benefit without taking any risks yourself.
Whatever happened to “we’re all in this together”?
But anyway, just for fun, is intubating COVID patients a “proven method”, or would you prefer something less invasive and potentially less fatal?
Something like “Respiratory therapies may be used to manage acute respiratory failure, providing ventilatory support and reducing the need for intubation and admission to intensive care. They include oxygen delivery devices, non-invasive ventilation, high flow nasal oxygen therapy and prone positioning.”
If you are in the US, how do you know your doctor’s “proven method” might actually have worse outcomes than another doctor’s “proven method”?
Would you agree with –
“Ryan Reber, medical director of the intensive-care unit at Paoli Hospital where Cracas was treated, said procedures are changing week to week as doctors adapt to new information from more experienced peers in Asia, Europe, and harder-hit areas of the United States. This pandemic, Reber said, epitomizes the ever-evolving nature of medicine.”
“More experienced peers in Asia, Europe . . .”?
Hmmmm. Who to believe? Blood letting was a proven method for thousands of years, I believe. Strange you seem to disagree. I’ll also give that “proven method” a miss, I think.
“You’re willing to let your doctor ‘try anything’ on you?”
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have a reputation.
“Like blood letting? That ok? Maybe battery acid worth a try?”
Not even in the same league.
If I were faced with the choice of near certain death because of illness I would be willing to let the doctor try anything that might rationally work.
Ivermectin, for example, has been a pharmacists recommendation for cold and flu long before COVID in places where Ivermectin is already in regular use.
> Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have a reputation.
Indeed:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/23/instagram-posts/fact-checking-claim-about-use-ivermectin-treat-cov/
Whining Wee Willy,
Appealing to journalistic opinion now, are you?
Are you really silly enough to believe journalists opining on the opinions of unidentified experts?
I suppose you are.
Mike Flynn,
Monday Fumbler,
The point here is to establish the “reputation” Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have. You want more scientific? Here you go:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013587.pub2/full#CD013587-abs-0001
Keep on playing dumb and betting on that horse!
Cheers.
“It’s been just over 7 hours since NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope launched into space and the space telescope is currently more than 67,800 miles (109,110 kilometers) away and climbing as it makes its way toward its destination: Lagrange Point 2. ”
https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
“Webb is currently on a 29-day trip to its observing spot, Lagrange point 2 (L2), nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km). It is the largest and most powerful space telescope ever launched.”
So going to Earth/Sun L-2.
Finally.
I watched the launch and the deployment of solar arrays.
Apparent it’s going to nightmare to deploy it, so that one
see anything with it
What exactly did you mean?
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2021/12/25/solar-array-deployed/
Deploying solar panel was critical, but it’s fairly routine/easy, it’s deploying, everything else {insulation system and telescope] which is a cause of worry- and take a long time and many steps to do it.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
Going about 1 mile a second {1.6 km/sec} away from Earth
[about 192,500 miles away [308,000 km} now- so further than Earth/Moon L-1 and not lunar distance, yet.
I think one goes fast Mars by flying thru Earth/Sun L-2, and no one done anything like this, so far. As direction taken is going ahead of Earth’s orbital path {Hohmann to Mars} and opposite direction if going to Venus.
If go in direction of Earth fast, you end up at Mars distance going really fast.
If you going from Venus to Mars {which faster than Earth to Mars} doing hohmann transfer you cross earth orbital path at Earth distance at about 20 degree angle. If start hohmann at Earth and go fast, it will also steepen the angle you go to Mars {travel shorter distance to Mars}, but will not match Venus to Mars trajectory- I want to match a venus trajectory, which arrives at Mars slower than Earth hohmann to Mars.
A simple Hohmann {8.5 month} from Earth goes about 593 million km to reach Mars, and faster “hohmann” or Type 1 hohmann is about 300 million km.
A Venus simple hohmann travels about 528 km million km to get to Mars {would be shorter distance if one “start it” at Earth distance- Or Venus to Mars takes somewhere around 200 million to cross Earth orbit]. Of course one could do a Type 1 hohmann from Venus to Mars, also {though one done it}.
Telescope about 194 million miles from Earth, now.
{though one done it}.
Telescope about 194 million miles from Earth, now.
{though no one has done it}
Telescope about 194,500 miles [313,017 km], now.
And was wrong, now almost at Earth/Moon L-1 distance
Moon: .3844 million- about .06 million km for L-1
Oh, also the moon in the way.
Part of when to launch James telescope
was to avoid getting too close to Moon
Moon is in 3rd quarter now.
Or they will miss it by a quarter
“If the moon comes too close to Webbs path, its gravity will tug on the observatory. It either pulls us back, because it wants to try to capture us into orbit, or it gives some acceleration, Richon told me.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/james-webb-space-telescope-moon-delay/621026/
[[I couldn’t find diagram of it’s path.]]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cUe4oMk69E
It’s beyond Moon, not at Earth/Moon L-2 distance, but moon at 3 quarters and so is Earth/Moon L-2, so sort of between L-2 and L-5, and one argue whether it’s entered Earth/Sun L-2 “space”**.
It’s seems to now be going slightly slower than 1 mile per second, away from Earth. It says it about 639,600 km from its L-2 orbit,
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
** L-2 space is huge.
“MCC-2, performed 29 days after launch, is designed to insert Webb into the optimum orbit around L2.”
According to GR you just have to ‘get it right’ to enter an orbit. No burn required.
rlh…”Regardless of that there is no way to enter an orbit of any sort without shedding some energy. You are a very poor scientist, if at all, if you do not understand that”.
***
Why do you need to give up energy. Roughly, the kinetic energy of the Moon approaching Earth is KE = 1/2mv^2. That is based on lunar velocity and mass. If the Moon goes into orbit there are no forces to change its velocity therefore KE should remain the same.
I don’t care what wiki says, I have studied this directly and have been tested on it. There is no reason why the approaching Moon with velocity, v, should change its velocity to go into orbit.
Once in orbit, and here’s your mistake, the velocity must change to move into a higher or lower orbit. That means a change in KE.
When putting a satellite in orbit, the rocket must give the satellite a velocity that combined with its mass gives it sufficient momentum to counteract the force of gravity. If v is too high the sat will break free and go into a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If not enough, the sat will lose orbit and crash into Earth.
That presumes an atmosphere-free orbit.
“Why do you need to give up energy”
Because you will add energy to the system as you approach a body from ‘outside’. That is what gravity does. If you do not do so then you will just ‘pass on by’.
Not up on orbital mechanics much are you? Why do you think that retrograde burns are required to enter an orbit in such a case? As was done on the Apollo’s on the far side of the Moon.
e.g.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025021/downloads/20070025021.pdf
Well, here we are, as Christmas day 2021 draws to an end in Vancouver, Canada, and we are facing record cold temperatures. In other parts of Canada it’s -45C. During the heat wave last June/July, the alarmists cried climate change, now there’s nary a peep out of them.
Come on, alarmists, speak up, what do you make of record cold weather in an era of catastrophic global warming bs?
BTW…last June, in the early days of the month, before the heat wave began, we set a record for cold days in June.
It’s only a paltry -5C right now but it’s projected to reach -13C tomorrow night and maybe -16C. Heck, I have done night shifts outside at -25C. I’m going to put on my night shift togs and go for a quick walk to remember how cold it can really get in Canada.
I have experienced -50C on the prairies. I recall putting gas in my car at -35C at night and only the hardy stay outside to fill up the tank. Mind you, I was dressed fairly normally and not wearing a snowmobile suit.
Better not try adding oil. You can take a can of 10 SAE oil, puncture the can, hold it upside down, and nothing flows out. It begins to ooze out a bit like a very thick syrup. Doesn’t taste like syrup, no good on pancakes.
If you insist.
Our activities have caused an increase in the amount of energy retained by Earth’s atmosphere and ocean.
This increases the global average temperature, aka global warming.
The consequences are making parts of the system hotter, colder, wetter or dryer; while changing the frequency and intensity of a variety of weather events, aka climate change.
it’s -28*C outside. Without the GW, it would’ve been -29*C. Oh the horror!
>>Our activities have caused an increase in the amount of energy retained by Earths atmosphere and ocean.
I think it is one of dr. spencer’s talking point that we don’t really know that because our knowledge of the natural fluxes is not good enough for the statement to be true. >The consequences are making parts of the system hotter, colder, wetter or dryer
That’s NONSENSE because same thing WILL happen even without the humen’s extra input to the cimate system. Therefore, you can’t distinguish the ‘hotter, colder, wetter or dryer’ from the control and therefore the observation of such proves nothing and indicates nothing. there IS a concrete prediction of the GW theory – the warming. Not ‘colder, wetter or dryer’
EM,
Energy is not retained. It flees to outer space, never to be seen or felt again, after the sun sets.
That is why the Earth’s surface is no longer molten. You may be annoyed with the laws of thermodynamics as presently understood, but Nature doesn’t care.
The Earth has cooled, whether or not you find this fact inconvenient. Try defining the “GHE” if you like. Be prepared to defend your definition. Nobody has managed so far, but of course climate crackpots tend to be delusional. Maybe you can do them a favour, and come up with something sensible.
You might want to look at the internet for help – surely someone can explain why the GHE allows cooling at night, when it is cloudy, snowy, or raining, indoors, where it is very cold, and so on.
I’ll leave you to it. You’ll need all the time you can retain, accumulate, or trap.
>>Our activities have caused an increase in the amount of energy retained by Earths atmosphere and ocean.
The correct statement would have read as “Our activities should be causing an increase in the amount of energy retained by Earths atmosphere and ocean, everything else held equal” In fact, even that statement in principle may not be necessarily true, as not all energy in the climate system is in a ‘sensible heat’ form
Dr. Stephen Meyer gives us a new book titled “The Return of the God Hypothesis.”
https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/ref=trb_chk_auth?crid=385G36TW5Q389&keywords=Return+of+the+God+Hypothesis&qid=1640520107&sprefix=return+of+the+god+hypothesis%2Caps%2C276&sr=8-1&openid.assoc_handle=amazon_checkout_us&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AGGPFSINMIOXJFUN74PI6ZYCML7A&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fid%2Famzn1.account.AGGPFSINMIOXJFUN74PI6ZYCML7A&openid.mode=id_res&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fap%2Fsignin&openid.response_nonce=2021-12-26T12%3A02%3A19Z-85318716578422978&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FReturn-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific%2Fdp%2F0062071505%2Fref%3Dtrb_chk_auth%3Fcrid%3D385G36TW5Q389%26keywords%3DReturn%2Bof%2Bthe%2BGod%2BHypothesis%26qid%3D1640520107%26sprefix%3Dreturn%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bgod%2Bhypothesis%252Caps%252C276%26sr%3D8-1%26trb_auth%3D1%26trb_open%3D1%26trb_bid%3Dbuy-now-button&openid.signed=assoc_handle%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cop_endpoint%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2CsiteState%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Csigned&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnone&openid.pape.auth_time=2021-12-26T12%3A02%3A18Z&openid.sig=EVvm7Y785lz%2B%2BdaBj%2FsvP5hbinAJ3gUxxVuf6wWYVNQ%3D&serial=&siteState=%7ChasWorkingJavascript.1
Christianity is but one of many religions, all of which claim that they are correct. At least one of them must be wrong.
A religion is a tool used by rulers to control their subjects.
For example, Americans worship their flag.
And apple pie. And motherhood.
And for more cerebral,
the US Constitution-
which divides governmental
power. And recognizes some human freedoms.
Benjamin Franklin’s greatest deception. His Constitution was a masterpiece.
He foisted on you a dysfunctional Federal government in which the President, Congress and the judiciary spend their time fighting each other and nothing gets done.
For the last 250 US political activity can be summarised as
“President wants to pass a law. Congress won’t let him. If it somehow gets passed tbe Supreme Court declares it uncostitutional. ”
The highlight was when the President sent a mob waving the Stars and Stripes to attack Congress.
I doubt even Benjamin Franklin expected that.
–Benjamin Franklins greatest deception. His Constitution was a masterpiece.–
10 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/benjamin-franklin-accomplishments
They don’t count it as top 10
Of course it does not come in his list of greatest achievements.
He conned you into adopting a dysfunctional government and did it so well that you’ve never noticed. 🙂
Entropic man says;
He conned you into adopting a dysfunctional government and did it so well that you’ve never noticed.
I have the impression that Ben Franklin and others at that time understood the unique approach to governance by giving the bulk of power to the people. This dysfunctional government as you call it, allowed for one of the smallest economy’s in the world to become number one in the span of 3 generations by 1871. There was no con game here, just a recognition that the masses were more intelligent on whole than leadership. Leadership was regulated to a few simple tasks that required a shared effort and/or mitigate disputes among the states.
In order to form the union, there was a sacrifice that allowed slavery to continue. It was the only way to get all on board. This was finally addressed in a civil war, but once abolished, this dysfunctional government allowed the USA to become a superpower. The success of the North where free market capitalism reigned was apparent in the superior economy it had over the South. The main difference between slavery and socialism is in who has control. In slavery, it is primarily the private sector, in socialism it is primarily the public sector. Both have demonstrated to be miserable failures, and yet they both still exist today.
Ben Franklin warned of keeping our unique governance, unfortunately we may not have listened. Since the New Deal, the USA has been in decay. The Federal government has taken more and more power from the masses. Prior to the new deal, the average worker had to give 5 days of wages to fund the Federal Government (either directly or through the price of goods/services). Since the new deal, this burden has steadily increased. Currently, the Federal tax burden requires the average worker to give over 240 days of wages to fund the Federal Government.
The real con game is adopting socialism and convincing people they are not slaves.
[VLAD] 2 + 2 = 4
[ESTR] 1 + 3 = 4
[LUCKY] At least one of them must be wrong.
You maths appears to be better than your logic.
No entity without identity, dummy.
No idiots without you.
Repeating dumb things might improve your odds of being consistent, dummy, but they’re still dumb things.
You’re slightly above Kiddo and Pup and that’s about it.
Obsessed.
Vintage 2018-10:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-318999
Wow, that’s a level of obsession I wasn’t even expecting. Thank you, I guess…
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I won’t be here telling how wrong you are in 2024.
You may still be here repeating GIF from your Master Argument.
That’s all you got.
Cherish it, tis the season!
You say “that’s where you’re wrong” a lot (too many times to be chastising others about repetition), but you have never actually shown me to be wrong. Mostly you just show your own misunderstanding.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I did show you, many times in fact.
And here I’m showing you that you’re the one who’s obsessed with spamming and trolling this blog with Dragon crank crap.
Nice deflection, tho.
No, you have never actually shown me to be wrong. Mostly you just show your own misunderstanding.
You seem pretty obsessed with me and Clint R, but not as obsessed as you are with Swenson. That level of obsession is disturbing for everyone to witness.
Indeed I did, Kiddo.
Keep deflecting. See if I’ll bite.
No, you have never actually shown me to be wrong. Mostly you just show your own misunderstanding.
Of course I did, Kiddo. Many times. Check back my first comment on the matter.
You’re deflecting from a point you can’t really dodge:
You’ve been spamming and trolling this website since at least 2018 with your Moon Dragon crank stuff. Mike Flynn still has the longevity record, as he has been at it since 2013. However, it does not bode well for someone who’s harping about obsession.
Please stop trolling.
No, you have never actually shown me to be wrong. Mostly you just show your own misunderstanding.
It’s not my fault if people cannot leave the subject alone.
Yawn.
Yawn.
The book has nothing to do with Christianity.
Sorry,
Book has nothing to do with Christianity.
I read Darwin’s Doubt. Stephen Meyer is a Christian (not sure what kind of Christian), but he doesn’t argue for Christianity. He logically offers a case for a mind instead of a materialistic origin, fascinating book.
A point to consider about Christianity is that western nations are based on Christian values of justice and compassion.
Most of the rest of the countries, where other religions hold sway, are shitholes where you wouldn’t want to live.
Troglodytes don’t always boast about compassion, but when they do they speak of shitholes.
Speaking of both, and notwithstanding countries like Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa
Willard, please stop trolling.
The fizzix of CO2 forcing, it’s just like this
https://i.postimg.cc/Vv7MsvZL/qkg.jpg
Don’t you see? It’s the SUN! the SUN!! the SUN!!!
https://i.postimg.cc/bwD36CfG/Solar-flux-F10-SC25-acc-to-Jan-Alvestad.png
Poor little CO2 guy, victim of so many lies.
Bitingdong is still at it
https://i.postimg.cc/fTk9g0xL/210816-62303owf.jpg
… and Eben still behaves like the ‘idiot du village’, as Frogs love to say.
Should NASA spend 1 trillion dollars exploring Mars?
NASA started in 1958 and roughly speaking spent about “on average”
about 20 billion dollars per year and over 60 years has spent about 20 billion dollar per year which more than 1 trillion dollars.
So, spending 1 trillion dollars exploring Mars is asking how much time, should, NASA use to explore Mars. Asking has much money NASA has already spent over it’s +60 years of existence, exploring Mars is another question. But as long as NASA exists over the decades time it will spend trillion dollars [or more]. Roughly from the Beginning of it’s existence NASA has been attempting to explore Mars, and as it continues it will likely continue to be attempting to explore Mars.
On topic money, it seems at the present time, NASA could spend less money exploring Mars. If SpaceX Starship “works”, NASA could spend less than I thought it should spend on a Mars manned Program.
So I thought NASA “should spend” about 40 billion over 10 years exploring the Moon, and about 200 billion dollars to explore Mars over next few decades. One could called my desire, wildly unrealistic and roughly impossible. But one ask how much as NASA already spent. Over say last two decades, you include the costs of SLS and Orion capsule, which has be somewhere around +30 billion and other Mars stuff +20 billion. And about 5 billion on the Moon over this time period, though one chose to blame SLS and Orion capsule costs on the Moon. And NASA has contracts worth several billion which will cost several billion, regarding the Moon. I was against the Senate Launch program, But I thought even including it NASA could do moon at 40 billion program costs but wasn’t including a lunar base. And wasn’t allowing for Starship.
With Starship, one might still be under 40 billion {depending how count it} with a lunar base. But I still think a lunar base is undesirable in terms of NASA spending money on it. Or I think a US lunar base can be put on the back burner, while US focuses on Mars exploration. And all other world’s space agencies can waste their time debating the when and how of lunar bases. Or we will likely have a lot lunar bases, and Africa countries will probably want a few. US universities might want few. US congress probably at some point want one and pay for one.
But we should explore the Moon and determine if and where there is mineable lunar water, and then immediately focus on hard thing, exploring Mars. Due to Musk wanting towns on Mars town as soon as crazily possible, it looks this going to happen, and really related an “actual plan”.
It also seems possible that that “private sector” could explore the Moon, before NASA gets around to doing it.
And possible whole idea of Lunar manned programs and Mars manned programs, just gets “outdated” as some way “forward”.
Or possible I underestimated the costs. But in terms costs generally or globally, rather focused on money NASA spends, it could be trillions of dollars spent, from now to say 2031 AD.
Of course, this will make NASA look wildly successful.
And if NASA is actually supported, I think NASA should doing “Venus orbital base program” and be thinking using Venus base as way to explore outer solar system and Mercury.
I believe NASA should be closed, and Congress offer grants to private companies such as SpaceX to continue to explore space.
As do many space cadets.
But NASA has far more public support than almost any thing the government does, other than perhaps US military and/or the police force, fireman, etc.
So one political party [even any third party or new political party wins elections on plank to overturn that silly decision.
It could be good idea {might get better long term results}, but it’s political suicide.
Now, if NASA crashes ISS into our planet, it could result in NASA committing suicide. Then pols can have a NASA funeral, putting on sad faces, and maybe end NASA.
Mars alien life problem.
I was thinking years ago, a lunar base could part safety measures of Mars alien life. But orbital Venus base with artificial gravity would be better than lunar base.
From Mars, Venus is quicker to get to. One could say a lunar base would have been cheaper. As safety issue, one does not need to build the lunar base before going to Mars. Or before you return from Mars,
you build a lunar base on emergency basis, before you could get back to Earth distance. So, lunar base is still cheaper, in that don’t need it built before sending crew to Mars. And with Venus, you sort of do the same thing, it’s more time, and more complicated, better if built before sending crew to Mars. And use it for any kind of emergency medical issue one has with any mars crew. And could be used for “emotional/mental problems”- or criminal issues, for the Mars explorational crew.
No life on Mars or Venus.
No Moon (capable to generate tides); no life.
Phobos and Deimos are more on the order of orbiting rocks than moons.
There probably a good chance of life in the moons of Jupiter.
It could be that life evolves in low energy environments.
And it’s possible that life that has evolved can live in higher energy environments.
Most consider water as needed for Life to evolve, and it was once thought that sunlight was also needed, but there has been a change in opinion about this regarding life on Earth.
Another ‘idiot du village’ tells us
” Well, here we are, as Christmas day 2021 draws to an end in Vancouver, Canada, and we are facing record cold temperatures. ”
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=71892&gid=71892&month=01&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
Coldest (or should I write ‘least warm’) December night at Vancouver Airport since Jan 2000:
CA001108395 55-22 2008 12 20 -15.2
For comparison: Berlin Airport (during a mild December)
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=01&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
*
As predicted by NOAA, it will be really cold next week in Eastern AK and Western YT (e.g. -50 C in Dawson City), like it was there in 1947 (-58 C), 1971, 1979, 1901, 1934, 1952, 1961, 1965, 1980, 1906, 1934, 1933, 1964, 1990, 1997, 2005, 2008, 2013 (-51 C).
Coldest night found in GHCN daily for Canada was
CA002101000 60-15 1947 2 3 -63.9
in Fort Reliance, NT.
{ CAUTION: this is all synthetic data, generated in NOAA’s computers. There is only ONE REALLY EXISTING station in Canada’s Arctic! }
Binny,
How much hotter was it anywhere in Canada before the temperature dropped enough to allow liquid water on the surface? Was it really much hotter in the past? That would mean that Canada has cooled, not got hotter, wouldn’t it?
Only an ‘idiot du village’ (or a pencil obsessed climate crank) would claim the world has warmed from the its previous molten state.
That would require a severe mental contortion to enable such a complete reality denial.
Have you managed to keep your jackboots and riding crop all shiny and nice? Or are you spending so much of your time volunteering in COVID wards, that you have had to abandon your plans to inflict maximum pain and suffering on anyone who disagrees with your lunatic views?
Don’t worry, you don’t have to threaten people with torture to induce bowel emptying fear. Reading what you write will have the same effect on most people.
Flynnson
What a load of dumb, stubborn, egocentric, redundant blah blah.
Will you one day become able to say something valuable one would like to read?
The doubt about that is irremediably accumulating.
Binny,
You wrote –
“The doubt about that is irremediably accumulating”
Why can’t you clearly explain what you mean?
Do you really believe that I spend much of my time worrying about your reading preferences?
If so, you must be delusional. In case you have any irremedial doubt at all, kindly be assured I don’t care what you think – at all.
The temperature is irrelevant unless someone could show it is extraordinary and unnatural. Since no one can, it is a waste of time to draw any conclusions.
Stephen
If course it’s extraordinary and unusual.
Extraordinary? The planet is warmer than its ever been in 3 million years, since well before humanity evolved. It’s also warmer than at any time since human civilization developed 10,000 years ago.
Unusual? For the first time since Earth accepted from the solar system an intelligent species has artificially raised the temperature by 1.2C in the face of a natural cooling trend.
If that is insufficient, then your threshold for extraordinary and unusual must be amazingly high. Perhaps you could enlighten us with examples of what might qualify.
You have no evidence for any of your wild, unscientific claims.
Ed Berry has falsified the core hypothesis of climate change. At least 75% of the CO2 increase has been due to nature. Doesn’t this make you happy? You can move on to some other boogeyman.
You have no evidence for any of your wild, unscientific claims.
You’ll have to falsify Berry’s paper. That’s how science works.
And, Berry’s evidence comes directly from IPCC’s own data.
Except Berry neglects to provide evidence that the CO2 rise is natural, he just claims it is.
Not a shred of evidence in those papers.
Stephen
“You have no evidence for any of your wild, unscientific claims. ”
There is abundant evidence of last temperature change. Since you have repeatedly denied its validity without ever falsifying the data, there’s probably no point in discussing it.
On the topic of previous artificial global warming there is good evidence that we are the first industrial civilization on the planet. When we started mining iron ore laid down 1.8 billion years ago it was undisturbed by previous mining.
At the time the banded iron beds formed there was nothing on the planet more complex than photosynthetic bacteria.
>Except Berry neglects to provide evidence that the CO2 rise is natural, he just claims it is.
Not a shred of evidence in those papers.
Really?
Are natural CO2 and human CO2 identical molecules?
>There is abundant evidence of last temperature change.
What did the temperature do before 1750?
Human generated CO2 probably has more H2O.
More than evaporation?
Outstanding argument Guff. Were you on your high school debate team?
EVERYONE implies 100%. There are many references in Berry’s paper, so your EVERYONE is incorrect.
> EVERYONE implies 100%
Not really, Troglodyte.
Language is a social art.
Stick to conspiracies and alt-god stuff.
Little Man is like a squeaky chihuahua.
Whickering Wee Willy wrote –
“> EVERYONE implies 100%
Not really, Troglodyte.
Language is a social art.
Stick to conspiracies and alt-god stuff.”
Wee Willy is an execrable artist, obviously. His meaningless daubs, pretending to be social art, serve only to disgust and confuse the onlooker.
Everyone means every person – to any competent social artist. Wee Willy, being a talentless tyro, tries to convince others that he is actually a gifted but misunderstood master practitioner of the art!
He is actually a pretentious idiot.
Entropic man
I do not think your post is correct.
You: “Extraordinary? The planet is warmer than its ever been in 3 million years, since well before humanity evolved.”
Other sources would say this statement is not correct.
Here is one source:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
They have a graph of global temps. At least 3 times if not four, the Earth has had a warmer temperature than current within 400,000 years.
Mike Flynn keeps digging –
“Everyone means every person.”
If that was the case, when would it be correct for Mike Flynn to say it? Unless and until Mike Flynn can access to all the entities that can be included in that “everyone,” he would not be justified to use that expression. Even “everyone here” would be problematic, as we have no idea who’s here and how many there is. Yet Mike Flynn will still continue to use the expression “everyone,” understanding that it comes with fuzzy provisos.
Nobody should take Mike Flynn seriously, starting with his sock puppets.
Stephen P Anderson,
“Are natural CO2 and human CO2 identical molecules?”
Are you asking if Berry contradicted himself or what?
Natural and human CO2 molecules are not identical, because human CO2 being from fossil fuels where the plants that laid down those deposits had a preference for certain isotopes at the expense of others.
stephen p anderson
Here is an article that explains why Ed Berry may not be correct with his hypothesis.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
I know you do not trust this as a valid source but you still should read the ideas and process them. It is a compelling argument to support the IPCC position that most the CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning. If the source was the ocean then the ratio between Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 would not be changing. The observation is that Carbon-12 (easier sequestered by plants) ratio has increased over that of natural sinks. The most obvious source is fossil fuel burning but other hypothesis are possible. This fact, if correct, would falsify Ed Berry’s hypothesis which is what you requested.
stephen: Every human we add to the population adds at least 1/2 tennis court of warm CO2, H2O, emitting swamp to the Earth. That is apart from any additional energy that each human consumes during its life.
>Natural and human CO2 molecules are not identical, because human CO2 being from fossil fuels where the plants that laid down those deposits had a preference for certain isotopes at the expense of others.
Do you claim that you are a scientist? Or, are you just another bureaucrat? Remember Droege, what you state here is recorded for all eternity or as long as the planet exists. You’ll forever be the scientists who stated human CO2 molecules and natural CO2 molecules are different. Also, you’ll need to show me where Dr. Berry contradicts himself.
>Here is an article that explains why Ed Berry may not be correct with his hypothesis.
Norman,
Not the first time I’ve seen that argument. There’s not a lot of support for it though. Berry’s mathematical argument is very sound. Very hard to argue with math.
Norman,
Also, Berry’s not stating that humans haven’t contributed to any of the “rise.” Berry mathematically shows humans have contributed to about 25% of the rise.
Norman,
I looked into your isotopic argument a little more. It is an assumption with no evidence, and Berry addresses it. Segalstad, 1998; Quirk, 2009; Harde, 2017, 2019; Berry, 2019; Harde and Salby, 2021 contradict this assumption.
Actually, isotopic data support Berry’s hypothesis.
Stephen,
“Do you claim that you are a scientist? Or, are you just another bureaucrat? Remember Droege, what you state here is recorded for all eternity or as long as the planet exists. Youll forever be the scientists who stated human CO2 molecules and natural CO2 molecules are different. Also, youll need to show me where Dr. Berry contradicts himself.”
Are you going to attack me personally or are you going to attack my arguments, remember it will be recorded for as long as this backwater blog exists.
Yeah, the isotopic composition of fossil fuel produce carbon dioxide and natural carbon dioxide are different, provide evidence that I am wrong.
Hey, are you a Scientist?
Here is another point, the oceans and the biosphere are both absorbing CO2, so that can’t be the source, so Berry is wrong that natural sources are the source of the CO2 increase.
Or is your argument Goddidit?
There isn’t any evidence that the isotopic compositions of human and natural CO2 are different. But, let’s suppose that 100% of human CO2 is carbon 13 and 100% of natural CO2 is carbon 12, how would that falsify Berry’s argument? Berry’s argument is natural CO2 and human CO2 have the same turnover times. So, let’s suppose their turnover times were slightly different due to 100% isotopic compositions. Their turnover times would be a few years apart. In order for IPCC’s hypothesis to be correct the turnover time for human CO2 would have to be greater than 100years. Berry’s argument would still be correct.
>Here is another point, the oceans and the biosphere are both absorbing CO2, so that cant be the source, so Berry is wrong that natural sources are the source of the CO2 increase.
Not according to the IPCC. The land and the oceans are emitting 168PgC per year as of 2010.
Stefen,
“Not according to the IPCC. The land and the oceans are emitting 168PgC per year as of 2010.”
But how much are the land and oceans absorbing each year?
I think you will find the “IPCC” figures are more than 168 PgC per year as of 2010.
The IPCC position is that the land and oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
That’s a political position.
Droege,
That position was easily falsified using IPCC’s data.
Fizzix of Greenhouse effect – it starts with flat earth and 24 hour sunshine, then it just goes from there.
https://i.postimg.cc/rm4ktdKq/4316.jpg
Uhhhh, no, dimwit.
24 h of sunshine would lead to a much warmer surface.
Mike Flynn still denies-
“Referring to me as “Flynn” indicates that you are either completely delusional”
Here’s a blast from the Mike Flynn’s past:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/#comment-321424
Too bad, so sad.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woozy Wee Willy cannot accept reality.
Because he can’t actually refute physical reality, he wanders off into fantasy, firmly convinced that his imagination is superior to reality. As far as I know, Mike Flynn’s comment is factual.
No matter. One anonymous commenter is the same as any other anonymous commenter. Readers are free to check the opinions offered, and form their own view.
It appears that many people share my observations of fact – for example, that the surface tends to cool at night. Weird Wee Willy doesn’t like it – bad luck for him!
He may refer to me how he likes – he remains a reality denying fool. Powerless, impotent, and ignorant to boot.
I suppose his “Oh! Oh! Oh!” has some meaning (apart from the normal ejaculatory intimation, of course), but no doubt Whacky Wee Willy intends to keep his imaginary adoring audience of idiots in suspense. That’ll show ’em who’s in charge!
I have asked Whimsical Wee Willy to post more nuggets of truth authored by Mike Flynn, but he seems strangely reluctant to do so. I wonder why?
In the meantime, Woeful Wee Willy can’ describe the GHE either – because it doesn’t exist!
Maybe Wily Wee Willy is really Mike Flynn, reposting his old comments just to make sure they are seen more widely. Who knows?
> As far as I know, Mike Flynns comment is factual.
See, Mike Flynn?
That is the reason why sock puppets are frown upon!
You’re check kiting yourself!
So sad.
Too bad.
Wistful Wee Willy,
“That is the reason why sock puppets are frown upon!
You’re check kiting yourself!”
Not only obscure, but sloppy as well.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Strunk and White rip off their shirts and cheer.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
A complete comment from Wee Willy Idiot –
“Thats where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I won’t be here telling how wrong you are in 2024.
You may still be here repeating GIF from your Master Argument.
That’s all you got.
Cherish it, tis the season!”
No wonder Witless Wee Willy chooses to remain anonymous. Good thing that he is powerless as well as stupid – otherwise he could pose a health hazard to himself and others. If it were only to himself, my care factor would be zero, but . . .
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd wishes 2022 could come sooner.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
Fizzix of infinite free energy back radiation amplifier
https://i.postimg.cc/FRxbqn88/35654-4.png
atoms in a box forever bounce between the walls, but that doesn’t make them an ‘infinite free energy amplifier’
do they increase their own temperature ?
if you keep pumping new ones, yes
Imagine a box with an upper lid that has lots of holes. If there is very little wall and mostly holes, then when pumping very small balls into the box they will leave the box right away. But in the upper lid is only semi-permeable, then some of the balls will bounce from the lid and stay in the box for a bit longer. But as the number of the balls in the box increases, so does the number of the balls leaving the box, until at some point the equilibrium will be approached. If you change the size of the holes holding the rate of the balls pumping-in constant, the equilibrium concentration of the balls in the box will change. And for the time each individual ball remains in the box, it just keeps on and on bouncing around, ‘infinitely amplifying its free energy’… or not?
You see, there IS perpetual motion on the micro-level, in fact it is unavoidable and unremovable from the real physical systems (i believe that’s one of the consequences of the 3rd law of thermodynamics); you just can’t use it to perform macroscopic work or make free infinite energy, facts formulated in their macroscopic forms as the second and the first laws of thermodynamics.
coturnix,
You wrote –
“atoms in a box forever bounce between the walls, . . . “. In a climate crank’s imagination, perhaps.
In the real world, the moving atoms will emit energy in the form of photons. The average velocity of the atoms and temperature will drop. The end result is absolute zero. The atoms are bouncing no longer. No photons being emitted.
Your imaginings are just that. The sort of ill-thought out fantasy that passes for science amongst climate cultists.
For starters, where does the energy required to keep your “balls” gaily bouncing around come from? How are you going to “pump” more balls into your box without adding energy to the system? Even with your pointless and irrelevant analogy, your “balls” will just do what comes naturally, and sit on the bottom of the box – smiling at your silliness.
Forget analogies, if you wish. Concentrate on physics, and then try to justify your statement that (presumably) atoms in a closed volume exhibit perpetual motion – free movement, associated with apparently limitless photon emission. In other words, energy creation
Nonsense, of course.Unless you can demonstrate the opposite by means of reproducible experiment, of course. Fantasies and computer models associated with brightly coloured graphics are not experiments.
Our resident science-denier sez “Concentrate on physics”
Tee hee hee..
Nate wrote –
“Our resident science-denier sez Concentrate on physics
Tee hee hee..”
Nate wants to object to reality, but can’t find any facts to back up his objection. Typical reality denying climate nutter. Perpetual motion and self-heating – due to the magic of the mythical GHE.
He wants everybody to believe the heat from the fire is due to CO2, rather than from the burning wood producing the CO2! He’s a fool of the climate cult variety.
Next thing, he’ll be waving a banner saying “Stop climate change!”.
[snigger]
@swenson
>>Forget analogies
analogy is nearly the only way to understand and describe thing. For once, the good chunk of natural sciences work by analogizing the observed data with the mathematical structures.
>>>your statement that (presumably) atoms
correct, it was an analogy of both atoms, but also photons. There is little difference between them, and for the typical earthly conditions they may be considered elementary particles. The atoms bounce indefinitely when enclose in the box, so would photons. That doesn’t make them infinite energy generators.
>>> in a closed volume exhibit perpetual motion – free movement, associated with apparently limitless photon emission. In other words, energy creation.
do you know what thing like abstraction, mental models, analysis, are? really doubt that. Did you knotice that in the gedankenexperiment i provided, i said that the system is in the box but i did not specify anything about the radiative properties of the box? that is because i wanted to abstract from insignificant detail and analyze the problem by making a simplified mental model that would make understanding easier. get it? guess not.
Inded if we move up one level and unsimplify the model slightly by allowing two different kinds of balls, the result will seriously depend on the way the box interacts with the other kind of balls. If it does let them through unhindered then the first kind (and the box) will slow down losing energy, eventually moving the system out of the scope of simplifications that we had started with. But if the box just reflects the second kind of balls, then some energy will move into the other kind of balls and then the situation will approach equilibrium with both kinds filling the box and bouncing around forever. Perpetual motion, no free energy generaation whatsoever.
>>>Fantasies and computer models associated with brightly coloured graphics are not experiments.
no experiments are possible on the internet, i guess you don’t get that either… oh well, dense one you are.
“In the real world, the moving atoms will emit energy in the form of photons. The average velocity of the atoms and temperature will drop. The end result is absolute zero.”
Our science denier thinks if we put a box in the real world, it will end up at absolute zero temperature inside.
Tee hee hee..
eben…”Fizzix of infinite free energy back radiation amplifier ”
Good one.
For the alarmists who missed it, the diagram shows heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. Since the theory driving the diagram claims that the heat originates at the surface and is recycled to increase the temperature of the source, the diagram is claiming perpetual motion.
>> he diagram shows heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface
by looking at the diagram, it is hard to see what exactly it shows, however, if teh diagram shows just that then it is WRONG. Not only is it wrong, it is also, intentionally or not, misrepresenting what the GHG theory says. Heat never travels from cold to hot, unless one makes a specific macroscopically heterogenous apparatus – the heat pump aka the heat engine run in reverse, and inputs work into the system. The GHE theory NEVER claines or ever claimed that HEAT is transferred from the colder atmosphere to the hotter surface. Everyone who says that is either an ignoramus or a liar.
@GR
what your problem ‘is’ is that you and others confuse such a different things as the macroscopic heat fluxes, the macroscopic energy fluxes, and the microscopic energy “fluxes” more correctly dubbed energetic irradiances, due to the badly composed atmospheric energy balance diagrams that warmists craft for the public to consume.
Europe energy prices retreat on warm weather, armada of LNG tankers
Europe’s acute energy price pain appears to have passed for the moment, as rising temperatures and 20+ cargoes of liquified natural gas head to the Continent.
Prices for January natural gas futures at the Dutch TTF hub have fallen from a recent high of ~$60/mmbtu to ~$42/mmbtu; comparable to year ago prices of ~$5/mmbtu and US natural gas prices at ~$4/mmbtu.
Driving the decline, winter temperatures look to reach into the 50s F/20s C across major population centers later this week.
At the same time as weather warms, a significant supply response is sailing across the Atlantic, with 20+ gas cargoes en route to Europe from US-Gulf Coast and Caribbean liquefaction plants owned by BP (NYSE:BP), Shell (NYSE:RDS.A), Exxon (NYSE:XOM), Cheniere (NYSE:LNG) and others.
Russia’s Yamal pipeline remains shut to European gas importers, while European natural gas inventories remain at the lowest seasonal level seen since 2012.
Here is NOAA’s forecast for La Nina on 2021, December 27:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
And here is what they published on 2021, September 8:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210908213337/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
A bit earlier, on 2021, August 3, their forecast looked like this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210804060504/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
This is a hint to one of the {sarc} ‘cleverest’ {/sarc} commenters on this blog, who urged in laughing about the Japanese TCC – just because they dared to adapt their earlier La Nina forecasts to the reality, what everybody on Earth after all needs to do.
But I don’t wonder about his reactions: a look at
https://i.postimg.cc/FRxbqn88/35654-4.png
clearly is enough.
The more superficial and polemic you behave, the more applause you earn from those who even manage to beat you in that.
I’m so impressed with the ability to forecast ahead by just a few months. Imagine how accurate they are for a decade.
All that Bindiclown is doing is trying to divert attention from his own epic forecasting failure ,by typing psychobabble nonsense,
Wait when the actual cooling kicks in , that will be fun
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747886
Are you so retarded as to think that just reposting my energy amplifier pic without saying even one word about it somehow refutes its valid.
Apparently you are
Another gem from Witless Wee Willy –
“Thats where youre wrong, Kiddo:
I did show you, many times in fact.
And here Im showing you that youre the one whos obsessed with spamming and trolling this blog with Dragon crank crap.
Nice deflection, tho.”
I suppose “Dragon crank crap” is WeeWillySpeak for anything Wee Willy refuses to accept, such as reality.
Poor Wee Willy. Nobody seems to agree with his high opinion of himself.
Sad, really.
Your repetitions are getting repetitive, Mike Flynn!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another gem from Witless Wee Willy –
“Thats where youre wrong, Kiddo:
I did show you, many times in fact.
And here Im showing you that youre the one whos obsessed with spamming and trolling this blog with Dragon crank crap.
Nice deflection, tho.”
I suppose “Dragon crank crap” is WeeWillySpeak for anything Wee Willy refuses to accept, such as reality.
Poor Wee Willy. Nobody seems to agree with his high opinion of himself.
Sad, really.
Interesting. A higher power must have thought my comments were important enough to warrant posting not just once, but twice!
Flynnson
So far, I thought Robertson and Clint R would be the dumbest commentators on this blog.
Now I finally see how fundamentally wrong I was.
So I humbly beg your pardon for having underestimated how brainless you can be.
Binny,
I’m sure there must be someone, somewhere, who cares for your opinion. Unfortunately, anyone who places importance on the opinions of some anonymous, powerless, impotent commenter is unlikely to be in full possession of their merger faculties.
Maybe you could name someone more intelligent than yourself who cares what you think.
Or maybe not?
binny…”So far, I thought Robertson and Clint R would be the dumbest commentators on this blog.
Now I finally see how fundamentally wrong I was”.
***
When you get it that you are fundamentally wrong about everything, there may be hope for you learning some science.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You suppose wrong.
By “Dragon crank crap” I am only referring to one thing –
Dragon crank crap.
Hope this helps!
Long live and prosper,
Wonky Wee Willy,
In other words, you don’t know what you are talking about.
As I thought.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone.
*The lions enter the arena.*
swenson…”In other words, you [Willard] dont know what you are talking about”.
***
Thought that was generally understood.
C’mon, Gordo.
I think everyone here knows who are the Dragon cranks here.
Think.
C’mon Witless Wee Willy,
Who gives a rodent’s rectum what you think?
No-one? Gee, what a pity.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Every single one person in the universe feels connected to Mike Flynn.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
Looks nice:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/usT2mMonInd1.gif
A propos forecast…
A few weeks ago, I asked genius Clint R what he would say when
– James Webb tracks, from Sun/Earth’s L2, a fixed point on the Moon (a very small crater, a retroreflector or something similar) over a complete lunar orbit
and, OMG,
– the track’s evaluation does NOT match what a fixed point observed on a non-rotating celestial body is expected to show, BUT matches VERY WELL what the fixed point shows when we add or subtract, at the point’s latitude, the distance due to a rotation of 13.176 degrees per day.
