The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2021 was +0.21 deg. C, up from the November, 2021 value of +0.08 deg. C.
The annual average anomaly for 2021 was +0.134 deg. C above the 30-year mean (1991-2020), which places it as the 8th warmest year in the 43 year satellite record, behind 2016, 2020, 1998, 2019, 2017,2010, and 2015.
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 24 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
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 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
The running average center line, has no scientific relevance. IMHO.
They should make it a 5 or 10 year running average if the aim is to capture climate.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from/plot/uah6/from/mean:60/plot/uah6/mean:120
!!!This is a PETITION to Doctor Roy Spencer!!!
Dear dr. Spencer! We all appreciate this blog of yours that you use to publish the important highlights of your research into the climate and the climate farce of today, and kindly allow everyone to leave free comments and engage in the discussions on various related topics. But let’s face it: the comment section of your blog is a fuming dumpster-fire. That’s not inherently good or bad, and it is lots of fun to participate in it even though the unstoppable flood of nonsensical flame in the comments probably thwarts any commentaries and discussions that are immediately relevant to the contents of your blog-posts. I know that in the past, you had tried to fight this problem by putting up flame filters, specifically against one d’o’u’g c’o’t’t’o’n if I remember it correctly. Those filters indeed worked, as they prevented people from writing the word a’b’s’o’r’p’t’i’o’n without going into the labor of obfuscating one’s writing, and staved-off the transformation of your blog comment section into the aforementioned dumpster-fire. But let’s face it: over the years, it transformed into one anyways. So here is my petition: I kindly ask you to please if possible to remove the aforementioned filter, as it seems to me it does no good to the discussion, just making it very frustrating when commentaries *randomly* disappear for reasons that are hard to ascertain.
With respect from [coturnix19], ‘climate denier’ and lukewarmer, conspiracy theories connoisseur.
PS. I put this comment in this particular position in order for it to be at the top of the feed.
coturnix
I agree / Ich bin einverstanden / Je suis d’accord.
I wholeheartedly agree with the “fuming dumpster fire” label. This thread is a perfect example. A temperature update is published–a data point–and it generates 650+ off-topic “comments”; this comment being one of them.
One possible mitigation method involves two components: 1) email verification to post, and 2) a “mute” button to completely hide a poster (and their threads plus nested replies) based on their verified email.
I used to come here daily to read thoughtful discourse, but, sadly, the amount of trolling here is such a distraction that now I check in about once a month.
Help us help ourselves.
I enjoy following the monthly temperature trends and your blog Roy. My only suggestion to the chart would be to use the entire satellite era and not just 1991-2020. That way we can see the whole picture of the satellite era and not just the last 30-years. This prevents you from using a moving average for temperature.
Thank you,
Meteorologist/Climatologist
Jay Reeder
What method would you propose to reduce/remove the yearly signal?
Contrarians don’t want to remove short-term variation. They choose not to understand the difference between weather, multi-month and multi-year weather patterns, and climate. They need short term variation as an excuse to be pernickety.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
Clearly a warming trend. A little chaotic, but clearly upward as expected with the 0.14C/decade linear trend Roy publishes.
Linear trends with their implied use of Infinity are not of much use in natural systems. If we were to go back to the last millennium, say, then the linear trend would not show as much of a rise.
It is useful to compare linear trends over the same period of time in models and in observations. Everyone is aware that the trend is measured over a specific period. Why is that a problem for you?
Nate says:
”It is useful to compare linear trends over the same period of time in models and in observations. Everyone is aware that the trend is measured over a specific period. Why is that a problem for you?”
You haven’t made a case for what short term trends are useful in a climate regime that varies by a factor of 10 over what we have seen in the short term trends. It might be more useful if we actually understood how climate changes. So it is just completely vacuous to claim its useful without providing a single reason why it might be useful.
??
So it is just completely vacuous to claim its useful without providing a single reason why it might be useful.
Nate says:
??
==========
fking Duh?
Talk about fake endings..
Are you saying that simple data analysis is wrong? Only complex ones that show continuous warming is correct?
You know what I mean. You should not extend the LP filter to the end point, because it is an unreliable extrapolation based on limited data, that is misleading.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
You will have to wait a few days more for Roy to update the full December data.
alick…”The running average center line, has no scientific relevance. IMHO”.
***
So, you don’t think the average of a sine wave is zero? Seems to me they are saying no average warming since 2015.