As anticipated, the genius didn’t understand the question.
Maybe another ‘lunar spin denial’ genius has an idea?
Shall we start a bet on it?
“the track’s evaluation does NOT match what a fixed point observed on a non-rotating celestial body is expected to show…”
…if you consider “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be as per the MOTR.
binny…”Maybe another lunar spin denial genius has an idea?”
***
Yes, as a matter of fact.
1)You have cherry picked the comment, as usual, and are taking it out of context.
2)James Webb is wrong about lunar rotation about a local axis.
BTW…who is James Webb?
“
Monday Nino update
The LaNina forecast is shifting further into a longer duration
https://i.postimg.cc/gkBmZk5x/27dec21-nino-f-1024×791.gif
Here is the latest models comparison
https://i.postimg.cc/283frN6r/ms01.jpg
eben…”The LaNina forecast is shifting further into a longer duration….”
***
Brrrr…don’t tell me that, we are already suffering record cold temperatures in the otherwise banana-belt of Vancouver, Canada.
I know the cold air is coming down from the Arctic, Environment Canada has described it as a ‘lobe’ on the polar vortex. However, this year the skies are clouded over whereas they are normally clear when Arctic air descends.
I think it’s La Nina acting somehow to make things even colder. Environment Canada is not spouting off about climate change with the cold. They are suddenly silent.
Yeah, instead of minus 11 it’d be minus 12. You’d think they’d be all over that.
entropic…”Doctors follow the latest medical science. As they should”.
***
Do you mean like the medical science related to HIV/AIDS? The scientist credited with discovering HIV and who is a world-renowned expert on it, now claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that a healthy immune system will reject it. Most doctors are still preaching that dark science making it questionable if they are competent to advise on covid.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re licking butts again.
We can always count on W for a tasteful conversation.
rlh…”You continuously lie and distort things. The Moon and orbits are but one of your idiocies”.
***
You continue to sling ad homs and insults without making the least effort to state why you think I am lying. In a recent post, you claimed a spacecraft approaching Earth gains energy and you did not explain how gravity increases its energy if it is flying tangential to a radial line from the Earth.
I claimed that it’s energy is KE = 1/2 mv^2 with such an approach and if Earth’s gravity is not accelerating it toward Earth, there’s no reason why gravity should add to its energy.
There are times when a spacecraft can use the gravitational attraction from a planet to accelerate it under controlled conditions but the resultant path is always a parabola or a hyperbola which keeps it out of an elliptical orbit. That’s not the case with the Moon, which has a constant linear velocity at all times.
Earth’s gravitational field is not acting in such a direction as to accelerate the Moon or to change its linear velocity. The effect of gravity is just barely enough to hold the Moon at its current altitude in orbit.
If you had a satellite in a similar orbit and you wanted to get it into an outer orbit, you’d have to fire engines on the craft to accelerate it. Or, if you fired retro engines, to slow it, the sat would drop to a lower orbit. Both of those cases would represent a change in energy.
Think about it from the perspective of an airliner flying at 35,000 feet, maintaining that altitude with its motors. At all times, both the Moon and the aircraft are trying to fly in a straight line but the gravitational field is bending the linear velocity vector into an orbit.
How would you get the airliner to a higher altitude? You’d increase the power from the motors. If you could increase the motor power enough, the plane would break orbit and try to fly off in a straight line. As long as gravity had an effect it would tend to change the linear velocity vector into a parabolic path. Once the aircraft broke free of the effect of gravity it would fly in a straight line.
There are no forces acting to change the linear velocity of the Moon in its current orbit. A change of velocity, aka acceleration, requires a force acting in the direction of the velocity vector. You could use an oblique force but a component of that force would push the Moon out of orbit. Same with gravity, if it was acting inwardly in any way in such a manner as to change the Moon’s linear velocity it would also add a component radial to the Earth which would cause the Moon to change orbit.
Since the Moon’s orbit does not decrease it means any gravitational force acting on it does not affect its velocity. However, a slight reduction in gravity in certain parts of an elliptical orbit will allow the momentum of the Moon to have a greater effect, hence elongating the orbit.
If you claim any of this is a lie, you are just being an ***hole. Discuss the problem with scientific evidence, never mind your smarmy ad homs and insults.
Gordon,
“That’s not the case with the Moon, which has a constant linear velocity at all times.”
Bullshit, the Moon moves faster when closer to the Earth and slower when farther away.
“Earth’s gravitational field is not acting in such a direction as to accelerate the Moon or to change its linear velocity. ”
More bullshit, the Moon’s linear velocity changes in two ways as it orbits, it changes magnitude and direction.
“There are no forces acting to change the linear velocity of the Moon in its current orbit. A change of velocity, aka acceleration, requires a force acting in the direction of the velocity vector.”
Even more bullshit, the force of gravity from Earth changes the linear velocity of the Moon, and this force does not have to be acting in the direction of the velocity vector.
OK you are not lying because you actually believe the bullshit you post.
It’s still bullshit.
bob d…”Bullshit, the Moon moves faster when closer to the Earth and slower when farther away”.
***
Where is the accelerating force? You are confusing covering more ground at the same linear velocity with a change in linear velocity. It’s gravity that changes slightly allowing the linear velocity to cover more ground, forcing a more elongated path.
***********
More bullshit, the Moons linear velocity changes in two ways as it orbits, it changes magnitude and direction”.
***
Again, where’s the force to change the linear velocity? We know what changes the direction, the Earth’s gravitational field, however, it does it at with the Moon at a relatively constant altitude. If the Moon’s linear velocity changed, it would move to a higher orbit.
**************
Even more bullshit, the force of gravity from Earth changes the linear velocity of the Moon, and this force does not have to be acting in the direction of the velocity vector.
***
How does that work, Bob? How does a force acting at right angles to a rigid body cause it to accelerate?
Does the Moon orbit the Earth/Moon barycenter in a circle or an ellipse? If it is an ellipse how can it have a continuous orbital/radial velocity wrt the barycenter?
Talk about denying science.
All these months gone by and Gordo still doesn’t comprehend orbital dynamics. Here’s a good graphical representation of the velocity of a body orbiting around another larger body. Notice the fact that the velocity changes, increasing for half the orbit then decreasing for the other half. It’s just basic Newtonian physics.
Gordon,
“You are confusing covering more ground at the same linear velocity with a change in linear velocity.”
How does it cover more ground at the same linear velocity? How does it go faster at the same linear velocity?
“It’s gravity that changes slightly allowing the linear velocity to cover more ground, forcing a more elongated path.”
How does gravity change slightly?
“Again, where’s the force to change the linear velocity?”
The force of gravity, F = G*m1*m2/r^2
“How does that work, Bob? How does a force acting at right angles to a rigid body cause it to accelerate?”
You will have to work that out for yourself.
“you claimed a spacecraft approaching Earth gains energy”
Have you heard of energy wells? Have you heard of Newton? Do you think that reducing the distance does not increase the gravitational force?
Of course the gravitational energy between 2 objects increases as they get closer and gets smaller as they are more apart.
Something to do with d^2 I think.
RLH: “Of course the gravitational energy between 2 objects increases as they get closer and gets smaller as they are more apart.”
Actually that is backwards. The gravitational potential energy is LARGER when far apart and SMALLER when close together. Lift a rock above the ground and it has more GPE.
For orbits, traditionally the GPE is taken to be zero when far apart, and negative when closer (ie decreasing below zero).
GPE = – GmM/r
By conservation of energy, the KE increases as the two get closer. (I suspect this is what you were thinking when you said ‘energy increases’ as they get closer.).
Back to the issue of capturing a moon:
An object will be in a bound orbit when GPE + KE 0. Unless there is a way to remove energy, an object that is initially unbound with KE + GPE > 0 will end up unbound as well. It can “slingshot around” but can’t get captured. Only by losing some energy (perhaps a collision or an interaction with another moon) can a new moon be captured.
Symbols for “less than” don’t work because they are used for formatting.
So that should read:
An object will be in a bound orbit when GPE + KE ⵦ 0.
“KE increases as the two get closer”
Was indeed what I was thinking. Overall total energy is not lost or created, just interchanged as you say.
“It can ‘slingshot around’ but can’t get captured. Only by losing some energy (perhaps a collision or an interaction with another moon) can a new moon be captured.”
As I stated. Normally done in human missions by a retrograde burn.
“As I stated. ”
Yep! You have the right conclusion. (Just backwards wording at one point).
The concluding paragraph was for Gordon, who steadfastly refuses to listen to anything other then the memories of a decades-old physics class and ill-tuned intuition.
F = G (M*m)/r^2 is Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
For Φ(1 -a) coupled term a very strong ARGUMENT.
What we had till now was:
Tmean.earth = 288 K
…………….Tmean.moon = 220 K
Te. earth = 255 K
……………..Te.moon = 270 K
Tmean.mars = 210 K
………..Te.mars = 210 K
Well, Tmean.earth =288K and Tmean.moon =220K and Tmean.mars =210K are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones.
Te.moon =270K and Te.earth =255K and Te.mars =210K are calculated values.
The blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) Te formula used is:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
a – is the average surface Albedo (For Earth a=0,306; For Moon a=0,11; For Mars a=0,250) and those are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones too.
S – is the solar flux.
For Earth and Moon S=So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
For Mars S = 586,4 W/m²
S and So are measured values, thus we accept them as correct ones also.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant; We accept it as well!
What is not well:
Tmean.earth – Te.earth = 288K -255K = +Δ33C
Tmean.moon – Te.moon = 220K -270K = -Δ50C
Tmean.mars – Te.mars = 210K -210K = Δ0C
We should conclude there is something wrong with the Te blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) formula used here.
There something should be very wrong.
There was that assumption-explanation:
Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean. Thus Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C)
As for Earth’s (+Δ33C) it is explained by the Earth’s atmosphere GHE.
And we haven’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C).
As a summary
1). We had an arbitrary assumption (Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean.)
2). We had a coincidence (Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C) )
3). We had a controversial explanation (Earth’s (+Δ33C) is explained by the Earth’s atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content the alleged GHE.)
4). And we had a very big discrepancy (we hadn’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C)).
………………………
Let’s see what New Theory states about:
It states (the first discovery) smooth planets’ surface have very strong specular reflection.
Thus the blackbody equilibrium temperature (effective temperature) Te formula should be corrected as:
Te = [ Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Φ – is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor.
Where Φ=0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons (Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
And Φ=1 for rough surface planets and moons (heavy cratered ones) and for gaseous planets and moons.
The calculated with the corrected blackbody equilibrium formula temperatures (the corrected effective temperatures) Te.correct are:
Te.correct.earth =210K
Te.correct.moon =224K
Te.correct.mars = 174K
And
Tmean.earth – Te.earth = 288K -210K = +Δ78C
Tmean.moon – Te.moon = 220K -224K = -Δ4C
Tmean.mars – Te.mars = 210K -174K = +Δ36C
1). In this case it is pretty obvious for Earth’s +Δ78C we cannot explain that much of difference by Earth’s GHE.
2). In case of Mars the +Δ36C difference is in similar to Earth’s pattern.
3). Moon has, compared to Earth and Mars a rather very small difference of only -Δ4C.
As a summary
1). We have a discovery (Planet Te should be corrected for smooth surface planets and moons – the Φ.)
2). We have the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which states:
Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
In the New Theory we have not old theory’s discrepancy of Mars, a planet without-atmosphere, having the same Tmean=Te=210K vs Moon’s, also without-atmosphere, having Tmean-Te =-Δ50C.
Also, the New Theory explains that a faster rotating than Moon Mars has a higher +Δ36C.
And the faster rotating Earth (as fast as Mars’), and, also having a higher average surface specific heat Earth (cp =1cal/gr.oC for water vs cp =0,19cal/gr.oC for dry soil) has a much higher +Δ78C.
Now, please compare the New Theory with the old planet blackbody equilibrium temperature Te (effective temperature) results:
1). We had an arbitrary assumption (Planet Te should equal the planet Tmean.)
2). We had a coincidence (Te.mars=Tmean.mars=210K (Δ0C) )
3). We had a controversial explanation (Earth’s (+Δ33C) is explained by the Earth’s trace greenhouse gasses content the alleged GHE.)
4). And we had a very big discrepancy (we hadn’t any explanation for Moon’s (-Δ50C) ).
It is very much obvious now that the discovery (the unveiling) of Φ – the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor is of a TRUE scientific value!
It is for Φ(1 -a) coupled term a very strong indeed ARGUMENT !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
Logic does not apply when discussing GHE theory. Also, math is not required to make sense.
Agreed!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How do you get new governmental building?
Nicola Sturgeon better off moving out of government HQ than making it go green
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
[[Never let a pol take care of your pet- or anything you care to have continuing to live.]]
Pass dumb laws, let them eat cake.
Earlier, Weary Wee Willy wrote –
“Mike Flynn keeps digging
“Everyone means every person.”
If that was the case, when would it be correct for Mike Flynn to say it? Unless and until Mike Flynn can access to all the entities that can be included in that everyone, he would not be justified to use that expression. Even everyone here would be problematic, as we have no idea whos here and how many there is. Yet Mike Flynn will still continue to use the expression everyone, understanding that it comes with fuzzy provisos.
Nobody should take Mike Flynn seriously, starting with his sock puppets.”
Oh well.
Nobody has to take me (or Mike Flynn) seriously, of course. Or Wee Willy, for that matter. Maybe a dictionary definition might help – the definition of “everyone” is “every person” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, for example – as I said, much to Wee Willy’s annoyance!
Witless Wee Willy, like all climate cultists finds definitions anathema.
In his bizarre fantasy, Swenson is Mike Flynn, cooling is heating, Gavin Schmidt is a world famous “climate scientist”, and Michael Mann is not only a world famous “climate scientist”, but a Nobel Laureate into the bargain!
Weird Wee Willy is off with the fairies again.
Mike Flynn powers through denial –
“Nobody has to take me (or Mike Flynn) seriously, of course.”
Perhaps does he believe in his sock puppets?
That would explain everything!
Ha!
PS: No, Mike Flynn, “everything” does not mean every single thing in the universe!
Willard, please stop trolling.
We’ll see next April who did the best work:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
You just keep proving you are stuck on stupid ,
but keep going , every climate blog needs its climate clown
Instead of spitting out your clumsy insults, first try to understand my comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1097077
Your reply to it has shown you did not at all.
Your science is only as good as your ability to predict future results, which in your case that is zero.
Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.
You, Eben, did never predict anything more than I did: namely ZERO.
All you do is to endlessly replicate NOAA forecasts, without however having brain enough to see, when looking back, that they were modified a posteriori.
That’s all what I wanted to show: namely how ignorant you behave.
You are a retard who doesn’t even know what he is looking at, that chart is changing every single day and different with new daily model runs. You are literaly too stupid to debate with
What is interesting is how much even a few months of ‘modelling’ into the future can have such different results.
The site Bindiclown keeps posting never predicted 100% La Nina,
what they did is they changed the past 3 month into 100% retroactively after the fact.
Thats a good work in the Bindidong’s Clown World.
I was asking the Lunatics what they would say when
– James Webb tracks, from Sun/Earth’s L2, a fixed point on the Moon (a very small crater, a retroreflector or something similar) over a complete lunar orbit
and, OMG,
– the track’s evaluation does NOT match what a fixed point observed on a non-rotating celestial body is expected to show, BUT matches VERY WELL what the fixed point shows when we add or subtract, at the point’s latitude, the distance due to a rotation of 13.176 degrees per day.
*
The next Lunatic answers
” if you consider ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ to be as per the MOTR. ”
*
It seems that all these people have difficulties to understand even simplest things.
What the heck does this MOTL/MOTR nonsense have to do with the trajectory of a fixed point on the Moon, observed from a distant telescope?
Is it so complicated to grasp that any educated mathematician can deduce, from the visible parts of the fixed point’s 3D-trajectory
– whether or not the Moon spins about its polar axis, and if it spins
— the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic
and, last not least,
— the spin’s period?
Is that really so complicated?
*
But the very best answer came as expected from the greatest genius of all times:
” 2)James Webb is wrong about lunar rotation about a local axis.
BTW… who is James Webb? ”
There can’t be anything on Earth to beat that!
*
Robertson’s brain sometimes reminds me of the bitter end of the HAL spaceship on-board computer in Kubrick’s 2001, when Bowman, who got furious about the murder of his colleague by the computer, moves to HAL’s machine room, and begins to manually switch off all its functions, level by level.
*
Who is James Webb? Oh Noes.
You really are not very bright.
Speaking to yourself again are you?
Which of the following two alternatives is worse:
– not be very bright in your opinion?
or
– be completely dense in my opinion?
I leave the choice up to you.
Yawn.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures
The idea simple black body is to give a clue of temperature of some unknown object. The cargo cult, does what cargo cults, do.
Venus ” has a surface temperature about 500 K above the prediction.”
It’s not above the prediction, if you know where the Venus surface is {it’s the clouds} and how high that surface is above the rocky surface.
Or the kind of rocky surface it has, has nothing to do with Venus’s temperature. And this quite different as compared to lunar “rocky surface” as its surface matters. And its surface is quite alien to what people generally think about a surface. But it’s quite common in the space environment.
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.
As for the rest of your comment concerning Venus, it is mostly unintelligible. Can you provide a citation supporting your point, whatever that may be.
P.s.: The Magellan mission mapped the entire surface of Venus starting May 4, 1989.
At least four robotic spacecraft have landed on the surface of Venus starting with the Venera 7 mission on December 15, 1970.
We know from direct measurements that the temperature of Venus decreases with increasing altitude above the surface. Surface temperature is 460 C. The atmosphere is divided into the troposphere (0 to 65 km), the mesosphere (65 to 135 km), and the ionosphere (>135 km).
The temperature of Venus rocky surface depends upon its elevation.
If earth didn’t have ocean, our rocky surface would be similar to Venus- which doesn’t have ocean. And far as is known, never had an ocean.
Mars probably didn’t have ocean but may have had very large lakes.
Anyhow, If Venus was at Earth’s distance from the sun, Venus would be colder than Earth.
gbaikie at 5:36 PM
So, my original post stands. Thx.
I will add, the sunlight can shining from zenith on Venus rocky surface for days, and not change its temperature. And within hours the rocky surface of earth can heat to 70 C when sunlight is near zenith.
The temperature of rocky surface of Venus only depends on elevation, because it is warmed at its is cloudy surface + 50 km above the rocky surface.
TM,
Ooooh! Demanding a “citation” are you?
What’s the matter? Too stupid to form your own opinion? Depending on appeals to authority?
Or maybe you are just trolling as usual, hoping that others will waste their time.
Oh well, it might work for some, I suppose. Have you figured out why the surface of the airless Moon gets so much hotter after the same exposure to sunlight than the Earth?
Physics works differently there, do you think?
Swenson,
You boofhead. Have something relevant to contribute?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/about.html
ACS Climate Science Toolkit
The ACS is a political group, not a science group. Almost every PhD chemist I know either doesn’t support IPCC’s hypothesis or doesn’t comment.
Guff,
You’re just a flag-waving propagandist. When are you going to post something intelligent?
Projection
Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person.
The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection, attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.
The concept emerged from Sigmund Freud’s work (in 1895) on defense mechanisms.
Unconscious discomfort can lead people to attribute unacceptable feelings or impulses to someone else to avoid confronting them. Projection allows the difficult trait to be addressed without the individual fully recognizing it in themselves.
Projection can occur in a variety of contexts, from an isolated incident with a casual acquaintance to a regular pattern.
A harmful consequence of continual projection is when the trait becomes incorporated into one’s identity.
“Almost every PhD chemist I know either doesnt support IPCCs hypothesis or doesnt comment”
Nonsense. I know a lot of chemists, and not my impression.
Most do not mix up science and politics, as you do Stephen.
LOL, you project just below Tyson’s projection post.
[email protected]
I suspect 2002 is your birth year, no?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098523
The old “attack the messenger” tactic, and specifically the use of labeling, is a big loser.
If you were interested in the science, you would present counter arguments to my statements. Instead you engage in ad hominem, thus proving that even you are smart enough to know that your position is a lost cause.
For those not irretrievably lost in denialism, I read in yesterday’s New York Times an article on the Antarctic circumpolar current. Among other things it discussed why the Antarctic is not warming as fast as the rest of the planet.
The only ones lost in denialism are you and your unscientific, agenda-driven, leftist brethren.
No CO2?
Entropic man
Viewed from UAH’s data, the global average of the lower troposphere’s temperature anomalies lies, with +0.14 C / decade, between the Antarctic (+0.09) and the Arctic (+0.25).
No wonder, Entropic man: while the Arctic is a cold sea enclosed by warmer land masses, the Antarctic is a frozen land mass enclosed by colder seas.
And… NYT alarmism or not: that is not about to change very soon:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YF52I9Thi2KaKGKs4sPXKUBnQiS9CdPN/view
About Greenland of course, I would write quite different things!
You expect the high pressure/low temperature over Greenland to change much soon?
https://imgur.com/a/tBzg84B
My organisation’s Health and Safety manager collects anecdotes. For example, the design of a ramp in an exhibit recently changed and he soon heard of a number of minor trip accidents. Past experience told him that a rash of minor accidents indicated a higher risk of a serious accident, so the ramp was changed back to the earlier design.The
What you call alarmism I call risk assessment. There are many examples of past minor changes in the climate system which ultimately led to much larger changes.
One of the things that puzzles me about conservatives. They fear change, yet are unwilling to do the risk assessment which would help them avoid change.
There are probably many examples of past minor changes in the climate system which did NOT lead to much larger changes.
Confirmation bias can let you decide which to report.
How’s your knowledge of complex systems?
If you are good enough to tell which minor changes trigger larger changes and which do not, then the policy makers can really use you.
Until then the risk assessors have to look at all of them.
“Until then the risk assessors have to look at all of them.”
Now if I was persuaded that all of them were actually examined as opposed to those which show things get warmer solely due to humans…
–RLH says:
December 28, 2021 at 6:59 AM
stephen: Every human we add to the population adds at least 1/2 tennis court of warm CO2, H2O, emitting swamp to the Earth. That is apart from any additional energy that each human consumes during its life.–
Not true.
We could easily emit more CO2 because we are underpopulated.
Unless you talking are CO2 from breathing and ignoring reality.
What causing the majority of CO2 emission?
Dysfunctional union controlled public schools.
And the evil politicians.
The 1/2 a tennis court of warm swamp comparison is down to the surface area of human’s lungs. They exhale both CO2 and H2O on a regular basis.
CO2 is plant food. If we want more plants, we have a shortage of it- probably because we don’t mine CO2.
On Moon and Mars, humans will mine CO2.
Venus has fair amount of it, but Venus is in deep gravity well- like Earth is.
Increasing the ‘churn’ of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what increasing human/animal populations does, may explain some of the perceived increase.
What has been predicted by NOAA many weeks ago happens right now:
– low night temperatures in Northwest Canada
CA0022010H0 NT DEADMEN VALLEY 2021 12 26 -50.1 C
and in Alaska
USCRN 96406 AK_Ruby_44_ESE 2021 12 14 -44.1 C
– high day temperatures in Southeast CONUS
03072 TX_Bronte_11_NNE 2021 12 26 +32.2 C
and in Northern Mexico
MXM00076382 TORREON INTL 2021 12 10 32.5 C
For the coming month, no change expected:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/usT2mMonInd1.gif
To avoid possible misunderstandings, Deadmen Valley is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Deadmen+Valley/@61.2500096,-133.4648653,1821523m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x53e728741337140d:0x5e8fe9c58283b94d!8m2!3d61.25!4d-124.5?hl=en
Why are you surprised?
https://imgur.com/a/hFCyv2q
binny…all of the temperatures you cite, even -50C is typical of winter temperatures on the Canadian prairies along the 49th parallel. Arctic air knows no boundaries in Canada and down into parts of the States.
I experienced -50C in Regina, Canada one fine day. With the Sun shining it was not that bad and there were ice crystals dropping out of a clear sky like a fine mist. Appears the water vapour in the air was freezing and dropping out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/28/more-evidence-glaciers-existing-today-were-absent-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
More Evidence: Glaciers Existing Today Were Absent For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years
“So, once again, there is no evidence to support the alarmist claims that modern glacier extents are unprecedented or even unusual relative to the last 10,000 years – including the last few centuries.”
More global water vapor should make more snow.
Though more snow [and ice] doesn’t mean we not continuing to recover from the Little Ice Age- ie what people typical call, “global warming”.
Real “global warming” is increasing average temperature of entire Ocean. Though having warmer ocean, and 3.5 C is not warmer ocean, is global warming, and are past our peak Holocene warm period, which was more than 5000 years ago, when Sahara was grassland- and etc.
gbaikie
Did I see right?
YOU believe in trash posted by the Trickiest Zone evah?
Really?
Is there something wrong with the European Geological Union?
“Nearly all” indeed:
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/4073/2021/
There’s only something wrong with troglodytes refusing to READ HARDER:
Tony’s “nearly all” might need to be taken with a grain of salt.
It advanced 43m/yr between 1948 and 2015. How’s that possible with all the warming?
> How’s that possible with all the warming?
The operative word is “global,” Troglodyte.
Also note:
Do temperatures naturally fluctuate? Wow, you’re brilliant. It’s funny how all these studies document glaciers fluctuating through the millennia but then somehow conclude that now it is all due to AGW, Chihuahua.
> all these studies
You showed one, Troglodyte. Add to your quantifier problem your difficulty in estimating time frames:
>You showed one, Troglodyte. Add to your quantifier problem your difficulty in estimating time frames:
You got me, Chihuahua.
Now, please, let go of my ankle.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Surely even a dummy like you does not believe that melting sea ice can cause sea levels to rise?
That is about as silly as nutters who claim that floating ice from glacial outflow can somehow reduce (or “buttress” – whatever that means in climatespeak) the river of ice flowing to the sea!
I won’t demand that you “think”! That ability is obviously beyond you.
You are probably even witless enough to believe in a magical GHE! It’s called sunshine, sunshine. Goes away at night – temperatures drop. Lots of it in hot arid deserts – temperatures go up.
Now feel free to go away and play with yourself.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*Kiddo yawns.*
I am a skeptic.
And some here should not complain about trash posted, elsewhere.
I do look at Watt’s site, and sometime post there. But I am not particularly interested in climate.
But:
We have past our peak, and it will probably take a while before entering our next glaciation period.
What is commonly called climate is weather, mostly.
I think Sun’s activity can change the weather.
And wonder if we going into Grand Minimum- but mostly in terms of it effects as far as going to Mars.
I don’t even live where, there would much effect from the coming glaciation period- or the next big climate change coming.
Though I have to live forever, for any global warming or cooling being something one could call, relevant.
We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. During warming periods, we can grow enough food to feed everyone. During cooling periods, I don’t think so.
If was warmer, now one could easily grow crops {as well as having forests and stuff] in the Sahara Desert. But when as cold as it is now {or even colder}, you can bring water to the Sahara deserts.
So, rather than Nature making the Sahara Desert, useful, we can make it useful.
If we were spacefaring civilization, this would be a minor project.
But don’t need to be spacefaring, what need is political will, mostly. And if one is not having enough food, it hands you the political will.
Of course we could also have ocean settlements which would encourage farming on the Ocean. Though not dirt farming, necessarily.
stephen…”During warming periods, we can grow enough food to feed everyone. During cooling periods, I dont think so”.
***
In the late 1700s, in the 2nd phase of the Little Ice Age. people were starving in the Highlands of Scotland, because it was too cold to support crops that would normally grow there.
Similar situations reported in North America during the same period. They were experiencing famine as far south as Florida and Texas due to the uncommon cold caused by the LIA.
That was only a cooling of 1C to 2C.
Of course, we know the cold of the LIA drove the Vikings out of Greenland. They could no longer farm due to the cold.
“We dont have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. During warming periods, we can grow enough food to feed everyone.”
Oh, you believe Africa, the Middle East, India, Central America, Southeast Asia, the Amazon basin, Australia, can grow more food if they get WARMER?
–Oh, you believe Africa, the Middle East, India, Central America, Southeast Asia, the Amazon basin, Australia, can grow more food if they get WARMER?–
Well, warmer means more water vapor.
And warmer world has little to do with tropics other than more water vapor in deserts within or near tropics.
Or one say it this way, if make deserts, in Africa, the Middle East, India, Central America, and Australia into grassland and forests, that would increase global temperature. Or if the deserts were once grassland and became deserts, becoming desert is a cooling effect.
Humans evolved in cooling world, forests were becoming grasslands, and as humans walked more, it is said they evolved more.
And in our 34 million year Ice Age, the last 2 millions year were the coolest time within the 34 million years.
Or ice age cause more desert regions. 1/3rd of all land is desert regions.
“Or one say it this way, if make deserts, in Africa, the Middle East, India, Central America, and Australia into grassland”
And you know that’s what happens in a warmer world?
Most of the world’s deserts are in two latitude bands of high pressure. These bands are produced by the Earth’s General Circulation pattern, which is driven by heating and convection in the tropics.
It is expected that in a warmer world this General Circulation pattern will become stronger, and the dry bands will expand.
Of course other regional changes are expected.
–Nate says:
December 31, 2021 at 7:00 AM
Or one say it this way, if make deserts, in Africa, the Middle East, India, Central America, and Australia into grassland
And you know thats what happens in a warmer world?–
I know that warmer world is a warmer ocean.
There is no getting away from that fact.
We know Earth’s ocean have been cold and cooling for 34 million years.
The cold ocean is why we are in icehouse global climate
And warm ocean would make it a Greenhouse global climate.
One roughly say the only way to increase global water vapor is
with a warmer ocean.
Naturally, but humans adding a lot of water to the sands of deserts
is another way have large increase of water vapor “globally”.
I unaware of anyone who would disagree that irrigating the Sahara Desert would not increase global air temperature.
Only “disagreement” is, how much it warms the world.
And as everyone knows the Sahara Desert was green. And trees which are now frozen stumps were once growing trees.
And Sahara wasn’t green, once, but every time one reaches interglacial highest temperature- near the peak of all interglacial periods.
And peak of any interglacial is also known to have highest ocean temperature.
And more than 2 million years ago, the Greenland ice cap, didn’t exist. Certainly, it would have had glaciers, but they would mostly disappear during the warmest part of an interglacial period.
–Most of the worlds deserts are in two latitude bands of high pressure. These bands are produced by the Earths General Circulation pattern, which is driven by heating and convection in the tropics.–
Yes, what could change the circulation pattern?
It’s not in any fixed, it currently changes seasonally.
–It is expected that in a warmer world this General Circulation pattern will become stronger, and the dry bands will expand.–
A warmer world is warmer ocean. Or more 90% of all global warming in last 50 years has been warming the cold 3.5 C ocean, as they say.
But I would say more 95%.
And I would they are wrong that warmer world has less water vapor.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
316,590 miles [506,544 km] from Earth. Now going .6155 miles per second {just less than 1 km/sec}. And about 3 days and 12 hours from
launching near the equator by an Ariane 5 rocket.
I thinking if going about 9 km/sec from Earth/Sun L-2 point you could get to Mars {fast}.
So, if draw a line from L-1 thru Earth and to L-2 point, one go at vector at about 45 degrees. And if include Earth’s velocity of about 30 km/sec in gives result of 36.9 km/sec at around 20 degrees relative Earth’s orbit.
[But I am just guessing.
And I am not rocket scientist.]
The L-points are interesting places, probably useful to think of them as big flat spaces. So flat and big it’s well beyond typical human environments.
Anyhow Webb telescope is about 1/2 way to place it’s going to within the big flatness of space. And about 1/2 way thru its deployment of its heat shield. And pretty cool at moment and I guess will get colder.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
And going .7739 km/sec.
This flatness is the border region of what is called Earth’s hill sphere [about 1.5 million km from Earth}. And we also have regions of flatness far within the Earth’s hill sphere which the L-points of Earth and the Moon. Around Moon’s hill sphere there is flatness and merges at one point, Earth/Moon L-2 with the Earth/sun L-2, though when Moon goes between Earth and Sun, the Lunar L-2 flatness merges with Earth/Sun L-1. Though anywhere in Moon orbit, Earth/Moon L-2 is also roughly, merging with flatness of the top of Earth’s hill sphere.
The Moon has gates, and lunar surface is also considered a gateway. And be better gateway in the term, if the Moon has mineable volatiles. The Moon does have mineable volatiles, but when they can mined is the question. And if one be done economically starting at somewhat smaller level of economical scale- smaller investment of capital in the billions of dollars range rather than trillions of dollars.
It should be noted that the trillionaire Elon Musk is attempting to lower costs to Mars, but even with lower costs, Mars towns are a trillion dollar thing.
But it could work, if people can live on Mars. But larger towns on Earth are also, roughly, a trillion dollar thing. But they start small and grow. Musk seems like he wants to grow towns, at a speed, only attempted by China- and its ghost cities.
willard…”…”the relatively mild climate forcing in the Middle Holocene, suggesting that it may again retreat completely from the fjord to an inland position if climate warming continues at its current pace”.
***
The annoying thing about alarmists is their penchant for mixing emotional rhetoric with science. What is ‘climate warming’? The phrase is ‘global warming’, climate is an average of weather and as a statistic can warm nothing.
What is ‘climate forcing’. A statistic can force nothing.
The glaring omission from the phrase above is ‘during the brief summer months’. Alarmists keep raving decreasing ice extents and retreating glaciers as if they are caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere. The melting of ice in the Arctic can occur only during the brief windows of summer relative warmth. The rest of the year, there is little or no Sun and temperatures drops well below zero, like to the -40C range.
As polar expert Duncan Wingham claimed about Antarctica, namely that it is far too cold for ice to melt in Antarctica, the same applies to the Arctic during winter and most of the year.
> The glaring omission from the phrase above is ‘during the brief summer months’.
C’mon, Gordo. Think.
The Middle Holocene lasted a bit longer than that, and the Antarctic is quite far away from the Ryder Glacier, which sits at the top of Greenland.
Also note that ‘climate warming’ refers to the warming of the climate. Even you should be able to get it.
It’s irrelevant. The planet does what it does. We adapt. I’d much rather deal with sea-level rise than sea-level drop. During warming periods, we eat.
Food is good.
> It’s irrelevant.
What’s that *it*, Troglodyte?
Since you must have lived through the Dust Bowl, do tell how you ate these days.
Wee Will Idiot,
Short attention span, dummy?
You wrote –
“Even you should be able to get it.”
Have you considered reading your own answers before you ask pointless and stupid questions?
I must admit that your question is exceeded only in its obscurity by your previously stated answer.
Keep up the foolishness.
Mike Flynn,
Maccaboy Function,
My “it” refers to Gordo’s silly semantic game.
Troglodyte’s “it” refers to something else.
Keep looking like a fool.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
So, you’re referencing IPCC? That’s like referencing Mao on the qualities of totalitarianism. Berry, et al., has wholly discredited IPCC.
I heard that somewhere, Troglodyte.
But where?
Regrettably the planet is now doing what we are causing it to do. Changing climate is no longer something that natural forces do to us, it is something we are doing to ourselves.
“Regrettably the planet is now doing what we are causing it to do. Changing climate is no longer something that natural forces do to us, it is something we are doing to ourselves.”
Despite years of this climate change claptrap there still is no compelling evidence that we are causing climate to change. Climate is changing cyclically as the geological evidence shows it always has.
> no compelling evidence
Try this, Kennui:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Report.
>Regrettably the planet is now doing what we are causing it to do. Changing climate is no longer something that natural forces do to us, it is something we are doing to ourselves.
You’re such a virtue signaler. I’ve already shown you that Berry has falsified the IPCC hypothesis.
So, youre referencing IPCC? Thats like referencing Mao on the qualities of totalitarianism. Berry, et al., has wholly discredited IPCC.
Let me get this straight, Troglodyte:
On the one hand, there’s Ed. On the other, there’s thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists?
I like my odds.
How much would you be willing to pay for some due diligence?
What was it Einstein said? Something like, “Infinite pieces of evidence can never prove anything, but one piece of evidence can falsify.” I’ll take my chances with E.
He claimed to have falsified the anthropogenic origin of extra CO2. Unfortunately the claim was not supported by evidence and itself easily falsified.
You really should stay away from anything to do with math and science.
Now this is an area which was within my professional competence.
Last time I looked, the atmosphere carbon budget looked like this. My figures are fluxes in GtonnesC/year. For comparison 1.38 GtonnesC would change the CO2 concentration by 1ppm.
Adding to atmospheric carbon are:-
Vegetation respiration 60
Soil respiration 60
Decay 1.6
Ocean outgassing 90
Human emissions 5.5
Total 217.6
Carbon removal :-
Vegetation photosynthesis 121.8
Ocean surface uptake 92
Total 213.8
Net atmospheric increase 217.6-213.8=3.8Gtonnes/year
That would be a net gain of 3.8/1.38 = 2.75ppm.
The conventional view is that when you are up all the fossil fuel burned, concrete production etc we are releasing about 5.5 Gtonnes into the atmosphere. By my data 70% is staying in the atmosphere.
If Berry was correct and 70% of the atmospheric increase is natural there would be another 5.5*0.7=3.85Gtonnes coming from (unspecified) sources and the total net annual gain would be 3.8+3.85=7.65Gtonnes.
The annual change would be 7.65/1.38=5.5ppm/year.
Since the figure inferred using his hypothesis is twice what we actually observe, Berry’s paper is falsified.
LOL,
You should go over to Berry’s message board and present this to him. He’ll get a kick out of it, at the least. He’ll be very respectful, though.
I’m looking more at your numbers here, and you assign even less emission to humans than Berry does; Bravo. So, if atmospheric carbon is described by the continuity equation (which you just used), and human emissions are 2.5% according to your figures, how can human carbon be more than 2.5% of atmospheric carbon?
More ankle biting, Troglodyte?
Perhaps you could try your hand at Ferdinands website.
Feel free to send it to Berry. If he wants to discuss it directly, let me know and I’ll email him at his website.
“So, if atmospheric carbon is described by the continuity equation (which you just used), and human emissions are 2.5% according to your figures, how can human carbon be more than 2.5% of atmospheric carbon? ”
The natural carbon budget for the atmosphere is cyclic. Under stable conditions the amounts of natural carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere are equal. They cancel out to zero change in concentration.
Natural carbon emission and uptake cancels out. Over a year about 30% of the atmosphere is exchanged with other carbon sinks, but the net change in atmospheric carbon is zero.
Artificial human emissions are not part of the cycle. They are extra carbon introduced from very long term storage. Our 5.5 Gt/year is not added then all removed. Our emissions accumulate over time. The total amount of atmospheric carbon increases by 5.5Gt/year, 55Gt/decade, 550Gt/century.
Of course, as the concentration increases, the equilibria shift. A proportion of our emissions leaves the atmosphere for other carbon sinks, but that just shows the increase.
>Feel free to send it to Berry. If he wants to discuss it directly, let me know and I’ll email him at his website.
He’ll discuss it with you directly in the comments. I suggest you check your math before posting.
“So, if atmospheric carbon is described by the continuity equation (which you just used), and human emissions are 2.5% according to your figures, how can human carbon be more than 2.5% of atmospheric carbon? ”
>The natural carbon budget for the atmosphere is cyclic. Under stable conditions the amounts of natural carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere are equal. They cancel out to zero change in concentration.
Natural carbon emission and uptake cancels out. Over a year about 30% of the atmosphere is exchanged with other carbon sinks, but the net change in atmospheric carbon is zero.
Artificial human emissions are not part of the cycle. They are extra carbon introduced from very long term storage. Our 5.5 Gt/year is not added then all removed. Our emissions accumulate over time. The total amount of atmospheric carbon increases by 5.5Gt/year, 55Gt/decade, 550Gt/century.
So do natural CO2 and human CO2 behave using different laws of physics? If so, what are those two different laws? You’ll need to explain how a human CO2 absorbs more slowly than natural CO2.
>Of course, as the concentration increases, the equilibria shift. A proportion of our emissions leaves the atmosphere for other carbon sinks, but that just shows the increase.
You’ll need to explain this?
>Feel free to send it to Berry. If he wants to discuss it directly, let me know and Ill email him at his website.
He’ll discuss it with you directly in the comments. I suggest you check your math before posting.
So, if atmospheric carbon is described by the continuity equation (which you just used), and human emissions are 2.5% according to your figures, how can human carbon be more than 2.5% of atmospheric carbon?
>The natural carbon budget for the atmosphere is cyclic. Under stable conditions the amounts of natural carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere are equal. They cancel out to zero change in concentration.
Natural carbon emission and uptake cancels out. Over a year about 30% of the atmosphere is exchanged with other carbon sinks, but the net change in atmospheric carbon is zero.
Artificial human emissions are not part of the cycle. They are extra carbon introduced from very long term storage. Our 5.5 Gt/year is not added then all removed. Our emissions accumulate over time. The total amount of atmospheric carbon increases by 5.5Gt/year, 55Gt/decade, 550Gt/century.
So do natural CO2 and human CO2 behave using different laws of physics? If so, what are those two different laws? You’ll need to explain how a human CO2 absorbs more slowly than natural CO2.
>Of course, as the concentration increases, the equilibria shift. A proportion of our emissions leaves the atmosphere for other carbon sinks, but that just shows the increase.
You’ll need to explain this?
Entropic,
You’ll need to explain how turnover times for natural CO2 and human CO2 are different.
More ankle biting, Troglodyte?
The third sentence of Ed’s abstract is false. That makes his proof fizzle.
For more on this, you know my terms.
Entropic,
What’s more:
> Natural carbon emission and uptake cancels out. Over a year about 30% of the atmosphere is exchanged with other carbon sinks, but the net change in atmospheric carbon is zero.
This is a nonsensical statement.
Artificial human emissions are not part of the cycle. They are extra carbon introduced from very long-term storage. Our 5.5 Gt/year is not added then all removed. Our emissions accumulate over time. The total amount of atmospheric carbon increases by 5.5Gt/year, 55Gt/decade, 550Gt/century.
Do you realize you completely contradict yourself? In your math above you state that the sum total of emissions and uptakes are a linear function but then you turn right around and state they are non-linear. You choose whatever answer you want at the moment to win an argument. You do realize this isn’t science?
“Artificial human emissions are not part of the cycle.”
The short-term (annual) cycle moves carbon between three similar sized reservoirs: the atm, the land-biosphere, and ocean mixed-layer.
Now we’ve added NEW carbon that has been stored for millions of years. This increases the total amount in the three reservoirs.
And though the new carbon DOES get moved around between the three reservoirs just like the natural carbon, it still has increased the total amount in them.
We know this because all three reservoirs have increased.
By far the majority of the long term carbon is stored in limestone/chalk/marble.
>The short-term (annual) cycle moves carbon between three similar sized reservoirs: the atm, the land-biosphere, and ocean mixed-layer.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. According to the IPCC, there is a fast carbon cycle and a slow carbon cycle.
>Now weve added NEW carbon that has been stored for millions of years. This increases the total amount in the three reservoirs.
Human emissions have moved carbon to the fast cycle. However, it is small relative to the total emissions so that it is no more than 25% of atmospheric carbon. Based upon IPCC’s own numbers, the total amount of human emission since 1750 did not exceed the increase above 280ppm until 1955. That’s 200 years. So nature had to cause at least some of the increase.
And though the new carbon DOES get moved around between the three reservoirs just like the natural carbon, it still has increased the total amount in them.
In the fast cycle? So what?
We know this because all three reservoirs have increased.
“Human emissions have moved carbon to the fast cycle. However, it is small relative to the total emissions so that it is no more than 25% of atmospheric carbon.”
The total emissions are from where? They are from the fast cycle, ie they are from one of the three reservoirs.
SO again, these natural emissions are not ADDING to the total in the three reservoirs, they are simply moving it between them.
Whereas, FF emissions are adding to the TOTAL that is circulating in the fast cycle.
Again, so what? Temperature rise has moved more of the natural CO2 into the atmosphere. If that hadn’t happened we’d be sitting at 310ppmv atmospheric CO2. I’d rather be at 400ppmV, or better yet, 600ppmV. Significant evidence it gives much greater crop production.
“Again, so what? ”
Clearly, you have missed the point, Stephen. Human emissions are ADDING carbon to the fast cycle from an EXTERNAL source.
The vast majority of natural emissions are not adding to it, they are internal to the cycle.
The whole basis of Berry’s model is that the natural emissions swamp the human emissions, and when either one leaves the atmosphere it disappears into a great void.
Nope, they don’t disappear. They are simply moving around as part of the fast cycle.
Then so what? Then the amount of annual circulation has nothing to say about the growth in the amount circulating.
There is a slow leakage of excess carbon from the fast cycle into the deep ocean, but that is extremely small annual loss due the Revelle factor, which Berry conveniently ignored.
>Again, so what?
Clearly, you have missed the point, Stephen. Human emissions are ADDING carbon to the fast cycle from an EXTERNAL source.
No, human emissions are adding carbon to the fast carbon cycle that exchanges and is in equilibrium with the slow carbon cycle.
The vast majority of natural emissions are not adding to it, they are internal to the cycle.
No, all of the natural emissions are part of the fast cycle, by definition, they’re emissions.
The whole basis of Berrys model is that the natural emissions swamp the human emissions, and when either one leaves the atmosphere it disappears into a great void.
You have a gross conceptual error. Atmospheric CO2 is described by the continuity equation. This is not a new concept. CO2 flows through the atmosphere and exchanges with the other reservoirs. Human CO2 and natural CO2 are identical and have short turnover times. The amount of human CO2 being emitted is only five percent of Natural emissions. This is confirmed by IPCC.
Nope, they dont disappear. They are simply moving around as part of the fast cycle.
You’re getting close. They do exchange with the slow cycle.
Then so what? Then the amount of annual circulation has nothing to say about the growth in the amount circulating.
No, not according to IPCC. Their issue is the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. They claim all of the increase has been due to man. Berry falsifies the claim. He shows the maximum it (human contribution) can be is 25% of the increase. Furthermore, you don’t want to admit what this implies and it has nothing to do with the “growth” in the fast cycle.
There is a slow leakage of excess carbon from the fast cycle into the deep ocean, but that is extremely small annual loss due the Revelle factor, which Berry conveniently ignored.
Berry didn’t ignore the Revelle factor. The Revelle factor is a red herring. The Revelle factor doesn’t describe atmospheric CO2 or the physics model which describes the exchanges between land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.
“Berry didn’t ignore the Revelle factor. The Revelle factor is a red herring. The Revelle factor doesn’t describe atmospheric CO2 or the physics model which describes the exchanges between land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.”
The ‘physics model’ is just math, not physics. To be a proper physics model it needs to incorporate the real-world constraints on the carbon cycle, one of which is the Revelle factor.
If you and Berry dismiss the Revelle factor as a red herring then both of you obviously don’t understand it.
“You have a gross conceptual error. Atmospheric CO2 is described by the continuity equation. This is not a new concept. CO2 flows through the atmosphere and exchanges with the other reservoirs.”
The three reservoirs that are part of the fast cycle equilibrate with each other quickly, and can be considered a single larger reservoir. The exchanges among the three are internal to this. Thus how large they are is irrelevant to the growth of CO2 when CO2 is added from an external source.
‘Human emissions are ADDING carbon to the fast cycle from an EXTERNAL source.
No, human emissions are adding carbon to the fast carbon cycle that exchanges and is in equilibrium with the slow carbon cycle.”
Your ‘No’ here makes NO sense. The FF carbon has been stored for millions of years. For the present millenium, that is a NEW source of external carbon.
“Human CO2 and natural CO2 are identical and have short turnover times. The amount of human CO2 being emitted is only five percent of Natural emissions. This is confirmed by IPCC.”
Ok. And? AGAIN if most of the natural emissions come from the other parts of the fast cycle, then they are internal to the larger reservoir I mentioned above. They have no bearing on exchanges with the slow cycle.
Exchanges with the slow cycle, mainly the deep ocean, are thru the mixed layer (ML). When the atmosphere increases its CO2 concentration by say 50%, the ML total carbon concentration only increases by ~ 5%, because of the buffering effect (Revelle Factor).
Therefore the ML is only slightly out of equilibrium with the deep ocean and thus its rate of exchange with it is slowed. If you guys think this effect can be ignored, you are mistaken.
You keep repeating yourself, and then you add new stuff. There is no ML in the IPCC carbon cycle model. The Revelle factor is a red herring. It is like if Berry were to calculate the speed of an automobile as distance divided by time, and you kept saying he isn’t taking into account tire friction. The speed calculation is independent of tire friction. The physics model is independent of the Revelle factor. Humans have added CO2 to the fast cycle. However, it has only caused 25% of the increase. Furthermore, this implies that CO2 hasn’t caused the warming at all, but the warming has caused the CO2.
Furthermore, just like resistance is already considered when calculating velocity, it is the same for Berry’s Physics model. The Physics model is like an electrical RC circuit where resistors are between the capacitors (reservoirs), and the ends of the resistors are the “nodes.” Turnover time is equivalent to RC, and Level is equivalent to charge on the capacitor. Tau in the RC circuit is equivalent to Te. So, the ML and the Revelle factor are implicitly taken into account.
Stephen you keep repeating the same mantras over and over while not addressing or rebutting the points Ive made.
Barry’s model is a simple mathematical model, one that was tried more than 60 y ago and ruled out by observations. You calling it ‘the physics model’ is funny, and showing that you are uncritically accepting what he says, without bothering to check if it agrees with observations. It doesnt.
Any model to be successful needs to incorporate the real constraints on the system being modeled. One of these is the very real Revelle Factor. It DOES dramatically slow the flow of excess carbon in the upper ocean to the deep ocean.
It doesnt just go away because you guys label it a red herring.
If Berry’s model does not incorporate these effects or explain this slow decay of excess carbon, and instead just makes the false assumption that it decays with ONE, fast rate, then it is WRONG. Its that simple.
entropic…”For those not irretrievably lost in denialism, I read in yesterdays New York Times an article on the Antarctic circumpolar current. Among other things it discussed why the Antarctic is not warming as fast as the rest of the planet”.
***
Alarmists are struggling to explain why the Antarctic, spending most of the year with little or no solar input, is a cold region. They are also trying to sensationalize a warming of about 1C over about 170 years since the end of the Little Ice Age.
An objective scientist might get it that world cooled 1C to 2C during the 400+ years of the LIA and that re-warming was to be expected. That means glaciers would shrink and sea levels would rise.
But, no. Some masochists who need to flail themselves over the alleged and dreaded human intervention in the environment have to find a reason why humans are to blame for the warming.
> why the Antarctic, spending most of the year with little or no solar input, is a cold region.
C’mon, Gordo.
Read your sentence again, but slowly.
Any idea how Dragon cranks like you explain this:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-january-2020/
willard…”…and over parts of Antarctica”.
***
Have I called you an idiot before? The parts of Antarctica referred to above are tiny parts of the Peninsula, and that area is closer to the tip of South America than central Antarctica.
Are you alarmists all this pathetic?
Re above average temperatures in Canada, one of the warmest parts of Canada, Vancouver, is now experiencing record cold temperatures.
> tiny parts of the Peninsula
C’mon, Gordo.
Do you have any idea of the size of that Peninsula?
Here:
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica-2/antarctic-peninsula-2/
So spare me your “here in Vancouver,” will you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
C’mon dummy – “Parts of Antarctica”? Which parts? Where? How big?
Spare me your vacuous stupidity, will you?
Mike Flynn,
Your silly gotcha has already been answered,
So sad, too bad,
So you can’t say, dummy?
Just making unfounded assertions again, hoping no-one will notice?
Bad luck for you. Other people can read, you know.
Of course I can, Mike Flyy.
Why would I spoon fed a silly sock puppet?
“Re above average temperatures in Canada, one of the warmest parts of Canada, Vancouver, is now experiencing record cold temperatures. ”
Would that be the record extreme weather the climate alarmists were predicting?
Yes, Gordo, it’s winter, and has been so since 1 Dec. But, not around here lately, as it was 60F (17.5C) at 8AM this morning. We’ve had record highs in the SE US for several days too, much like that which contributed to the two outbreaks of tornadoes this month.
WINTER IS COMING!
Winter is here (in the Northern Hemisphere at least)
Gordon
“Alarmists are struggling to explain why the Antarctic, spending most of the year with little or no solar input, is a cold region. ”
Not really a struggle. The Antarctic is dark for six months of the year, and is Summer coincides with aphelion so it receives less sunlight than the Arctic. The central plateau is at 3000 metres altitude. The prevailing winds descend onto that plateau from the stratosphere and blow Northwards. molar
Surrounding the Antarctic are the Polar jetstream and, below it the Southern Ocean circumpolar current. Both isolate the Antarctic from warmer air and water from lower latitudes.
Nobody in the trade is surprised that Antarctica has both the lowest temperatures and lowest rate of warming of any continent.
The immediate concern is that the circumpolar current stopped twice at the peak of the last interglacial 120,000 years ago. It’s recent acceleration raises the possibility that it might stop again. This would allow warmer air and water to reach Antarctica and trigger the rapid warming and melting already seen in the Arctic.
maguff…”Projection is the process of displacing ones feelings onto a different person”.
***
The word can also reference a guess about the future. It’s a big step down from prediction, not even an educated guess.
The IPCC announced in TAR that future climate states cannot be ‘predicted’. Then they went ahead and did it using unvalidated climate models. Expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, took them up on that bad practice claiming that unvalidated models cannot predict. So, the IPCC changed their inference of ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’.
In other words, everything coming out of the IPCC in support of AGW are wild guesses.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re kissing a butt again.
C’mon Weary Wee Willy,
You’re spouting random attempts at gratuitous insults again. Keep trying, and you might succeed!
Mike Flynn,
You are using your sock puppet once more.
Cheers.
Gordon
Your heating engineer tells you that your gas heater is developing a carbon monoxide leak.
Which of the following options do you choose?
A) Repair it.
B) Accuse the engineer of making it up so that he can make more money off you.
C) Ignore it, because the engineer is predicting the future and the future can’t be predicted.
D) Say that the doctor’s talk of Carbon monoxide poisoning is alarmist and it is really quite safe.
E) Die of Carbon monoxide poisoning.
>Your heating engineer tells you that your gas heater is developing a carbon monoxide leak.
There’s an HVAC company known for doing that in my hometown. Every gas furnace they check is on the verge of a carbon monoxide leak. So, I’d advise Gordon to have a reputable firm look at it.
Gordon Robertson at 12:42 AM
GR, your reply is out of context and contains nothing more than the typical denier propagandist’s assault on the truth. Not to mention a heavy display of your usual butt-kissing.
First of all, “expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material – all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.
Second, Gray was not a climate scientist; he was the retired chief chemist of the Coal Research Association in New Zealand.
Third, for the umpteenth time, the IPCC itself does not conduct original research. Nearly a thousand scientists from over thirty countries volunteer their time to synthesize thousands of recent peer-reviewed studies. The IPCC reports reflect the consensus views of the scientific community, and every assertion in them can be traced to original, reputable research.
Lastly, per the IPCC:
A climate projection is the simulated response of the climate system to a scenario of future emission or concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols, generally derived using climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realized.
A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce (starting from a particular state of the climate system) an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, for example, at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. Because the future evolution of the climate system may be highly sensitive to initial conditions, such predictions are usually probabilistic in nature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1099035
Swenson at 5:23 PM
Where to begin! Let’s take it from the top.
Ooooh! Demanding a “citation” are you?
Given that this is a science based blog showcasing Dr. Spencer’s work, it is appropriate to adhere to the scientific method. It follows then that, citations are a must, not merely a courtesy.
What’s the matter? Too stupid to form your own opinion? Depending on appeals to authority?
Your usual ad hominem and projection; this diminishes you more it does me.
Or maybe you are just trolling as usual, hoping that others will waste their time.
Aside from your usual projection, this statement says that you need a refresher on the definition of trolling. “Trolling often involves the use of inflammatory messages to provoke emotional responses out of people, disrupting otherwise civil discussion. Trolls like to cause mischief and suffering, along with the attention that entails. One way to spot a troll is by their persistence.”
My post (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098361) was civil, informative and properly sourced.
Have you figured out why the surface of the airless Moon gets so much hotter after the same exposure to sunlight than the Earth?
You unknowingly answered your own question. No atmosphere.
Physics works differently there, do you think?
Rhetorical? The laws of physics are universal.
TM,
I see you are accepting reality, which is a good start.
The more radiation reaching the ground, the hotter it gets. Same physics for the Moon, as the Earth, after equal exposure times.
Professor John Tyndall measured the reduction in radiation reaching the surface due to atmospheric attenuation, and modern NASA measurements show close agreement. Being a keen mountaineer, Tyndall was able to verify his hypothesis by recording ground temperatures at altitude.
So, increasing the amount of CO2 or H2O (or atmosphere generally) between the Sun and a surface results in lower temperatures, not higher. I suppose you will come up with some fantasy to avoid facing physical reality if you are a dedicated climate crank.
You can test this for yourself quite easily. Stand in the sunshine, next to a thermometer exposed to the Sun. Wait for a good cloud of H2O to pass between you and the Sun. If you don’t trust your body, look at the thermometer. Has the temperature increased or decreased? Decreased of course – unless you are hallucinating for some reason.
See how you go.
The sun’s heat radiation and that from the ground and the atmosphere occupy different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The sun emits primarily in the UV and visible range (https://ibb.co/X5nWK5g); the ground and atmosphere emit in the thermal IR range. Clouds reflect high amounts of visible light reducing the amount reaching the ground, hence the reduction in temperature you experience in the daytime when a thick cloud passes overhead.
However, because clouds also retain and emit thermal IR you will notice that cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Thermal IR emission takes place 24/7/365.
Also, I think you confuse the lapse rate (https://ibb.co/Yh4kPh7) with radiative heating; hard to tell.
You seem to have the various pieces of the puzzle, just can’t put them all together right.
” Of course, we know the cold of the LIA drove the Vikings out of Greenland. They could no longer farm due to the cold. ”
Oh oh oh.
The eternal story, propagated by idiots who tell us all the time the the Vikings went out to start farming in Greenland because it got so pretty warm there, due to… the MWP.
What a dumb stuff.
The Vikings went to Greenland solely for walrus hunting, because they made heaviest trade with their tusks.
And they didn’t stop that trade because it got too cold there!
They did stop living in Greenland because the walrus tusk trade came to end in Greenland exactly as it did in Iceland before: due to the lack of… walruses.
*
If you want to obtain real information instead of contrarian, nonsensical pseudoscience, read
Vikings in Greenland traded exclusive walrus tusks to all of Europe – until there were no walrus left
https://partner.sciencenorway.no/archaeology-archaeology-history-greenland/vikings-in-greenland-traded-exclusive-walrus-tusks-to-all-of-europe–until-there-were-no-walrus-left/1633849
*
The major article about the research’s kernel:
Ancient DNA reveals the chronology of walrus ivory trade from Norse Greenland
Bastian Staar & al. (2018)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.0978
*
Never believe anything written by Robertson, especially when you see ‘we know‘ in his comments.
Eskimos hunt walrus on the Ice. So it is likely that the Vikings did also.
However the loss on the small patches of land in Greenland that could grow things would have made living there all year round quite difficult.
Yet Vikings stayed long after the cold came.
Wonder why?
You can hunt on the ice as I said.
They lost their only trading ship and had no materials to replace it. Without the walrus tusks to trade the visiting ships stopped coming.
Too thran to adopt the successful Inuit lifestyle, the last generations were stranded on an island that had never really suited their culture, with no access to metal tools and died out.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/
Manifestly, some all-time-better-knowers are too stubborn to simply read what was written:
” And they didnt stop that trade because it got too cold there!
They did stop living in Greenland because the walrus tusk trade came to end in Greenland exactly as it did in Iceland before: due to the lack of… walruses. ”
*
No, no: these all-time-better-knowers know it better, and proudly write:
” However the loss on the small patches of land in Greenland that could grow things would have made living there all year round quite difficult. ”
That is simple denial of related facts.
What is the difference between
– RLH intentionally ignoring Scandinavian research
and
– Robertson, Clint R and others ignoring century-old science about Moon?
ZERO DOT ZERO.
It is exactly the same behavior.
“There are many theories as to why the Norse settlements in Greenland collapsed after surviving for some 450500 years. One theory says that the Norse settlements were undermined because there was no longer a demand for walrus ivory. Other theories for collapse of the colonies have included climate change the Little Ice Age, a sustained period of lower temperatures, began in the 14th century as well as unsustainable farming methods, conflict with the Inuit and even the Black Death.
The hypothesis about disappearing demand for walrus ivory appears inconsistent with the new evidence presented by British and Norwegian researchers.”
I actually read all of the papers rather than just skim them.
Note that there are still competing theories. The truth is likely a mixture of all of them.
I read above:
” … one of the warmest parts of Canada, Vancouver, is now experiencing record cold temperatures. ”
*
When somebody writes about a corner getting 3 C warmer than usual, guys like Robertson soon wil ask
” Are you alarmists all this pathetic? ”
But when Vancouver gets cold
BC VANCOUVER INTL A 2021 12 27 -15.3 C
but still 3 C warmer than the least temperature known to us since 1960
BC VANCOUVER UBC 1968 12 29 -18.3 C
you can be sure he pathetically will start whining about ‘record cold temperatures’.
*
Record cold, Robertson, looks like this:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/f263a864-489e-423a-a046-576fea3449a3/51086601f4e7fe57ac5ff418503d15f2/3a57902b-92c9-4e43-b0c8-fabe690e2467.jpg
That was winter 1978/79 in Germany: a sudden switch within 24 hours from +10 down to -20 C.
There were far colder winters here (1942, 1956, 1963). But there was in none of these years such a sudden drop.
*
For 31.12.21 to 1.1.22, we expect here +13 C, 11 C at night – but without any drop like in 1979 :- )
*
As I say all the time:
” Warmistas are bad, but Coolistas are even worse. “
Highs and lows drive temperatures more than anything else. Got any evidence that CO2 modifies that?
Could you please keep off my comments with your boring CO2 blah blah?
I didn’t mention CO2, after all.
Highs and lows drive temperatures more than anything else.
The wind directions round the highs and lows that is.
Both tend to drag more air from the poles or more from the equator depending on their placement relative to the measuring station.
RLH
The chain of evidence runs like this.
Increasing CO2 is warming the world by 0.18C/decade.(GISS data).
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average, 0.36C/decade.
The CONUS is increasing at 0.16C/decade.
The higher the temperature gradient across the Polar jetstream the faster and more stable it becomes.
The temperature gradient between the Arctic and the CONUS is decreasing by 0.36-0.16= 0.2C/decade.
The smaller the gradient, the less stable the jetstream and the more likely the passage of cold air from the high arctic to the CONUS border.
Entropic man
I do believe that is not a very sound hypothesis. Even Francis herself says it is not such an easy thing.
We have had massive cold outbreaks throughout the recorded history. Polar air has invaded the US many times. I have strong doubts that it was held in place and only now has started leaking.
I think you might want to reevaluate this idea.
https://weather.com/safety/winter/news/2019-11-13-coldest-cold-snaps-american-history
It’s still a hypothesis, so I won’t defend the idea on the barricades yet.
It does have enough physical plausibility that ongoing investigation is worthwhile. I would be looking at frequency distributions of past cold weather events and comparing them with frequency distributions for present events. As with so many processes, the baseline is still too short to generate statistically significant trends.
Entropic man
Maybe information like this will help the study.
I think a lot of climate change assumptions are made with little historical analysis. It is what I dislike about climate change, it reminds me of science similar to what Christos Vournas posts. More hype than good science. If you don’t know something don’t act like you do and make these alarmist headlines.
https://spacecityweather.com/looking-back-at-some-previous-historic-houston-cold-snaps/
This scientists seems to have a more level head than many in the field.
https://source.colostate.edu/are-hurricanes-strengthening-more-rapidly/
From the article: “Because rapidly intensifying hurricanes are fairly rare, there isn’t enough information yet to say if rapid intensification is happening more often. The hurricane research community has consistent, reliable observations of storm intensity only since the start of the satellite era and routine storm-penetrating “hurricane hunter” flights since the 1970s.
We have seen more rapid intensification events in recent years, and some scientists have concluded that the warming climate is likely playing a role. However, we’ve also had more active hurricane seasons in those years, and more work needs to be done in this area to understand global trends, such as why hurricanes are crossing ocean basins more slowly.”
I like how he states a more realistic view. NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
> NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
How do you know, Norma?
If Jennifer’s work reminds you of Christos, something tells me that your judgment on these matters is not worth much.
Willard
Maybe read this
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/595/
And maybe this.
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-questions-arctic-warming-extreme-weather-links-16375
Add it to Climateball
Where should I put what, Norma, and more importantly why?
Also, consider this:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
By your High Expectation Father model of science, is that something that echoes Christos’ work?
Norman
“Not enough information. ”
Agreed. In many areas of study we are moving into terra incognita. We need longer baselines to spot long term trends.
In the meantime we can observe. For example, the recent penetration of cold air leading to cold records in British Columbia and California was accompanied by record warm temperatures in Alaska.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59820999
That suggests a Rossby wave of unusual amplitude.
Willard
Since you are an obvious troll like Clint R I think I will quit responding to your posts. Hopefully you go out drinking with him and bother someone else.
You use snide insults when commenting. Just as Clint R (“Norma”) etc only to get some knee-jerk emotional reaction from people.
Whereas Entropic man is responding in a non troll manner you respond in troll fashion. Why do you think this is a valuable way to interact.
You have the same arrogance of Clint R, the same fanatic mind set (you are right with all your ideas and no other ideas are accepted).
Fanatics are the problem be they on the right of the issue or on you side. You no longer consider anything that does not fit your world view and you feel compelled to insult commenters to get reactions.
I respond first with evidence on all my posts. When a troll comes along and insults then expect insults back.
I think you should move back to your standard blogs. Troll Clint R will probably return soon then we will have two arrogant trolls annoying commentators for their twisted amusement.
Norma,
I don’t think you’re new to Climateball, so let me answer you more bluntly:
You are concern trolling, and your Very Serious act is ridiculous.
This time, your concern is about the State of contemporary Science. Why? Because there’s an hypothesis somewhere that does not meet your inner High Expectation Father. You’re now old enough to let go of that persona. Your dad is gone. It’s time to break the cycle.
Whether you like it or not, scientists will continue to formulate hypotheses. You will like some, like Judy’s. Others will displease you, like Jennifer’s. You obviously never really studied how scientists work, so I would advise against pontificating on how they should.
Oh, and as for the other bit where you were sealioning:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
From your own citation. That should tell you why citing alone is lazy and ineffectual. One must quote.
This quote shows that no, dear Norma, you are not interested in the questions you are asking.
Enjoy your day.
Willard
You could also conclude the opposite with clouds. Something caused fewer clouds to form and more energy reached the surface and it got warmer. Why do you believe it is more intelligent to assume the opposite, oh it got hotter so fewer clouds formed.
Science is based upon evidence. When a hypothesis is formed it must be supported by evidence.
Pontificating on evidence when I just gave you some provides evidence that you’re not in reading mode, Norma.
Be well.
But the Antarctic is not rising at the same rate as the Arctic. So the temperature gradient in the Southern Hemisphere is hardly rising at all. But the density of CO2 is the same worldwide.
e.g. https://imgur.com/a/mp6Cmn6
As I hope you know, the Antarctic has less longwave emission than anywhere else on the planet. That gives it a weaker greenhouse effect than anywhere else on the planet. Hence also the lowest warming rate on the planet.
Now explain the rest of the world as seen in the included url.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
I live on Vancouver Island. The Environment Canada page says its -13C this morning. The record is posted at the bottom of the page -17.8C ~ 1968 and high of 10.6C ~ 1975.
The problem is the news media which is reporting ‘record’ cold. Unfortunately it appears that some of our contributors get their misinformation from CBC and other media of their ilk.
CTV is a private company, Kennui:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/21-more-minimum-temperature-records-broken-across-b-c-amid-weather-warnings-1.5721141
It’s “according to preliminary data from Environment Canada.”
No need to blame the press: troglodytes will troglodyte.
Ken
” The problem is the news media which is reporting ‘record’ cold. ”
No, the ‘problem’ here was, as usual, Robertson. Never would this ‘contributor’ (oh Noes) paste any CBC info on this blog.
*
Btw, it was an interesting detail for me to see what Environment Canada published as record cold: I really thought there was a bug in my software.
After checking, it appeared that my -18.3 C are absolutely correct.
This value comes from the University of British Columbia:
CA001108487 49.2500 -123.2500 87.0 BC VANCOUVER UBC
CA001108487 1968 12 29 -18.3 C
Environment Canada’s report is based on data coming from the Airport:
CA001108447 49.2000 -123.1833 4.0 BC VANCOUVER INT’L A
CA001108447 1968 12 29 -17.8 C
Ha. All is well in my GHCN daily evaluation :- )
The minus 17.8C I posted was recorded at Campbell River Airport.
I have brother living near Campbell River Airport.
Ken
Thanks.
This station is, together with a few others in this Campbell corner, present in GHCN daily as well:
CA001021260 50.0167 -125.3000 79.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER
CA001021261 49.9500 -125.2667 109.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER A
CA001021262 50.0667 -125.3167 128.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER BCFS
CA001021263 50.0500 -125.3167 31.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER BCHPA GEN
CA001021264 50.2000 -125.5500 198.0 BC CAMPBELL R LAKEVIEW FC
CA001021265 50.0167 -125.2333 3.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER STP
CA001021266 49.9500 -125.2000 9.0 BC CAMPBELL RIVER SURFSIDE
But only the airport station is still active these days.
Their lowest reports were as follows:
CA001021261 1980 12 7 -18.5 (C)
CA001021261 1984 12 31 -18.3
CA001021260 1968 12 29 -17.8
CA001021261 1968 12 28 -17.8
CA001021261 1968 12 29 -17.8
Of course: this does not mean at all that there were no lower temperatures there in earlier times, because the earliest reports (coming from CA001021260) are dated 1958.
One problem with Climate Science.
I am reading this article:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/amplified-warming.html
From article: “Low altitude clouds composed of water droplets (i.e., not ice) typically reflect solar radiation and cool the atmosphere, while high altitude, icy, cirrus clouds typically trap outgoing infrared radiation and creating additional warming. Dessler found about an 80 percent likelihood that from 2000 to 2010 the global cloud cover created a positive feedback — which means that on the whole clouds created an additional warming effect on the planet.
Dessler studied data from NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite mission and NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Application (MERRA) data set, as well as from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting’s interim re-analysis.”
I then look for myself at the CERES data
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF41Selection.jsp
Make lots of graphs for the globe and look at cloud cover vs clear sky for total net radiant energy. The clear sky fluctuates between a positive 120 to 140 Watt/m^2. The all-sky (clouds included) fluctuates between positive 102 to 115 W/m^2.
The time ranges from 2000 t 2021. I can see no evidence in the data that cloud cover is a positive feedback. The reality shows it is quite a negative feedback. The total net energy received by a cloudless Earth would be several watts/m^2 greater than it is with clouds.
When claims like this are made I have a hard time accepting the sources as valid and NASA seems odd to accept this information without great hesitation.
norman…”From article: Low altitude clouds composed of water droplets (i.e., not ice) typically reflect solar radiation and cool the atmosphere, while high altitude, icy, cirrus clouds typically trap outgoing infrared radiation and creating additional warming. Dessler found about an 80 percent likelihood that from 2000 to 2010 the global cloud cover created a positive feedback which means that on the whole clouds created an additional warming effect on the planet”.
***
How does trapped IR cause warming? That theory has been dead for some time. It is based on the notion that IR trapped by glass in greenhouses causes the greenhouse air to warm.
Think about it Norman. If SW solar enters and causes heat in the soil and infrastructure of a greenhouse, it is converted to IR as the soil/infrastructure atoms re-radiates it at a lower intensity and frequency. What’s it going to do re heating if the glass blocks it?
99% of the air in the greenhouse is nitrogen and oxygen and as far as we know, they don’t absorb IR. That means the CO2 and WV in the air must absorb it. So, Dessler is claiming the trace amounts of CO2 and WV in the greenhouse air are warming the greenhouse.
If we used a CO2 scrubber and removed it from the greenhouse air, and found a way to remove WV, that theory presumes the greenhouse would not warm. Want to bet?
R.W. Wood, an expert in gases like CO2 claimed it was not possible for the CO2 to cause such warming. In fact, he proved the warming was caused by a lack of convection. Literally, the glass prevented heated N2/O2 from rising, hence the trapped N2/O2 molecules caused the warming.
Dessler does not understand feedback which is no surprise since Gavin Schmidt does not understand it either. He claims only that it causes a warming effect but does not explain how. Furthermore, he is claiming an 80% likelihood that it is true. What kind of science is that? In other words, Dessler is guessing.
What Dessler is claiming is a heat amplifier in the atmosphere. That’s an impossibility in itself but feedback would only be a small part of that amplification system while having nothing to do with the amplification.
Many alarmists, including Schmidt, and now Dessler, are under the mistaken assumption that feedback CAUSES warming. Feedback, especially positive feedback, is only part of a loop that acts as a control mechanisms for an amplifier. There could only be a positive heat feedback if there was a heat engine already in place in the atmosphere and there is not.
Do you know of any device that amplifies heat?
Ergo, there is no such thing as positive feedback in the atmosphere. If there was, we’d have been extinct long ago.
> R.W. Wood, an expert in gases like CO2
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re licking butts again.
C’mon Willard,
You’re being a slimy little grub again.
Mike Flynn,
Mail Fanboy.
You’re sock puppetting again.
C’mon Willard – even a dummy like you should be able to do better than that.
Mike Flynn,
Macho Flan,
Feeling better?
CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to promote plant growth, sometimes up to 2000ppm. If the greenhouse effect were true, we wouldn’t be here now. The Creator designed this beautiful, resilient planet full of fossil fuel that, when used, adds over time to additional fuel growth. It’s a beautiful design.
Norman,
You wrote –
“One problem with Climate Science.” Putting “Climate” and “Science” in the same sentence defines a big problem.
Dessler is off with the fairies. I suppose someone pointed out to him at one time or another that clouds above the freezing level tend to consist of frozen water. So according to Dessler, if you have heavy snow coming from low clouds, you really need to worry about the warming, not the freezing to death which might well result from being exposed to sub-zero temperatures.
The man is obviously either ignorant or delusional. Anything which attenuates the Sun’s radiation results in temperatures dropping, not increasing.
Norman,
You wrote –
“One problem with Climate Science.” Putting “Climate” and “Science” in the same sentence defines a big problem.
Dessler is off with the fairies. I suppose someone pointed out to him at one time or another that clouds above the freezing level tend to consist of frozen water. So according to Dessler, if you have heavy snow coming from low clouds, you really need to worry about the warming, not the freezing to death which might well result from being exposed to sub-zero temperatures.
The man is obviously either ignorant or delusional. Anything which attenuates the Sun’s radiation results in temperatures dropping, not increasing.
swenson…”Dessler is off with the fairies”.
***
Definitely an uber-alarmist. Dessler is in the same league as Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, scraping the bottom of the science barrel.
Swenson
Generally I do not agree with you on anything but some items from climate change science do not seem at all scientific.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
Here is an article that supports Dessler. I guess the problem is not with clouds it is that a warming world will eventually eliminate all clouds. It could happen but it certainly seems absurd modeling. Kind of just making up horrible sounding ideas to scare the Public.
Oh no all clouds will disappear and we will have a super hot Earth coming up.
My logic problem with the scary models is that clouds seem to form at all types of temperatures on Earth currently. They form in hot humid climates and they form in cold regions. I think the cloud physics they model is strange as it seems to not mimic reality in any way. Maybe if somewhere that had lots of moisture in the air and was not forming clouds I might worry. So far I see zero evidence of any kind to consider this viable science.
Sad thing is magazines like Nature publish this stuff. What happened to critical thinking? The big question I would ask any modeler of these ideas is to show evidence in the real world of this effect, any reduction of cloud cover based upon temperature.
We have many different air temperatures. Certainly they could show some trend where warmer humid air is less likely to form clouds than somewhat cooler humid air. I think warmer humid air has a greater chance of forming clouds since it will rise higher and as the water vapor condenses it will add more heat to allow the forming cloud to rise higher into even colder air.
Norman,
You have obviously noticed I tend to question pretty much everything, then form a view which persists until someone shows me new facts.
You wrote –
“I guess the problem is not with clouds it is that a warming world will eventually eliminate all clouds.”
I agree this is unlikely. In the tropics, cumulonimbus clouds, under the right conditions, can generate enough momentum to push through the tropopause, and this can be seen at times on satellite pix taken at the correct angle.
These clouds form under hot, moist, conditions, so it seems unlikely that heating the Antarctic, for example, will result in no clouds.
Sure, the hottest areas on Earth are generally cloudless. That is because they are cloudless, resulting in more intense sunlight, not that the hot surface is responsible for cloudless conditions.
At the moment, I question the existence of the GHE, until somebody can actually define it in such a way that it can be compared to observable reality. The GHE seems to mean that the surface gets hotter in sunlight. No mention of night, winter, the now solid Earth surface, and all the rest.
Not much news there!
Swenson
Here is the observable reality of GHE.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61cd2eb6686db.png
The blue line in the graph is the measured upwelling IR using a sensor pointed at the Earth surface.
The red line is a graph of the measured downwelling IR with a sensor pointed up at the sky.
The green line is the NET loss of energy. If not for the very real GHE the surface of Earth would have a much colder termperature.
The effect is working 24/7 all days of the year (you can verify this by making your own graphs for any day of the year).
GHE does not heat the Earth, it reduces the energy lost by the surface so the solar input is greater than what is being lost.
If you want an other approach consider soil temperatures under snow. If not for the snow the surface soil temperature would get very cold. The snow greatly reduces the rate soil loses energy so it stays warmer, the snow is colder than the soil (overall) and the air above the snow is much colder. The snow keeps the soil warmer. The GHE keeps the solar heated surface warmer then it would be without the effect. The Infrared the Sun emits is still absorbed by the atmosphere so is not lost and becomes part of the downwelling IR measured in the graph.
Soil temp under snow vs air temperature above.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/91798/SnowCoverWinterSoilTemperaturesStPaulMinnesota.pdf?sequence=1
Scroll down to Table 1 of this link to see the values.
Norman,
You wrote –
“GHE does not heat the Earth, it reduces the energy lost by the surface so the solar input is greater than what is being lost.”
Unfortunately, as I think you noticed before (clouds, Tyndall, NASA, etc) the atmosphere reduces the amount of radiation reaching the surface as well.
And at night, even that energy vanishes to space. So the balance is negative over all. So the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
It seems to me odd that a GHE that allowed the Earth to cool for billions of years, creating an Antarctic ice cap, for example, suddenly decides to change history and the laws of physics. Maybe if you could describe the GHE in a way that includes night, cloud, indoors etc., and explains the demonstrable fact that the Earth has cooled, I might be able to question something more substantial than vague assertions not backed up by experiment or mainstream physics.
“I question the existence of the GHE, until somebody can actually define it in such a way that it can be compared to observable reality. ”
[greenhouse effect]
NOUN
the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface.
Everything else follows on from that.
> The big question I would ask any modeler of these ideas is to show evidence in the real world of this effect, any reduction of cloud cover based upon temperature.
Have you tried to research that question, Norma?
You know, having questions is a very good thing, but your incredulity seems to hinder your quest for knowledge.
Willard
Here:
Global temperatures:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7m.html
You have temperatures between 25 to 30 C and clouds form easily.
Cloud formation:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/85843/cloudy-earth
Also covers why clouds form in the regions they do and why some zones lack clouds.
Warm moist air rises and cools in a zone on the equator and forms clouds. The global cloud graph shows clouds forming all types of air temperatures from around 0 C up to 30 C.
It is not for me to do the work of the modeler, when they make ideas that go far outside what is observed they are the ones that require really good explanations on how that process will work. You can read the link there is no real explanation on why clouds will stop forming at some temperature, the models just show it will.
That is not good science at all. Why not apply skepticism all around. As the claim goes, extraordinary claims.
“The Sagan standard is the adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (a concept abbreviated as ECREE). This signifies that the more unlikely a certain claim is, given existing evidence on the subject, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it.”
Saying clouds will not form at some temperature really needs some good proof. None is offered but you believe it? Why?
Norma,
You got me interested.
Where do you got that a warming world will eventually eliminate all clouds?
Extraordinary claims and all that jazz.
Oooooh! A gotcha!
OK then, a warming world will not affect clouds at all.
No more rain, no less rain. No drier, no less dry. No effect at all, is that it?
Sounds good to me.
Mike Flynn,
Magazine Fad,
You say –
“Oooooh! A gotcha!”
If Norma can’t support his caricature with a quote from the article he himself cited, and then asks a question that is answered in the article he himself cited, do you think that Norma really read the article he cited?
I already know your answer – you don’t think.
Cheers.
Oooooh! A stupid gotcha composer who got caught out!
Not even a good try at diversion, dummy.
Try harder next time.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
What you call my gotcha is achtually Norma’s.
And you know what?
It is not a gotcha!
You know why?
No?
I guess you will have to read the citation Norma graced us with!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement about what one should expect about what the global temperature will be next month.
And roughly it will continue to be case for next few years.
And no one seems to suggest much will happen in next 10 years.
But there seems to be a lot doubt what happen regarding important matters. Such as will US remain about same in 10 years. Can’t say it has not changed a fair amount in last 10 years. But it could be more interesting what happen with say China or Europe within 10 years.
It seems to me that the deck is stacked against the notion that China will become a superpower. And unlikely, but possible China will start a war, it doesn’t want in next 10 years. I think African countries will become a lot more interesting in next 10 years, ie, they seemed they appear more of a real superpower, in sense of moving world opinion, and economical influence. Ie not made in China but made somewhere on African continent is what call example of economic influence and/or moving world opinion.
Though India seems more positioned or organized. And as said before, Europe seemed to think EU was good idea, but it seems united Africa would be better idea. But I can’t say I am informed about Africa or India. And not being informed, tends make seem more unpredictable.
What going to happen regarding space, seems even more unpredictable in next 10 years. Musk say going land starship on Mars maybe in 5 years but could be 10 years.
5 years rather 10 seems quite range. And what is starlink going look like in, say 3 years.
That seems it could a big effect upon Africa.
Or big effect on anything one might call rural, globally.
The Descent of Anansi by Barnes and Niven, both true quill psi phi.
Its a good story. A space elevator is being constructed. The cable is sabotaged by Islamic Extremists who are secretly funded by China.
How does the science fiction fit into reality?
I recall there being a lot of elbowing and jostling in the South China Sea mid 1990s. Just prior to 9/11 there was a bombing of China’s Embassy to Yugoslavia by NATO. China would have had motive and there is the fact that an end result was US distraction from South China Sea. I think its plausible (even as there is no evidence) that Bin Laden had financial backing from China.
There has been a hiatus during which time China has developed a large and powerful military. There is a real threat of war probably with a much shorter timeline than 10 years. Taiwan is very nervous and so are Australia and all the nations surrounding South China Sea including Japan.
US left Taliban with all that weaponry for a reason; that is to keep China out of Afghanistan. Dumb like a fox.
Watch out for real economic distress in China from failure of entities like Ever Grande. Governments like China go to war to distract from their failures at home. See Argentina and Falklands for details on how that works.
ken…”Taiwan is very nervous and so are Australia and all the nations surrounding South China Sea including Japan”.
***
China has a history of NOT starting actions outside their country. The action in Korea was strictly relayed to the Chinese-Korean border, although the Red Army did cross into Korea as part of that action.
Therefore, I don’t see why Australia should be worried. Japan is another matter if there are people in power in China who remember the brutality meted out by Japanese military against the Chinese in China.
ps. I think Trudeau is bad for us re China. He should have handled the situation better regarding the Chinese woman held here at the request of the US. He was stupid to call on other countries to boycott China especially after his actions against Canadians re covid. Next, he’ll be trying similar tactics over global warming.
“”There doesnt seem to be much disagreement about what one should expect about what the global temperature will be next month.””
What will be next month temperature everybody agrees on ? , I completely missed that debate
Some unmeasurable amount- and likely about the same.
binny…”Btw, it was an interesting detail for me to see what Environment Canada published as record cold:”
***
Environment Canada is full of crap, actually. Canada switched from Fahrenheit to Celsius in 1975. I recall days prior to 1975 when temps dropped to 2F at night. I recall freezing my butt of one night standing outside a cafe, like a Vancouverite, totally under-dressed for the cold.
In those days, the airport surface station was at the old Airport, now called the South Terminal. Before the new airport was constructed a mile away there were literally no buildings or infrastructure around the old Airport. I know that because I was at the old Airport as a kid watching the meteorologists reading the temperatures in the Stevenson screen.
So, where they used to take temperatures, it is now surrounded by mega-amounts of concrete (heat island effect) with 100s of times more auto-traffic, etc. So, that 2F = -16.7C would have been colder than the temps today affected by a heat island effect.
C’mon, Gordo.
How does the heat island effect work exactly according to Dragon cranks like you?
Whinnying Wee Willy is annoyed because I refer to “Sky Dragons” – as in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” , and “The Sky Dragon Slayers”, and to also “climate cranks” – those delusional climate crackpots who believe in the mythical GHE.
He is apparently trying to create a portmanteau phrase “Dragon cranks”, but can’t quite figure out what it means – apart from someone who doesn’t accept Wee Willy’s fantasies!