Gordon Robertson, the average of a sine wave seems non-sequitur. The running average is an arbitrary creation depending on when you begin taking averages and will move up or down as new values are added. It has no scientific relevance, in relation to anything meaningful to say about climate change. IMHO.
Assuming you accept that the yearly signal will contain thing you are not interested in climate then using a 13 month running average or an accurate 12 month gaussian filter will go a long way to removing that.
You might also consider using a 7 year filter as that removes the weather but leaves climate untouched.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
S-G stands for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
The average of air is way to measure actual global climate, which is the average temperature of the ocean {about 3.5 C}.
And sea level rise is another proxy.
The global average temperature has little relevance.
Not one person lives in an average temperature.
And temperature is not the only important climate attribute.
The global average is a statistic, not a measurement.
Accuracy is questionable before 1979, and data are almost worthless before 1920, with very few Southern Hemisphere measurements.
A single average hides the actual pattern
and timing of the warming since 1979:
The most warming has been in:
— The Northern half of the Northern hemisphere,
— Mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and
— Mainly at night.
If people and/or crops are ever harmed by a long term change in their weather, it will be a significant change in their local weather, not some global average temperature abstraction.
Amen.
“The most warming has been in:
The Northern half of the Northern hemisphere,”
There is MORE warming in the NH than SH, and more in the Arctic than in the tropics, as predicted decades ago.
‘Most’ is not valid descriptor.
“Mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and
-Mainly at night.”
Again there has been MORE in the colder months and a night, but lots during the summer and day as well.
“Not one person lives in an average temperature.”
Sure.
“The global average temperature has little relevance.”
That means you are certain that a warmer global temperature will NOT have deleterious regional effects?
How do you know that? Big regional changes have occurred in the past when the globe warmed or cooled by only ~ 1 or 2 C.
Weather patterns are driven by nonlinear dynamics. There are tipping points expected to occur in slightly warmer world, where regional patterns can change.
Drying and desertification of already dry regions, like the Western US, melting of the Himmalayan glacier, are bad regional changes predicted in a slightly warmer world and may already be happening.
“The global average temperature has little relevance.”
____________________________________________
You are funny.
Since we discuss “global” warming, …. global temperature have even extrem relevance.
Alick: All temperature measurements are an average. Do you prefer an hourly average, a daily average, a weekly average, a monthly average, something else? In signal processing terms, performing a uniformly weighted average drops a ‘zero’ on frequency content at the reciprocal of the data block length, and harmonics thereof, and attenuates frequency components near the zero (sinc function).
My point here is that presenting a temperature time series requires data manipulation, if nowhere else than inherent in the thermometers themselves. There is no pure temperature data, so it’s important to understand what manipulations have been done, and understand the effect of those manipulations.
I, for one, like the running, centered 13-month average, since I have a much better feel for what it means than the monthly data. If there are other artifacts (well understood oscillations) in the time series, it would be interesting to see a plot of the data with a running average period that matched the period of those oscillations. If said oscillations aren’t totally predictable, there are other ‘window’ weighting functions that aren’t as sensitive to frequency and time-delay variations as uniform weighting.
Taking a step back, what is the purpose of the temperature-time plot? In my simplistic view, it serves as a rough proxy for the only thing that really matters for long-term climate change, the total energy content of the oceans. From that point of view, the amount of ‘averaging’ going on in the system being measured is already enormous. The temperature plots are a bit like fleas trying to estimate the size of the elephant they live on by measuring bumps on the elephant’s hide – not ideal by any means, but you make do with what you have to work with.
Well put..
Indeed: well put.
Thanks Milton Hathaway. I understand that every data point is made up of ‘average’ temperatures. I don’t see the point of using the running average to plot them against. If you look back 2 years ago that running average is in a different spot. I remember reading something by Dr. Spencer that it was purposefully changed. My point is, that as something to measure against, it is a moving target, and because of it’s movement, it has nothing significant to say about climate change.
I think the graph would look exactly the same if it were plotted with the actual monthly average temperature instead of the deviation from an arbitrary average. The deviations would be the same relative to each other without the running average going through the graph.
BTW, what I see when I look at that plot of monthly averages are 3 separate increases. 1979 to 1996, 1997 to 2014ish, and 2015 to present.
Milton Hathaway says:
not ideal by any means, but you make do with what you have to work with.