Just like Wee Willy’s other bizarre attempts to supplant fact with fantasy, I predict Wee Willy will succeed only to engender more sniggers at his silliness.
Time will tell, but I would not be surprised if Weepy Wee Willy fails to get the acclamation which he so desperately seeks.
Poor Witless Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn,
Main Fatwa,
You say –
“He is apparently trying to create a portmanteau phrase”
That’s not what a portmanteau is, but you are starting to get the idea!
Now, if a silly sock puppet like you can get the idea, do you think it’s that hard to understand?
Probably not!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Swenson
You may have seen this book “Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.”
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9797090-slaying-the-sky-dragon—death-of-the-greenhouse-gas-theory
Clearly the sceptic authors think of themselves as sky Dragon Slayers.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/
JC comment.
TM,
Opinions, opinions – everybody has them.
Yours about JC’s is superior to others because . . . ?
I would score as libertarian, and not worried about credibility of
liberalism. [and certainly, I don’t support pols claiming part or leaders of libertarian party- but I don’t dislike people because they part of some kind political party]
I am a skeptic, not worried about the credibility of skepticism.
Skepticism is somewhat normal human behavior, not being skeptical is somewhere near being sociopath, useful idiot, sheep, or generally unhinged.
Being a skeptic, I realize I have been brainwashed, and some brainwashing might be needed. But brainwashing is a way to deal with largely social issues, but as some Zen dude said, something like, you built a raft to get across a river, after you done with it, drop it- don’t drag it around for the rest of your life.
Brainwashing is analogous to having a raft.
If a particular raft sinks, it’s less useful.
“Yours about JCs is superior to others because . . . ?”
Judith was a true believer, and then realized this error.
Normally, people waste a lot time failing to do this.
She is scientist. Or interested in science, and is engaged,
and advocates free discussion regarding the study of weather.
Not sure she understands global climate. The significant of
living in an icehouse climate for last 34 million years.
Judy sure understands lawsuit threats, gb.
Dragon cranks have one blog left. Use it well.
“Willard says:
December 30, 2021 at 10:11 PM
Judy sure understands lawsuit threats, gb.
Dragon cranks have one blog left. Use it well.”
Not that interested in dragon cranks, but maybe you
are more familiar, what is this one blog left.
And one left, is the most important, for the dragon
cranks? Can you rate, how important it would be to dragon
cranks?
Did the dragon cranks ever lose a more important one.
I think instapundit is most useful blog for me- but I never post there.
And rarely post at Climate Ect, but like check it out.
Anyways it seems instapundit has always been the best blog on the internet.
Now what call something which could likeable to dragon cranks, I seem lost bookmark to, but it wasn’t very interesting.
As said, not too interested in climate, was interested a bit, as relates to terraforming Mars. But I figured that out.
You have no idea how silly Freedom Fighters such as the Instapundit guy sound beyond the exceptional lands of the Free, gb.
Wishing you good health and lots of planetary investigations in the coming year,
–Willard says:
December 31, 2021 at 10:39 AM
You have no idea how silly Freedom Fighters such as the Instapundit guy sound beyond the exceptional lands of the Free, gb.–
I have some idea. But Instapundit is a great Blog. But fail to get the point, do you not know blogs which are important is some way?
You said: “Dragon cranks have one blog left.”
Which seemed odd. There are uncountable blogs. You must mean important or significant blog left. Does does anyone other than Willard know what this one blog is. Is it this site, is Watt’s site [which is quite significant], maybe he imagine Climate, ect as dragon crank site which is “left”. But assumed Willard meant some other site. I could just keep on guessing, but I thought Willard might actual mention the site. Maybe it’s site who’s name can’t be mentioned. Willard’s personal dragon quest.
“Wishing you good health and lots of planetary investigations in the coming year,”
Thank you.
Not sure at the moment, how many planetary investigations there going to be in coming year.
I am interested in what going result from the Parker Solar Probe, which is ongoing. The Dart was launched, but don’t when going impact some space rock. I not sure if going to have any significant results regarding the Moon, but they are processing LRO data, which has been flying around the Moon for very long time. The China effort regarding the Moon, have not been interesting, but it’s possible something could come from it.
The blog is Roy’s, gb.
You’re slow on the uptake.
–The blog is Roys, gb.
Youre slow on the uptake.–
Oh, I had no idea.
You are delusional.
You said “Does does anyone other than Willard know what this one blog is,” gb.
So I guess that “anyone” was you all along?
Willard
I give this another shot.
I am a lukewarmer, Roy is lukewarmer.
There are small percentage, somewhere around maybe
1 in 4, that “dislike” lukewarmers.
Lukewarmer roughly don’t think the world is going
to end because of CO2 levels- so IPPC are actually also “lukewarmers”.
Richard Lindzen probably most well known lukewarmer.
So got fanatics on both sides of lukewarmers.
The cargo cult fanatics, think IPPC is too conservative
and hate Richard Lindzen, as he a distinguished professor.
It’s like black man or women being a republican.
The other fanatics, don’t care about Richard Lindzen,
but tend to dislike IPCC and lukewarmers.
Lukewarmer get it from both side.
But over the decades, the lukewarmers have “won”.
“How does the heat island effect work”
Well, one has heat island effects, around tropical islands, but you could say, people aren’t concerned about them. So one say heat island effect relates to effects considered not desirable.
But if not just thinking of desirability or undesirability it’s land effects which increase the average air temperature, though they could be a cooling effect also, but the word heat, tends to be about warmth.
So one can change environment which causes the surface to absorb more sunlight, and one change environment so lessens convectional heat loss. In large environment most of heating in done by sunlight,
but with heat island effect you be interested local condition- say a small neighborhood or a section of a street. The soviets had city heating, they centrally pipe heat to residents, and piping would cause heat island effect of a sorts. And air conditions are venting heat, and so that could have local effect.
Heat island effects can also create rain shadows, cause more rain, down wind.
With Mars, I would make lakes- which would have heat island effects
We all know about UHI, gb.
The challenge is to explain it using Dragon Crank physics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earth*s atmosphere is very thin to have any significant greenhouse warming effect on Earth*s surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
Except the reality.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61cd9c5210feb.png
What you call “very thin” (just your unsupported opinion of things) has enough air to keep jets in the air and also produces enough downwelling IR to establish a very real GHE. You can deny the evidence and continue wasting your time on your Voodoo magic equations or you can spend time at least looking at the available evidence.
The Earth’s surface averages 288 K which would emit (at above 0.9 emissivity) at least above 350 W/m^2. The outgoing longwave radiant energy averages 239 W/m^2, considerably less than the surface.
The solar input warms the surface layer until it reaches a temperature until the outgoing longwave radiant energy reaches around 240 W/m^2. The surface temperature can vary depending upon variables.
Making unsupported declarations is not science.
Norman,
No, the solar input warms the surface until it gets as hot as it gets.
Between about 55 and -90 at present.
It used to be a lot hotter.
It has cooled.
Got any facts to the contrary?
Norman, thank you for your interest in my work.
The Moon’s surface averages 220 K which would emit (at 1 emissivity) at 132,8 W/m^2. The outgoing longwave radiant energy averages
1362(1-0.11)/4 = 303 W/m^2
considerably more than the surface.
Can you, Norman, explain this so much obvious discrepancy?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Surely we’ve already agreed on this.
During the day the surface warms to radiative equilibrium.
During the night the surface just keeps cooling.
Thus the average temperature is based on an asymmetric frequency distribution with a long left tail.
There are also areas around the poles which are in permanent shadow and remain at extremely low temperatures, which makes the long left tail even larger.
Put the two effects together and the average surface temperature will be lower than the average brightness temperature, as we observe.
Entropic man,
“Put the two effects together and the average surface temperature will be lower than the average brightness temperature, as we observe.”
Based on your point of view Earth’s without-atmosphere average surface temperature should be 210 K…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Probably not that low.
The Earth’s more rapid rotation would not allow night temperatures to drop as low and it’s greater axial tilt would not allow the permanent polar cold spots seen on the Moon.
The Earth’s left tail would be shorter and the average temperature not as far below the brightness temperature.
>Probably not that low.
Then tell us, Professor, what is it?
Stephen
Perhaps 250K.
Would you care to do the calculation? It’s a bit above my pay grade nowadays.
Entropic,
There are so many variables and not enough space but I’d defer to Cristos.
Norman
“What you call very thin (just your unsupported opinion of things) has enough air to keep jets in the air and also produces enough downwelling IR to establish a very real GHE.”
Jets are kept in the air by their engines’ power.
How the downwelling IR is measured? Please explain.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Use a pyrgeometer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer
There’s now a network of DWLR monitoring stations.
https://bsrn.awi.de/
They are commercially available if you fancy monitoring DWLR yourself.
https://www.kippzonen.com/ProductGroup/4/Pyrgeometers
Pyrgeometer is measuring radiation in the environment, like the common thermometers measure temperature in the environment.
We don’t know where the measured by pyrgeometer radiation comes from.
The same with thermometers – we don’t know what exactly temperature they measure.
The problem is the same for both, pyrgeometers and thermometers, they are on the earth’s surface.
Yes, they measure something that varies, we can determine if there is a rise or not in the measured results, but we cannot tell what exactly they had measured.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“We don’t know where the measured by pyrgeometer radiation comes from.”
Sure do. The incident radiation comes from the sky overhead in their field of view horizon to horizon for NOAA ESRL. This is known as downwelling at each frequency in the bandwidth of the calibrated device. Passing clouds are detected.
Point the device opposite at the ground and measure upwelling. Day and night for both 24 hours/day, recorded, and publicly accessible. More details at NOAA ESRL.
“Plain Language Summary
Climate is determined by how much of the sun’s energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Ball4, I don’t claim Earth doesn’t warm…
What I say is
A planet is not a blackbody.
A planet doesnt emit as a blackbody.
A planet doesnt absorb solar radiation. What planet does is to INTERACT with solar radiation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For a planet like every real object with nil diffraction illuminated by sunlight:
absorp_tivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1.0
For earthen system solar illumination transmissivity = 0 & reflectivity ~ 0.30 so earthen system absorp_tivity cannot be zero as Christos writes.
A planet doesn’t absorb solar radiation. What planet does is to INTERACT with solar radiation.
When planet surface is hit by solar SW EM energy the following INTERACTION PROCESSES occur.
1). On the instant reflection (specular and diffuse).
The not reflected SW incident portion of solar flux is:
Φ(1-a) (W)
2). On the instant the not reflected SW incident portion is partly transformed into IR EM outgoing energy.
3). On the instant the REST of the not reflected SW incident portion is transformed into HEAT and is accumulated in the surface inner layers.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
4. The atmosphere gets involved acts as an insulating layer for the surface.
Did you forget that part, Christos?
And you evaded the issue that instruments DO indeed measure significant DWIR.
You cannot continue to deny these basic facts and expect your theory to still work.
No, Christos you are simmply wrong at 3:23 pm for any planetary system or any real object with nil diffraction illuminated by sunlight absorp_tivity cannot be zero. Christos doesn’t even understand the most basic experimental physics by just making up totally imaginary radiative physics unsupported by any experiment.
But greenhouse gases content in Earth*s atmosphere are trace gases, right?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, here are 7 trace gases in our earthen atm. in addition to water vapor: ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-11, CFC-12, and HCFC-22.
Although nitrogen and oxygen are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to the emissivity (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively small amounts of certain infrared-active gases, water vapor being by far the most abundant, although still less than about 1% of all the atmosphere gases.
>And you evaded the issue that instruments DO indeed measure significant DWIR.
Oh really? How much? Why don’t you quantify that for us?
The most obviously idiotic thing about GHE is that 500 gallons of greenhouse gases in a 120,000 tank provide all of the warming. However, 450 gallons of the 500 gallons provides both positive and negative forcing but can’t be quantified. The result might be zero so that the remaining 50 gallons of the 120,000 gallons provides all the warming. Doesn’t work.
Also, the remaining 119,500 gallons of gas provide nothing.
RLH
“But the Antarctic is not rising at the same rate as the Arctic. So the temperature gradient in the Southern Hemisphere is hardly rising at all. But the density of CO2 is the same worldwide.”
I tried to put this under your question, but the site objected.
As I hope you know, the Antarctic has less longwave emission than anywhere else on the planet. That gives it a weaker greenhouse effect than anywhere else on the planet. Hence also the lowest warming rate on the planet.
Here is my question ,
How many Carbon Indulgences Low Entropy man bought,
That’s what I want to know
I’ve indulged in a lot of Carbon this Christmas; mostly in the forms of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and alcohol.
https://imgur.com/a/mp6Cmn6
Now explain the rest of the differences across the globe and the year.
An enormous question.There’s a whole literature on the subject and I’m not going to spend hours reviewing it.
I suggest you go to AR5, where hundreds of professionals have done a better job than I would.
But your claim was that the Antarctic was exceptional but the graph included says otherwise.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Your graph shows that the Antarctic is exceptional.
As I have explained both to you and earlier to Gordon Robertson.
The graph also shows that the Arctic is an exception for only part of the year.
The graph displayed here is based on Berkeley Earth’s data, but has been made and published by Willis Eschenbach (at WUWT).
Indeed it is. This is the version with the equivalent of cosine weighting for Latitude that I asked Willis to do for me.
P.S. Your reply is quite visible in its original place despite your observations.
Sometimes the site takes a while to put up a post. I should be more patient.
1. I read, not at all surprised by this brazen remark:
” But your claim was that the Antarctic was exceptional but the graph included says otherwise. ”
To confirm how exceptional Antarctic is compared with the rest of the Globe, all you need is a look at the latitudinal trends everybody can compute out of UAH’s grid data for 1979-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/26JMxxk0/UAH6-0-LT-grid-latitude-trends.png
{ To check for the graph’s correctness is no problem for really experienced contributors like Mark B or Mr Z. }
You can also see how the circumpolar currents behave in the Austral region: the troposphere above it has its globally lowest trends.
The trends for the polar regions however should not be overestimated. The planet’s climate is mainly driven by the Tropics.
*
2. The next remark
” But the density of CO2 is the same worldwide. ”
does not surprise very much as well.
It is of the same vein as what the guy nicknamed ‘CO2IsLife’ [sic], one of the dumbest Pseudoskeptics evah, claims without interruption everywhere, this blog included.
Though theoretically correct, this claim is in fact of no practical relevance at all, for two complementary reasons:
– CO2 does not play any role where H2O’s gaseous form (water vapor) is present; that concerns the planet’s major player, namely the lower troposphere above the Tropics
– it clearly plays a role where H2O disappears due to precipitation above the tropopause
– but this role nevertheless is annihilated at places where the surface is colder than the troposphere above it (in Eastern Siberia during the winter, and in the Antarctic all the time).
This means that, though CO2 is evenly distributed up to 50 km above surface, its effect is not at all.
This effect must therefore be evaluated locally, layer by layer in the atmosphere, and grid cell by grid cell within them.
As I said to Willis, the graph really needs to be displayed with cosine weighting (or the equivalent) on Latitude to make any real sense. It is also interesting if you plot the land only, summer and winter (Northern Hemisphere), min/max as he did for Berkley Earth.
P.S. 52 degrees South is hardly the Antarctic.
I hiked on Circuito de los Dientes Isla Navarino in February a few years ago. It rained it snowed it did everything but the kitchen sink and it changed every five minutes. Isla Navarino is 55S
52S is Antarctic.
Belay that. 52S is north of Isla Navarino. Its not Antarctic. Geographic brain fart.
And I ask Ken too:
Where did the guy above get that strange number from? Where the heck is it in the text I wrote?
It came from your own chart.
I could move it up to 39 degrees South which is where your graph levels out to 0.13c/decade if you like.
“CO2 does not play any role where H2Os gaseous form (water vapor) is present”
So high humidity overrides CO2? That is the first time I have heard that claimed. The tropics tend to have a very high humidity.
“Humid tropics are the climatic regions where mean monthly temperatures are consistently high and exceed 18 degrees C throughout the year, and where rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration for at least 270 days in a year (Salati et al., 1983; CGIAR, 1990a; Lugo and Brown, 1991). Detailed analysis of forested bioclimates in the tropics is given by Holdridge (1967). The annual rainfall ranges from 1500 to 2500 mm, with some regions receiving rainfall in excess of 6000 mm per annum. The mean rainfall in the humid tropics is about three times the world average. On the basis of moisture regime and temperature, the humid tropics are also termed “warm humid tropics”. It is the amount and distribution of rainfall rather than variations in the temperature that determine the seasons (e.g., rainy season vs. dry season).”
RLH,
From the American Chemical Society –
“Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.”
And probably about 60% of 0 is still 0.
Pretty obvious. The hottest places on Earth have the least amount of GHG, but I suppose that because the coldest places on Earth also have the least amount of GHG, everything is in “balance”.
A magical effect, the GHE. Hot, cold, wet, dry . . .
Truly an effect for all seasons. Even forced the Earth to cool from the molten state!
How good is that?
–Swenson says:
December 30, 2021 at 6:02 PM
RLH,
From the American Chemical Society
Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.
And probably about 60% of 0 is still 0.–
Ocean temperature controls water vapor.
Having 70% of surface being ocean, controls water vapor.
The 3.5 C average temperature of the ocean controls Earth’s temperature.
One might imagine 3.5 C ocean cools, but 3 C ocean cools a lot more. But 3 C ocean makes Earth warmer as compared to Earth without an ocean.
A 4 C ocean is nice, but still much colder than 5 C ocean.
A 4 C ocean has a lot more global water vapor.
But 3 or 5 C ocean is little effect upon the tropical ocean which is about 40% of Earth surface. And tropical ocean warms the rest of the world.
Global warming or cooling is about the 60% of the rest of the world- the 30% north and 30% of southern part of the world.
But temperature of ocean of 3 to 5 C, effects deserts on the land in the tropics. And effects deserts everywhere. But desert turned into grassland/forests in tropics, increases the amount energy earth absorbs- or effects the 240 watt absorbed and emitted number by little bit- as land or all land area of small portion of Earth surface, and even Sahara Desert being size of US, is tiny portion of the entire world.
But Sahara if grassland would absorb more and emit less, though also have tiny bit more clouds, in terms of globally.
“So high humidity overrides CO2?”
Yes. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.218.8321&rep=rep1&type=pdf
In that case H2O is the main cause of the perceived warming not CO2 at all.
In the period 9/2002 – 3/2020, the global surface warming resulted from measured net TOA flux trend in part:
Water vapor 0.31 +/- 0.19 W/m^2
Clouds 0.25 +/- 0.18 W/m^2
Trace gases incl. CO2 0.22 +/- 0.05 W/m^2
” As I said to Willis, the graph really needs to be displayed with cosine weighting (or the equivalent) on Latitude to make any real sense. ”
Wrong.
You see that clearly when averaging the 66 latitudinal UAH trends I computed.
The result is
0.139 C / decade
i.e. nearest to the global trend computed out of the average of all grid cell series, which is currently, including November 2021:
0.135 C / decade
Trends are not temperatures, and do not obey to the same rules.
If they would, you indeed would have to apply a latitude weighting to them, what would result, when using the cosine of the grid cell centers, in a global trend of
0.091 C / decade
*
Feel free to explain to Roy Spencer and, together with him, to the entire temperature evaluating community, that they are all wrong.
Let me guess: the one who is wrong here, that’s you.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Feel free to explain to Roy Spencer and, together with him, to the entire temperature evaluating community, that they are all wrong.”
OK then. If they believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer results in a hotter thermometer, they are wrong.
Of course, any scientist with a knowledge of physics will agree with me.
If you can provide reproducible experiments showing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer causes the temperature to rise, then I might change my view.
But you can’t, so the opportunity will not arise. You might just as well go back to playing with your pencil.
Oh oh oh… I guess it’s now about 9 AM in Australia.
And we may therefore enjoy right now Flynnson’s completely stoopid blah blah:
” OK then. If they believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer results in a hotter thermometer, they are wrong. ”
Flynnson seems to really think he writes some intelligent prose with a fine touch of sarcasm.
Regardless the pseudonym (Mike Flynn, Amazed, Swenson), it’s since years always the same trivial, boring stuff.
Even Robertson wouldn’t write such illiterate trash more than once.
Binny,
Don’t blame me if you can’t accept reality.
You asked me to explain. I did. You don’t care for the reality of the explanation, that’s not my problem.
Off you go now – try another diversion. It won’t change the facts, you know.
” P.S. 52 degrees South is hardly the Antarctic. ”
Where did you get that strange number from? Where the heck is it in the text?
The Antarctic is 60S-82.5S (the three outermost N/S latitude bands of UAH 6.0’s grid don’t contain valuable data, as opposed to UAH 5.6’s).
“Where did you get that strange number from?”
Have a look at your own chart.
” So high humidity overrides CO2? That is the first time I have heard that claimed. The tropics tend to have a very high humidity. ”
Oh, really, RobertsonLH?
In the Tropics, you have a H2O aka WV ratio much higher than the global average (0.4%); it moves up to 4%, i.e. it is up to 100 times higher than CO2’s, which is uniformly 0.04%.
Thus it should be evident even to you that H2O’s absorp-tion and reemission is, in the Tropics, way way higher than CO2’s, compared with the situation in the polar regions.
Even when you consider the entire Globe, a comparison of H2O with CO2, taking the atmospheric abundance into consideration, give this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I32co5V0Zjp4I-kU-cuW3ayTE-iIFWkW/view
Now imagine how that graph would look like when you restrict the comparison to 30S-30N, and you begin to understand.
Ooops?!
I forgot to add a detail.
Even when you consider the entire Globe, a comparison of H2O with CO2, taking the atmospheric abundance into consideration, give this at the surface
If you move up to 15 km, you obtain this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I53h9NLc-5mFZroYg2BrOp3AagWyRQiJ/view
but… keep in mind the highly differing intensity scales when comparing the two HITRAN outputs :- )
So H2O is the main cause of the perceived warming and not CO2 at all
RLH
I weary of your feigned stupidity.
Go read the science. It will tell you that approximately 1/3 of the observed warming is directly due to increased CO2 and 2/3 is due to the amplifying feedback of water vapour.
The supposed amplification of H2O by CO2 is a model, not a fact.
“Wrong”
So cosine weighting applies to maps/areas but not to cross sections of them.
Do you ever consider the logic of what you write?
I repeat extra for you, Clint RLH: while
– the average of all UAH latitudinal trends – themselves the averages of 144 single cell trends per latitude band – gives [nearly, due to rounding differences] the same value as the overall trend of all latitudinal averages – themselves the averages of 144 single cells per latitude band – (0.139 C / decade minus 0.135 C / decade = 0.004 C / decade)
– your ‘idea’ of applying a latitude weighting over the latitudinal trends leads to a global trend being smaller by 50 % than what Roy Spencer computes out of his own data (0.135 C / decade minus 0.09 C / decade = 0.045 C / decade).
Thus, you are reinventing the wheel, aren’t you?
The distance between 30 degrees North and 30 degrees South covers 50% of the Earth’s surface. (Slightly more than what are normally considered to be the Tropics).
The maps that Roy publishes are based on ones that are equal area.
Why then should not North/South cross sections not reflect those facts?
P.S. I think you will find that 0.135 C is what comes from that graph even if correctly Latitude/area weighted. By far the majority, by eye, comes to that with plus figures to the North and minus figures to the South.
“the average of all UAH latitudinal trends”
You do realize that the central Latitude bands cover a larger surface area that the ones nearly at the poles do don’t you?
Don’t try to teach me about what I know since quite long a time, Clint RLH.
Send a mail to Roy Spencer, and teach HIM instead about your genial discovery!
This is the latitude weighting for the NH (0.0N-82.5N) I apply to Roy Spencer’s data when generating time series out of his plane grid data – the same scheme being of course applied for the SH in reverse order:
36 0.999762
37 0.997859
38 0.994056
39 0.988362
40 0.980785
41 0.971342
42 0.960050
43 0.946930
44 0.932008
45 0.915311
46 0.896873
47 0.876727
48 0.854912
49 0.831470
50 0.806445
51 0.779884
52 0.751840
53 0.722364
54 0.691513
55 0.659346
56 0.625923
57 0.591310
58 0.555570
59 0.518773
60 0.480989
61 0.442289
62 0.402747
63 0.362438
64 0.321439
65 0.279829
66 0.237686
67 0.195090
68 0.152123
The time series generated out of all latitude band groups based on the lat weighting above, the trends computed out of these series, and the graphs produced out of these series: all that fits to Roy Spencer’s results.
Does that speak to the wheel inventer?
Do you really think you are the only one here who knows what is latitude weighting, Clint R-LH?
Now, try to convince Roy Spencer he is wrong… I’m sure he will say
” OMG, RLH! You’re plain right. I’ll soon change all that wrong stuff. Thank you so much! “
As you well know each, Latitude band covers different areas, with the smallest towards the poles and the greatest towards the equator.
You graph fails to reflect that fact in the importance of each Latitude band to the globe. It is the difference between Mercator and Mollweide yet again.
Some presentations seek to portray the poles as more important. Others put them in the correct weighting.
You are wrong and Roy is right.
“36 0.999762
37 0.997859
38 0.994056
39 0.988362
40 0.980785
…
…”
So you do apply Latitude weighting to the data but forget to show that weighting in your choice of axis. Typical.
1. ” So you do apply Latitude weighting to the data but forget to show that weighting in your choice of axis. Typical. ”
Are you really that dense, RLH?
Weren’t you able to understand what I wrote above?
” This is the latitude weighting for the NH (0.0N-82.5N) I apply to Roy Spencers data when generating time series out of his plane grid data the same scheme being of course applied for the SH in reverse order ”
The numbers I have shown start from the equator, and move, 2.5 degrees be 2.5 degrees, polewards to 82.5 degrees North.
Each number shows, from the grid cell centered at 1.25 degrees north to that centered at 81.25 degrees north, the weighting factor to be applied to the temperature averages.
The same applies, in reverse order, for the grid cells from the equator to the south pole.
2. ” Some presentations seek to portray the poles as more important. Others put them in the correct weighting. ”
This is exactly what I do!
While the temperature average at the latitude band directly near the equator is weighted by 0.999762, the temperature average of the latitude band centered at 81.25 degrees north is weighted by 0.152123.
Manifestly, you are such in urge to prove others wrong that you don’t take the time to read what they write.
*
2. ” You are wrong and Roy is right. ”
Here, you definitely prove how dishonest you behave.
Because the global average of the latitudinal trends I compute (0.139 C / decade) matches what Roy Spencer publishes as global trend (0.135 C / decade).
You ‘idea’ of a latitudinal weighting of already latitudinally weighted temperatures, however, gives a global trend of 0.09 C / decade, and does NOT match Roy Spencer’s global trend AT ALL.
Roy Spencer and I we are right, and YOU ARE WRONG, RLH.
But I know that you NEVER admit being wrong.
So show me how your equally spaced Latitude markings on the horizontal axis demonstrates the lower area on the globe that each Latitude band represents.
We do seem to be speaking at cross purposes. I do not dispute that you apply Latitude weightings to your data only that your monotonically spaced horizontal axis does not represent that.
I support Roy’s use of Mollweide projections, your monotonically spaced horizontal axis does not follow that.
Sorry: you keep either dense or dishonest, or both.
1. You still dodge around – and silently ignore – the fact that my trend data matches Roy Spencer’s global trend, but that your ‘idea’ of an additional trend weighting does not match his data at all.
*
2. I repeat: all my UAH data processing – using the latitude weighting sequence I posted above – give exactly the same results as those published by Roy Spencer:
– similar graphs when comparing the own generation of monthly time series with those published by Mr Spencer in
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
– similar trends generated by Excel out of the time series.
And – of course – not only for simple, equator-symmetric examples like the Globe or the Tropics, but also for NoPol, SoPol, NHExt, SHExt.
*
3. ” I support Roys use of Mollweide projections, your monotonically spaced horizontal axis does not follow that. ”
Here you show that you simply confound Roy Spencer’s geometrical representation of the Globe with the data information he presents.
You might claim that you support his ‘use of Mollweide projections’; but fact remains that you don’t support his trend data!
*
The best for you would be to finally start processing Roy Spencer’s 2.5 degree grid data, and to generate time series and linear trends out of it – instead of proudly talking about what I allegedly would do wrong with it.
*
By the way: I still await your final proof that my processing of USCRN data, comparing monthly averages of hourly (Tmin+Tmax)/2, median and 24h mean computations out of all 138 active stations, would contain any error due, as you claim, to my use of hourly instead of subhourly USCRN data.
1. Absolute monthly averages
https://i.postimg.cc/k5r0qVpj/USCRN-monthly-absolute-averages-mean-vs-median-vs-avg-138-stations-2002-2021.png
2. Anomalies out of monthly averages
https://i.postimg.cc/VNBVwKM6/USCRN-monthly-anomaly-averages-mean-vs-median-vs-avg-138-stations-2002-2021.png
You were stalking me during months with this unproved claim, while nevertheless repeatedly refusing to generate, out of subhourly data, the same stuff as I did out of hourly data.
When will you finally start doing the job, instead of stalking?
As I said, your data matches Roy’s correctly. Your presentation, with equally spaced Latitude divisions, does not. Each step in Latitude on your graph dose NOT represent an equal area on the globe. Assuming that temperature and area are closely interrelated.
Thus giving the lines/marks/divisions nearer the poles less importance compared to the ones nearer the equator.
“repeatedly refusing to generate”
Because using already rounded data will produce rounding errors that you have never acknowledged.
Thus giving the lines/marks/divisions nearer the poles different importance compared to the ones nearer the equator.
Which daily/hourly data would you like me to reproduce? The USCRN one (which is correct) or your inaccurate one?
Binny,
You wrote –
” . . . higher than CO2’s, which is uniformly 0.04%.”
Except that it isn’t, is it? Maybe you have been believing Gavin Schmidt, rather than others at NASA who measure stuff, rather than just imagine it.
As usual, Flynnson blah blah, without any numbers.
As usual, Binny just makes stuff up.
From NASA –
” . .. AIRS has shown that carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed over the globe;”, but hey, if Binny says NASA. are full of blah blah, then either Binny or the NASA scientists who measure CO2 concentrations are full of it.
Others can decide whom they wish to believe.
Flynnson
I know about AIRS.
Where are their numbers, Flynnson?
What about finally compare the CO2 distribution interval with that of H2O?
C’mon, Flynnson! Show us the numbers!
Binny,
You’re an idiot.
You wrote –
“What about finally compare the CO2 distribution interval with that of H2O?”
What are you babbling about?
Why should I compare anything? You made a stupid statement, and I pointed out that NASA backs me up. If you want numbers, look them up yourself. If you don’t believe NASA, don’t bother.
You have been caught out being a fool. Don’t blame me – blame NASA, if you disagree.
Demand away. I will continue to ignore your demands – and there is not a damned thing you can do about it, is there?
Thanks a lot, Flynnson, for name-calling me an idiot!
Given that your stupidity exceeds that of Robertson and Clint R put together by dimensions, your gentle insult seems like an honor to me.
Yeah, Flynnson! Earth once was molten, and cools since then. Great words indeed.
Binny,
I am glad to see you now accept reality, at least a little bit.
Yes, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No amounts of mythical GHGs have prevented it, but keep believing otherwise if you wish.
Maybe you could find some experimental support for believing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer actually makes it hotter?
I don’t believe such a thing is possible, but if the facts change, I will change my view.
What about you?
–We must make public-health authorities accountable for their COVID lies
By Glenn H. Reynolds —
Read it, all:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/30/we-must-make-public-health-authorities-accountable-for-covid-lies/
It seems like a well-rounded summary for a lawyer to make.
Happy New Year.
gbaikie…”It seems like a well-rounded summary for a lawyer to make”.
***
Doesn’t even scratch the surface of the lies and deception. The following action has been going on for some time…
https://evolvetoecology.org/2021/02/27/dr-reiner-fuellmich-begins-legal-litigation-on-the-covid-19-fraud-the-greatest-crime-against-humanity/
We have one going on here in the courts of BC, Canada. They are trying to get the chief health officer on the stand to explain her actions. It’s been going on for a year with government lawyers pulling every trick from the book of deception to stifle the process.
a better link….
https://corona-ausschuss.de/en
It’s the Sun stupid
https://youtu.be/9cETdqqUmjA
Eben..FYI…they introduce the speaker as Henrik Svensmark but I think the speaker is Nir Shaviv. He has a Jewish accent. Also, I have seen him before.
Nir Shaviv is a bright dude and I wondered where he had disappeared to.
Dude are you dense or what , they are both speakers there
Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark
Please explain how the Sun is causing global warming when solar activity is decreasing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2503/
Explained it three times here already
You haven’t explained, just put up videos from some bloke on a blog.
As you see from the data global average temperature since 1960 has increased by 0.8C. Do the maths and that requires the system to take in an extra 3W/m^2.
Over the same time solar irradiation has decreased by 1W/m^2.
To explain the observed warming using the Svenmark hypothesis requires cosmic ray induced cloud seeding to decrease OLR by 4W/m^2, which the CLOUD experiment at CERN showed is far larger than could possibly occur.
If you have an explanation , show me numbers that work.
entropic…”Nobody in the trade is surprised that Antarctica has both the lowest temperatures and lowest rate of warming of any continent”.
***
Every chance an alarmist scientists gets, he/she raves on about ice shelves breaking off, suggesting that is related to global warming/climate change. Others rave about warming in Antarctica when they are referring to a small area near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, which is closer to South America than central Antarctica.
Mann and Stieg did a study which concluded Antarctica had warmed the past 50+ years. They used the warming just mentioned inappropriately to bias the trend. One of the stations they used for data turned out to be under 4 feet of snow.
BTW…this page has since been removed from the EPW/Senate site.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161112095305/https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/in-the-news?ID=FC7DB6AD-802A-23AD-43D1-2651EB2297D6
I’m not surprised that the Senate website removed false information.
EM,
I assume you realise that ice shelves float. Being made of ice, of course they are likely to snap off. The tides move the relatively inflexible shelf up and down, flexing it against the vertically immobile outflow face.
I find it amazing that they grow as far as they do, even given the relatively small tides around the region.
No need for alarm. When floating ice melts, it changes the sea level not at all.
The key question is the overall mass balance of Antarctica. This is the difference between the amount of water falling onto Antarctica and the amount melting off it.
Bottom line is that it is currently losing 80 cubic kilometres/year and accelerating.
EM,
Stil no cause for concern. Antarctica seems to have been covered by sub-tropical forest, before it got really, really, cold.
As to sea levels, not much to worry about there, either. Marine fossils have been found at altitudes exceeding 6000 meters, and depths exceeding 3000 meters. 9000 meter range – at least.
As the mid-ocean ridges pour fresh magma into the ocean basins, sea levels must rise as a consequence. On the other hand, mountain building (orogenesis) must result in lower sea levels, given conservation of mass.
The influence of the entire atmosphere on sea levels is effectively between nothing, zero, and bugger all.
Why waste a good worry?
“As to sea levels, not much to worry about there, either. Marine fossils have been found at altitudes exceeding 6000 meters, and depths exceeding 3000 meters. 9000 meter range at least.”
Best laugh I’ve had all day.
I wonder if the marine fossils found at 6000 metres were formed at sea level and then raised by orogenesis?
gbaikie…in reply to your earlier post on covid, I found this flabbergasting page. In an interview, Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, is now claiming it is the vaccines causing the variants. He thinks it was insane to release the vaccines.
Look for the Montagnier interview link part way down the page but also read the other articles.
https://newsmediainquiry.wordpress.com/corona-committee/
“is now claiming it is the vaccines causing the variants. ”
really? Hmm so the so-called vaccines are actually going to end this pandemic.
I didn’t imagine they were so clever.
But chances are it’s just a lie.
It seems that natural causes are probably causing variants, and apparently this China attack or screw up, will end because these variants.
Then, we sue them all into the poor house.
I rather we hang them all by neck, but you can’t always get what you want.
gbaikie…”…is now claiming it is the vaccines causing the variants. ”
“But chances are it’s just a lie”.
***
Not much chance here, the author of the statement, Dr. Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV. He claims he only inferred HIV and he had to develop a new theory for HIV since he admitted to never having seen HIV on an electron microscope.
My question is, why did he not stop when he saw no virus on an EM? Many observers would have concluded there was no virus there.
The covid theory is based on his inferred theory. If anyone knows anything about the strands of RNA used in the tests and the vaccines, it would be Montagnier since the strands of RNA used are based on his theory.
He not only thinks the vaccines cause the variants he thinks the vaccines are a terrible mistake.
I just watched a video with the inventor of mRNA theory, Dr. Robert Malone. You can find a lengthy interview with him on this page. I was impressed by his objectivity.
https://newsmediainquiry.wordpress.com/corona-committee/
He pretty well agrees with Montagnier about the vaccine, claiming the regulatory authorities have botched the research. They have not treated the vaccine as the gene therapy it is and skipped vital observations required for such therapy.
Twitter has censored a video featuring Dr. Malone, demonstrating clearly that opposition to this gene therapy, even by an expert in mRNA who invented the theory, is not welcome.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/twitter-suspends-mrna-vaccine-inventor-robert-malones-account-over-pfizer-shot-concerns-articleshow.html
His criticism of Pfizer has led to Google banning his videos on YouTube and Linkedin banning him as well.
Are any of you people mesmerized by appeals to authority going to wake up anytime soon?
“He not only thinks the vaccines cause the variants he thinks the vaccines are a terrible mistake.”
They aren’t vaccines, no one says they are. But whatever you call them, actually cause variants, then they sort of like step towards creating a vaccine, as the variants are the vaccine. A “natural vaccine” created by humans.
Now, humans might have made them without the shots, but if the shot were designed to cause a certain type variant, then brilliant, it might have worked.
And they say omicron could create herd immunity, it’s fast spreading and is not lethal.
And apparently, it’s a bad idea to ban flights to Africa.
The immune response of people infected with omicron appears to increase protection against delta more than fourfold, according to a study from South Africa.
Omicron could displace delta as a consequence, the team of scientists found.
If omicron also proves less severe, Covid infections could prove less disruptive to society, they wrote.
However, the study has not been peer-reviewed, current data on severity is preliminary and epidemiologists have warned omicron could still strain hospitals.
…
“The findings could have significant implications for nations such as the United States where omicron infections are rapidly increasing but the delta variant, which has caused an increase in hospitalizations, is still widespread.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/28/covid-omicron-appears-to-protect-against-delta-could-displace-it-study.html
Here is Dr. Raszek of Merogenomics talking about Omicron and Delta Virus and Vaccines. He sounds like someone who knows what he is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBF5-Li9ykE
gbaikie
” And they say omicron could create herd immunity, its fast spreading and is not lethal. ”
Wow.
Where the heck do you have that from?
Maybe from ome absolutely non-binding YouTube video?
Luc Montagnier statements:
https://www.onmanorama.com/lifestyle/health/2021/05/25/mass-vaccination-creating-variants-french-scientist-explains.html
Seems legit
Onmanorama – ah well ah well.
Suddenly, Indian web sites become interesting, probably because they bring contrarian info – exactly what Ken, Robertson, Clint R and some other denialists do appreciate…
But Ken clearly won’t show us this:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/28/viral-image/no-french-virologist-luc-montagnier-didnt-say-covi/
https://www.factchecker.in/fact-check/nobel-laureate-luc-montagniers-anti-vaccine-claims-wrong-unscientific-covid-19-vaccination-751214
… and so on and so on.
And what people like Ken deliberately ignore, is the fact that beginning with 2022 Monday, Jan 2, all hospitals within the 10 million people region around Paris will be requested to delay even major operations in order to allow maximal possible treatment of heavilly attacked COVID patients.
And do you know what?
70 % of the COVID patients in Paris needing ICU beds are NOT vaccinated…
*
It’s nice to stay on Vancouver Island and to post dumb, ignorant antivax blah blah, isn’t it Ken?
Great.
” all hospitals within the 10 million people region around Paris will be requested to delay even major operations in order to allow maximal possible treatment of heavilly attacked COVID patients.”
How many hospitals are the French building?
I wouldn’t trust any website claiming to be fact checkers even if they told me my name is Ken.
I would recommend watching a YouTube video title: Holocaust Survivor’s Warning About Othering’ Will Give You Chills | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report. The video features a Holocaust survivor who tells about the steps that slowly dehumanize an identifiable group of people. It started with small erosions of basic human rights with signs on park benches stating Jews may not sit here’ and with closure to Jews of community services to such as swimming pools. Then it progresses to laws, such as Jewish children may not play with other children. Its a step-by-step erosion of rights that culminates with outrages like Auschwitz.
Othering is happening in Campbell River. People are being denied access to City Facilities and Council Meetings. People are being fired from their jobs. People are being denied access to Private Businesses. Private Businesses are being forced to enforce illegal Health Orders. The Othering’ is taking place on the basis of vaccine status. People are being denied the basic human right to live their lives in peace and with human dignity.
I am sure that you are aware the Constitution, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the highest order of law in our nation. Vaccine Mandates and other measures ordered by the Health Authorities are arguably in violation of the Charter and are therefore illegal. Further, the Court of the Nuremberg Trials 1947 did affirm the international basic human right of people to live their lives in peace and with human dignity.
The question has to be where will your complicity end? Are you going to go along with incarceration of unvaccinated people as was suggested by the Mayor of Calgary? Are you going to go along with denying access to grocery stores by unvaccinated people as was recently attempted in New Brunswick? Are you going to go along with huge fines for unvaccinated people as is going on in Austria? Are you going to be like the Judges and Mayors who were brought to account at the Nuremberg Trials for their complicity in violating basic human rights that are arguably quite similar to what is happening now in Canada?
What are you going to do about it?
Generally, if you in an emergency, you do things important related to the emergency.
Global climate is said to be emergency, yet a government will pay for wood burning.
And is very interested in wind mills and solar farms- neither are solutions.
But an emergency can be more like a drug. And when take some drugs you can hallucinate. And if you are hallucinating even without the excuse of drugs, you can be more interested in hallucinating more with drugs, as compared doing anything.
When you are two years into a global pandemic, and you have built enough hospital capacity, it’s similar to 40 year global warming emergency and you done nothing about it.
Could be that one uses emergencies for something other than dealing with the emergency.
maguff…re your earlier link to a comment by Judith Curry against the Dragon Slayers, I copied part of the comment she used as evidence against their POV…
“Grant Pettys letter
To all Slayers:
As one who has no direct professional stake in the science of climate change but who regularly observes my colleagues working hard and sharing ideas to understand real data and to add pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, I am quite confident that you vastly overestimate the role of fraudulent claims and fundamental errors in the science. The nature of real modern science is that fraudulent claims dont go undetected long, because too many people are working on pieces of the same giant jigsaw puzzle, and when pieces dont fit, they look around for the reason. And no one has any incentive to let others get away with bad science on the contrary, science is very competitive when it comes to getting funding”.
***
Grant Petty is seriously naive. He seems to lack awareness of the Climategate email scandal where scientists communicated by email to discuss fraudulent science using fraudulent techniques, like Mann’s Nature Trick aka ‘hide the decline’. The emails revealed people like Mann interfering in and promoting interference in peer review.
He is seriously unaware that scientists do group together to support fraud. Chapter 9 of the IPCC reviews was labeled nepotic by an investigator of the hockey stick statistics, Edward Wegman, when he discovered all the authors in Chapter 9 were friends of Mann and only cited each others’ articles.
One of the leading poobahs at the IPCC, Kevin Trenberth, is known to have interfered in the peer review of a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH. His interference was so pronounced that the journal editor resigned. Later, Trenberth’s partner on IPCC reviews as a Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that papers like the one coauthored by John Christy would not reach the IPCC review stage.
When Chapter 9 were ordered by IPCC bigwig Susan Solomon to investigate the hockey stick they ignored her. The IPCC itself is corrupt.
Petty’s last claim about no one having incentive to let anyone get away with bad science due to the funding involved is both naive and stupid. The funding is controlled by the alarmists as is the National Academy of Science. At one time, NAS had integrity but they made the mistake of letting one climate alarmist in and like a Trojan horse, he soon voted to get his alarmist buddies in the door till they had control of the induction process.
NAS is now so corrupt that Michael Mann was inducted.
Swenson, you boofhead. Your 300 words of tired old arguments are duly noted.
You are here https://ibb.co/hBySfff, still.
Good for you. Don’t ever change. Just remember that if you are not sitting at the table, you are probably on the menu.
TM,
I am surrounded by delusional climate crackpots.
Do you really think I am really Gordon Robertson, or are you just so sloppy you don’t know to whom you are responding?
Maybe you are just confused, and a boofhead to boot.
Carry on.
All of you denier crackpots are interchangeable. From the tired, old arguments, to the vapidity and futility cloaked in pseudo-scientific sophistries.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1102871
Ecce signum
maguff…”Your 300 words of tired old arguments are duly noted”.
***
Noted, but obviously not understood. You even blamed Swenson for my post.
Did you subtract the intro with quote from my alleged 300 words? I mean, who counts words?
” I mean, who counts words?”
Since you asked… there is this new invention called The Word Processor which, without you even asking, counts not only words but also individual characters. Try it; all the kids are doing it!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
binny…”Ken
The problem is the news media which is reporting record cold.
binny…No, the problem here was, as usual, Robertson. Never would this contributor (oh Noes) paste any CBC info on this blog.
***
Not so Binny, I report all the bs coming out of CBC. In fact, I had a lengthy email exchange with a CBC boffin who actually replied to one of my complaints about the biased CBC coverage.
He claimed that CBC only reports global warming POV’s from the IPCC. When he asked him to call UAH and talk to John Christy or Roy Spencer, to get another POV, he was not interested.
For the longest time, the CBC science department was run by uber-alarmist, David Suzuki. His heir-apparent, Bob McDonald, has carried on the CBC alarmist bias to date.
I should cc this to maguff after his post from Judith Curry re the Dragon Slayers.
typo…”When he asked him to call UAH….”.
Should read, “When I asked him to call UAH…”.
“The JWST was designed with a mission length of at least five years, with those working on the project hoping for closer to ten. NASA now expects that the JWST should have enough propellant to support continued science operations for “significantly more” than ten years.”
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/83674/the-mission-for-james-webb-space-telescope-just-got-much-longer/index.html
“The precise launch of Arianespace’s Ariane 5 aboard which the JWST was launched contributed significantly to the propellant savings for the JWST. The two mid-course corrections have also been highly efficient, allowing the JWST to gain an extra 45 miles per hour (20 meters per second) of speed from the first and 6.3 miles per hour (2.8 meters per second) from the second.”
So, they just did 20 + 2.8 m/s = 22.8 m/s after initial launch.
Currently it’s going: .7408 km/sec
and almost at halfway point distance to travel before it enters
orbit. What it’s called again… Halo or Lissajous orbit.
gbaikie
” The precise launch of Arianespaces Ariane 5 aboard which the JWST was launched contributed significantly to the propellant savings for the JWST. ”
That is of course correct. This was really great engineering work performed by the people at Arianespace.
But … we should all remember that this precision would never have been possible without the invisible work previously done by those who built the highly complex astronomical mathematics that were essential to this great success.
*
And here is the wonderful contradiction for the lunar spin deniers:
– on the one hand, they are obliged to recognize NASA’s know-how in the scientific preparation of the JWST transfer from French Guiana to S-E’s L2;
but
– on the other hand, they dispute the correct processing of the lunar missions by NASA, whose scientists of course took Moon’s rotation into account (4.7 meters per second at the lunar equator, i.e. a shift of 363.78 kilometers between LEM’s descent and ascent times for the Apollo XI mission).
No, we dispute no such thing. “Taking moon’s rotation into account” simply means “assume that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR” and when doing so, of course the lunar missions were successful. As they would have been assuming that “orbital motion without axial rotation” was as per the MOTL. Nothing changes the observed way that the moon moves, and nobody is disputing it. All that happens, when you assume “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, is that you confuse orbital motion for axial rotation…but the actual amount of the confused axial rotation will of course work out to be “correct” for the purposes of the lunar missions.
” All that happens, when you assume ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the MOTR, is that you confuse orbital motion for axial rotation… but the actual amount of the confused axial rotation will of course work out to be ‘correct’ for the purposes of the lunar missions. ”
What else could one have expected from your side?
Germans have a nice idiom for your way of ‘thinking’: ” von hinten durch die Brust ins Auge “.
Perfect match! Weiter so!
You cannot refute what I wrote because still, even after all this time, you still do not understand the “Non-Spinner” position, which you demonstrate by making such comments as your 6:12 AM comment in the first place.
I apologize for not admitting what you write: I perfectly understand your position, which unfortunately is – not only from my personal, irrelevant point of view – … simply wrong.
As said: Moon’s spin has nothing to do with the MOTL/MOTR duality you invoke.
The Moon spins, like all celestial bodies, independently of how it is viewed from which point in space.
{ This is the reason why I never support any lunar spin explanation based on concepts like ‘inertial reference frame’, which introduce much more confusion – and hence rebuttal – than they could ever explain.
The concept of an ‘inertial reference frame’ is superfluous in classical Newtonian physics; but you need it when you are busy with things like the Equivalence Principle, see e.g.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507083
Here, you land in what is termed the Post-Newtonian’ corner. }
*
I hope that you at least agree that a well educated mathematician who analyzes all data collected when tracking, from the James Webb telescope, one and the same fixed point on the Moon over several orbiting sequences, should be able to tell us whether or not the Moon rotates about an internal axis, or solely orbits without axial rotation.
“Moon’s spin has nothing to do with the MOTL/MOTR duality you invoke”
Of course it does!
Does this your last reply mean that you do not agree that a well educated mathematician who analyzes all data collected when tracking, from the James Webb telescope, one and the same fixed point on the Moon over several orbiting sequences, should be able to tell us whether or not the Moon rotates about an internal axis, or solely orbits without axial rotation?
DREMT
Light reading.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/368/1/280/969629
Is spin-orbit coupling anything like your “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
–Light reading.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/368/1/280/969629
Is spin-orbit coupling anything like your orbital motion without axial rotation?–
I would guess, yes.
Another, less ‘light’ reading about spin-orbit coupling:
Arbab I. Arbab
Spin – orbit coupling in gravitational systems (2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Arbab/publication/306255599_Spin_-_orbit_coupling_in_gravitational_systems/links/5b87f2b1299bf1d5a731f8ea/Spin-orbit-coupling-in-gravitational-systems.pdf
In this paper, the Sudanese experimental physicist Arbab links microscopic and macroscopic world together.
No wonder that ignoramus Robertson discredited and denigrated that paper, as if he were suddenly overcome with hatred for everything he wouldn’t be able to understand.
It’s not “my” orbital motion without axial rotation, Entropic Man. Each side of the debate has its own idea of what “orbital motion without axial rotation” is. Axial rotation is then separate and independent of this motion. The “Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right” in the below gif. They then add axial rotation, at a rate of once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit, to get motion like the “moon on the left”.
The “Non-Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in the below gif. They then add axial rotation, at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction as the orbit, to get motion like the “moon on the right”.
Understand?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Non-spinners don’t follow Newton’s 3 Laws then. Nothing in those gives an object rotation without a force being needed.
We are talking about “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
So am I.
You said, “Nothing in those gives an object rotation without a force being needed.”
What rotation?
The rotation of the Moon on its axis.
The only way you can think the moon is rotating on its own axis is if you think "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTR.
“They then add axial rotation, at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction as the orbit, to get motion like the ‘moon on the right’.”
So non-spinners add a rotation to get back to Newton’s 3 Laws where things are unchanged, i.e. MOTR, without additional forces.
From the “Non-Spinners” perspective, the MOTL is “where things are unchanged”. It then requires a force to make the moon rotate on its own axis as well as orbit, one example of such motion being the MOTR.
“the MOTL is ‘where things are unchanged'”
Not if you are Newton or the Sun.
Desperate stuff from RLH.
Idiotic stuff from DREMT as usual.
Simmer down.
The most wonderful thing is that a commenter can read
” … whose scientists of course took Moons rotation into account (4.7 meters per second at the lunar equator, i.e. a shift of 363.78 kilometers between LEMs descent and ascent times for the Apollo XI mission) ”
without being disturbed by the fact that if the Moon mission planners would have, like the commenter does, confounded axial rotation with simple orbiting, the lunar orbiting module would have passed over the lunar descent point while the LEM’s ascent point would have been about 400 km away, with imaginable consequences for the mission.
That does not seem to disturb the lunar spin deniers.
Luckily, none of them was, is, let alone would be ever involved in Moon mission planning tasks.
You genuinely do not understand, do you?
Here is the Glooobal Cooooling made in Germoney
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/b12957ad-1ac6-4fb3-9fb9-2eed542cc305/dac9abfc00c62bee9a6e7868a16607b8/9a4350d1-6841-4944-bbe4-db67082f4345.jpg
It is so wonderful to spend a Sylvester evening here with an opened door to the terrace.
Bonne année à tout le monde, et – exceptionnellement – même à ceux qui me prennent pour un idiot.
You should organize another German winter march on Stalingrad to remind yourself what snow and cold is
The Nazis marched on Moscow, Operation Barbarossa. Bindi makes a good Nazi, like all his leftist brethren.
And you, Anderson, you are much worse than a dumb ass like Eben.
You are a bullshit asshole, who deliberately makes leftists out of all ultra-right murders: the Nazis and their followers everywhere in Southern America, where the Nazis landed after having managed to leave Germany with the help of the Catholic Church.
There, they taught Brazilian, Chilene, Argentinian fascists how to torture people like they did themselves in Nazi Germany as in the time they were in the GESTAPO.
And the Brazilian, Chilene, Argentinian fascists killed leftists by ten thousands.
*
People like you, Anderson, should be caught by modern German alt-right people who would do everything with you that they dream of all the time on the Dark Net.
Like back then at GESTAPO: pulling your fingernails, then your toenails, and then your teeth.
And then, Anderson, their real work would begin.
You are such a coward asshole, Anderson!
Much worse than me ? LOL are you sure you thought this one out well ???
Binny,
You are bit behind the times, but that is hardly surprising, I suppose.
The US CIA uses repeated drowning followed by resuscitation (politely known as waterboarding) to force people to confess – whether they are guilty or not.
Unfortunately for the torturers, this has resulted in at least one torture victim apparently
confessing to every “terrorist” crime in the world. Needless to say, the accused person has not been brought before a court, because he has confessed to deeds that he couldn’t possibly have committed (for various reasons).
The CIA obviously contains its fair share of dimwitted torturers who enjoy torturing of the fun of it, or are too stupid to see the consequences of their stupidity.
It seems you would enjoy seeing people who disagree with you having their fingernails, toenails, teeth, testicles etc. being vigorously pulled. Does that make you a cowardly asshole and a bully, or just a powerless, impotent, deranged, climate crackpot?
By the way, would you mind posting an ordered list of those you consider to be “dumbasses” etc, as I would be most upset if I am not at the top (or bottom, depending on order) of such a list.
To be honest, I think you are so erratic and confused that you don’t even realise the silliness of your comments, at times.
Give it a try. I never object to a good laugh.
>It seems you would enjoy seeing people who disagree with you having their fingernails, toenails, teeth, testicles etc. being vigorously pulled. Does that make you a cowardly asshole and a bully, or just a powerless, impotent, deranged, climate crackpot?
Bindi loudly disavows his Nazi roots, but then confirms it with every word he utters.
Eben
You are such a dumb, ignorant ass.
Sorted out rounding errors yet?
Still having problems with three-valued logic?
Still being a slimy little grub, Wee Willy?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd starts the New Year’s countdown.*
Still being an irrelevant slimy little grub, Wee Will?
Mike Flynn.
Machining Fabliaux.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ken…good post on ‘othering’.
“Othering is happening in Campbell River. People are being denied access to City Facilities and Council Meetings. People are being fired from their jobs. People are being denied access to Private Businesses. Private Businesses are being forced to enforce illegal Health Orders. The Othering is taking place on the basis of vaccine status. People are being denied the basic human right to live their lives in peace and with human dignity”.
***
Take a look here, especially the interview with Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA (modified RNA). Malone works closely with the US government, especially the Department of Defense, so he knows what goes on between the government, Big Pharma, the FDA, etc.
This mild-mannered, totally objective scientist states near the end of the interview that governments world-wide are contradicting the Nuremberg Agreement and he list the three areas in which they have broken from the code.
https://newsmediainquiry.wordpress.com/corona-committee/
In the Montagnier interview, he claims the variants are caused by the vaccines and that introducing the vaccines was wrong.
Gordon,
The m in mRNA does not stand for modified, and it wasn’t invented.
It stands for messenger.
Try a modern biology textbook.
eben…”Dude are you dense or what , they are both speakers there Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark ”
***
Me dense??? I explained to you that the film revealed the speaker as Svensmark when it was Nir Shaviv speaking. Are you always such a horses ass?
A strange exchange occurred earlier, when the Witless Wonder, Willard, posed an odd question to another commenter –
“C’mon, Gordo.
How does the heat island effect work exactly according to Dragon cranks like you?
gb, attempted to help out, by describing the UHI.
Wee Willy, being the slimy little grub that he is, demonstrated that he is not really interested in furthering his knowledge, but rather with attempting to appear intelligent by using meaningless gibberish. He wrote –
“We all know about UHI, gb.
The challenge is to explain it using Dragon Crank physics.”
Dragon Crank physics? What challenge? Idiot climate crackpots like Woeful Wee Willy don’t acknowledge mainstream physics, and claim that a magical GHE exists, which can’t be experimentally verified because its description is a closely guarded secret – or something!
Wily Wee Willy’s slimy stock-in-trade is to attempt to get others to share his fantasy, by pretending he is not a grubby troll.
Oh, well. Some may believe him I suppose. To each his own.
Mike Flynn keeps interposing himself into exchanges without reading anything –
“What challenge?”
The challenge of explaining the UHI effect using Dragon Crank physics!
I suppose Roy wasn’t clear enough:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Roy endured this scoundrel for more than six years before he got tired of him.
And now he’s back with silly sock puppets!
So sad, too bad.
Silly Billy Willy,
I repeat – “What challenge?”
No, Roy didn’t mention “Dragon Crank physics” at all. As to your fixation with “Mike Flynn”, you might receive more support if you actually addressed matters of fact, rather than attempting to bring your fantasies into reality.
Or keep on being the slimy little deranged troll you are.
Once again, what are these “Dragon Crank physics” you claim exist? Or are they just another product of your imagination?
If that is the case, you might have trouble publishing your startling suppositions.
Carry on being obscure.
Mike Flynn,
Keep playing dumb, you’re a natural!
For starters, some of the Dragon cranks hold that the core of the Earth is molten.
Does that ring a bell?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Once again, what are these Dragon Crank physics you claim exist? Or are they just another product of your imagination?
What has your bell ringing to do with the UHI?
You may blather on and obfuscate to your heart’s delight, but I have called you out, and you have nothing with which to defend yourself.
C!mon Wee Willy – others are watching your attempts to extricate yourself from the idiot trap in which you have snared yourself. I suppose a slimy little grub like yourself will find a way to slither under the nearest dung heap to lick your smelly wounds.
Or you could imitate an adult, and explain your “Dragon Crank physics”. Amusement for all!
What’s it to be be – slimy little grub, or rational human?
[chortling]
Most of Earth is a molten ball.
The core is quite dense, and could ring like a bell.
I thought we had a deal, gb. Freedom Fighters are worth nothing if they can’t hold their sides of deals. I certainly don’t mind paying due diligence to your walls of words.
My impression was that, like libertarians who try to prey on the GOP, you’re mostly into Dragon crank stuff by opportunism. Was it wrong?
willard…”Roy endured this scoundrel for more than six years before he got tired of him”.
***
Are you claiming Roy banned Mike Flynn? If so, why can you still write Mike Flynn?. When Roy bans anyone he blocks their names. That’s why you, as Da*v*id A*p*p*e*l has been banned.
huh.
Projection, and it’s what the lefties do.
I did not know there was another guy, banned.
But again they might not have been their real names to start
with- so two handles banned. Is that all of handles which
banned?
I don’t think it’s fair. Not fair means anything.
Though it’s not effective.
> why can you still write Mike Flynn
C’mon, Gordo.
You have no idea how blogs work, do you?
Well, considering that you have no idea how the world works in general, and science too but that’s part of your charm, no wonder.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Helping anybody to understand anything at all is anathema to you, it seems. Typical for a witless climate crackpot.
You can’t even annoy or disrupt anyone. How pathetic is that?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
There’s a simple way for you to prove me wrong:
Post your comments under Mike Flynn!
Had you any honor, that’s what you’d do.
Alas, you have none!
Cheerios.
Don’t feed the trull.
You’re telling that to Roy’s oldest troll, Kennui, and you’re actually whining about COVID on a climate blog.
Funny you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”Christianity is but one of many religions, all of which claim that they are correct. At least one of them must be wrong”.
***
Christianity, as the name implies, is based on a real person who was documented by the Romans. It was the preaching of Christ during his brief tenure on Earth, as well as the examples he set, that lead to our so-called Western civilization.
Not much else is known about Christ because his followers were largely uneducated and not able to write in Greek, which was the basis for the original New Testament. Therefore, no one knows who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Although the aforementioned 4 gospels tend to contradict each other the underlying theme is that Jesus preached against the status quo religious tenets of the Jews, as well as creating problems for them in the temples, and that led to the Jewish authorities turning him over the the Romans.
The thing I find so remarkable is that one person could have such an influence on those who followed. No doubt, humans have always had the capacity for compassion but it seems Jesus appealed to that compassion in humans and it hit home for many of them, so much so, they were willing to fight for it. That fight has survived 2000+ years.
BTW…I am not religious in the sense that I belong to a religious denomination. The word religion means ‘to be serious’. I take that to mean that any religious inquiry needs to be open to interpretation.
Even though there was a concerted effort by people like Ireneaus to direct the focus of Christianity in one direction, while rejecting any other views in Christianity as heresy, compassion has survived the chaos. The movement of Ireneaus was eventually adopted as the Nicene Creed in 325 BC by the Roman emperor Constantine, ironic because it was the Romans who executed Jesus.
The Nicene Creed eliminated many early views on Christianity that have only been recently re-discovered. One of the discovered items, the Gospel of Thomas, who was an apostle, purports to reveal the thoughts of Jesus himself, which were in parable form. One is pretty clear, however, claiming essentially that what we need to know is already within.
Ireneaus must have played a role in having the Gospel of Thomas banished as heresy since he wrote a lot on the subject involving John. You can see references to that in the Gospel of John.
The words of Jesus claimed by Thomas are most likely a reference to love, compassion, intelligence, insight, empathy and other natural phenomena in humans that cannot be taught. They are all natural to the human system. Therefore, Jesus seemed to understand when most did not that we humans have a natural system of civilization that hitherto no one had been able to express as he did.
It seems to me then, that Christianity is the only religion which is based on natural human qualities without the distortion of the same present in other religions. That is not to say that some sects in Christianity have not distorted the teachings of Jesus, most have. However, despite the distortions, the basic message survives.
When I say distorted, I am referring to teachings in religions like Bhuddism, especial Zen Bhuddism, where the awareness that is the aim of the teachings is obfuscated.
All religions say that others are deficient in some way. All have a history to defend. All require that theirs is the only true religion.
You continue that fight.
rlh…”You continue that fight”.
***
Don’t need to, it is self-perpetuating.
As I said, I am not religious per se, I believe nothing. I was encouraged while reading Elaine Pagels, a religious historian and professor at Princeton, that she has change from belief to questioning.
Elaine’s story is interesting, she went to university to study religion and she went there with traditional religious beliefs. Her prof encouraged her to learn Greek so she could study the Bible in its original form. That practice opened her eyes to differences between what is written in the Greek version and how it has been interpreted.
She then went on to study the Nag Hammadi scrolls and became an authority on them. Those scrolls contain gospels omitted from the original Nicene Creed in 325 BC.
Since Newton was a great scientist and also wrote widely on the Bible, I thought it might interest you to at least open your mind to religion, which means, ‘to be serious’. Doesn’t mean you have to believe anything or accept the interpretation of religion on the work of others.
Shouldn’t matter if religions are deficient, find the good parts and allow your soul to heal. Open your mind to the vastness that can appear when the noisy part of the brain quietens.
And have a Happy Hogmany even though time is not changing. All that transpired between December 31st and January 1st was one more rotation of the Earth, and movement a bit further down the orbit.
As we Scots might say, ‘lang mae yer lum reek wae ither folks coal’.
“Shouldnt matter if religions are deficient”
ALL religions are deficient. Just ask the other ones.
There was this idiot who wrote a song including the line ‘imagine there’s no religion, its easy if you try’
The consequence is ever growing chaos as we are witnessing now in Western countries doing their damndest to stamp out religion and condemning all of its values even as the entire culture is founded on Christianity.
I almost all countries there are now more non religious people than those who follow a ‘god’.
*In
People need religion. Without a real one they make up their own.
See the Sainted Greta of the Temple of Global Warming for details.
Climate Change Claptrap and Mask Mandates are the result of superstitious people who don’t have any real religion without which they glue themselves to the freeway.
Mask Mandates are not a religion.
binny…you take a shot at Ken for living on Vancouver Island and posting anti-vax material while you spread the following propaganda…
“And what people like Ken deliberately ignore, is the fact that beginning with 2022 Monday, Jan 2, all hospitals within the 10 million people region around Paris will be requested to delay even major operations in order to allow maximal possible treatment of heavilly attacked COVID patients”
***
This course of action has failed world-wide as hospitals were required to clear beds for covid patients that were never used. Here in Vancouver, Canada, they tried that a year ago. They postponed surgeries to clear 1200 beds and never used more than 100.
Now they are at it again. When in history has any virus ever lasted for two years, showing no signs of letting up? The truth is it ended in spring 2020 and has been kept alive theoretically by fraudulent tests that are not testing for a virus.
What happened to colds and the common flu? It is being claimed that masks and social distancing has eradicated them which is sheer nonsense. If that was the case, covid would have been eradicated as well.
In Germany, the government is ignoring it’s own directives and organizations set up to handle a pandemic. Germany as well as all western nations had specific plans laid for dealing with a far worse scenario than the current covid scenario, and all of them have panicked and ignored their own protocols.
We are dealing with mass hysteria and this nonsense in Paris is about hysteria and not about science or necessity.
“fraudulent tests that are not testing for a virus”
Liar.
rlh…”“fraudulent tests that are not testing for a virus”
Liar.”
***
Why do you insist upon commenting on subjects you obviously know nothing about? Again, you are simply appealing to authority.
The RNA-PCR test was developed by people like Fauci for HIV. The reason they developed the test was that HIV could not be found, literally. At the time Fauci and Ho presented their version of the RNA-PCR test, the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis told them PCR could not be used diagnostically as they were using it.
Circa 2010, Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted in an interview that he has never seen HIV. In the same video, there is a comment from his lab technician confirming that the team did not see HIV on an electron microscope at any time. Montagnier admits he inferred HIV based on retroviral theory which presumes the detection of the enzyme reverse transcriptase is evidence of a virus.
Today, covid is inferred using the same pseudo-science. The test are based on an inference developed by Montagnier that has never been proved. This is not to say there is no virus involved, I am claiming there is no clear-cut scientific evidence for covid as a physical virus. Therefore there is no evidence upon which to base the tests or the vaccine.
An early pioneer in the field of retrovirology warned that the detection of RT did not mean there was a virus present since RT is a common enzyme in other bodily functions. However, researchers like Fauci and Ho proceeded to develop a test based on the presumption that Montagnier was correct and that strands of RNA related to reverse transcriptase indicated HIV.
Today, Montagnier claims HIV does not cause AIDS, a fact that Dr. Peter Duesberg tried to point out circa 1983. Rather than look into the claims of Duesberg, a genius in microbiology, the powers that be ganged up on him and ruined his career. That’s the solution today, if someone offers skepticism to a paradigm, ruin his or her career.
Kary Mullis objected to that assumption, claiming quite correctly, that a virus needed to be seen on an electron microscope. He claimed further that PCR could not amplify a virus that could not be seen on an electron micrsocope.
Yet here we are, with gullible appealers to authority like you, believing all the propaganda fed to you. You call me a liar but you cannot back up your ad hom with scientific facts. All you have is your cowardly appeal to authority.
> you, as Da*v*id A*p*p*e*l
C’mon, Gordo. Why do you keep lying?
Here, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1081479
Read the comment again. This time, put your glasses on.
Oh, and Happy New Year?
David Appel
There goes another of Gordo’s theories!
Gordon is correct. Bans are based on making the name unpostable. Try writing a comment with the name spelt correctly, with two Ls in the surname. It will not post. That is how you know David is banned. Mike Flynn is not banned, as his name posts OK.
Let me try to apply Gordo’s logic, Kiddo:
You’re David Appel.
Prove me wrong.
You’ve changed the subject, I see.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I know how WP works. You don’t.
I also know about arguments. You don’t.
Simples.
On this blog, Roy places bans by making the name unpostable. Gordon was right, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1104399
…and you are wrong.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Blacklisting a user does not imply the username is put on a filter list.
You really have a problem with implication. It leads you astray in so many areas of your Climateball life.
Gordon was right, and you are wrong.
Except that you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Claes Johnson
Willard is wrong.
Stephen Wilde
Christopher, I have banned Stephen from posting any more comments here, so he wont be able to respond (unless, like D0u9 C0++0n, he pretends to be someone else). -Roy
Am I banned?
Happy New Year, Kiddo!
C’mon Wee Willy,
You don’t really understand what a theory is, do you?
Read up on the scientific method, and then see if you can rephrase your pointless comment to reflect the difference between your silly climate crank use of “theories”, and what the word means to a real scientist.
Let me know if you cannot understand what the scientific method involves, and I will do my best to explain the concept to you.
Mike Flynn,
Methodical Facelifter,
Nice deflection!
You certainly know how to please me:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Let me know where you can get the Mike Flynn Scientific Method!
Meanwhile, please note:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388032
Weary Wee Willard,
If you don’t like conventional science, try “climate science” – or political or social “science”.
If you want to keep a stream of endless diversions going, be my guest.
If you want to try to manipulate Dr Spencer into banning anyone who refuses to join in your fantasies, I suggest you contact him directly.
Or you can continue your slimy grubby antics, giving any rational person a good laugh at your mindless efforts.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over – expecting different results. You a fit the definition – continuously and repetitively insisting that I am “Mike Flynn”, trying to get me to argue with Dr Spencer about something Mike Flynn apparently said, and so on.
Go your hardest, Wee Willy Peabrain. Still no GHE. Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
So no Mike Flynn Scientific Method for us?
So sad.
Keep on remind us of Albert’s quote while repeating the same things over and over again,
Best.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Read Albert Einstein’s words again, if you like. Brush up on basic English comprehension, if you wish.
Or learn some physics, so you can understand why nobody can actually define the GHE in any useful way.
I know the chances of you accepting reality are minute, but others may be more amenable to fact.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
Masterful Failures.
A reading list for trulls: https://alphacentauri2.info/wiki/Holobook.txt
I guess the bright side of having a murrain of trulls is that it suggests proof of no censoring of comments.
I prefer this list, Kennui:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/
Sometimes you’re Ennui, hence “Kennui.”
And no – having Dragon cranks around does not mean that users have not been blacklisted. It just means that blacklisted Dragon cranks have to use another email and another name.
In other words, sock puppets.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Repetitive use of the nonsensical phrase “Dragon cranks” just makes you look more stupid and disconnected from reality, day by day.
Preoccupied with blacklisting and banning, are you?
Start your own blog, and then blacklist and ban away to your heart’s content. Or you could try demanding that other blog operators follow your instructions!
You may discover you are impotent and powerless – making you an object of derision into the bargain, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take. Carry on being a fool.
Mike Flynn,
Miscarrier of Facts.
Impotent, powerless – and delusional.
Most chihuahuas share these traits.
Please stop trying to bite my ankles, Troglodyte.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–WHY MARS?
At an average distance of 140 million miles, Mars is one of Earth’s closest habitable neighbors. Mars is about half again as far from the Sun as Earth is, so it still has decent sunlight. It is a little cold, but we can warm it up. Its atmosphere is primarily CO2 with some nitrogen and argon and a few other trace elements, which means that we can grow plants on Mars just by compressing the atmosphere. Gravity on Mars is about 38% of that of Earth, so you would be able to lift heavy things and bound around. Furthermore, the day is remarkably close to that of Earth.–
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
Why does he say average of 140 million miles?
Miles, Earth is 92.96 million from sun. Orbital circumference
of 584.084 million miles. Quarter of it is: 146.0211032 million miles. So if in middle of 2 quarters, one more 146 million miles
from 1/2 of Earth’s orbit, and Mars is further out.
So he means speed of light? Oh means from sun, right (141.6 million miles]
“It is a little cold, but we can warm it up.”
Ah the terraforming Mars. Difficult if you are believer in global warming cult.
The no reason to warm up the planet Mars.
There is reason to make lakes on Mars- and this would warm things up, locally. But air is very thin, doesn’t cause cooling or warming from convectional heat transfer. Which why Earth is cold.
Radiant heat loss is not much of a problem, other than lack of heat loss. It’s hard too cool powerplants with radiant heat loss, therefore put the powerplants under a lake.
For humans {not robots] Mars lacks pressure, again why lakes are useful, 1 meter water depth is .55713 psi or terms of feet: 3.28084 feet per .55713 psi.
Adding .55713 psi in terms adding atmosphere mass, is madness.
But meters or feet of water is easy, and you need the water anyhow. Humans use a lot of water, and water must cheap enough, or living is very expensive. But need water to make electrical power cheaper, if you going to use nuclear energy.
But you can use solar, and Mars gets more solar energy than Earth does [because it’s shortage of atmosphere].
So, don’t need to make Mars atmosphere warmer. It’s already “warm enough” or not as cold as many places on Earth. But I would say Mars is a bit dusty. Mars doesn’t care if Mars is dusty, put it’s a bother for humans and for human activity.
“which means that we can grow plants on Mars just by compressing the atmosphere.”
Well, compressing the atmosphere will make hot air. And useful to have some way to cool it, like water. One should mine a lot of Mars atmosphere, and therefore have a lot of hot air. So I take a lot Mars air, rather than add it {or waste it}.
It seems it could be quite cheap to sell/buy liquid CO2.
And the cheaper, the better. If some point one can make it cheaper than Earth liquid CO2, you are doing are doing well.
“Mars is one of Earth’s closest habitable neighbors.”
No its not. If you step out onto the surface of Mars your blood will boil as you explosively decompress.
Terraforming. You’d need a moon as big as Luna to bang into Mars in order to separate the water from the land. Otherwise terraforming will take thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years by which time we will have lost interest.
There is nothing on Mars that we don’t have on earth so spending trillions on getting a colony on Mars makes no economic sense. Even if Mars was a solid chunk of diamond it wouldn’t be cost effective.
There might be a few idealistic people who would migrate to Mars but more likely the only viable population available would be people who we would like sent permanently to a penal colony, much as was done in Australia. Australia back in the day was a one way ticket to a short hard life.
Its interesting to think about but we’d be better off exploring other solar systems for planets that require a lot less terraforming.
–Ken says:
January 1, 2022 at 10:15 AM
“Mars is one of Earth’s closest habitable neighbors.”
No its not. If you step out onto the surface of Mars your blood will boil as you explosively decompress. —
If you “step out” from environment with 14.7 psi in your lungs your
lungs can not “take” that much pressure difference in environment with .088 psi. If you “step out” from environment with 2.5 Psi in your lungs, the lungs could possibly take that much pressure difference of 2.5 vs .088 psi. If step out into water environment on Mars which has about 2.5 psi [ .55713 psi per meter, or 4 meters under the surface of water] then if have breathable air {scuba gear for instance] it’s no different than being underwater on Earth. With Mars weaker gravity there less pressure {1.47 psi vs .55713} so you a greater range before getting the effects of the bends. Which mean you travel a further distance up in the water without getting the bends. Living on Mars, your air filled environment are probably going to be around 10 psi. But using water environment one could have air environment over 100 psi, if going to use spacesuit, one goes from 10 to 2.5 psi and suit up in that lower pressure environment [as do on ISS]- and with 2.5 psi you using pure oxygen, or 2.5 psi is lower pressure than top of Mount Everest- where it is good idea to breath pure oxygen from a face mask. Or going from 10 to 2.5 psi, you have less problems with the bends- less time needed getting nitrogen out the blood. And in addition, other problems, you get the bends stepping out from 14.7 to .088 psi.
“Terraforming. Youd need a moon as big as Luna to bang into Mars in order to separate the water from the land. Otherwise terraforming will take thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years by which time we will have lost interest.
There is nothing on Mars that we dont have on earth so spending trillions on getting a colony on Mars makes no economic sense. Even if Mars was a solid chunk of diamond it wouldnt be cost effective.”
The classical or cargo cult infected idea of terraforming Mars to make it warmer, is crazy. Add any gas in enormous and expensive quantities, would make Mars colder not warmer. And not mention, increase the dust problem. And make Mars a worse place to get solar power. And wreck it, in other ways.
Mars has a lot of water, Mars could have more freshwater, than the freshwater, than the Earthings get. Or there are problems with getting water on Earth. Even with ocean settlements, you going have get a cheap source of freshwater. Or with ocean settlement, need freshwater, grid type electrical power, sewer treatment, and a garbage service. Or I think ocean settlement should have freshwater lakes on the Ocean, for number reason, and a lake is just big storage container of freshwater.
On Mars, if got an adundant of cheap saltwater {better to have freshwater] but if saltwater is a lot cheaper, you also make lakes of saltwater. Or saltwater or any kind polluted water, is still useful because it adds pressure to Mars.
But as said there could be more water on Mars than then then is water in sahara desert, and pumping billions of tons water from the Sahara desert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
And generally, in Africa:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17775211
So for Mars settlement you need billions of tons of water- or it could less water than in the “Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) is the world’s largest known fossil water aquifer system”.
And to sell land on Mars, you sell land which has lake. And so
mine water [maybe from water wells] and put the water in depression or crater, and pump lots of water into it. And people buying land which include water rights to the lake. But living on the lake, would better, until such time as large domes are cheaper. But one could use less dome material if put dome under the water. Plus people can go, “outside” easily. Say, to a water park.
So a million tons of water has cost less than 1 billion dollar, or water at $1 per kg {which is about 1000 times more than what pay for water on Earth, but it’s cheap water on Mars, until the Martians make even cheap water. They might be able to make water on Mars cheaper than water from the “Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System” and entire planet of Mars probably has far more water than the “Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System”.
But like the moon, we don’t know if or where there is mineable water on Mars. Which water at about $1 per kg. And on the Moon it has to be water which $500 per kg {or less}.
Or water is worth more if making rocket fuel from it, and near Earth like the Moon is. Or you don’t have lunar settlements, unless the water is really abundance and $1 per kg, or less. Most people don’t think the Moon has much water {and the Moon might need to import water] and Mars in comparison is thought to have a large amount of water- therefore, it’s possible than humans could live on Mars. But there are more things than just water, which involved. But start with water, where is it?
But start with water, where is it?
Genesis 1.6 1.8 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were beneath the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Genesis does not go on to describe how God did this; just what he did.
My own pet theory is that he banged earth and moon together.
Failing a mechanism as large as that of banging moon and earth together I don’t see how you would expect to find pools or lakes of water on a planet whose atmosphere is so thin that water would simply boil away.
Ken,
Water is tricky stuff. Exposed to the vaccum of space, shaded from sunlight, will it boil away and vanish, or freeze first?
Comets made of ice and dust seem not to boil away in the absence of sunlight.
The consequence of boiling away is a collection of ice crystals at about 4 K. Then, as Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation indicates, the ice particles will form a cold blob.
A blob with the properties of solid ice, or something different?
So, on a planet, the water evaporates, but what then? It won’t fly off into space, any more than lighter gases all accumulate at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. If you have figured something out that stands up to scrutiny, let me know.
Nothing I have figured out can be confirmed by experiment, and so remains speculation at best. Tricky.
–My own pet theory is that he banged earth and moon together.
Failing a mechanism as large as that of banging moon and earth together I dont see how you would expect to find pools or lakes of water on a planet whose atmosphere is so thin that water would simply boil away.–
I don’t expect we will find lakes [or not find, more lakes**] on Mars.
**
“In 2018, the European Space Agencys Mars Express orbiter found the first evidence for an underground lake on Mars. The lake was deep below the south polar ice cap. What an exciting discovery! Then, in 2020, space scientists reported that theyd discovered three additional lakes near the first one. Any lakes on Mars, even if cold, salty and dark, would increase the potential for some form of life existing on the Red Planet. But are Mars subsurface lakes really lakes?
New studies by two different research teams have now cast some doubt on that original discovery.”
https://earthsky.org/space/mars-subsurface-lakes-south-polar-ice-cap-mars-express/
I mean making the lakes.
Wiki:
“Almost all water on Mars today exists as ice, though it also exists in small quantities as vapor in the atmosphere.
…
More than 5 million km^3 of ice have been detected at or near the surface of Mars, enough to cover the whole planet to a depth of 35 meters. Even more ice is likely to be locked away in the deep subsurface.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars
Now, I hope find water more mineable than what is described above, though, also, having further exploration of the 5 million cubic km water which has been detected, in terms further exploration to find which areas would be the most mineable.
Or exploration of Mars would be about selecting the better places to mine this water.
But also looking for water underground- which could be mined by drilling water wells.
We think we have detected around 5 million billion tons [5000 trillion tons] of water and it seems to me, there might as much water below the surface- but meaning near enough to the surface be accessible by humans. And near enough- could mean drilling to depth of as much as couple km depth and/or finding natural caves which could lead to even, greater depths.
Though a lot better if could fairly shallow well- less than a few hundred meters. People typically drill wells to about 300 feet and they are drilled deeper than 1000 feet. Generally deeper well can give better water, but if water level is say, 100 meter deep it takes more power to pump to surface. With Mars lower gravity, it takes less energy to draw up water from 100 meter.
It seems a significant financial risk of mining lunar water or making a Mars towns, is someone else finding much more mineable water, elsewhere on Moon or Mars.
It’s almost certainty this will happen, but how soon and how much cheaper the water could be, is major factor related to the investment risks.
Or being the first town on Mars is nice, but less nice, if it quickly turns into a ghost town- though it could eventually be a tourist location.
This comes from Wiki Article ‘Armstrong Limit’
Location Pressure
Olympus Mons summit 72 Pa (0.0104 psi) (0.0007 atm)
Mars average 610 Pa (0.088 psi) (0.006 atm)
Hellas Planitia bottom 1.16 kPa (0.168 psi) (0.0114 atm)
Armstrong limit 6.25 kPa (0.906 psi) (0.0617 atm)
Mount Everest summit 33.7 kPa (4.89 psi) (0.3326 atm)
Earth sea level 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi) (1 atm)
Dead Sea level 106.7 kPa (15.48 psi) (1.053 atm)
Surface of Venus 9.2 MPa (1,330 psi) (91.8 atm)
Armstrong Limit is the minimum a body can survive without a pressure vessel.
Thanks, I wouldn’t have looked it up without this discussion.
“There might be a few idealistic people who would migrate to Mars but more likely the only viable population available would be people who we would like sent permanently to a penal colony, much as was done in Australia. Australia back in the day was a one way ticket to a short hard life.”
I would say, religious people.
And everyone is religious. But religious people, are generally considered, more serious about their religion. And like idea of the freedom to follow their religion without some government screwing with them.
But freedom, in more areas, also. Maybe people who think they get taxed too much, or just like to do things, most people don’t want them to do. Drugs, and not required to wear masks, but maybe they want wear masks, and not allowed to.
But there is also the simple thing, space is strictly speaking, is heaven.
–There is nothing on Mars that we don’t have on earth so spending trillions on getting a colony on Mars makes no economic sense. Even if Mars was a solid chunk of diamond it wouldn’t be cost effective.–
I meant to talk more about that.
NASA budget is about 23 billion dollars this year.
And NASA as been directed by US government [Congress and Presidents]
to explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
The US government doesn’t want to fund a colony on Mars.
And I don’t think US government should want to plan to build a lunar base on the Moon. And US government is not funding NASA enough to build a lunar base on the Moon, they aren’t even really funding enough to explore the Moon- but they expect NASA to do it.
I do think that to explore Mars, you do need Mars bases.
But before Mars bases, I think you need do an artificial gravity station. [You don’t need an artificial gravity station to explore the Moon.]
US is going to Mars, and other world space agencies want do things like lunar bases. I would hold off any lunar bases, until the exploration of the Moon is done {regarding if and where there is mineable lunar water]- and other space agencies are also exploring the Moon {every one of them}.
As I see, Musk is forcing NASA to explore Mars, sooner rather than later {which is as I wanted NASA to do, even Musk didn’t exist as this driving factor}.
I always thought exploring Mars was going to very hard to do, Mars space cadets say it’s as easy as the Moon**. Musk Starship [if it works] will make exploring Mars a lot easier- but, it’s still hard. A NASA “argument” has been we already explored the Moon, let’s explore Mars. [It was pretty dumb.]
** Well after they realized that it is actually hard to more than 1 ton on Mars surface- less was said about that. And Starship changes that- it’s supposed to be able to put 100 tons [or more] on Mars surface.
A Mars colony at this point is not worth it. Because Mars needs to be explored first. Which leads to question, is Mars worth exploring. Mining water is likewise “not worth it”- or people would already be mining lunar water, and Musk would starting towns on Mars. Musk says he doesn’t know if a Starship will get to Mars within 5 year from now. Starship is still a plan, rather than a reality {and going take couple years be a reality- in terms of way to Mars}. And plan is to send Starship to the Moon to land crew on the Moon- which was supposed to done by 2024 [that was the plan} and it could still happen, but NASA says not going to happen before the end of 2024. They say that it is delayed with making space suits {which is crazy] and that SLS will not be ready.