=========================
Too much non-productive work going on. Its like a government road repair project. One guy with a shovel and 9 supervisors.
Oh, so a trend means nothing? That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have yet to hear in this debate, and I have read some doozies . You need to state why a trend of a heating atmosphere has no relevance to this debate.
This means that 2021 was slightly warmer than the last La Nina year of 2018, and ties with 2015 for equal 7th warmest year in the UAH data.
I see this posting puts 2021 below 2015, which may be correct if you weight the months by length. February 2021 was somewhat warmer than February 2015, though the difference is less than 0.001C, so I would say statistically tied.
The last La Nina calendar year was 2020 (it finished with 5 La Nina months).
But ENSO years are not calendar years. They are 2021-22, 2020-21, etc.
Using a page out of the media spin playbook, 2021 was the 2nd coolest in the last 7 years.
” Using a page out of the media spin playbook … ”
What’s that for a source?
Here are UAH’s ten warmest years since 1979 (in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1991-2020), with 2021 surprisingly at position 8 of 43:
1 2016 0.388 (C)
2 2020 0.357
3 1998 0.348
4 2019 0.303
5 2017 0.264
6 2010 0.193
7 2015 0.135
8 2021 0.134
9 2018 0.087
10 2002 0.080
Maybe one day you will come out with ‘the last 2 years’, won’t you?
*
I’d rather say I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level, see
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
2021: -1.20 -0.95 -0.79 -0.96 -1.06 -1.11 -1.53 -1.34 -1.41 -1.47 -1.40
I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level.
Possibly because the previous 3 years had El Nino effects to counter and the La Nina was incredibly weak [see BOM Historical].
The interest at the moment is the new even seemly weaker La Nina.
If this was to repeat last years effort a drop of 7 places could go down another 7 by years end.
The effects are alreadty being seen with mild arctic ice recovery.
angech
Please compare, both in MEI and UAH data, 2021 with the last big La Nina (2010-2012):
2010 0.93 1.28 1.31 0.49 -0.17 -1.33 -2.43 -2.40 -2.28 -2.18 -2.04 -1.91
2011 -1.83 -1.63 -1.79 -1.74 -1.29 -1.08 -0.86 -0.88 -1.16 -1.37 -1.21 -1.24
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
And then come here again.
Last year’s La Nina was moderate, not weak.
I of course agree!
Did you know that NOAA ENSO values are now computed off a moving base? When warming it has the effect of making El Nino events look weaker and La Nina events look stronger.
As a result the current temperature of the waters in the East Pacific could be the same as previous neutral conditions. Not sure why anyone would expect that to cause a lot of cooling. It also means comparing different years with different bases is pure nonsense.
Those darn meddling scientists…Why can’t they leave raw data alone?
ENSO has always been measured relative to an average ocean temperature for that location and time of year.
You think the Mean centered on 1970s is a better Mean than the Mean centered on the 2000s?
Nate, IIRC ENSO uses a 5 year (?) moving average. Most other climate values are based on a 30 year historical average. This makes comparing anomalies questionable.
Richard M says:
January 3, 2022 at 9:22 AM
Nate, IIRC ENSO uses a 5 year (?) moving average. Most other climate values are based on a 30 year historical average. This makes comparing anomalies questionable.
ONI uses a 30 year average moving in 5 year increments for the historical data and a 30 year trailing average in 5 year increments for recent data. This is intended to nominally remove the trend.
If one needs an index with constant baseline, one could go back to the SST (ERSST.v5 for ONI currently) data and compute it directly.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
Mark B, thanks for the more detailed description. My point is still the same. Comparing ENSO years is questionable.
ENSO values are deliberately designed NOT to capture climate. Whether we are in El Nino or La Nina depends on the east-west temperature gradient across the near-surface equatorial Pacific, not on the actual temperature, so the warming trend must be subtracted.
“Did you know that NOAA ENSO values are now computed off a moving base?”
“Now?” It’s been done that way for years. Have you only just noticed?
The Japan Meteorological Association ENSO values are also computed off a moving base.
Both use SSTs as a central index, and slide the baseline in order to remove any long term signal that is not caused by ENSO. This is why you CAN compare ENSO values, because non-ENSO signals are weaned out of the data.
Hello angech,
‘I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level.’