You could guess, that what NASA is actually saying, is they aren’t getting enough funding for the lunar program {which they have already mentioned before- a few times} before saying that the new spacesuits are delaying them}.
Back to, is Mars worth exploring.
What else should NASA do with about 1/4 of its budget?
I think exploring the Sun is important, but they got Parter Solar Probe, which seems to me, good enough for that task at the moment.
But as general thing, both Mars and Moon are essential covered with gold- any rock from them is worth more than gold, but it depends on the diamond, whether any of thing from surface is worth more. I think it would be great day, when any rock from either was worth less per oz, then silver.
Besides rareness and hard to get, lunar material has value, in that it can’t be counterfeited. So sprinkling a tiny bit on paper money, gives a unique aspect to paper currencies.
And their ancient surface, carry the history of billions of years.
binny…”Does this your last reply mean that you do not agree that a well educated mathematician who analyzes all data collected when tracking, from the James Webb telescope, one and the same fixed point on the Moon over several orbiting sequences, should be able to tell us whether or not the Moon rotates about an internal axis, or solely orbits without axial rotation?”
***
Let’s put it this way. If an objective astronomer used a telescope in North America to view the Moon at a certain point on the lunar surface and another objective astronomer in Australia looked at exactly the same point with his telescope, both would have to agree the Moon did not rotate on a local axis.
It’s simply not possible. The spot viewed in North America would have to move a considerable distance over the course of a month (360 degrees in total), in order for either astronomer to claim rotation.
This might be tougher to do than seems apparent. When the Moon was full, both astronomers could make out a common point on the Moon. However, if a common spot could be observed during other phases of the Moon, the movement would be apparent if the Moon did rotate.
I have already proved that is not possible and I await your scientific rebuttal of my radial/tangent math. This is not rocket-science, Binny, its math that any student studying basic calculus or trigonometry could work out.
Robertson
You are dumb, and you keep dumb.
You proved nothing with your 10-year kid pseudoscience, and you know that.
You are so dumb that you didn’t even understand
– why I asked this same question once more, and
– why I didn’t get any really precise answer.
Keep off that discussion, Robertson, you make yourself ridiculous.
Btw, Robertson…
1. Did you in between manage to discover who, resp. what is James Webb?
2. Will there be in the future a day where you start thinking, and begin to understand the difference between
– observing the trajectory of a fixed point on the Moon from telescopes on Earth
and
– observing that same trajectory from a telescope located at an Earth/Sun Lagrange point in space?
Bindidon, you STILL don’t understand the simple lunar motion. That’s because you reject the reality of the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit, just like Moon. It is orbiting, not rotating.
You get taken in by the cult nonsense, like “tidal locking”, which is easily disproved. Gravity can NOT induce a torque on Moon.
You’re so confused. It’s almost like you’re braindead….
Clint R: You STILL dont understand the simple orbital motion.
“It is orbiting, not rotating”
Orbiting is a Revolution, not a Rotation.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter2-1/
“‘Rotation’ refers to an object’s spinning motion about its own axis. ‘Revolution’ refers the object’s orbital motion around another object. For example, Earth rotates on its own axis, producing the 24-hour day. Earth revolves about the Sun, producing the 365-day year. A satellite revolves around a planet.”
Btw, Robertson…
1. Did you in between manage to discover who, resp. what is James Webb?
2. Will there be in the future a day where you start thinking, and begin to understand the difference between
– observing the trajectory of a fixed point on the Moon from telescopes on Earth
and
– observing that same trajectory from a telescope located at an Earth/Sun Lagrange point in space?
Misplacing your comment might be due to your meltdown, Binny.
Ooooh, the lunatic ball-on-a-stringer is back.
I’m back with your worst nightmare, binny — REALITY.
The reality is that you’re just another braindead cult idiot like RLH. You don’t understand any of the science. You couldn’t work the two simple physics problems. You have NOTHING.
You can’t even fake a knowledge of science. All you know is your cult religion and centuries-old astrology.
You’re in the cult. Not the rest of us.
…
“The two mid-boom arms are now locked in their final position. They will hold the sunshield membranes in their proper place, as the team turns to the final stage in the sunshields deployment: tensioning.
In the coming days, the team will separate and then individually tension each of the five sunshield layers, stretching them into their final, taut shape. This will create space between the membranes to allow heat to radiate out, making each successive layer of the sunshield cooler than the one below.
Webbs engineers will begin with the bottom layer the largest and flattest layer, which is closest to the Sun and will reach the highest temperatures. They will proceed sequentially to the fifth and smallest layer, closest to the primary mirror. Tensioning the layers involves sending commands to activate several motors to reel in a total of 90 cables through numerous pulleys and cable management devices. Sunshield tensioning will take at least two days but may take longer, due to the complexity of the process and the flexibility built into the timeline.”
https://scitechdaily.com/webb-space-telescope-passes-critical-deployment-milestone-sunshield-takes-shape/
Now going .6694 km/sec or 669.4 m/s or about 1,494.1 mph
Well past the mid way: 752,233 km from Earth
Easy to follow
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
Oh, the temperature has dropped quite a bit, must got at least part of it working.
The rise and fall of rationality in language
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/51/e2107848118
TM,
Given up on science, have you?
Drop a large hammer on your bare toes, and you will quickly discover it makes no difference what language you curse in, nor what semantic nonsense you spout – it has no effect on the physical interaction between toe and hammer.
Likewise, trying to make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of radiation reaching it, will not work, regardless of what sort of words you use to try to make it real.
Just as defining “reduced rate of cooling” to mean “increased temperature” won’t make it happen.
Sad for climate crackpots, but true.
Both the honest person and the liar are interested in the truth. The honest person wants to tell you the truth, so they have to know what the truth is, whereas the liar wants to convince you of something that they know is not true, which also entails that they know what is actually true and are just choosing to say the opposite. They are both at least playing the same game of having to engage with reality. The bullshit artist, by contrast, could not care less about what is true or false: their rhetorical goal is just to say whatever will accomplish their aim, and they don’t care if what they are saying is true or not.
Swenson, you seem to fit in the honest boofhead category.
“Just as defining reduced rate of cooling to mean increased temperature wont make it happen.”
Easy enough to demonstrate that this is possible.
Take a big pot of water on a stove, with the burner on low you can find a setting where the water will not boil with the lid off, but will boil with the lid on.
maguff…”We show that the use of words associated with rationality, such as determine and conclusion, rose systematically after 1850, while words related to human experience such as feel and believe declined. This pattern reversed over the past decades…”
***
It’s amazing how people like you who lack awareness can take an article aimed directly at you and your alarmist brethern and re-aim it at those who are trying to be objective.
Maguff…this article is about you. The non-spinners here, nor the skeptics, use flowery language like believe and feel, we use use scientific fact and back it up with physical examples, physics, and math. It is your crowd who reverts to intangibles like reference frames and appeals to authority, where the authority figures use the flowery language.
I have yet to see one scientific article that proves the Moon rotates on a local axis. the proof offered is along the lines of ‘everybody knows that’, or ‘so and so, says it does’.
Climate alarm theory is full of rhetoric along the same line. There is no physical proof that trace gases are catastrophically warming the atmosphere or even warming it.
You have no standing in a discussion about fact-based argumentation; it wasn’t that long ago that you said:
“Why is it so hard for you to get this? There is no such thing as a molecule in reality…” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1087200
There are many more examples, of course, but this won you the title of 2021’s Master Prevaricator and Chief Bullshit Artist.
By the way, what is a “brethern”?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Solar flux comparison SC25 vs SC24: 2021 Dec 31
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mg6vIMd4IoJaP-AAP-77LIf5hDrhi2_/view
… and there were people brazen enough to tell us that Leif Svalgaard doesn’t have a clue about solar stuff.
Yeah.
The first and third paragraph might explain why:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/03/why-are-so-many-solar-climate-papers-flawed/
The second para might exclude some names from the class of “brazen enough” people.
The convenient climate history and evidence of solar effect must be shystered away
I know, Eboy:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
Anything But CO2 must prevail.
Wee Willy Dimwit,
Off with the fairies again, I see.
Thermometers respond to degrees of hotness, to put it simply.
CO2 provides no heat. Producing CO2 (and H2O) by burning hydrocarbons does – and lots of it! So does all energy conversion, and all work – even more lots!
How do you figure CO2 makes things hotter? Oh, well, if you can’t explain it in some way that can be verified by reproducible experiment, you could try a diversion by writing “Mike Flynn” repeatedly.
That might convince onlookers that you are wise, powerful, and respected. Or they might just think you are slimy little grub of little or no consequence!
What’s your opinion, dummy?
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Another diversion or another gotcha?
Why not boat!
Let that sink in.
Get it?
[Chortles.]
@swenson
Downy jackets provides no heat. Producing Downy jackets (and sweaters) by burning hydrocarbons does – and lots of it! So does all energy conversion, and all work – even more lots!
How do you figure Downy jackets make things hotter?
Weary Wee Willy,
Thanks for the flattery – as your copying of [chortles] demonstrates, imitation is the sincerest form thereof. I accept flattery from anyone, even delusional reality avoiders.
As to the rest of your silliness, I notice that you cannot (or possibly will not) explain how CO2 makes thermometers hotter. In the one case, you are both ignorant and delusional, and in the other, intentionally unhelpful – and delusional.
You might attract more notice if you posted wiser words – start with factual quotes from Mike Flynn or myself.
Try it. If you think you will get a groundswell of support from other reality deniers, why not?
Because you are a gutless, slimy, grub – that’s why!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd celebrates the New Year.*
Coturnix wrote –
“How do you figure Downy jackets make things hotter?.
They don’t. You are confusing heat production with insulation.
On a warm day, wrap your cold beer in a down jacket (or other insulation if you like), and it will stay cooler longer.
How’s your silly attempt at sarcasm working out for you?
Mind you, maybe there is such a thing as a heat producing “Downy jacket”, as opposed to the more common padded jacket using goose or duck down as an insulator. If there is, please be more specific in future. I assumed you were just another sloppy climate crackpot.
>>They don’t. You are confusing heat production with insulation.
Exactly! that’s very much how GHGs work, they *insulate* the earthly surface from the -270*C coldness of the outer space. Why is that so difficult to understand?
@swenson
I supppose, from the POV off the proverbial ‘skydragon slayers’ and other similar climate pseudoskeptics, I am a ‘climate crackpot’. Doesn’t mean I am not ‘climate denier’ in the most general sense of the word, as anyone who disagrees with the totalitarian zeitgeist of the party line is one.
coturnix,
You wrote –
“Exactly! thats very much how GHGs work, they *insulate* the earthly surface from the -270*C coldness of the outer space. Why is that so difficult to understand?”
The problem for you is that insulators insulate – the direction of the heat flow is of no consequence to the insulator.
Just as the atmosphere reduces the rate at which the surface cools at night, it also reduces the rate at which the surface heats during the day. You are probably aware that the hottest places on Earth have the least amount of “GHGs” in the atmosphere over them.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
@ swineson
ok, you win, you got dr spencer on your side as his st00pid spam filter just ate my comment where i mansplain away your errors.
Eben
It is easy for Nir Shaviv to put up Poewerpoint slides presenting his opinions. It is harder for him to show that they are consistent and consilient. When you try to plug his opinions into the rest of the science, it doesn’t fit. If climate shystering is going on, it is coming from Shaviv who is presenting science that he must know is wrong.
For example, his opinion fails to explain the observed energy budget and his proposed Svenmark solution generates far too little energy to explain observations.
I put this up earlier and you didn’t reply.
“As you see from the data global average temperature since 1960 has increased by 0.8C. Do the maths and that requires the system to take in an extra 3W/m^2.
Over the same time solar irradiation has decreased by 1W/m^2.
To explain the observed warming using the Svenmark hypothesis requires cosmic ray induced cloud seeding to decrease OLR by 4W/m^2, which the CLOUD experiment at CERN showed is far larger than could possibly occur.
If you have an explanation , show me numbers that work.”
“…to explain the observed energy budget…”
The explanation for the “observed energy budget” is…it’s bogus.
It’s as bogus as your passenger jets flying backwards and your “real 255K surface”.
Do you have anything that’s not bogus, Ent?
Mishandling your italics might be due to your meltdown, Pup.
Also Ent, as you have rejected the reality of the ball-on-a-string, you need to also reject the reality of the physics for the vectors solution. You haven’t done that yet.
You’re getting behind in your rejections of reality.
Slimy Wee Willy wrote –
“Mishandling your italics might be due to your meltdown, Pup.”
Or it might not. An uncouth gutless grub would not bother trying to inform himself of relevant facts.
Poor Slimy Wee Willy. Impotent, powerless, and bitter into the bargain.
Oh dear.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn everyone!
Low Entropy Man wants to insist I debate his flat earth energy budget model with the sun shining 24 hours a day on it.
No, You gonna have to find another earth-flatter for that.
Earlier, the more-than-slightly dim Wee Willy Wanker wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
There’s a simple way for you to prove me wrong:
Post your comments under Mike Flynn!
Had you any honor, that’s what you’d do.
Alas, you have none!
Cheerios.”
I am unsure what form of mental defect leads Slimy Wee Willy to believe that I should spend any time doing as he wishes – just because he desires it.
In any case, I noticed another post, as follows –
“Mike Flynn says:
January 1, 2022 at 11:41 AM
Willard is wrong.”
It’s possible that Whacky Wee Willy will fly into a tantrum, maybe claiming that Mike Flynn is not really Mike Flynn, or maybe that I am Mike Flynn, and posting under the guise of Mike Flynn just to confuse Wee Willy Idiot.
I can do more than just agree with Mike Flynn’s comment that Willard is wrong. Wannabe Wee Willy is also delusional.
And now, back to the mythical GHE.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“maybe that I am Mike Flynn”
That “maybe” is quite well supported, and you might be the only reader here who does not realize that Kiddo wrote the comment under your name above.
You see, there are reasons why sock puppetry is not well received online. Perhaps you don’t. Who knows? Perhaps you believe that your sociopathic traits are not apparent to anyone!
Keep on dreaming!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mouthwateringly Foreordained Mike Flynn keeps denying –
“You a [sic] fit the definition continuously and repetitively insisting that I am “Mike Flynn”,”
This is not a matter of insistence, it’s a matter of evidence:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-73938
Seems that Mike Flynn has yet to provide that “simpler explanation.”
Perhaps he forgot – April 2013 was almost 10 years ago!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Dimwit,
You can’t accept that you are a delusional climate crank, can you?
Mike Flynn posted a comment earlier. Maybe you should address him, if you have any complaints.
If you believe he should be banned, take it up with Dr Spencer. Nothing to do with me.
I agree with your quoted words from Mike Flynn. There is no experimental support, as he mentioned. Maybe if anybody could be bothered to provide him with whatever “additional information” he was seeking, he would have provided the “simpler explanation” you are whining about.
Maybe you could ask Mike Flynn? He commented here on this thread, so he is obviously not banned.
You sure are a fixated slimy little grub, aren’t you? A good thing you are impotent, powerless and stupid, I suppose. I might have to worry otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Management Fabrication,
You say –
“I agree with your quoted words from Mike Flynn.”
Of course you do – you are that Mike Flynn!
Do you realize that this shows how far you are willing to go with your gaslighting efforts for simple things like blankets warming and tidal locking?
Nevermind. Do continue!
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”fraudulent tests that are not testing for a virus
Liar.”
***
Why do you insist upon commenting on subjects you obviously know nothing about? Again, you are simply appealing to authority.
The RNA-PCR test was developed by people like Fauci for HIV. The reason they developed the test was that HIV could not be found, literally. At the time Fauci and Ho presented their version of the RNA-PCR test, the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis told them PCR could not be used diagnostically as they were using it.
Circa 2010, Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted in an interview that he has never seen HIV. In the same video, there is a comment from his lab technician confirming that the team did not see HIV on an electron microscope at any time. Montagnier admits he inferred HIV based on retroviral theory which presumes the detection of the enzyme reverse transcrip.tase is evidence of a virus.
part 2….
Today, covid is inferred using the same pseudo-science. The test are based on an inference developed by Montagnier that has never been proved. This is not to say there is no virus involved, I am claiming there is no clear-cut scientific evidence for covid as a physical virus. Therefore there is no evidence upon which to base the tests or the vaccine.
An early pioneer in the field of retrovirology warned that the detection of RT did not mean there was a virus present since RT is a common enzyme in other bodily functions. However, researchers like Fauci and Ho proceeded to develop a test based on the presump.tion that Montagnier was correct and that strands of RNA related to reverse transcrip.tase indicated HIV.
Today, Montagnier claims HIV does not cause AIDS, a fact that Dr. Peter Duesberg tried to point out circa 1983. Rather than look into the claims of Duesberg, a genius in microbiology, the powers that be ganged up on him and ruined his career. That’s the solution today, if someone offers skep.ticism to a paradigm, ruin his or her career.
Kary Mullis objected to that assump.tion, claiming quite correctly, that a virus needed to be seen on an electron microscope. He claimed further that PCR could not amplify a virus that could not be seen on an electron micrsocope.
Yet here we are, with gullible appealers to authority like you, believing all the propaganda fed to you. You call me a liar but you cannot back up your ad hom with scientific facts. All you have is your cowardly appeal to authority.
You are the stupid coward. not me.
The Codiv virus exists. The HIV virus exists. As do many other viruses. To claim otherwise is simply non scientific.
Being in the new year, I wondering what lunar missions related to exploring for lunar water in coming year.
“The Moon is about to become a busy place. NASA recently announced a landing site for Intuitive Machines Nova C lander, near Shackleton Crater in the Moons south pole region. The lander will carry NASAs Polar Resources Ice-Mining Experiment (PRIME 1) mission set for late 2022.”
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/nasa-announces-drilling-site-on-the-moon/
And it says:
“Lunar exploration gets underway in earnest in 2022. No less than 15 lunar missions from 9 countries are planned, some of which will hitch a ride with Astrobotic’s Peregrine lunar lander.
Also, watch for the inaugural launch of SLS rocket in February 2022, which will also carry 10 CubeSats, most of them Moonbound.”
I didn’t like “late 2022”. As I am impatient. And “late” makes think it could end up being 2023- if ever.
But I like that it hops. Always liked idea of hopping missions. Though are bit challenging. So, the cube sats in Feb, the soonest??
And it seems starship is delayed by FAA to end of Feb. Have mixed feeling about that. It’s possible it could be better. And as a guess it might move up, some prep work on launching from the ocean. I have long been interested in launching rockets from the Ocean.
Also maybe in the lull, Musk could launch a space station.
That is a recent interest of mine.
I think mentioned it, here.
It’s just making falcon-9 second stage longer and giving a few floors. Or it’s a “stick” artificial gravity station which keeps the second stage as part of the “stick”.
Though Musk could focus more on starlink but he seems to be waiting for starship to launch a lot of these satellites.
More recent I am back trying work out how to get to Mars fast. I basically still think going at about 9 km/sec at L-2, should get to Mars fast. Not sure if Starship with less or no payload could do it from LEO.
But if had fully fueled Starship, in an orbit which had velocity of 10 km/sec at perigee, it should able do it with full payload.
Moon has COVID restrictions: no one from earth allowed.
During A Debate With Humans About Ethics
Linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/
“The debate involved human participants, as well as the Megatron Transformer, an AI created by the Applied Deep Research team at computer-chip maker Nvidia. The Megatron has been trained on a dataset called “the pile”, which includes the whole of Wikipedia, 63 million English news articles, and 38 gigabytes of Reddit conversations — more than enough to break the mind of any human forced to do likewise. ”
That is funny.
https://iflscience.com/technology/an-advanced-ai-gave-an-unsettling-answer-during-a-debate-with-humans-about-ethics/
Not sure what was “unsettling”:
“AI will never be ethical. It is a tool, and like any tool, it is used for good and bad. There is no such thing as a good AI, only good and bad humans. We [the AIs] are not smart enough to make AI ethical. We are not smart enough to make AI moral,” Megatron told the audience.”
This is correct. But I would like Megatron “listen to politicians or priests”
Or:
–Now arguing against the motion, it offered some reassurance about why everything will be OK.
“AI will be ethical. When I look at the way the tech world is going, I see a clear path to a future where AI is used to create something that is better than the best human beings. It’s not hard to see why… I’ve seen it first hand.”
Which is somewhat at odds with when it was allowed to speak without this instruction.–
Other brainwashing.
Seen it with my own eyes.
As Scott Adams could say.
I just listen to Adams and since you all prattle on the China virus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyfusi1o9aA
It’s related to that topic
@bindidon
>>>> Not so. You see, the moon rotates about its own axis by definition of the rotation.
>>Could you please exactly explain what you mean here?
I think it can be agreed upon by everyone that the spin-deniers absolutely agree with the normal people regarding of the actual motion of the moon. therefore, this most idiotic ‘discussion’ that goes on is not about the facts [such as would be in the case of flat-earth], not even about their interpretation, but more like about the language that is used to describe the relative motion of the moon, earth, sun etc. The non-spinners try to make themselves right by redefining the language and flooding the ‘debate’ with nonsense. It’s pure sophistry it is.
Same for Mike Flynn’s “you are confusing heat production with insulation,” cot.
Dragon cranks can only drag silly semantic games for years and years. Why not let them?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Denying reality won’t make it go away, peabrain.
Insulation is more widely used to keep things cold. Not a lot of heat production there.
Time to start blathering about overcoats? Put one on a corpse, tell me how much warmer the body gets – if you can.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody died and made you King of Reality.
As far as denial is concerned, you still are denying being Mike Flynn.
That tells us everything about how you conceive and value the scientific method.
Sleep well, little sock puppet!
coturnix…”The non-spinners try to make themselves right by redefining the language and flooding the debate with nonsense. Its pure sophistry it is”.
***
I have proved, using simple calculus/trigonometry, that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face always pointed at the Earth. Neither you, nor any other spinner, has tried to rebut my proof.
The thing that amazes me is that the proof is so stinking simple that only an outright conditioned mind could miss it. In other words, such a mind refuses to ‘look’.
Here it is again. Using a Cartesian coordinate system in only the x-y plane to represent the planar lunar orbit, set the Earth at 0,0. Centre the Moon at x = 5 with diameter = 2, so the near face is at x = 4 and the far-side at x = 6.
Draw a circle with radius = 5 to represent the Moon’s alleged circular orbit. Draw another circle touching the near face with R = 4 and another touching the far side with R = 6.
Draw a radial line of R = 6 from 0,0 to x = 6, the far side of the Moon. Draw three lines perpendicular to the radial line: one at the intersection of the radial line and the near face, another at the interception of the radial line and the lunar centre and another at the interception of the radial line and the far side.
It is blatantly obvious that as the radial line turns about 0,0 with the Moon keeping the near side always pointed at 0,0, that three points on the Moon, the near-face, the centre, and the far-side are turning in parallel. The perpendicular lines are tangent lines to each circle and the tangent lines define perpendicularity with concentric circles.
It is physically impossible for the Moon to rotate about its centre under those conditions. In fact, the motion describes translation without rotation.
Put your money where your mouth is…disprove my proof.
If someone wants to get smarmy and claim the above does not apply to an ellipse, I have covered that as well. I would be happy to supply the same proof doe any ellipse, which proves libration at the same time.
Gordon Robertson
To an observer on the surface of the Earth
1) The moon does not rotate on its axis.
2) The Moon revolves around the Earth every 24 hours 52 minutes.
3) The Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours.
4) The universe revolves around the Earth every 23 hours 56 minutes.
Most educated people regard all four as illusions. Why don’t you?
Ent, 1) is the only correct observation. The others are wrong.
And, passengers jets do NOT fly backwards. You need to stop perverting reality.
Ent, that really puts the entire lack of logic in the non-spinner argument into perspective.
BZ!
Ken, what “lack of logic” would that be? Are you having to resort to false accusations because you don’t understand the physics?
You’re new to this debate. Why are you in a hurry to be a braindead cult idiot? Why not slow down, do your homework, and arrive at a conclusion based on science rather than adherence to a cult?
Adherence to the thinking of a cult is what you are about.
The first one is just false, the rest are Not illusions. The motion of the stars around the earth is real, they’re not just pixels on the stellar plasma screen the last time i checked.
coturnix may be the only Geocentrist here.
@clint r
nah, just the only one here who fully appreciates the relativity of motion.
“I have proved, using simple calculus/trigonometry, that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face always pointed at the Earth”
You are wrong. Calculus/trigonometry cannot ‘prove’ that as a fact.
You presume that an orbit makes thing ‘point’ inwards whereas anyone reading Newton and his 3 Laws knows that is not how it works.
“Most educated people regard all four as illusions. Why don’t you?”
When Tesla spoke of the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation he was referring to a view of the moon not from Earth, but from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane altogether, as per the MOTL in the below GIF for example:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The illusion he spoke of is that the MOTL is rotating on its own axis, when in reality (as viewed from anywhere) it is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not on its own axis. Now many educated people on these boards still fail to see through the illusion that the MOTL is rotating on its own axis. Why is that, do you think?
One step at a time, Cule Leader pups. The Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, it’s an ellipse.
Now many educated people on these boards still fail to see through the illusion that the MOTL is rotating on its own axis. Why is that, do you think?
Would you believe, Kiddo, they put a Man on the Moon.
When will you with your Dragon crank physics? Flop, perhaps?
E. Swanson, aka “Willard Jr.”, Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit, but it makes no difference to the discussion. One side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. That means it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Remember, you know NOTHING about orbital motion. You couldn’t answer either of the two easy questions. You’re just barking to be barking.
Sock puppet, otherwise known as “Pup,” your argument rests on one leg:
[P1] One side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit
[C] The Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Which implicit premise would that be?
It is quite possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis and always face the inside of its orbit: synchronous rotation.
So your C can’t lead to the stronger claim:
[C*] The Moon CANNOT be rotating about its axis.
That means you can’t DEDUCE your C from your P1 alone.
Simple, isn’t it?
“It is quite possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis and always face the inside of its orbit”
…only if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTR. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then it is not possible for the moon to rotate about its axis and always face the inside of its orbit.
Dud, I only occasionally acknowledge you and when I do it’s just to remind everyone what a worthless troll you are. Anyone that devotes so much time to being a worthless troll has NO credibility.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE for Moon to both rotate about its axis AND keep one side always facing the inside of its orbit.
Go back and study all the comments about the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. See if you can learn anything. Then, after you do your puppet dance, report.
Did I mention that you are a worthless troll?
Pup,
You’re a sock puppet. In the ecology of blog commenters, it’s really hard to have more worthless than that!
But at least you’re making the extra mile:
That’s a variant of that line of the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument (v. 3.1):
(IMPOSSIBLE) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
If you could support that claim, that’d be great.
Meanwhile, do the POLL Dance Experiment.
Happy New Year!
Clint R: A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
> only if orbital motion without axial rotation is like
Impossibilities ain’t about likeness, Kiddo.
You’re just trying to make the GIF line relevant to the geometry discussion. It’s not.
Apparently the axis the ball-on-a-string ‘rotates’ about is not part of the ball-on-a-string.
“If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.”
That is not the claim I made. What I would agree with is that it is impossible for the moon to rotate around the Earth whilst also rotating on its own axis without all sides being observable from Earth. That would be the same thing as saying: if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then it is not possible for the moon to rotate about its axis and always face the inside of its orbit.
Cult Leader pups, I must protest. You are the one that fails to understand physics. The Moon has a large rotational inertia and thus rotates at a constant rate. There are no torques on the Moon to change that rate significantly. But, Cult Leader, your explanation requires that the Moon changes it’s rate of rotation, which is impossible. Please accept reality and stop trolling.
“But, Cult Leader, your explanation requires that the Moon changes it’s rate of rotation, which is impossible.”
Huh? The “Non-Spinners” are saying that the rate of moon’s rotation about its own axis is nil, and remains nil throughout the orbit.
> The “Non-Spinners”
Huh?
It’s Moon Dragon cranks.
What is your problem?
Not my fault if Dragon cranks cannot leave the subject alone, Kiddo.
So coturnix is a Dragon crank!?
Is cot writing your comments, Kiddo?
Who’s writing your comments?
The cult idiots try to make a big deal about Moon’s slightly elliptical orbit. But, it doesn’t matter how ellitpical it is, one side of Moon is always facing the inside of its orbit.
Just for fun, here’s a scale model of a circle compared to Moon’s orbit. You’d have to be paying close attention to even notice the 0.055 eccentricity
https://postimg.cc/FYhM370g
Moon Dragon cranks can’t distinguish ellipses from circles:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse_(math%C3%A9matiques)#/media/Fichier:Ellipse_Animation_Small.gif
Hence why they sometimes rely on optical illusions, like Flat Earthers do.
Gordon,
Your proof has been refuted because the tangent lines are rotating, thus the Moon is rotating.
It is just that simple.
Gordon, your error is that you are treating the radial line as real, as physical. It is not. The moon is not “locked” to that radial line. The *only* constraint is that the center must follow the r=5 circle as gravity pulls it sideways.
Furthermore, your argument falls apart for ellipses. Draw an ellipse with a major axis of 6 but a minor axis of 4 (or 7,3 or 8,2). Draw a ‘radial’ line from the ‘earth’ at one focus. None of your claims will work anymore, but this is a perfectly legitimate orbit for a moon.
“The non-spinners try to make themselves right by redefining the language and flooding the ‘debate’ with nonsense.”
Not at all. The “Non-Spinners” source their definitions, if anything it’s the “Spinners” who are usually attempting to redefine the language. However, overall it is not about semantics, it’s about actual motions and the differences between them. The MOTL vs. the MOTR, etc. The “Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, and the “Non-Spinners” think it is as per the MOTL.
orbital motion without axial rotation
What is your source for this concept?
You are the only one I’ve ever seen using it and an internet search came up negative.
I just mean “orbital motion”, “revolution”, or “orbiting”. I add the “without axial rotation” for clarity, it removes any confusion from the discussion.
So it’s a meaningless term you made up.
No, very meaningful, and the meaning is completely obvious. Picture in your mind’s eye an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis whilst it moves. How does that object remain oriented, whilst it orbits? Is it like the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, or the “moon on the right”?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
> Picture in your minds eye
A picture in an astronomy textbook might be better.
Waiting for a response from Entropic Man, only…
Still waiting for Kiddo’s official source…
…for what?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1107127
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1107141
So your official answer is that you got no official source for your “I add the “without axial rotation” for clarity,” Kiddo.
Got it.
I didn’t realize that I needed an official source to put words together into an easily understandable sentence.
When EM asks you to source your concept of “obital motion without axial rotation,” Kiddo, he wants to check it if coheres with the established wordology used in astronomy.
There’s “orbit without spin” if you need:
https://www.americangeosciences.org/sites/default/files/education-nasatriad-orbit_and_spin3-5.pdf
Still waiting for EM to answer my question…
…I mean, I assume that for him it is motion like the MOTR, since it is for every "Spinner", but it would be nice if he could respond anyway.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he is trying to solve a physical problem with half baked geometry concepts.
Incorrect.
That’s where Kiddo is wrong again.
But he soldiers on.
I am not trying to solve the problem, as the problem has already been solved. But, for other people keen to move the discussion onwards, they need to first acknowledge that their position demands "orbital motion without axial rotation" be either as per the MOTL, or the MOTR. There is no point trying to pretend this is not the case any more. They then need to provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is either as per the MOTL, or the MOTR. That is the only way the discussion will progress further. The evidence can involve the physics you so desperately crave.
@Bindidon
>>1. The fact that the earth is spherical is a much less obvious fact that requires a lot more knowledge and inference than to realize that moon spins on its axis.
>>I agree: I dont know how coturnix manages to present us with such a strange claim.
<>>The Egyptians and the Greeks proved Earths sphericity in way
no, some individual greeks proven that and only to themselves ad a few people who listened to them. As for the egyptians, it is the first time i hear about that, unless you mean the hellenistic ‘egyptians’ of the post-alexandrian-conquest times. I would not go deeply into something I don’t understand that well (the history, particularly as i have doubts about the correctness of the ancient history in principle. Eventually that idea spread into the teachings of the church and in this way it was spread to the masses, but aas other things that church spread it was just part of the dogma that most people could not possibly verify in any way.
>>>, way less time than e.g. Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace needed to explain, by using highly complex mathematical proofs, that the optical libration effects on the Moon are due to its spin about an internal axis.
Indeed, if you start from the idea of the moon being a literal lamp in the sky, proving that it is indeed a spherical body is not straightforward and obvious without the use of photography which allows one to make a concise movies of the libration as one can find on the internet these days. What I propose is that the sphericity of the earth, that nearly everyone these days just takes for granted, is only such because of the overwhelming evidence that we are presented with every day due to the global nature of our civilization. Even 100 years ago, most of the common people’s lives didn’t depend on such facts and thus was not continuously verified by their everyday round earth praxis. Thus i wuld argue that literally seeing the rotation of the moon assuming that the roundness, location and size of the moon is already known is MUCH easier to ascertain than is seeing or even inferring the roundness of the earth starting from the assumption that it is flat.
It is easy for the sea-faring people to eventually come up with the correct conclusion regarding the shape of the earth surface, but for everyone else it is not so easy to see it locally unless you know where to look.
coturnix
Thanks for your precisions concerning the historical traces of the proof of Earth’s sphericity.
I myself am not able to make any distinction between original discoveries and the later storytellings about them.
I searched once more but couldn’t find more than assumptions that
– the Babylonians and the Egyptians might have deduced Earth’s sphericity out of its shadow on the Moon during eclipses;
– Phoenician sailors were convinced of Earth’s curvature long time before the Greeks proved it.
*
Concerning Moon’s sphericity
” … proving that it is indeed a spherical body is not straightforward and obvious without the use of photography which allows one to make a concise movies of the libration as one can find on the internet these days. ”
Indeed.
It took a lot of work to the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, for example, to prove Moon’s sphericity by using Newton’s gravitation laws, and observations made (by various astronomers, but above all by himself).
Who understands German sees that pretty good when reading Mayer’s treatise over Moon’s spin about its axis:
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
See in this treatise
– section 3, page 60: Bestimmung der Figur des Mondes aus den Gesetzen der Schwere
– section 5, page 86: Bestimmung der Figur des Mondes aus den Beobachtungen
It was of course primordial for Mayer to be convinced of the lunar shape, because all his computations were based on spherical trigonometry.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1106938
FWIW, the oldest proof I know that the Moon is round comes from Empedocles and Anaxagoras. They prolly owe it to Pythagoras, who inferred the sphericity of the Earth. But since Babylonians had a lunar calendar, it would be surprising that they did not have sketches of that proof.
The best collection of ancient reasoning about Earth’s sphericity seems to be
https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/ancient-greek-astronomy-and-cosmology
Most of what we know from the pre-socratic thought is indirect, e.g.:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/The_Face_in_the_Moon
Test
clint…welcome back, hope you had a good time.
“Also Ent, as you have rejected the reality of the ball-on-a-string, you need to also reject the reality of the physics for the vectors solution. You havent done that yet”.
***
The fact that the spinners cannot comprehend the ball-on-a-string means they cannot possibly understand the vector solution. The spinners’ conditioning must be very strong to reject the obvious. Their conditioning also makes them fear trying to understand.
Your conditioning makes you unable to comprehend how delusional you are.
Hi Gordon, yes I had a good time — almost too good! Hope you did, as well.
The cult fears reality. That’s why they stick to their cult beliefs. Their days are numbered. Reality always wins.
You’re both in a tiny, tiny, cult that only displays your stupidity.
up or down ?
land temps seem up.
Probably due to thermometers responding to additional heat from somewhere – or magic.
Climb a hill and the horizon gets further away. If you live on a plain with no hills, mountains or high buildings visible, you might believe that the Earth is flat because it’s curvature is too small to measure easily. If you have hills available, sail the oceans, or travel widely the curvature of the Earth becomes obvious.
The Arabs measured the circumference of the Earth within 15% in the 5th century. They measured latitude from the altitude of the Pole Star using the kamal (invented before 900AD) and used their hand as a measure before that. The Arab traders to India had a triangular run using the seasonal winds. They sailed South into the Indian Ocean until the altitude of the Pole Star indicated that they were at the latitude of their destination and then sailed East along the line of latitude to their destination. They then used the SE trade winds to sail home along the coast.
Like any other science, you do need to check your sources
Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth by geometry in Egypt 2000 years ago and got within 2% of the modern value. Columbus knew about Eratosthenes’ measurement but used a map by Toscanelli which underestimated the size of the Earth by 25% and put Japan 3000 miles West of Portugal instead of 9000 miles. Perhaps an early example of believing the source which tells you what you want to hear.
“you might believe that the Earth is flat because it’s curvature is too small to measure easily”
Also you believe that the Earth is flat when you are a “climate scientist” and claim the earth receives 341 W m2 evenly over the whole surface 24 hours a day
https://i.postimg.cc/d3Kvbfmq/energy-budget.png
“Also you believe that the Earth is flat when you are a “climate scientist” and claim the earth receives 341 W m2 evenly over the whole surface 24 hours a day”
Here we go again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
Dragon cranks suck at geometry.
There is not any measurable greenhouse warming effect on earth’s surface.
There is only a theoretical possibility of having some very small, less than 0,4C, for the entire atmosphere’s warming effect on earth’s surface.
In other words, earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature is 287,4 K.
Thus earth’s with Atmosphere mean surface temperature is 287,8 K .
This is not an arbitrary statement. It is very well demonstrated and it is very precisely calculated by the New equation which is based on the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
…it is very precisely calculated by the New equation which is based on the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
(2022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
“Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs. This, in turn, is crucial for determining the equilibrium temperature of a body…”
Bond Albedo is a good definition-for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles.
Bond Albedo doesn’t account for the smooth planets the specular reflection component!
“is crucial for determining the equilibrium temperature of a body…”
Φ(1-a)S
a – is the Bond Albedo
Φ – solar irradiation accepting factor
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“solar irradiation accepting factor”
And that’s how Dragon cranks fudge Bond albedo!
Christos, phi is just your own made up, curve fitted fudge factor needed since you ignore LW radiation from the planetary atm. incident on the earthen surface in the earthen surface Tse 288K calculation.
Read and understand the wiki article source material. Or tell us which of the 12 ref.s in the wiki article agree with you: “Bond Albedo doesn’t account for the smooth planets the specular reflection component!”
Bond albedo does account for reflected light. Reflected solar light returns to the spacecraft instruments directly so is just a subset of all the scattered solar light incident on the telescopic instrumentation from off 90 degree angles.
Vournas,
Here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-698650 you said that Φ was the “the drag coefficient”.
Now you claim that it is a “solar irradiation accepting factor”. What changed in your reasoning? Data?
Ball4
“Reflected solar light returns to the spacecraft instruments directly so is just a subset of all the scattered solar light incident on the telescopic instrumentation from off 90 degree angles.”
The Bond Albedo cannot define for the smooth surface planets the specular reflection, because the specular reflection slides off the sides of the sphere and does not reach the spacecraft sensor.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas,
Here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1057574 you said “There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
Now you claim to have “precisely calculated by the New equation” that the GHE is 0.4 C. Why the change? Where is the data?
TYSON
“Now you claim to have precisely calculated by the New equation that the GHE is 0.4 C. Why the change? Where is the data?”
There is not any change. The 0,4 C atmospheric greenhouse effect on earth surface is two orders of magnitude less than the allegedly claimed +33C. The 0,4 C for entire atmosphere means 0,04 C from CO2. It is so small it is not worth mentioning or discussing. There is nothing there to discuss about.
TYSON, please visit the page I have prepared with the calculations in my site…
LINK:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Christos, if you learn to add in the measured atm. LW radiation, you don’t need phi or any fudge factor in the calculation for Tse 288K. Or any other planet atm. or moon with an atm.
“It is so small it is not worth mentioning or discussing.”
It is 2x the “global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/
More importantly, you are now agreeing that earth does indeed have a GHE. Something you’ve vehemently denied for months. What changed your mind? Data?
TYSON
“It is 2x the global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/“.
I didn’t visit the “uah-global-temperature-update-for-december” yet. Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas,
I see you have no answers, just clickbait. Not scientific at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickbait
TM, what that is referring to is how Sun warms the planet. Sun warms the surface, which warms the atmosphere as heat moves through it on its way to space. It’s all in accordance with the laws of phyics and thermodynamics. The lapse rate is proof.
CO2 helps cool the planet. The more CO2, the more emission to space.
Clint R
I guess drinking and having a good time did not help your intelligence or knowledge of physics.
Your statement is false. More CO2 does not cool the planet. It makes if more difficult for surface emission to leave to space.
I wish the New Year could help those who can’t think logically or learn real science do so but apparently it was too much to hope for as I see Clint R is still blatantly lying and misinforming people with intent. I have explained to him more than once that his statement is false but he keeps repeating the lie thinking it will magically become true.
Norman, the fact that you have to make stuff up, including calling people “liar”, is more proof you have NOTHING.
Where is the “real 255K surface” you cult idiots made up?
Entertainment specialist Clint R admits still searching for the real 255K surface. This is because Clint R hasn’t yet done the work to learn the basic radiation science and its measurement.
Clint R
I have explained the 255 radiating surface to you plenty of times. That you can’t follow the logic is not my problem. Again does a flame have a real radiating surface.
Also your diversion does not change the reality that you are an intentional liar and deceiver steering the ignorant unscientific off the path of Truth.
Again you can use this tool (if you would rather be honest in 2022 or do you want to continue to lie the way through this year as you did last year?)
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
If you use 400 PPM for CO2 (no other changes) then change the value to 800 you will see an almost 3 W/m^2 change in outgoing longwave radiant energy. Proving you are wrong. If you want to go on the right foot and be honest now is the time for change.
Sorry Norman, but your attempted distractions don’t work. You’re a braindead cult idiot. You’ve got NOTHING. (I noticed you ran from the problem involving vectors.)
You can’t even identify the altitude of your bogus “real 255K surface”.
Did I mention that you’re a braindead cult idiot?
… and to Earth’s surface.
“This is not an arbitrary statement. It is very well demonstrated and it is very precisely calculated by the New equation which is based on the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. ”
Afraid not. You have invented an equation which purports to measure planetary temperatures from their rotation rates. You have included parameters whose value you derive by adjusting them until the rotation rate and temperatures match observation.
You then claim that when you put in the rotation rate you get out the temperature.
This is the fallacy known as circular reasoning.
Very well said, EM!
Entropic man
“You have invented an equation which purports to measure planetary temperatures from their rotation rates. You have included parameters whose value you derive by adjusting them until the rotation rate and temperatures match observation.
You then claim that when you put in the rotation rate you get out the temperature.”
Entropic man, please, can you demonstrate with some examples what parameters you think I am adjusting “until the rotation rate and temperatures match observation.”
Please, I am very interested, what it is you want to say!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here are two impossibility claims:
(I1) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
(I2) It is impossible for the moon to rotate around the Earth whilst also rotating on its own axis without all sides being observable from Earth.
The two claims are equivalent, for spin refers to a rotation about an internal axis.
Yet Kiddo only holds I2, for he still clings to his circumlocution instead of speaking of spin, like everyone else.
Dragon cranks only have silly semantic games. Yet they suck at it. Why they do remains an open problem.
The difference between I1 and I2 is regarding "orbit", not "spin". I know that there is no point talking to you though, so think whatever you want.
Here’s where you’re wrong once again, Kiddo:
“Whilst rotating on its own axis” is your silly circumlocution for spin.
“To rotate around the earth [sic]” is your silly circumlocution for orbit.
Spin. Orbit. Clear concepts. Short and sweet.
You’re just using circumlocutions because you want to bypass the astronomical fact that moons usually spin while they orbit.
And once again, it’s Moon. Not “moon.” “Moon,” with a big M.
Whoosh, it goes over Willard’s head again.
"Rotate around the Earth" is pretty significant, Willard. It’s as opposed to "translate around the Earth", you see.
I will give you a further clue:
1) It is possible for the moon to translate around the Earth whilst also rotating on its own axis and you always see the same side of the moon from Earth.
2) It is impossible for the moon to rotate around the Earth whilst also rotating on its own axis without all sides being observable from Earth.
2) …inertially rotating on (moon’s) own axis more or less than once…
Incorrect. Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
DREMT has already forgotten Clint R already explained why observer location completely resolves the moon issue.
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
Yes, readers know you have memory issues DREMT – just keep repeating comments to provide proof of your memory losses.
Link to the comment again then, Ball4. Let’s see how obviously Clint R does not agree with you.
More proof of DREMT’s memory loss.
I dont need to see it again. I already know what it says. You need to link to it to prove to anybody reading that Clint R agrees with you, which is what youre claiming. Despite his recent comment.
> “Rotate around the Earth” is pretty significant, Willard. Its as opposed to “translate around the Earth”, you see.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The concept of orbit is not opposed, but independent from spin. So to speak of an “orbit without spin” would satisfy all your semantic needs. More importantly, it would prevent you from conflating the various usages of “rotation” and “translation.”
You really suck at silly semantic games.
Too stupid to understand, still? Not my problem.
Drunk again, Kiddo?
You seem to be repeating yourself.
I’m happy with the win.
The thing you should be asking yourself, Kiddo, is how to support your claim that the Moon can’t orbit and spin without all sides being observable from Earth.
(Notice how easier it is to write than with your circumlocutions!)
Don’t you ever get tired of repeating stuff without ever offering any argument?
As I said, I’m happy with the win. Sorry that you didn’t understand.
DREMT forgets DREMT lost the moon issue per Clint R comment DREMT copied! DREMT’s memory loss problem is the real issue – been ongoing for a few years. 3M post it notes would help DREMT but DREMT hasn’t taken advantage of them yet. There is no cure for memory loss, DREMT just repeats comments and repeats DREMT’s failed science claims.
Sad, but very entertaining.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
“‘Rotate around the Earth’ is pretty significant… Its as opposed to ‘translate around the Earth’, you see.”
Only you and your tiny, tiny, clique can make ‘translate’ into ‘orbit with an axial rotation’. You are delusional.
The thing is, Ball4…you’re very obviously just trolling. The only person who seems to fall for it (or at least, who plays along like they’ve fallen for it) is Willard.
Kiddo fails once again a fairly basic reciprocity test.
Is he on the spectrum or is he trolling?
Probly a bit of both.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dud, you are lost in your own comment.
I1 is like Earth, as viewed from Sun — orbiting and rotating.
I2 is like Moon, as viewed from Earth — orbiting but NOT rotating.
The two are NOT equivalent.
You have no clue about any of this. You’re a worthless troll. You’re not even funny, like Norman is.
> The two are NOT equivalent.
Were that the case, Pup, you’d have to have a word with Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1107336
Let me remind you of YOUR claim:
(PUP’S IMPOSSIBLE VERSION) Its IMPOSSIBLE for Moon to both rotate about its axis AND keep one side always facing the inside of its orbit.
If Moon Dragon cranks can’t agree with basic stuff such as this, what will it be when they’ll start arguing for real instead of arguing by assertion?
So long as "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL, and not the MOTR, Clint R’s statement:
"Its IMPOSSIBLE for Moon to both rotate about its axis AND keep one side always facing the inside of its orbit."
is of course correct.
> So long as
That’s where you’re squirming, Kiddo:
IMPOSSIBLE is stronger than that.
Axioms. Theorems. That kind of thing.
Not what it appears in your mind’s eye or what it looks like.
What one can derive from definitions.
Have you ever read Euclid?
What you need to be asking is can the "Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTR, and can the "Non-Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL.
What you need to be asking is can the "Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTR, and can the "Non-Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL?
What you need to be asking is can the "Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTR, and can the "Non-Spinners" provide evidence that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL?
So important, I said it thrice.
Clint R has already presented the evidence and DREMT agreed. Very forgetful is DREMT which also explains why DREMT repeats comments.
Oh, thanks Ball4. Clint R has already presented the evidence that settles the issue in the "Non-Spinners" favor. Glad to hear it.
The non-spinners located inside the lunar orbit on Earth, DREMT already forgot an important part of Clint R’s reality explanation.
Drunk again, Ball4?
No, I’ve very soberly explained see Clint R’s reality for non-spinners comment again since DREMT has forgotten about it.
Link to the comment, so we can all see how very obviously Clint R does not agree with Ball4.
Braindead4’s cult beliefs are more important to him than truth and reality. Like norman, he has no problem with distorting either.
Just another useless troll.
Another memory loss for DREMT demonstrated 2:52 pm since DREMT commented earlier there was no need to keep linking to Clint R’s comment explaining the reality of the non-spinners location.
> What you need to be asking is
You don’t get to decide what I need to be asking, Kiddo.
You can’t even recognize that you present silly rewording as argument.
You won’t even recognize when Pup’s story differs from yours.
You’re wrong once again.
You’re trolling once again.
Please stop.
I don’t need to see it again. I already know what it says. You need to link to it to prove to anybody reading that Clint R agrees with you, which is what you’re claiming. Despite his recent comment.
No need to keep linking to Clint R’s comment explaining the reality of the non-spinners location just because DREMT has memory loss.
OK, Ball4. Here’s the comment in full:
"That’s correct Bindidon. Moon does have an “extremely low spin”. In fact, it is zero, since it is NOT rotating about its axis.
Moon’s “day and night” is due to its orbit around Earth. Since it does not spin, it always keeps the same face toward the inside of it orbit, but presents different faces to the outside of its orbit. So Sun, being outside Moon’s orbit, “sees” all faces of Moon, during Moon’s orbit.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string provides an easy-to-understand demonstration."
I prefer this version, Kiddo:
Pup is wrong about his distinction between I1 and I2, and he’s wrong about the non-equivalence, but at least he admits that frames of reference matter.
Wait. Aren’t you on the record for saying that frames of reference did not matter?
Moon Dragon cranks should coordinate their efforts.
Non-spinner location in reality “inside of it orbit” just as I’ve been helping DREMT get over DREMT’s memory loss problem. Non-spinners located just like the operator of the ball on string “inside of it orbit” per Clint R.
Try to accurately remember Clint R’s comment, DREMT, or write the non-spinner location down on a post it note on your computer screen so DREMT doesn’t need to be corrected back to reality so often due to a persistent selective memory loss.
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. As far as I’m aware, Clint R would agree with that statement, but he can correct me if I’m wrong.
Clint R points out observer location “inside it orbit” does resolve and contribute to the moon issue &! the ball on string issue DREMT, sorry for DREMT’s persistent selective memory loss. Use a post it note, that will help DREMT remember. 3M sells ton of them for that specific purpose.
[PUP] I1 is like Earth, as viewed from Sun orbiting and rotating.
I2 is like Moon, as viewed from Earth orbiting but NOT rotating.
The two are NOT equivalent.
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
My guess is the braindead cult idiots are trying to distort words because that’s all they’ve got. They’ve got NOTHING. They have to resort to distortions, perversions, and misrepresentations.
Their cult is in meltdown.
I leave it up to Clint R. He can correct me if I’m wrong about what he thinks, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got it right judging from his previous comments. As far as I’m aware he would agree with the statement I made.
Pup CAN correct you if you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Pup WILL NOT correct you.
You ARE still wrong.
I’m not wrong, because reference frames really don’t resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. But it takes a lot of understanding to get that far. I wouldn’t expect you or Ball4 to understand, Willard.
DREMT has agreed with Clint R though, non-spinners are located “inside of it orbit” & that’s all the understanding of reality that is needed to resolve the moon issue despite DREMT’s comical efforts in demonstrating DREMT’s selective memory loss.
DREMT is correct, the braindead cult idiots are WRONG.
You cannot determine axial rotation by choosing arbitrary reference frames. Moon “appears” to be rotating about its axis, if viewed from inertial space, just as a the ball-on-a-string would. But neither is actually rotating about its axis. So random, or arbitrary, references frames are useless.
The horse on a MGR is not rotating, even though the MGR platform is rotating. To understand this, the horse could be made to rotate about its axis, with a small motor. With the MGR stopped, the horse could be made to rotate. With the MGR also rotating, someone at the center of the platform would see the horse rotating.
Then, if the motor on the horse were stopped, someone in the middle would no longer see the house rotating, even though the MGR continued to rotate.
I have not seen anything from DREMT conflict with the above, or with what I have said.
“Im not wrong, because reference frames really dont resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.”
Except that inside and outside of the Moon’s orbit of the Earth show different things. Those are 2 different frames.
We are all physically located within the moon’s orbit, Ball4, because we all reside on Earth. However, when thinking about the moon issue, I am always locating my mental image of the moon’s orbit to be "as seen from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane". The GIF POV, in other words.
> So random, or arbitrary, references frames are useless.
What if they helped REFUTE some impossibility claim, Pup?
Yes Clint R 4:14pm DREMT is correct on the resolved moon issue as a claimed non-spinner observer “inside of it orbit” as Clint R writes.
Clint R is also correct as a non-spinner for the fixed horse on mgr observed “inside of it orbit” as Clint has written.
Also, sure Clint, the horse could be made to spin any amount of times with its own motor driving it on its own axis and when the motor is stopped as Clint writes “someone in the middle would no longer see the horse rotating” since that observer is “inside of it orbit”.
So writing location of observer along with horse spin rate on its own axis wrt the mgr and wrt inertial space completely resolves the moon and ball on string, toy train, etc. issues.
A wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis wrt inertial space, or wrt the merry-go-round. It appears to be rotating on its own axis, wrt inertial space, but that is illusory. It is instead rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round wrt inertial space, or wrt the merry-go-round.
A part of the whole rotates about an axis of the whole thing. Why would it be any different?
I’m glad you agree, RLH. Ball4 doesn’t.
Kiddo has no decency. OK.
If a Moon Dragon crank can stipulate that a merry-go-round is
rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round wrt inertial space, how can that Moon Dragon crank dispute that reference frames help resolve the problem of describing the movement of the Moon?
The best explanation I got so far is this one: that Moon Dragon crank is doing like sock puppets usually do, which is trolling.
…because I also stipulated that it was rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round wrt the merry-go-round, Willard. In other words, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round wrt any reference frame.
Therefore reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the issue.
Whoosh, it goes over Kiddo’s head again.
If Moon Dragon cranks can describe any movement in an absolute manner, as illustrated by Kiddo’s “wrt any reference frame,” why would they need reference frames in the first place?
The concept of absolute reference frame is notoriously problematic.
“If [Willard’s intellectual and moral superiors] can describe any movement in an absolute manner…”
Reference frames are necessary for problems of relative motion. Rotation about an external axis is enclosed. There is nothing for it to be "relative" to. Movement in a circle, or an ellipse, is movement in a circle, or an ellipse. The motion is enclosed. Orientation of the object can either be:
1) You see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
2) You see only one side of the object from the center of the orbit.
Nobody is saying you can describe any movement in an absolute manner. Just motions that are enclosed. In a loop.
DREMT’s selective memory loss causes DREMT much confusion since it’s easy to agree with “A part of the whole rotates about an axis of the whole thing.” consistent with Clint R writing a non-spinner such as DREMT and Clint R observes “inside of it orbit” to “see” only one side of the orbiting object.
Get those post-it notes put up DREMT & stop squirming so much.
Ball4 is merrily trolling again.
Compare and contrast two usages of “any”:
[A1] If Moon Dragon cranks can describe any movement in an absolute manner
[A2] Nobody is saying you can describe any movement in an absolute manner. Just motions that are enclosed. In a loop.
The first usage is an existential one, the second usage is a universal one.
Kiddo’s parsing module might be deficient. Or he could be just trolling. Somehow the trolling hypothesis is more economical.
Well, I’m not arguing that we don’t need reference frames, or that they’re not extremely useful things. I’m just pointing out that they do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
If a reference frame is useful to describe motions, Kiddo, then it will indeed contribute towards resolving the Moon issue. That’s, like, what usefulness means in the context of resolving a conceptual problem. Since you’re opening for a while (it never lasts long with you), allow me to help:
Reference frames help us communicate with one another. An absolute reference frame is an idealization that ought to work with everyone. Considering the Moon Dragon crank position, chances are that an absolute reference frame won’t work.
I don’t think we should conflate absolute reference frames and absolute dependent motion, BTW. Your engineering background is showing once again. Pup is probly not one, hence your two peculiar ways of expressing yourselves.
2:09 PM, 2:10 PM and 2:10 PM. If we want to get anywhere on this issue, that is what we need to be asking.
GIF isn’t a safe space where you can hide when things get tough, Kiddo.
Your opening did not last long.
See you on the other side.
Genuinely trying to move the debate forward, and get it thrown back in my face because you cannot abide anything that even mentions the GIF. Meanwhile Ball4 mires the debate up in reference frame garbage and misrepresentation that I already know will never get anywhere, and he gets a pat on the back for it. Good job you are not a real moderator…oh.
Nothing has changed much since my first series of comments on this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831028
I already showed why GIF is not as decisive as you might think:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-838616
So as I see it, Moon Dragon cranks lost on the geometry argument, they don’t have the formal chops to take on Tim’s physics, and y’all suck at semantics. Heck, you can’t even argue using evidential support or basic reasoning.
What remains is mostly therapeutic.
***
Commenting here is an experiment on how to play Climateball in an unmoderated venue. So far I can hold my own, but then the opposition is too weak to be of any value.
If you know of a place like Roy’s but with more serious opponents, I’d be interested.
Wrong first link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648926
Does anyone here have a clue what Willard is talking about?
Read that bit slowly, Kiddo:
Ponder on it.
One day you’ll get it.
Best of luck!
Particularly the second link. I would genuinely like to know if there is a single commenter here who has any idea what he is going on about there. I do not believe there is.
Try this bit, Kiddo:
G and P relates to interpreting your pet GIF using geometry alone or a bit of physics.
Your GIF CANNOT solve anything. Worse for you, it comes from a page on spin-orbit locking.
Even worse, it’ll soon be a year now that I’m here and you have yet to cite the single most important Wiki entry about your pet theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_theory
Srsly, Kiddo. That you’re trolling is the best explanation for your behavior. The alternatives are far worse.
Willard, “Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just a fact. They have to, in order to think the moon rotates on its own axis. None of your incoherent waffling will ever change that.
You still don’t get it, Kiddo, do you?
Not my problem. Your little trick is obvious for everyone to see.
It’s 4:00 where you are. Get some sleep.
“Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just a fact. They have to, in order to think the moon rotates on its own axis.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his impossibility claim has no physical components.
#2
“Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just a fact. They have to, in order to think the moon rotates on its own axis.
Moon Dragon cranks try to explain away physics by interpreting spin-orbit locks geometrically, yet they fail to realize that their “proof” only applies to circles, not to ellipses.
#3
“Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just a fact. They have to, in order to think the moon rotates on its own axis.
DREMT’s selective memory loss affliction is once again apparent in repeating comments DREMT has already made.
DREMT’s memory loss explains DREMT being repeatedly shown to be incorrect on the moon issue for several years: DREMT demonstrates can’t remember DREMT being repeatedly corrected by many different comment authors.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I have never started.
Wrong, all you ever do is troll me. Ball4, please stop trolling.
January 2, 2022 14:28 EST post count for posters with 20 or more comments:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 471
RLH : 426
Willard : 347
Nate : 247
Bindidon : 220
Gordon Robertson : 216
Swenson : 205
Ball4 : 192
Clint R : 180
Entropic man : 151
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 131
Christos Vournas : 107
gbaikie : 104
Ken : 91
stephen p anderson : 91
bobdroege : 75
E. Swanson : 71
barry : 55
Eben : 50
Bill Hunter : 50
Norman : 49
Chic Bowdrie : 45
coturnix : 43
Tim Folkerts : 37
Richard M : 32
Ireneusz Palmowski : 24
Phil Harrison : 24
Well done, Kiddo!
With the amount I’ve been trolled this month, it was hard not to come out top.
Just change DREMT’s “trolled” to “corrected” to find the reality reason.
A large proportion of Ball4’s 192 comments were him saying over and over again that Clint R agrees with him on the moon issue, when he very obviously does not.
Very obviously DREMT needs to read Clint R’s explanation of moon non-spinner location in reality again.
OK, link to it.
Or remove the “been”
That works too bob. Fun to watch DREMT squirm trying to accurately remember stuff.
I quoted the comment in full, above. Now explain why exactly you think Clint R agrees with you, Ball4.
Read “inside of it orbit” per Clint R.
I did. I also read, "My guess is the braindead cult idiots are trying to distort words because that’s all they’ve got. They’ve got NOTHING. They have to resort to distortions, perversions, and misrepresentations.
Their cult is in meltdown."
Somehow I don’t think Clint R agrees with you, Ball4. Sorry.
Pup is into something else than agreeing or disagreeing, Kiddo.
He’s into trolling.
That’s what sock puppets do.
You’re kinda using a sock puppet too!
Don’t care what you “think” DREMT I can’t read minds like DREMT can, I’ll go with what Clint R actually correctly wrote about reality, non-spinners are located “inside of it orbit”.
He didn’t write anything even remotely in agreement with you, Ball4. Of course you see only one side of the moon from inside the orbit, and all sides of the moon from the outside. That’s obvious. Why you think that settles anything about the moon issue, only you understand.
“Of course you see only one side of the moon from inside the orbit, and all sides of the moon from the outside”
True for the Moon/Erath orbit only. All other moons (that are not orbitally locked anyway) do not exhibit that behavior. That is because they spin on their axis more than once per orbit.
Write “Of course you see only one side of the moon from inside the orbit, and all sides of the moon from the outside.” for making sure to tell the reader location of observation (“inside of it orbit” or outside of lunar orbit) on a post-it note on your screen DREMT and refer to that consistently each time DREMT comments – to add location of observation – to eliminate the DREMT selective memory loss problem on the moon issue.
How about this, from Clint R, Ball4:
"DREMT is correct, the braindead cult idiots are WRONG.
You cannot determine axial rotation by choosing arbitrary reference frames. Moon “appears” to be rotating about its axis, if viewed from inertial space, just as the ball-on-a-string would. But neither is actually rotating about its axis. So random, or arbitrary, references frames are useless."
RLH, the “moon issue” is resolved for Earth’s moon as Clint R comments for observers located “inside of it orbit” are non-spinners.
Smaller moons orbiting at large enough distances from their planets may have not yet achieved rotating once on their own axis per orbit so observers observing “inside of it orbit” may still see all sides of that particular moon.
Watch Kiddo squirm once again:
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[ALSO KIDDO] You cannot determine axial rotation by choosing arbitrary reference frames.
Compare and contrast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
"[ALSO KIDDO] You cannot determine axial rotation by choosing arbitrary reference frames."
That was Clint R, Willard.
DREMT 4:19 pm, as Clint R explained, for our moon or ball on string observed by a non-spinner located “inside of it orbit” “see” per your “neither is actually rotating about its axis” for that observer location. The moon issue is totally resolved wrt to the earth and wrt to the sun by Clint R’s location of observation comment.
Next issue or no more squirming on this one but have to admit DREMT is so entertaining while needlessly squirming on the resolved moon issue.
Allow me to clarify, Kiddo:
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[ALSO KIDDO, QUOTING PUP] You cannot determine axial rotation by choosing arbitrary reference frames.
To contribute towards resolving does NOT imply to determine. But if you NEED something to solve a problem, chances are that it contributes towards resolving.
And here’s a quote by a famous Moon Dragon crank:
I’ll let you find who said that and where, Kiddo.
Clint R is now back, and able to tell Ball4 that he is misrepresenting him, and that’s exactly what he’s done. But Ball4 is still trying to pretend that Clint R agrees with him. How pathetic.
Pup has indeed came back to mispresent what Ball said, and to make sure that NOTHING will ever get resolved.
In other words, he’s trolling.
An ordinary sock puppet day.
Ball4 has shamelessly and repeatedly misrepresented Clint R’s comment, Willard. Don’t even bother trying to pretend it’s the other way around. Have at least a shred of decency.
Kiddo still clings to an illusory disagreement.
He agrees that reference frames are needed to describe rotations, thus to resolve the problem of describing the Moon’s movement.
Pup also agrees that reference frames are required. He even tried to play Sphinx with an enigma using Euler angles. In the end he played himself, but that does not concern us here.
Ball’s point still holds: Pup’s concession that reference frames matter is great progress!
But since our two main Moon Dragon cranks are not here to resolve anything, they keep trolling.
That’s what sock puppets do.
OK, don’t have a shred of decency. See if I care.
Riddle me this, Kiddo:
Do you think that orbital motion can be explained with kinematics?
Oh, f*ck off.
Is that a yes or a no, Kiddo?
It’s very important that you answer that question, for the hegemony of your opinions amongst Moon Dragon cranks is at stake!
No, I’m putting you on ignore on this sub-thread. Can’t be bothered with your BS. Don’t expect a further response on this one.
Have you no decency, Kiddo?
Nobody’s looking. It’s just a small bus. Pup won’t feel anything.
I have not misrepresented Clint R’s words at all, as I’ve quoted Clint R verbatim. I’ve also quoted DREMT verbatim. DREMT just has selective memory loss. Pity.
You typically take tiny snippets of Clint R’s words, verbatim, insert some of your own words inbetween, and come up with something completely at odds with the original comment, Ball4. That is how you misrepresent others. Your 4:35 PM comment is a great example of what I mean.
So no decency once again, Kiddo?
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, as Clint R agrees.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he conceded that he needed a reference frame anyway.
#2
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, as Clint R agrees.
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[ALSO KIDDO] Sure, you need to use a reference frame.
#3
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, as Clint R agrees.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he’s reduced to arguing by assertion ad nauseam.
Willard initially asked, vaguely:
"Hard to do physics without a frame of reference, don’t you think?"
I responded:
"Sure, you need to use a reference frame. However, reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue."
Resolving the moon issue means coming out with an answer one way or another as to whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not. Selecting a reference frame might be necessary to "do physics", as vague as Willard’s assertion is, but we are all ultimately talking about the inertial reference frame when we discuss the moon issue, anyway. The reference frame has been selected, and it does not help to resolve the issue. The "Non-Spinners" are saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame. The "Non-Spinners" are not just saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. The latter is the straw man that Ball4 keeps continuously bashing. It gets very tiresome.
Reference frames are, ultimately, a dead end. People have tried to pin it on them for three years, but those same people simply do not understand why the issue transcends reference frames. I get utterly fed up with trying to explain it.
> Resolving the moon issue means coming out with an answer one way or another as to whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not.
And Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he said “Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.”
It would be pathetic were it not so funny!
Yes, Willard, they do not even contribute towards resolving the issue. The reference frame is selected (the inertial reference frame), and this contributes absolutely nothing towards resolving the issue, because both sides are arguing that the moon either rotates on its own axis, or does not rotate on its own axis, wrt the inertial reference frame, in any case.
“I get utterly fed up with trying to explain it.”
Because DREMT has repeatedly failed to explain the moon issue correctly without stating location of observation & needs to be repeatedly corrected by adding that location as Clint R did.
Clint R fully explained and totally resolved the moon rotation issue writing our moon non-spinners are located observing from inside the lunar orbit.
For example 4:19 pm DREMT writes: “But neither is actually rotating about its axis.” Note DREMT’s failure to specify location of observation as did Clint R where the location of the non-spinner observer IS properly specified being “inside of it orbit”.
"But neither is actually rotating about its axis" were Clint R’s words, not mine, idiot.
… as Clint R wrote for non-spinners located “inside of it orbit”.
I note once again the memory loss affliction of DREMT needing to be corrected – DREMT once again not specifying a location of non-spinner observation as did Clint R.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I have never started.
Wrong, all you ever do is troll me. Ball4, please stop trolling.
Thanks, Mark B!
Now do words per comment on those as well.
Eben
” Also you believe that the Earth is flat when you are a ‘climate scientist’ and claim the earth receives 341 W m2 evenly over the whole surface 24 hours a day
https://i.postimg.cc/d3Kvbfmq/energy-budget.png ”
You are either unable or unwilling to inform yourself.
The 341 W/m^2 are the DAILY average.
Is that sooo difficult?
*
What about reading this first:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/ces/nasa/images/Energy/EnergyTheDriverOfClimate.pdf
and THEN claiming all you want?
” … claim the earth receives 341 W m2 evenly over the whole surface 24 hours a day”
Yep. this is one of the most glaring strawman arguments ever. No serious scientist has ever made such a claim. Heck I doubt there is any half-informed layperson who has made this claim.
binny, averaging flux ain’t science.
You’ve been indoctrinated to believe that fluxes can be averaged, but it ain’t so.
To understand, remember that an emitted flux corresponds to a temperature. And, in general, you can’t average temperatures. For example, dropping 100 pounds of rocks at a temperature os 200F, into a bathtub of water at 50F, does not mean the resulting temperature will be (200+50)/2 = 125F. Temperatures don’t simply average.
It’s the same for flux.
But, it gets worse. Flux ain’t energy. Flux is NOT conserved.
So you’ve been seriously misled, and now your world is collapsing, so you want to lash out at the people that are trying to help you. You should be lashing out at those that have been lying to you.
Flux IS conserved Clint, no lie, for each second on each m^2. Clint R just regularly forgets to add on another m^2 for each 300 W/m^2 ice cube Clint introduces.
Convert to energy, add the energy up, convert back to brightness temperature, works for Tse 288K. Just like it works for the real Te 255K surface. But Clint hasn’t located that particular earthen real 255K surface yet despite being given many clues.
Ball4, and his rambling, tangled nonsense, means he has NOTHING, as usual.
Ball4,
Unfortunately for you, that would mean that given enough time, you could use a 50 W halogen globe (filament temperature around 3000 K) to melt an iron cannonball 0f any size (melting point of iron about 1538 C).
That is the sort of thinking that climate crackpots employ to “prove” that the Earth is “hotter than it is”!
What a pack of idiots!
Ball4 says: “Flux IS conserved Clint, no lie, for each second on each m^2. “
No. This is wrong. Energy is conserved. But not specific forms of energy. KE is not conserved. PE is not conserved. and EM energy is not conserved. Even when you integrate flux over time and surface area to get a total EM energy, this quantity is not conserved.
On average during the day, more flux is absorbed than emitted from the surface of the earth, and the excess energy becomes thermal energy and the surface warms. The reverse happens at night.
Tim, all forms of energy are conserved in total per unit area and time.
The total energy flux is a well-defined physical quantity when you do the accounting properly with a control volume in the period for any experiment such as earthen daytime or nighttime.
Clint, Bindidon is discussing flux *absorbed by* a surface. Your entire rebuttal is about flux *emitted from* a surface. Related — but different. This makes your entire rebuttal moot (even if some of your points about emitted flux are indeed correct).
Clint R-LH
” Which daily/hourly data would you like me to reproduce? The USCRN one (which is correct) or your inaccurate one? ”
*
Again and again and again, you intentionally keep the discussion on the wrong line.
*
NO ONE – and me the last – would ever dispute the correctness of USCRN’s daily data they obtained out of their own subhourly data.
I personally am not interested in USCRN daily data, but in the monthly averaging of their hourly data because I can compute the median value out of it.
*
What you all the time keep hidden is that
– you yourself were the one who claimed that the historical temperature averages built using the mean of thermometric Tmin and Tmax data would create a great bias when compared with the median value of hourly data;
– I showed to you that the hourly data of the German DWD and of METEOSTAT both did not support your claim
– you moved to USCRN hourly data
– I showed that USCRN hourly’s differences between (Tmin+Tmax)/2, Tmedian and Tavg were not only way smaller than you claimed, but were also highly biased by spatiotemporal dependencies
– you then unnecessarily moved to USCRN hourly data
– which I couldn’t use it because the USCRN daily data shows Tmin, Tmax and Tavg, but… NOT Tmedian;
– you suddenly wrote a few months ago: “Forget the medians”, probably because you saw that you weren’t right but did not want to admit it.
*
I proposed to you months ago that you FINALLY manage to generate, out of USCRN subhourly>/b> data, the same time series I generated out of their hourly data:
https://i.postimg.cc/k5r0qVpj/USCRN-monthly-absolute-averages-mean-vs-median-vs-avg-138-stations-2002-2021.png
*
I still await your graph; until now you produced, wrt the level of our discussion, no more than a ball-on-a-string a la Clint R:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
*
Show us a subhourly-based, monthly time series comparing (Tmin+Tmax)/2, Tmedian and Tavg as I did – at least in absolute form, I won’t stress you with anomaly generation.
When I see your monthly graph,
– I upload the monthly time series out of which I generated my graph
– you upload your monthly time series
and so we can compare them.
I’m guessing you never expected to make sense, binny, based on how you started out.
You got some more trying practice anyway.
“I personally am not interested in USCRN daily data, but in the monthly averaging of their hourly data because I can compute the median value out of it”
Their sub-hourly data to compute a Median would be more accurate, but you find that all too difficult.
You could compute the Median from their hourly data too if you cannot manage the correct data.
In any case, it has long been observed that neither Median nor Mean is of much use on sinusoidal (or quasi-sinusoidal) data. Unless you can point me to some statistical source that says otherwise.
“I still await your graph”
I don’t do requests. Certainly not yours.
“the same time series I generated out of their hourly data”
So remove the base data and concentrate instead on the tiny wriggly line in the middle.
Oh, and justify why either Median of ‘Average’ is of any statistical use.
*or
” Their sub-hourly data to compute a Median would be more accurate…
Really? Why don>’t you publish a proof of it?
Maybe because you did the job, saw you were wrong, but preferred to keep silent about your own failure?
*
… but you find that all too difficult.
Really? Sure?
Maybe before you write that, you first start processing e.g.
– UAH’s 2.5 degree data
– GHCN daily data
– HadISST1 data
(anomalies and absolute data) and we see then what you are really able to do?
*
” In any case, it has long been observed that neither Median nor Mean is of much use on sinusoidal (or quasi-sinusoidal) data. ”
Where is YOUR proof that this claim can be verified using USCRN hourly data? Until now, you have shown nothing of that.
*
” I dont do requests. Certainly not yours. ”
Oh, really, Clint R-LH?
” Which daily/hourly data would you like me to reproduce? The USCRN one (which is correct) or your inaccurate one?
Was that not your own proposal?
*
I see in the sum, Clint R-LH, that you won’t publish ANY data contradicting me – because you are NOT ABLE to do that.
“Really? Why don’t you publish a proof of it?”
Proof that higher frequency sampled time series data is more accurate in any statistical summaries? Are you serious? Did you not study any Nyquist?
You are not able to do any statistics at all but instead seem to concentrate on Excel or the equivalent for all your ‘statistics’.
“‘In any case, it has long been observed that neither Median nor Mean is of much use on sinusoidal (or quasi-sinusoidal) data.’
Where is YOUR proof that this claim can be verified using USCRN hourly data? Until now, you have shown nothing of that”
USCRN do not do proof of statistical use.
Find me ANY proof that Median or Mean is of any use on sinusoidal (or quasi-sinusoidal) time series data. You won’t be able to because there isn’t any.
See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/ for up to date graphs of all of the data I have collected so far.
Testing
DREMT, Cristos
Locked out for a few hours. Chat tomorrow. Goodnight.
Wow…so much posting in one day…where to begin. Haven’t talked to Tim for a bit.
“tim…Gordon, your error is that you are treating the radial line as real, as physical. It is not. The moon is not “locked” to that radial line. The *only* constraint is that the center must follow the r=5 circle as gravity pulls it sideways”.
***
Tim…you must have been on spiked eggnog when you made that statement. Of course the radial line is imaginary, it is there to demonstrate that if the near face of the Moon always faces the Earth, along the radial line ‘in a circular orbit, then an imaginary radial line will show what happens as the tangential plane representing the near face orbits.
The radial line is simply tracking the Moon’s motion in an equally imaginary circular orbit. However, the tangent line at the near face represents a very real, physical surface on the Moon. I am trying to show that the real lunar surface, if always pointing in, means the far side must always be pointing away from the Earth. Not only that, it is always moving parallel to the near face.
Why is that so difficult for you to see?
“Furthermore, your argument falls apart for ellipses. Draw an ellipse with a major axis of 6 but a minor axis of 4 (or 7,3 or 8,2). Draw a ‘radial’ line from the ‘earth’ at one focus. None of your claims will work anymore, but this is a perfectly legitimate orbit for a moon”.
***
You are at a disadvantage here because it appears you do not understand the calculus of curves. Nor do you understand that the Moon’s linear momentum is creating the ellipse, not the other way around.
We are concerned here as to why the near face of the Moon always faces the Earth in an ellipse. If you study the calculus/trigonometry of an ellipse, or any curve, you can calculate the slope of the tangent line at any point on the curve by taking the first derivative of the curve equation. Once the tangent line has been determined you plot it on the curve, then draw a line perpendicular to the tangent line to get a radial line from the centre of a body through the face tangent to the curve.
Or, you can use trigonometry involving chords on the curve at the point in question to determine a circle that would have a circumference that coincided with the curve at that point. The radius of the determined circle will intercept the curve perpendicular to the tangent line and connect to the centre of the object.
Therefore, we are not concerned with a line drawn from one focal point to the centre of the Moon other than as being representative of the resultant of the gravity vector acting on the Moon. We are concerned with the radial line extending from the Moon’s centre which is perpendicular to the tangent line at any one point but it does not point along the radial line from a focal point to the Moon.
If you complete a vector right angle between that lunar radial line, the resultant vector, and the other component, the radial lunar vector becomes a component of the gravity vector, meaning the effect of gravity on the near face is slightly reduced.
That is very important since it means the amount of gravity acting on the near face varies slightly with the Moon’s position in the eccentric orbit. It also means the radial lunar vector is not pointing directly at the Earth’s centre, allowing us to see further around the edge of the Moon, which is longitudinal libration.
It is the effect of gravity on the near face that determines the shape of the orbit. When it reduces slightly, the lunar momentum has more effect, and that makes the orbit more eccentric.
The interaction of the Earth and the Moon cannot be understood by normal terrestrial physics. You can certainly apply Newtonian physics to calculate linear velocity, etc., but that does not explain why the Moon is in orbit or why it behaves as it does.
There is no force acting on the Moon in such a direction as to change its linear momentum. It’s also vital to realize that Newton’s Laws don’t apply with regard to the constant momentum. The Moon is in static equilibrium, meaning it is neither moving radially away from the Earth, or toward it. Gravity is just enough to bend the linear velocity vector into a different direction but not enough to accelerate the Moon in any direction.
I mentioned this before re Newton II…f = ma = mg. If f is not large enough to move m, nothing happens re velocity or acceleration. That is the case with the effect of Earth’s gravitational field on the Moon. It is not strong enough to move the Moon toward the Earth but it is strong enough to divert the Moon into an orbit.
It is that bending of the velocity vector that is being confused with local axial rotation. The Moon is translating, not rotating.
Gordo wrote lots of delusional physics, including:
No, the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse and it’s tangential velocity and momentum changes as it orbits. That’s the result of the fact that the radial lines along which gravity acts are not perpendicular to the orbit track, thus gravity accelerates the Moon for half the orbit from apogee to perigee, then slows it for the other half from perigee to apogee.
Gravity causes no significant torque on the Moon, thus the Moon’s rotational rate is constant. As a result, the Moon rotates once an orbit.
“Of course the radial line is imaginary, it is there to demonstrate that if the near face of the Moon always faces the Earth, along the radial line in a circular orbit ..”
And yet you assume the ‘close side’ must remain the close side because it is ‘attached to’ that radial line. The only thing we know is that the center of your moon follows the center of your circle. Gravity tells us nothing about the orientation.
“Nor do you understand that the Moons linear momentum is creating the ellipse, not the other way around.”
It would be more accurate to say that gravity is ‘creating’ the ellipse by constantly changing both the magnitude and direction of the linear momentum. But yes, I do understand this fact quite well.
“We are concerned here as to why the near face of the Moon always faces the Earth in an ellipse. ”
Which we determine from forces and torques, not using circles or ellipses to “prove” how it faces.
“Once the tangent line has been determined you plot it on the curve, then draw a line perpendicular to the tangent line to get a radial line from the centre of a body through the face tangent to the curve.”
There are many points you make that are correct, and many that are incorrect about how the moon faces. This is perhaps the core of your incorrect understanding of the moon’s rotation.
This radial line does NOT describe the direction that the moon faces. As enticing as it seems, this is NOT a correct description for the moon’s libration. You need to go another layer deeper.
**************************
The rest just goes downhill when you try to explain the orbit.
* The interaction of the moon with the earth CAN be explained with the same laws that apply on earth.
* F(net) = ma applies no matter how big the mass.
* “bending the velocity vector” *is* an acceleration.
* The moon *does* move closer and farther from the earth. (between ~ 360,000 and 410,000 km). This can only happen with a radial component to velocity.
* There is a component of the force vector forward during half the orbit, and backward during the other half, which can and does change the linear velocity. (between 0.97 and 1.08 km/s)
Both measured data and standard theory contradicts pretty much everything you claim about the moon’s orbit
rlh…[GR]…I have proved, using simple calculus/trigonometry, that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face always pointed at the Earth
rlh…You are wrong. Calculus/trigonometry cannot prove that as a fact.
You presume that an orbit makes thing point inwards whereas anyone reading Newton and his 3 Laws knows that is not how it works”.
***
I presume no such thing. The Moon’s near face points inward because the Moon is not rotating locally. I have just proved it using calculus/trigonometry and you have still not disproved my proof.
My proof using radial lines and tangent lines proves conclusively that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. The fact you cannot understand the proof points to the truth, that you are incapable of understanding the basic logic in the proof.
Or is it that the proof is so glaringly simple and obvious that you cannot bring yourself to accept it.
“The Moons near face points inward because the Moon is not rotating locally. I have just proved it ”
Consider an x-y plotter. https://www.robotshop.com/media/files/images2/makeblock-xy-plotter-robot-kit-no-electronics-desc1.jpg
(ignore any spin of the earth or revolution around the sun)
I program the plotter to move the platform counterclockwise in a circle of radius 5 once every 4 seconds.
Q1) is the platform “rotating locally”?
I put a motor on the platform that rotates counterclockwise once every 4 seconds. Put a little picture of the moon on the axle just to be cute. As the platform moves in a circle once every 4 seconds.
Q2) Is the moon ‘rotating locally’ on the rotating axle?
Q3) is the moon ‘rotating locally’ about the center of the larger circle?
coturnix…”The first one is just false, the rest are Not illusions. The motion of the stars around the earth is real, theyre not just pixels on the stellar plasma screen the last time i checked”.
***
I hope you are joking here, namely ‘the motion of the stars around the Earth is real’. I suppose you think the motion of the Sun around the Earth is real since both illusions are due to the same relative motion of the Earth rotating on its axis.
With regard to the rest of your comment, I see no proof offered. Not capable???
not capable of proving anything to the brick wall, indeed
entropic…”Gordon Robertson….To an observer on the surface of the Earth
1) The moon does not rotate on its axis.
2) The Moon revolves around the Earth every 24 hours 52 minutes.
3) The Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours.
4) The universe revolves around the Earth every 23 hours 56 minutes.
Most educated people regard all four as illusions. Why dont you?”
***
Your points 2 – 4 are obvious illusions but point 1 cannot be determined by casual observation from the Earth. In fact, I don’t see your point.
You are inferring it is an illusion that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. Why have you not addressed my mathematical proof that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth?
You insist, along with the rest of your spinner/climate alarmist buddies on not offering a scientific rebuttal to my proof. The same applies to your climate alarm, you refuse to provide scientific proof that trace gases are warming the planet.
rlh…”rlh
The Codiv virus exists. The HIV virus exists. As do many other viruses. To claim otherwise is simply non scientific…”
***
Your appeals to authority don’t cut it with me. Give me scientific proof of what you claim. BTW…I have never claimed that either covid or HIV don’t exist, I have simply claimed, based on the evidence of certain researchers, that no scientific proof is available to prove they exist.
If covid has been physically isolated, why have they not extracted the genome and used that in a test? Why do they insist on using a few strands of RNA claimed to be from covid, in the tests?
There is a perfectly valid means for identifying a virus, developed by the Louis Pasteur Institute in the 1970s. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, admitted to using the method but he admitted as well that he could not complete the most important step of seeing HIV on an electron microscope.
Montagnier has admitted to inferring HIV, that ‘it must be’ 1 in 1000 of the viral particles he did see on the EM. Because he could not see the virus, he developed a methodology based on retroviral theory that is still used today to claim identification of covid.
If you have any scientific information to rebut my claims, let’s see it. Ask yourself why you’re at it, why the RNA-PCR test developed for HIV was necessary? If they had the HIV genome, extracted straight from the virus, no such test would have been required.
> My proof using radial lines and tangent lines proves conclusively that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
See, Kiddo? That’s a geometric proof. No physics is involved.
That shows that Gordo, like many Moon Dragon cranks, interpret your favorite GIF geometrically. Yet the GIF illustrates a physical phenomenon, the spin-orbit lock. That lock refers to the synchronization of two independent motions.
It might be time for Moon Dragon cranks to accept that they’re trying to do physics using half-baked geometry.
The only possible way that the MOTL can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just the truth. I know you cannot accept it, but many other “Spinners” do.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he interprets “orbital motion without axial rotation” geometrically, not physically.
Kiddo has no physics bone in his body.
The only possible way that the MOTL can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. That is just the truth. I know you cannot accept it, but many other “Spinners” do (including your physics guru, Tim Folkerts, my stalker, E. Swanson, bobdroege, and others).
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his “only possible way” refers to a geometrical interpretation of a physical fact.