Because there has still been no significant recovery in the ozone layer. Until there is such, temps will remain relatively stable…
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html
LAST 7 YEARS (2021 is the 2nd coolest):
1) 2016
2) 2020
3) 2019
4) 2017
5) 2015
6) 2021
7) 2018
My point is that ranking annual average global temps does not say that much. It does not address the actual trend line and certainly does not address the amount of warming compared to the IPCC models. The media loves to do this to fit their narrative.
Also,
8th warmest year in the 43 year
7 of the 8 warmest occuring in the last 12 years.
2nd coolest of that hottest 7 years has a nice ring to it.
That should speak for itself, but won’t impress the Coolistas very much.
So tell us Mr. Science, how does that speak for itself?
He basically said it SHOULD speak for itself, but certain people will choose not to listen.
And that is exactly how it has panned out.
OK, how should it speak for itself?
Exactement.
>And that is exactly how it has panned out.
How exactly has it panned out?
>And that is exactly how it has panned out.
How exactly has it panned out?
How has it panned out?
You are ignoring the fact that 2021 was another warm year any way you can. You are ignoring the fact that 7 of the eight warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. You are ignoring that 6 of the 8 warmest years occurred in the last 7 years. Any way you slice it, you are ignoring the undeniable fact that the planet is warming very rapidly.
You are also ignoring that 2021 was one of the coolest in the last 5 to 6 years. And things look like they are going to get even cooler in the future.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-1.jpeg
And yet warmer than any other year with La Nina bookends.
RLH,
“You are also ignoring that 2021 was one of the coolest in the last 5 to 6 years. And things look like they are going to get even cooler in the future.”
Can you be any more specific?
If you can I will save the comment and see how your prediction pans out.
The main thing to keep in mind is at least the past 8 years have been warmed by increases in absorbed solar energy (Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021, Loeb et al 2021). Kind of takes the steam off the claims of greenhouse effect warming.
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux. The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020).” – October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020.
” the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 + or – 0.22 W/M2 decade-1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 + or – 0.17 W/M2 decade-1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a -0.24 + or – 0.13 W/M2 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
Sure, point to any cause other than the one that scientist have been pointing to for over a century as the Global Mean Surface Temperature has gone from the coldest decade of the Holocene to (almost certainly) the warmest. And when the coming decade is even warmer, I am sure you will have an excuse for that too.
Robert. I just pointed to one cause. More solar energy reaching the surface of the planet. In addition, this increase corollates well with natural ocean changes.
In essence this explains most of the warming since the satellite data has been collected. A person interested in the truth would then ask if there are other possible ocean changes that could explain the rest of the warming.
They would then wonder what caused the warming prior to the satellite period. Warming that goes back at least 350 years. Since we know CO2 increases were minor to non-existent during most of those 350 years, a different cause would be likely.
So, the current decade could turn out to be warmer but then we would still have to consider the cause may be exactly the same as the previous 350 years of warming. Most likely the same cause that led to the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods.
In the mean time, it now appears there has been no greenhouse warming over at least the past 25 years. The added solar energy explains all the warming. How do you account for this lack of greenhouse warming?
It’s accounted for by Richard M simply making up that “lack of greenhouse warming” statement & leaving out what the authors do write since the Loeb 2021 paper shows there is no lack of greenhouse warming in the period CERES measured.
From actual CERES data showing the measured magnitude of greenhouse warming with 95% confidence nature’s true value lies in the ranges shown: “Global mean top-of-atmosphere flux anomalies and trends in ASR net of emitted thermal radiation for 2002/09-2020/03.. associated with contributions from changes in clouds, water vapor (WV), combined contributions from trace gases and solar irradiance (labeled as “Other”), surface albedo (SFC), aerosols (AER) and combined contributions from skin temperature and profiles of temperature (“Temp”).”
Net for greenhouse warming (wv, trace gases net of solar irradiance change) is measured more than double that of changes in each of cloudiness and surface warming plus aerosols.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
First of all a great thank you to Dr Roy Spencer who effortless put this information to the public, which I have followed for many years.
Many ways to look at statistics. You can start with 1979 at -0,4C and end up in December 2021 at +0,2C. In 42 Years the difference is +0,6C and obveously the temperature has gone up and down along the path, as the graph showes, while the Co2 has been steadily rising. Are we able to scream out loud that we are in a climate crisis? I think not. Are we able to scream out loud that Co2 is the main reason for 0,6C temperature rise during these years? I think not.
Wishing you all a splendid 2022.
As you can see these simple facts do not get through to the alarmist propagandists. You have to be willing to admit you may be wrong, that the question is a diffcult one, which they will never do.
And my further evidence is being blocked as usual.
Are we able to scream out loud that Co2 is the main reason for 0,6C temperature rise during these years?
Of course we are.
Mind you there are probably 30 other reasons for such a small variation to occur over 42 years that such a small signal is lost in the noise.
Does not mean that it is there.
Or not.
Scream all you want. Doesn’t make it true.
Evidence to blame CO2 is still lacking.
There is also Ed Berry’s claim that most of the CO2 increase that is observed is not due to human emissions.
I think at 1.63C this is the warmest December for USA48 in UAH history.
Are you sure?
2012: 3 2.24
2017: 2 2.06
1981: 4 1.97
1999: 11 1.87
2016: 11 1.84
2018: 5 1.80
2007: 3 1.75
2021: 12 1.63
2015: 3 1.57
1979: 12 1.54
Apos, I see you mean the December months.
Yes, I said warmest December.
2021 12 1.63
1979 12 1.54
2015 12 1.36
1994 12 1.30
1980 12 1.27
2006 12 0.82
1991 12 0.77
1984 12 0.76
1998 12 0.70
2014 12 0.67
I’m not saying this is important, the second warmest was back in 1979, and the overall trend isn’t very strong. I just thought it was an interesting detail.
Thanks Bellman.
Satellite data is not accurate in pinpointing where the warm air came from, as air doesn’t rise only vertically. And the record is not long enough. We’ll have to wait for the real data to come out on Jan 10.
What exactly do you mean?
https://i.postimg.cc/dQmXjM2T/Globe-GHCN-daily-vs-UAH-1979-2021.png
OK, I didn’t integrate until now the GHCN daily station data with HadISST1 SST into a global raw data series, but the two land-only series look pretty similar.
Roy Spencer stated at one point that the satellite data cannot be taken literally for a particular country. I think it was in May 2018 in response to the fact that the USA had had a bitterly cold April (I think 13th coldest in the NOAA 120+ year record) yet the satellite data showed the USA at pretty much average for their 40 years of data.
Why would anybody want to take any global data literally for a particular country? Why not… Andorra or Liechtenstein, for example?
USA is 2 % of the Globe’s surface, and 6 % of the land’s surface.
What would be the reason to compare US and the Globe?
I am not attempting to compare the USA to the globe. I am merely answering the question about whether or not this is the warmest December on record in the US, nothing more. We will have to wait until the surface data comes out – I suspect it will be.
Actually the US covers a large latitude and longitude range, sweeps the globe 365 times a year and global weather patterns sweep the US about 70 times a year. So yes, in this case a 2% area sample is more than enough to show overall climate variations. A little dot on a television screen sweeps the screen often enough to give you the whole picture.
GCMs indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCMs wrong!!??
Another look at UAH’s data: absolute temperatures, recombined out of the anomalies and the climatology you can find in their 2.5 degree grid data:
https://i.postimg.cc/gjPCfkmN/UAH-6-0-LT-reconstructed-absolute-data-since-2015.png
Source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
2021 has had three months with negative anomalies. Will 2022 have more negative anomalies than 2021?
I think the best for you is to look at this graph:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/November2021/202111_Bar.png
Thank you. My intuition tells me that in the future that graph will contain more and more blue bars.
During the remainder of the La Nina – possibly.
If we have a massive equatorial volcano – probably.
Otherwise – definitely not.
Exactly.
Using UAH’s 1981 -2010 old Base Period, which they raised +10 years in 2021, there are no blue bars going back to at least 2012.
As long as the Base Period can be raised every 10 years and the warmer temps for that decade added to it there will always be a few meaningless blue bars.
Lou, in 2021 alone there have already been no less than three blue bars. Imagine that 2022 has more blue bars than red bars. That would have scientific relevance.
Rawandi, you’re missing the point.
By adding the warmer decade 2011 – 2020 to the Base Period UAH significantly raised the baseline.
So, the only reason there are blue bars at all in the last decade is b/c UAH made the Base Period warmer by changing it to 1991 – 2020 instead of using the cooler 1981 – 2010 baseline.