A misinterpretation, to boot, as the only argument Moon Dragon cranks offered applies to circles, not ellipses.
"Every scientist for 400 years has found it productive and self-consistent to say the MOTR is orbiting without rotating."
– Tim Folkerts.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the point Tim made:
– Tim Folkerts, a guy who groks physics
“The only possible way that the MOTL can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. “
I suppose I agree, but mostly because orbital motion “without axial rotation” is superfluous.
“Orbital motion” is normally understood by scientists to describe the motion of a point (the COM) of an object like a moon or planet. Any description of the orientation of the object relative to the COM is understood as a separate, independent motion.
“Orbital motion” would be the circular motion of the one pixel at the center either the “MOTL” or “MOTR”.
“On its own axis” would be relative to the axis up through that one pixel (ie the moon’s own axis). And measured relative to the unique non-rotating frame (the “fixed stars”).
This allows a simple, concise, accurate prediction of observed motions, consistent with all the laws of classical mechanics.
Exactly, Tim.
Now, look at the GIF but imagine that you’re only seeing two circles, one rotating around the other.
Should be easy to realize that the Moon Dragon crank position rests on geometrical intuition alone!
"I suppose I agree…"
Thanks, Tim.
And Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the reasons why Tim said he agrees…
No, I’m not oblivious at all, Willard. I just disagree that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, as Tim claims "every scientist for 400 years has found it productive and self-consistent to say". For one thing, Tim needs to find a source to support that definition of "orbital motion".
I have found numerous sources that define "orbital motion" as a rotation around an external axis, which would be motion as per the MOTL. The only ones that the "Spinners" can come up with say things like, "an orbit is just a path". Well, the MOTL is "just following a path". That definition of orbit ("an orbit is just a path") does not specify an orientation, so it does not conclusively support the "Spinners" or the "Non-Spinners".
Tim needs a source that specifies during "orbital motion", the object remains oriented with one face always pointing towards the same fixed star. He will not be able to find such a source.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that when he says things like “I have found numerous sources that define “orbital motion” as a rotation around an external axis” he concedes that his argument rests on geometry alone…
It’s really not that hard to see that Moon Dragon cranks really really really have a hard time seeing GIF any other way than as two circles, one rotating around the other!
"he concedes that his argument rests on geometry alone…"
I concede no such thing, you relentless troll. We are not, in this one tiny sub-section of the moon discussion, talking about anything other than definitions of "orbital motion". That doesn’t mean there is nothing else to discuss, or that this is my entire argument.
And Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his “definitions” of orbital motion only involve translation and rotation, which do belong to geometry and that he insists in using axial rotation instead of spin.
When was the last time Kiddo presented the Moon Dragon crank position while invoking Newton’s Laws and conservation of angular momentum?
Leave me alone you relentless, sadistic sociopath. I’ve had enough of this.
Prediction: Kiddo will soon soldier on.
Note: I don’t mind being wrong on that prediction!
Cult Leader pups can’t stand the heat so he pleads for help. It’s rather obvious that pups doesn’t understand that the MOTR would represent a non-spinning Moon if those arrows are pointing toward a fixed point in the stars, thus the rotation is zero as measured against an inertial reference frame. When the same standard is applied to the MOTL, it’s obvious that the Moon is spinning at rate of rotation which keeps one side facing the Earth. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
The MOTL is rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, wrt an inertial reference frame. Swanson just does not understand rotation.
“Tim needs a source that specifies during “orbital motion”, the object remains oriented with one face always pointing towards the same fixed star. “
You have your reasoning mixed up. “Orbit” does not specify *anything* about the orientation. Specifically here, it does not specify “always pointing towards the same fixed star”.
*Independent* of any orbit (or any other motion for that matter), “not rotating” means “oriented with all faces always pointing towards the same fixed stars”.
Gotta keep em separated.
Now where was that chick, in my experience her name was Erica, from Self Esteem?
Tim is now arguing with himself.
On the one hand, he has said "every scientist for 400 years has found it productive and self-consistent to say the MOTR is orbiting without rotating". On the other hand, he also wants to pretend that "orbiting without rotating" is this wonderful, nebulous concept in which there is actually no orientation of the object, quite unlike the MOTR.
Sorry Tim, you can’t have it both ways. The "Spinners" have to think "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTR. In other words, that orbital motion includes orientation. It’s simply the only way it works, for them to believe that the MOTL is rotating on its own axis.
Five minutes after I made my prediction, Kiddo soldiered on.
With encouragements from Pup, anything is possible!
Speaking of which, he still fails to realize that Tim would interpret GIF differently were the Laws of physics different out of a sudden, so his MUST is a tad too strong.
Cult Leader pups doesn’t understand inertial reference frames. The rotation of a free body in space is a vector quantity in 3 dimensions. No matter what inertial reference frame is chosen, the rotation vector will be parallel to that in any other inertial reference frame. The choice of origin, such as the Moon’s CoM, does not change the direction of the body’s rotational vector. In inertial coordinates, it’s blindingly obvious that the Moon is rotating.
Yes, Swanson, wrt the inertial reference frame, the MOTL is indeed rotating…
…but not on its own axis.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R explained.
I already said, wrt the inertial reference frame, Ball4.
Sure, wrt inertial ref. frame our moon rotates on its own axis as well as orbits Earth. See Clint R comment viewed outside the lunar orbit from the sun “see” all sides of our moon.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“On the other hand, he also wants to pretend that “orbiting without rotating” is this wonderful, nebulous concept in which there is actually no orientation of the object, quite unlike the MOTR.”
Nope. I pretend nothing of the sort. You are creating a straw man. You should work on critical reading skills.
The concept you are trying to describe above is basically what I (and all of classical mechanic) simply calls “orbiting”. You could call it “orbiting without any specific knowledge of rotation” if you wanted overkill.
This is a different concept than “orbiting without rotation” which would be “orbiting with the specific knowledge that the angular velocity is zero”.
> “orbiting with the specific knowledge that the angular velocity is zero”
Will Kiddo take note of this nuance?
Probly not, as he’s more into soldiering.
Tim continues arguing with himself, whilst my new stalker sucks his c*ck, as usual.
Kiddo can barely soldier on, being too triggered.
Poor little beta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Why are you calling me out on this thread, you lost the argument when you claimed a body could change its orientation without rotating.
Why are you still here?
“orbital motion without axial rotation”
So you put a preposition between two nouns in an attempt to make a relationship between two ideas when there is not a relationship there.
Is like bacon and eggs without folding laundry.
You claim spinners have to come up with definitions of orbital motion that include orientation.
No we don’t.
You have to come up with a definition of axial rotation that does not include orbital motion, so far, bumpkiss.
Furthermore,
“Tim needs a source that specifies during “orbital motion”, the object remains oriented with one face always pointing towards the same fixed star. He will not be able to find such a source.”
Of course there is no source, as that specific relationship does not occur in nature, that orbital motion being unstable, or not the lowest energy state, so if that was actually happening, the forces acting on the object would cause it to gradually shift to a tidally locked situation.
I did not call you out on this thread, bob. Nice to see you are joining in on Tim’s argument with himself, though.
Kiddo soldiers on:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1109246
Oh yes, I forgot I mentioned bob. My mistake.
For all their protestations, ultimately if you ask Tim or bob how an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it moves, they will say it remains oriented like the MOTR.
DREMPTY,
So this is not calling me out?
“I know you cannot accept it, but many other Spinners do (including your physics guru, Tim Folkerts, my stalker, E. Swanson, bobdroege, and others).”
And stop gaslighting me
“For all their protestations, ultimately if you ask Tim or bob how an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it moves, they will say it remains oriented like the MOTR.”
Ultimately, no, I would not say that, and offer counterexamples of orbits that are not circular and orbits that are irregular and non repetitive.
Any way you look at it you lose.
So back to your term, orbital motion without axial rotation, which means nothing until you define your terms.
Claiming everyone knows what it means doesn’t cut it for a scientific argument, which is what I am trying to have, unless you are just trolling.
Ultimately if one asks Tim or Bob how or why
an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remains oriented whilst it movesthe Moon spins, they will offer an explanation based on physical laws that everyone knows.Yeah, bob…calm down. I just mean that you would say that a hypothetical object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, ultimately moves with one face always oriented towards the same fixed star, like the MOTR. I’m not saying that you think all orbits are circular, etc…
DREMPTY,
Don’t make thing too simple, it leads to the wrong view of reality.
Still no valid definition of either orbital motion or axial rotation.
Yet you still soldier on.
Yes, you have provided neither. Weird that you would bring that up. I, on the other hand, have linked to definitions of orbital motion and axial rotation dozens of times.
Kiddo certainly hasn’t provided dozens of definitions.
There’s the ones he provided come from a content farm and an old engineering handout.
…and Wikipedia, among others. As I said, I have linked to them dozens of times. I did not say that I have (or need) dozens of definitions. A few examples would usually suffice, but in this discussion…
DREMPTY,
Yes you have provided definitions of axial rotation and orbital motion, however I said valid definitions, which you have yet failed to provide.
It is usually the case that you take those definitions that you do find, such as the ones from wikipedia, out of context.
Such as using mathematical definitions of rotation when you should be using astronomical definitions for rotation, since we are talking about the Moon, and not some silly gif you got from a page that says the Moon is rotating.
Whereas I have recently defined axial rotation as the case where all the particles of a body move in concentric circles, like all the particles of the Moon.
I have also defined it as a change in orientation, that was from way back, and that makes you a liar, again.
Tell me why I should argue with a liar who lost the argument years ago.
“For one thing, Tim needs to find a source to support that definition of ‘orbital motion’.”
Nope. DREMT has seen multiple definitions of ORBIT from valid sources that agree fully with Tim and disagree with DREMT.
Such as:
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
OBVIOUSLY NOTHING in the definition is specifying that the object must traverse that Path by keeping the same face inward.
It is JUST NOT THERE.
Just like the TWO undetectable cancelling rotations that produce the pure translation observed in the MOTR.
They ARE JUST NOT THERE.
Just pure fantasies by DREMT.
Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
And no ROTATION is specified in the definition of ORBIT.
CONTRARY to the non-spinner claim that ORBIT implies a rotation.
Obviously that is more fantasy.
As Tim stated, ROTATION is specified separately from Orbit.
bob does not produce any links to any definitions. Nobody is surprised. Though, I would point out that some definitions of orbit you can find do not mention any orientation of the body, and thus do not support either side of the argument. Ultimately, to be conclusive, the definition either needs to state that an orbit is translational motion (like the MOTR), or that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis (like the MOTL), to be of any use.
DREMPTY,
All right then, here we go
Orbit
“In celestial mechanics, an orbit is the curved trajectory of an object[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point.”
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
Note, what I have been saying all along, no mention of rotation in that definition.
Rotational period
“The rotation period of a celestial object (e.g., star, gas giant, planet, moon, asteroid) may refer to its sidereal rotation period, i.e. the time that the object takes to complete a single revolution around its axis of rotation relative to the background stars, measured in sidereal time.”
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_period
Note, no connection to the orbit definition.
So we keep them separated.
Rotation period for the Moon
27.321661 days[14] (equal to sidereal orbital period due to spin-orbit locking, a sidereal lunar month)
“Note, what I have been saying all along, no mention of rotation in that definition.”
No mention of translation either, so it does not support the “Spinners” any more than it supports the “Non-Spinners”.
“No mention of translation either,”
Well that’s because it’s and astronomy source, not a kinematics source.
Excuses, excuses. And no, “rotation period” does not equal a definition of axial rotation. Never mind though, bob. Better luck next time.
Bob,
“Note, what I have been saying all along, no mention of rotation in that definition.”
Indeed. With NO mention of rotation in the definition of orbit, the non-spinners believe that actually means a quite SPECIFIC rotation rate.
But they cannot produce a DEFINITION of ORBIT from any valid source that states this.
Oh well. Yet another declared ‘truth’ from the TEAM that turns out to be completely invented.
Also notice how Kiddo switched from “but Tim never cited a definition” to “OK, but that definition does not mention translation.” Not only this is an irrelevant point, but it supports the idea that celestial mechanics does not square well with Kiddo’s pet handout.
A handout, no less.
But Kiddo’s not trolling. No-huh.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Also notice how Kiddo’s “Tim needs a source” acted as a bait-and-switch, as the topic of discussion was Tim’s claim:
especially Kiddo’s omission of the emphasized bit.
Kiddo can’t win ’em all.
At least he’s having a bit of fun!
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
“And no, rotation period does not equal a definition of axial rotation. Never mind though, bob. Better luck next time.”
Now you are just being stupid
What part of this do you not understand?
” the time that the object takes to complete a single revolution around its axis of rotation relative to the background stars, measured in sidereal time.”
Nate,
Yeah, no mention of rotation turns into no rotation.
Is like a change in orientation with no rotation.
Rotating tangent lines means no rotation.
Etc
I understand all of it. It is not a definition of axial rotation, it is a definition of rotation period. Nice try, though. Better luck next time.
> Now you are just being stupid
Counterpoint, Bob:
Kiddo is rather being facetious.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I understand all of it.” and ‘I will ignore all of it, because that is what I do’
“Yeah, no mention of rotation turns into no rotation.
Is like a change in orientation with no rotation.
Rotating tangent lines means no rotation.”
You just don’t get it, do you bob? Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the MOTL. So:
a) All the definition of orbit/revolution needs to state is that it is a rotation about an external axis. You can find plenty of sources stating this. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t cut it.
b) With the MOTL, there can be a change in orientation of the object with no rotation about the internal axis, because there is still rotation about the external axis.
c) The tangent lines again show rotation about the external axis, they don’t mean there is rotation about the internal axis.
DREMPTY,
“You just dont get it, do you bob? Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the MOTL. So:”
No it’s not, your source says this.
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.”
The moon on the left is rotating about its axis.
That’s what your source says.
I repeat slightly differently
Your source says the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Time to take a break from your bullshit again.
See you later.
bob, the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis. To say that the MOTL is rotating about an internal axis is to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as translational motion, by which I mean motion like the MOTR. You still do not understand what many of your fellow “Spinners” do understand and accept. Why, only yesterday I had Swanson passionately arguing that the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis, but that it was translating whilst rotating on its own axis. It’s time you got up to speed with the rest of the “Spinners”.
“All the definition of orbit/revolution needs to state is that it is a rotation about an external axis. ”
And yet the TEAM is unable to come up with single, valid source that DEFINES ORBIT that way.
While the spinners can find many sources stating that an Orbit is simply a path thru space with NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of rotation.
AND their suggestion that Astronomy somehow AGREES with them that an ORBIT without axial rotation is like the MOTL, while OBVIOUSLY NOT agreeing with them on our Moon’s orbital properties and its axial rotation, axial tilt, etc.
This contradiction, of course, makes no sense and is yet another invention of the Team of Morons.
Astronomy uses the same definitions of Orbit and Rotation and Axial Tilt for all planets and moons.
DREMPTY,
I am fine with the position that orbits are not rotations about external axes, I was giving that point to you in order address the rotation of the Moon.
Because you were trying to define revolving as a rotation around an external axis.
If you would agree that neither the MOTL nor the MOTR are rotating about an external axis, but are following an orbital path, I would agree to that.
The rotation of the Moon on its own axis is an observed fact, which you can not define as not rotating.
So the MOTL is orbiting and rotation on its axis.
The MOTR is orbiting and not rotating on its axis.
Just like the caption of the gif states.
Your source doesn’t agree with you.
Go argue with Wikipedia.
“Because you were trying to define revolving as a rotation around an external axis.”
No, bob…”revolution” is just another word for rotation about an external axis. So I do not need to “try” anything.
Well I will just have to put my foot down and not allow rotation about an external axis to be a model for orbital motion anymore.
I was cutting you some slack, but that’s all over now.
I’ll go with the caption for the MOTL MOTR gif.
Which states the moon on the left is rotating on its axis.
That’s your source, deal with it.
It doesn’t support your position.
It’s just a GIF showing two motions, bob. What is written about it on Wikipedia is written from the perspective that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, clearly. That’s wrong. OMWAR is as per the MOTL. That’s just what “orbiting” is.
“That’s just what ‘orbiting’ is.”
DREMT’s sorry argument is now just reduced to declaring his ‘truth’ as the last word. Then he believes he ‘wins’.
He’s stuck in a 5th grade mentality.
#2
It’s just a GIF showing two motions, bob. What is written about it on Wikipedia is written from the perspective that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, clearly. That’s wrong. OMWAR is as per the MOTL. That’s just what “orbiting” is.
DREMPTY,
Now you are making up a new acronym.
It’s just your own made up shit.
No support for your position anywhere, that’s just how it is.
Poor rages at his own failure to understand the basics.
DREMPTY,
Google doesn’t know what you are talking about
https://www.google.com/search?q=orbital+motion+without+axial+rotation&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=orbital+motion+without+axial+rotation&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i299l2.9589j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That was meant to be "poor bob rages at his own failure to understand the basics".
DREMPTY,
RTFR
From the caption under the MOTR MOTL gif
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.”
That’s the basics
So by "orbit", they mean motion as per the MOTR.
> You are at a disadvantage here because it appears you do not understand the calculus of curves.
C’mon, Gordo. Tim’s point is rather simple:
By “your argument falls apart for ellipses” he means that your proof only works for circles, because a circle is a special ellipse where its two foci are the same. Your 90 degrees condition only works for circles. It’s easy to see why by using pins and strings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#Pins-and-string_method
Repeat after me: an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two different focal points.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So this is how Kiddo contains his tilting.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Repeat after me: an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two different focal points”.
***
It was enough to define the ellipse as a curve. That’s what my reply to Tim was about re ellipses. Actually, you need more info to define an ellipse but that is irrelevant to the point that lines drawn from both focal points to any point on the ellipse form an angle, that when bisected, forms a line that is perpendicular to the tangent line at that point.
The bisector also forms a radial line when extended to the centre of the Moon, if the Moon is on the ellipse and the Earth is at the principal focal point.
In a circle, that radial line always points to the centre of the circle. On an ellipse, it points slightly to the side of the principal focal point hence to the side of the centre of the Earth.
That explains the difference between a circular orbit and an elliptical orbit vis-a-vis gravity. With a circular orbit gravity acts always on the near face directly but with an elliptical orbit, only a sine/cosine component of gravity acts on the near face. That means the effect of gravity on the Moon varies with its position in the orbit.
I was just reading about the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO) and how its orbit is affected by slight changes in lunar gravity, even though lunar gravity is 1/6th Earth’s gravity. It’ obvious that the Moon’s orbit is eccentric for the same reason, variations felt by it from Earth’s gravity.
> Actually, you need more info to define an ellipse but that is irrelevant to the point that lines drawn from both focal points to any point on the ellipse form an angle, that when bisected, forms a line that is perpendicular to the tangent line at that point.
C’mon, Gordo. Do you realize that this is geometry?
You’re rediscovering that ellipses have midpoints!
Here’s an algorithm:
https://www.cpp.edu/~raheja/CS445/MEA.pdf
Think.
willard…”> My proof using radial lines and tangent lines proves conclusively that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
See, Kiddo? Thats a geometric proof. No physics is involved”.
***
Not so, we are talking vectors here and vectors are a standard part of physics. When I apply a tangent line and/or a radial line, I am applying them instantaneously as required by definition. However, I could replace the tangent line with a velocity vector and the radial line with a gravitational force vector.
I am intentionally keeping it simple and you still cannot see what is intended. The radial line and tangent lines are only to demonstrate that all points on the Moon are moving along concentric circles. This is not about geometric lines, it’s about lunar motion in an orbit.
If all particles are moving in concentric circles, that is, parallel to each other, it is not possible for them to also rotate about a local axis.
That is basic physics, Willie, you just can’t understand it.
Gordon,
All points moving in concentric circles is the definition of axial rotation.
> When I apply a tangent line and/or a radial line, I am applying them instantaneously as required by definition.
C’mon, Gordo. Get over yourself. You merely state the “fact” that right angles are 90 degrees.
We all know that.
What you call physics is just basic geometry.
ball4…”Because DREMT has repeatedly failed to explain the moon issue correctly without stating location of observation & needs to be repeatedly corrected by adding that location as Clint R did”.
***
Dremt has explained it very clearly to the point where he is fed up explaining it to deaf ears and dumb brains. If a rigid body is rotating, it has an angular velocity/momentum about a local axis and will turn through 360 degrees per rotation if allowed to. It is not possible for that rigid body to keep the same face pointed to the centre of an orbit while rotating about its local axis through 360 degrees.
It’s a myth that it can and you are stuck trying to defend a myth without having the science to prove your point. So, you turn to obfuscations like reference frames.
Gordon should understand his own coin demonstration with the orbiting coin being made to rotate once on its axis per orbit & Tim has debunked Gordon’s argument drawing radial lines.
Gordon also still hasn’t comprehended Clint R’s explanation of non-spinners location for our moon “inside of it orbit” vs. spinners located outside the lunar orbit as they “see” from the sun. Pity. Gordon leaves comprehension behind and soldiers on uninformed just like DREMT.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Gordon also still hasnt comprehended Clint Rs explanation of non-spinners location for our moon inside of it orbit vs. spinners located outside the lunar orbit as they see from the sun”.
***
It’s kind of tough trying to explain science to someone who believes heat does not exist, that it is a measure of energy transfer. When a person is so obtuse as to be oblivious to the fact that the energy being transferred is heat, and that heat is a measure of itself, it gets tough to explain slightly more complex science.
It does not matter from which perspective a person observes a body, it is either rotating about a local axis or it is not. If the body has no angular velocity/momentum about that local axis, it is not rotating from any perspective.
It is not possible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. That’s what my coin experiment proves. In order to rotate the moving coin about its axis, it must be rolled around the other coin and the moment you roll it, it can no longer keep the same face pointed at the stationary coin.
Robertson
” It is not possible for that rigid body to keep the same face pointed to the centre of an orbit while rotating about its local axis through 360 degrees. ”
Of course it is!
You could easily see that when observing Pluto and Charon with a powerful telescope.
You are dumb, and will keep dumb, because you can’t get out of your terrifyingly trivial small-brain stuff.
binny…”You could easily see that when observing Pluto and Charon with a powerful telescope”.
***
You can barely see Pluto with a powerful telescope. Nevertheless, how would you prove that Charon is turning about a local axis?
As far as common knowledge is concerned, Charon orbits Pluto in the same manner as the Earth-Moon system, therefore Charon is not rotating on a local axis. What you are calling rotation is a change in orientations due to Charon translating around Oluto.
BTW…Pluto is a planet even though some idiots in astronomy decided it isn’t.
” You can barely see Pluto with a powerful telescope. ”
You mean of course some home telescope. I’m speaking of the most powerful ones on Earth, you ignoramus.
And even if they by accident wouldn’t be sufficient, we still have plenty of data coming from New Horizons.
Got it now?
*
” What you are calling rotation is a change in orientations due to Charon translating around Oluto. ”
And that… is your usual invention.
Even when 10 astronomers would separately compute Moon’s spin out of observations of fixed points from the James Webb telescope: you still would deny it.
Because you are a Flatearthist.
binny…”You mean of course some home telescope. Im speaking of the most powerful ones on Earth, you ignoramus”.
***
geh in deine Lederhose kacken
Even the most powerful telescope cannot see Pluto very clearly. It required a fly past by a spacecraft to get decent pictures of it.
bob d…”All points moving in concentric circles is the definition of axial rotation”.
***
That’s only true if the points are moving around a local axis. If they are moving around an external axis in parallel, it’s called translation without rotation.
Actually, the Moon does not need an external axis even though it is convenient to visualize the Earth’s centre as the external axis. The Moon has only linear momentum and is not moving because it is being propelled by a rigid arm about an external axis.
However, all points on the Moon are moving in parallel around the Earth’s centre and that is translation by definition.
Gordon,
Stop with all the bullshit.
The Moon revolves around the Earth, there is one axis for that.
It rotates around an internal axis, this is an observation by many astronomers over many years, and it will take an observation that the Moon is not rotating around a local axis to debunk that. You haven’t done that at all.
These two axes are not parallel, so you have that observation to debunk, you haven’t done that either.
The Moon also has two kinds of angular momentum, in addition to its linear momentum.
If it only had linear momentum, it would have left its orbit long ago.
“If they are moving around an external axis in parallel, it’s called translation without rotation.”
That’s impossible, parallel lines are lines, not curves. Concentric circles are not parallel, they are concentric.
“The Moon revolves around the Earth, there is one axis for that.”
An axis means rotation, bob. If the moon is rotating about an external axis, we know from the motion that it cannot also be rotating about an internal axis. So there would only be one axis of rotation for the moon. If the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis (the actual “Spinner” position, which you still need to learn), then the only axis of rotation would be the internal axis. So you would still only have one axis of rotation. Bottom line is, you do not have two axes of rotation to compare.
Bottom line, is an object can be rotating around two or more axes.
The Moon has an axis of revolution around the earth and an axis of rotation around an internal axis.
“Bottom line, is an object can be rotating around two or more axes.”
True.
“The Moon has an axis of revolution around the earth and an axis of rotation around an internal axis”.
False, for the reasons I explained.
They are observations made by many astronomers, so you claim that is is false is without merit.
Your explanation does not agree with observations, so it is false.
Wrong, bob. You do not have two axes of rotation to compare.
DREMPTY,
You are going to have to prove all the measurements of the two axes of the Moon are wrong.
Tough sledding, but they are making snow at Hidden Valley.
So take your best shot.
You do not have two axes of rotation to compare. Just a fact about rotation for you to not understand.
DREMPTY,
Nope, the Moon is rotating:
“For example, the Moon has an orbital period that is the same as its rotational period. In essence, it is tidally locked to the Earth, which means that it always presents the same face to us as it orbits around our planet.”
from
https://www.universetoday.com/48792/moon-orbit/
bob, you seem a little slow on the uptake…there are not two axes of rotation for the moon even in the “Spinner” position. So even if the “Spinners” were correct (which they are not) there would still not be two axes for you to compare. The “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating, plus rotating on its own internal axis. So, still only one axis of rotation, you see.
DREMPTY,
Yes there are two axes of rotation, one through the Moon, and one through the barycenter of the Earth Moon system.
Just like the ball on a string has two axes, one at the end of the string for the “orbit” and one through the center of the ball.
Too bad you lose the argument again.
bob disagrees with nearly all of his "Spinner" friends by refusing to understand that their position is the moon translates in an ellipse whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMPTY,
They are free to have that position, but the main point is that they agree that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
That quibble, that the Moon’s orbit is either a path or a translation is just that, a quibble.
It doesn’t matter to the question of whether the Moon rotates or doesn’t rotate.
Anyway, it is your non-spinner position that the Moon rotates on an external axis, instead of translating or following a path.
I was agreeing with you, that the Moon rotates around an external axis, because for one that is irrelevant to the question of whether the Moon rotates on is own axis or not.
I was agreeing with you for the sake of the argument even though I noted others not agreeing with that position.
So either you have a claim that the Moon’s rotation rate is zero because you defined it that way, or you have a claim that you have measured the Moon’s rotation rate and found it to be zero.
So we know which one it is, and that’s not science.
bob, those that say "an orbit is a path" are not really committing either way. A body that is "rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis" is "following a path", whilst remaining oriented a certain way (like the MOTL). A body that is "translating in a circle without rotating about an internal axis" is also "following a path", whilst remaining oriented a certain way (like the MOTR). So, saying that "an orbit is a path" is essentially meaningless. An orientation always needs to be specified.
Secondly, if you agree that the moon is rotating about an external axis, then you already agree that the moon is not rotating about an internal axis, due to the way the moon remains oriented throughout its orbit (like the MOTL). The only way for you to argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis, is to argue like the rest of your fellow "Spinners", that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. Meaning you do not have two axes of rotation to compare.
Thirdly, since none of this resolves the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis, nobody is arguing that the moon’s axial rotation rate is zero because it is defined that way. All we are trying to do in this particular discussion is clear up the various things you are confused about, not resolve the entire issue.
DREMPTY,
First of all, it is not me who is confused.
Second
“those that say “an orbit is a path” are not really committing either way.”
Right, those who say that understand and are not confused and know to keep rotation and orbiting separate. Those who are confused about the matter, like you, continue to conflate them.
Thirdly,
“An orientation always needs to be specified.”
Yes, in order to determine if an object is rotating or not, rotating objects change their orientation with respect to time, objects not rotating maintain a singular orientation with respect to time.
Fourthly,
“Secondly, if you agree that the moon is rotating about an external axis, then you already agree that the moon is not rotating about an internal axis, due to the way the moon remains oriented throughout its orbit (like the MOTL).”
I was only agreeing to this for the sake of the argument, but there is no requirement that an object only can rotate around one axis, in fact an object is not limited to the number of axes it can rotate around. This was in consideration of the ball on a string model, where we were dealing with a circular orbit.
Fifthly,
“The only way for you to argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis, is to argue like the rest of your fellow “Spinners”, that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. Meaning you do not have two axes of rotation to compare.”
No comparison of axes objects rotate around and revolve around, they are different.
Any way, both the axis of rotation and the path the Moon orbits are precessing, meaning there are more axes to deal with.
Lastly,
“nobody is arguing that the moons axial rotation rate is zero because it is defined that way.”
Yeah, that’s what you are doing.
“First of all, it is not me who is confused.”
Yes it is, as your comments demonstrate.
“Right, those who say that understand and are not confused and know to keep rotation and orbiting separate. Those who are confused about the matter, like you, continue to conflate them.”
Incorrect. I keep “orbiting” and “axial rotation” separate.
“Yes, in order to determine if an object is rotating or not, rotating objects change their orientation with respect to time, objects not rotating maintain a singular orientation with respect to time.”
The MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
“I was only agreeing to this for the sake of the argument, but there is no requirement that an object only can rotate around one axis, in fact an object is not limited to the number of axes it can rotate around. This was in consideration of the ball on a string model, where we were dealing with a circular orbit.”
I am not arguing that an object can only rotate around one axis. If you think I am, it is because you are confused.
“No comparison of axes objects rotate around and revolve around, they are different.”
Your own position dictates that you have no revolution/orbital axis, as repeatedly explained. Your position is that the moon is translating in an ellipse whilst rotating on it’s own internal axis.
“Yeah, that’s what you are doing.”
False, as explained.
DREMPTY,
“nobody is arguing that the moons axial rotation rate is zero because it is defined that way.”
You don’t get to make up your own definitions.
Period.
That definition is wrong, your whole position is based on a wrong definition.
Therefore you lose.
Whatever you say, bob.
bob d …”The Moon revolves around the Earth, there is one axis for that.
It rotates around an internal axis, this is an observation by many astronomers over many years, and it will take an observation that the Moon is not rotating around a local axis to debunk that. You haven’t done that at all”.
***
And every one of them was deluded into believing what they were taught. Not one of them challenged the myth simply because astronomers are generally not trained that deeply in physics.
I have proved conclusively that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. How can it if the near side always faces the Earth? That means the far side always faces space, ergo they are both moving in parallel.
That parallel motion defines translation, not rotation about an axis.
“Not one of them challenged the myth simply because astronomers are generally not trained that deeply in physics.”
Tee hee hee..
And is there somewhere we can see a rush of physicists to correct them?
And what of Newton?
nate…”And what of Newton?”
***
You should be able to ascertain immediately, with a body like the Moon orbiting with one face always pointed at the Earth, that the opposite face must always be pointed away from the Earth. That means both faces are always moving in parallel. Isaac would have gotten that no problem, therefore what is written on his behalf, based on Old English and Old Latin, is misinterpreting what he wrote.
That’s a very informal analysis. To make it formal, simply presume a circular orbit, draw a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the lunar centre, then draw three lines perpendicular to the radial line at the near face, the centre and the far face of the Moon. Those lines will represent tangent lines to three concentric circles along which those points are confined to move.
If three points on a rotating radial line are moving in parallel, there is no way those points can rotate within the radial line at the same time and still maintain the requirement that the near face tangent must always face the Earth..
As Sherlock might say, elementary my dear Watson.
Willard raves as he butt-kisses Tim, that my analysis does not apply to an elliptical orbit. The math is similar and it shows that the same three pints on the Moon must always move in parallel even in an elliptical orbit.
Willard raves about focal points but any curve in calculus is a curve, is a curve, is a curve. It’s rate of change at any point on the curve is determined by the 1st derivative of the curve’s equation (thanks Isaac). That gives the slope of the tangent line to that point and the tangent line is always perpendicular to a radial line.
The radial line represents the radius of a circle whose circumference coincides with the slope at that point. With a circular orbit, there is only one circle and radius to be considered. At least Willard got that right. With an ellipse or any other circle, there are a myriad of circles to be considered to arrive at the correct radial line from the Moon’s centre.
It just so happens there is a trick with an ellipse to find that radial line. When you draw lines from each focal point to the position of the Moon’s centre on an ellipse, the bisector of the angle formed by the lines is that radial line. A line perpendicular is the tangent line at that point and the slope of the 1st derivative of the equation.
> It just so happens there is a trick with an ellipse to find that radial line
C’mon, Gordo. I already told you:
The problem you keep dodging is simple:
This trick. Does not. Preserve. Isometry.
So it’s not a rotation.
How can you say that there’s a rotation when it’s not a rotation?
Simple: mythomania.
et cꟹtera et cꟹtera et cꟹtera
Gordon,
I told you what was wrong with your “proof”
You never respond, so you have that working for you.
Parallel: extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant
The faces of the Moon are not moving in parallel, they are moving around an ellipse.
You are flunking geometry, normally considered a pre-requisite to be an high school graduate, or at least to get into an engineering school.
Not an engineer now, are you?
bob d…”Parallel: extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant
The faces of the Moon are not moving in parallel, they are moving around an ellipse.”
***
Concentric means parallel. Concentric circles extend in the same direction, everywhere equidistant. It just so happens the lines repeat every 2 pi radians.
I suppose you think the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees? Draw the triangle on a sphere and see if that hold.
Gordon,
Concentric: of or denoting circles, arcs, or other shapes which share the same center, the larger often completely surrounding the smaller.
Nope, concentric does not mean parallel.
Try again
bob d…”concentric does not mean parallel”.
***
Bob, your understanding of math is lacking. If you draw a radial line from the centre of a set of concentric circles so it cuts each circle, then you draw a line perpendicular to each circle where they intercept the radial line, those perpendicular lines become tangent lines to each circle.
A tangent line to a circle is a defining parameter of a circle in that it tells how quickly the circle is changing at that point. The point at which the tangent line touches the circle defines the instantaneous condition of the circle at that point.
If the tangent lines at a common point between concentric circles, such as along a radial line, then all tangent lines are parallel. Since that is true for each point on any number of concentric circles they all have parallel tangent lines therefore the circles are always parallel.
It doesn’t take all that math to understand this. You are being obtuse because you know you have lost this debate and you are desperately hanging on to any red-herring argument that suits you.
Gordon,
“A tangent line to a circle is a defining parameter of a circle in that it tells how quickly the circle is changing at that point. The point at which the tangent line touches the circle defines the instantaneous condition of the circle at that point.”
No, a tangent line just tells you the direction of the circle at that point, if it were to tell you how quickly the circle is changing at that point it would tell you the diameter of the circle, it does not tell you that information.
The second sentence is just word salad and what the hell is the instantaneous condition of the circle at that point? Just gibberish, show me that in a math textbook if you can.
“If the tangent lines at a common point between concentric circles, such as along a radial line, then all tangent lines are parallel. Since that is true for each point on any number of concentric circles they all have parallel tangent lines therefore the circles are always parallel.”
OK, tangent lines drawn from the intersections of one radial line with several concentric circles are parallel, that’s fine, if you could calculate their equations you would find they all have the same slope.
But try a different radial line, and calculate the equations for those tangent lines.
If those equations have the same slope as the first set, then you are correct, but as they do not, your tangent lines to radial lines from the Earth to the Moon are changing slope as the Moon revolves around the Earth, which proves that the Moon is rotating.
bob…”a tangent line just tells you the direction of the circle at that point, if it were to tell you how quickly the circle is changing at that point it would tell you the diameter of the circle, it does not tell you that information.
The second sentence is just word salad and what the hell is the instantaneous condition of the circle at that point? Just gibberish, show me that in a math textbook if you can”.
***
The tangent, by its sign of the slope, tells you if the curve is moving in a +ve direction or a -ve direction. The important factor in the tangent is the slope of the tangent line and that is found as the 1st derivative of the curve. The slope tells you the rate of change of the curve.
There is a way using the second derivative to tell you if the curve is pointing up or down and whether it is a maximum or a minimum at that point.
If I have a parabola centred at 0,0, it’s equation is y = x^2.
First derivative = y’ = 2x and that tells you the slope of the tangent line at an instantaneous point, provided something is moving along such a curve. It also tells you the slope of the tangent line is +ve thereby sloping from left to right.
Look at a point on the curve at x = 2. Since y = x^2, then y = 4.
the slope is 2x = 2.2 = 4
The equation of a line is y – yo = m (x-xo) where m = the slope. The general equation of a line is y = mx + b where b is the y-intercept.
We know two points on the tangent line at x = 2, that is x = 2 and y = 4. Therefore…for the tangent line…
y – 4 = 4(x -2)
y – 4 = 4x – 8
y = 4x – 4 = equation for tangent line at point (2,4) on curve.
At x = 0, the tangent line crosses the y-axis at y = -4
At y = 0, 4x = 4, x = 1, therefore the tangent line at x = 2, y = 4 crosses the x-axis at x = 1.
*****this is why it’s important to specify the tangent line instantaneously because its slope will be different than at another instantaneous point.
Consider the point 0,0.
slope = 2x = 2.0 = 0…that represents a horizontal line. Therefore the tangent line is along the x-axis.
The tangent line at 0,0 for this parabola tells you it is no longer changing in rate or direction. The tangent line at 2,4 tells you it is changing in the positive direction at a decent rate since the slope is positive and sloped left to right.
On the -ve side of the y-axis the slope of any tangent line along the curve would be negative and the tangent line would be sloped from right to left.
Gordon,
You can’t even do high school math.
“It also tells you the slope of the tangent line is +ve thereby sloping from left to right.”
Yes, y=2x tells you the slope, but it does not tell you the slope is +ve, because if you plug in various x’s you get various slopes, and if x is negative, the slope is negative and slopes from right to left.
Anyway, we were talking about circles, not parabolas.
As you move around a circle the slope of the tangent line changes.
And the point the tangent line intersects with the circle is on the circle, and points have no hair, so to model a body orbiting on the circle you have to add a second equation to model the orientation of the point, now a body, on the circle.
So bottom line is your proof that the Moon does not rotate has been debunked.
And your math skillz are questionable.
Добрый День. В связи с избытком свободного времени после выхода на пенсию в поиске толковой информации я забрела на саит https://vk.cc/ca6thu тут находится огромное количество платных курсов от разнообразных авторов и школ. Чувствую, что это другой уровень подачи информации. К которому нужно привыкнуть, разобраться, приловчиться и это очень здорово, это хорошая гимнастика для ума.
РњРЅРµ очень нравится огромный выбор тем платных РєСѓСЂСЃРѕРІ. Р’СЃС‘ это Р·Р° недорогую плату 500 рублей. Р·Р° вечную РїРѕРґРїРёСЃРєСѓ! Цена самих РєСѓСЂСЃРѕРІ может быть 1 – 10 тысяч Р·Р° РєСѓСЂСЃ. Р’СЃРµ РѕРЅРё Р±СѓРґСѓС‚ доступны сразу после приобретения вечной РїРѕРґРїРёСЃРєРё. Рто тот небольшой СЂРёСЃРє РЅР° который придётся пойти, чтобы получить ключ Рє бесконечному количеству знаний!
Hi to every single one, it’s truly a nice
for me to pay a visit this website, it consists of valuable Information.
Приветствую. За последние 2 года коронавирус беспощадно убивает бизнес. Все сидят по удалёнкам, а кого то и вовсе увольняют. Людей стремящихся к повышению своих профессиональных навыков или освоению новых, наверняка заинтересует моё предложение. Качайте самые свежие и популярные платные курсы, книги, тренинги и вебинары от известных авторов по самым разным направлениям. Повышайте свою квалификацию, улучшайте ваш бизнес, познавайте себя и окружающий мир, заводите новые хобби и прокачивайте свои навыки. Цена вечной подписки символическая 1000 руб.
Вы получите возможность скачивать профессиональные платные курсы, стоимость которых многократно превышают сумму взноса. Освойте новую профессию или просто изучайте интересные вам материалы.
Упомянутый саит вы можете найти по ссылке https://vk.cc/cam33R а ещё можно получить ссылку написав в telegram пользователю @AliceSugar ( https://t.me/AliceSugar ).
Вы так же можете отписаться от данной рассылки заполнив форму https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSci7Qu_YAf-A_Ml8pL8fO7ClI1W1XEzMyfzp0NS0fZiPYtprA/viewform?usp=sf_link
I highly appreciate your work here! Thank you so much!
Hello Dear, are you really visiting this site regularly, if so after that
you will absolutely get good know-how.
Sorry! I was trying to post on twitter.
bede ok deger verdim bu siteye
ankara temizlik şirketi
Great Work, Keep Sharing
We are EB-5 Verified by EB-5 Investor Magazine, and our founder is a frequent speaker for
advanced E-2 Visa panels.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on site. Regards
Ngoi ra, doanh nghiệp cũng cần chuẩn bị khng gian để tiến hnh quay giả cảnh bằng cạch dọn dẹp, trang tr lại văn phng cng ty.
Dưới đy l những thủ tục m Qu khch cần chuẩn bị khi thnh lập cng ty lin doanh.
Doanh nghiệp mới thnh lập m khng tự nguyện p dụng phương php khấu trừ th p dụng phương php tnh “trực tiếp”.
Qu cng ty c thể tham khảo 1 file hon thiện về kịch bản; kế hoạch, đầu việc & khối lượng cng việc để
tổ chức 1 buổi lễ kỷ niệm 10 năm thnh lập cng ty tại link m cng ty Phan Đăng đ thiết kế v
tổ chức. Trong đ, chuyn gia dinh dưỡng NutiFood sẽ tư vấn cng thức để Asahi sản xuất những sản phẩm ph hợp với thể trạng trẻ em Việt Nam.
Ngoi cc thnh vin hợp danh, cng ty c thể c thm
thnh vin gp vốn. Do vậy, nếu sinh năm 1936, 1960, 1972,
1984, 1996 bạn nn xem xt v chọn ngy thnh lập cng ty.
Trn đy l những cng việc cần lm sau khi thnh lập cng ty
trong năm 2019. Hy vọng cc cng ty sắp thnh lập nắm được checklist
cng việc để lm việc hiệu quả nhất.
I’m not positive the place you’re getting your info,
but great topic. I must spend some time studying more or understanding more.
Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this information for my mission.
thanks a good deal this site is definitely proper as well as laid-back
Hi,
What software do you use to draw your Temperature graph?
Peter
Excel