Any recent blue bars remain irrelevant as UAH still states +.18*C/decade over all global-land surfaces.
Rawandi, if you look at HadSST3 values from 5-6 months ago, you can get a good feeling for what will happen to UAH temperatures.
The ocean values have increased from last year so I am currently not expecting to see any negative numbers for UAH. This could change since HadSST3 only has values published through October.
There’s how the data has varied in the past.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
This is also a version of what UAH has done in the past.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
The linear trend of Dr. Roy’s data – 1.4 deg C per century global temperature increase is in pretty good agreement with the data for the same period from the JMA. It’s more confirmation that there has been acceleration in the rate of global temperature increase in the last 50 years.
For those of you who are interested I just added another short video to my YouTube channel. This one is on predicting sea level rise caused by rising global temperatures. Here’s the link:
https://youtu.be/nuRjejFRhxA
Enjoy!
You cannot claim “per century something” unless you have at least 100 years of data,
All you have is 40 years you duffus
So I can’t claim to be driving at a speed of 80km/h until I have driven for an hour – is that right?
Mark Shapiro,
Damn! 1.4 C per century!
In 10,000 years (100 centuries), that’s 140 C!
The world is bare! No seas – all boiled dry thousands of years ago!
I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?
I wonder if someone put the inmates in charge of the asylum. Thermometers get hotter or colder depending on their environment. They have all the predictive power of chicken entrails.
Heat a pot of water from 10 C to 99 C. Record the temperature, time, heat input and so on. Then try and project the future water temperature from your carefully recorded figures.
Or try and predict future global temperature from carefully recorded past temperature statistics.
Who really believes they can foretell future temperatures from examining past ones?
Climate cranks, that’s who!
Oh Bugger. Fat finger syndrome.
I was pointing out that AQ is an idiot if he believes that an instrument showing he is travelling at 80 km/h says anything about the future.
As it is with climate crackpots assuming that trends will continue.
I would say to AQ –
Laddie, you need to compose better gotchas. Your present standard is pretty dismal – isn’t that right?
Sorry about the inadvertent double post.
Mike Flynn,
Majorly Fatuous,
You say –
“Sorry about the inadvertent double post.”
You are all forgiven!
However, opinions on your post itself might vary.
Aw diddums!
Wee Willy Dimwit,
You wrote –
“However, opinions on your post itself might vary.”
From what, pray tell? Who would care?
Maybe you could provide some information that a slightly retarded 12 year old couldn’t, but I doubt it.
Thanks for the “Aw diddums” imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously. I am intrigued – what are you expressing commiseration about, or are you just imitating without understanding?
Carry on with your fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Have you ever heard the expression ‘mileage varies’?
Do you ask yourself for whom?
Try not to be more ridiculous than you are with your silly charades, will you?
Cheers.
When do we enter the new ice age ?(a la milankovitch)
Next time Flynnson gets pulled over for speeding, he should remind the officer that he (she) must be “an idiot if he (she) believes that an instrument showing he is travelling at 80 km/h says anything about the future.”
They actually appreciate being informed about their customer’s viewpoints.
Mark Shapiro,
Damn! 1.4 C per century!
In 10,000 years (100 centuries), that’s 140 C!
The world is bare! No seas – all boiled dry thousands of years ago!
I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?
I wonder if someone put the inmates in charge of the asylum. Thermometers get hotter or colder depending on their environment. They have all the predictive power of chicken entrails.
Heat a pot of water from 10 C to 99 C. Record the temperature, time, heat input and so on. Then try and project the future water temperature from your carefully recorded figures.
Or try and predict future global temperature from carefully recorded past temperature statistics.
Who really believes they can foretell future temperatures from examining past ones?
Climate cranks, that’s who!
“I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?”
Probably climate scientist can’t, but our cold ocean appears to be warming.
So, the 3.5 ocean could warm for 1000 years, and we could still call a 3.5 Ocean, because we haven’t measured the temperature of the ocean, just as we have not measure global air temperature which is about 15 C.
The 3.5 C ocean been cooling for over 5000 years, and in Little Ice Age our cold ocean cooled a significant amount, and we are still recovering from LIA.
Climate scientists probably can’t tell you when the ocean was 4 C but could say that during the warmest period of past interglacial periods the ocean warm to 4 C or more.
I think the Holocene climate optimum period had ocean which about 4 C [or perhaps less]. Our ocean could warm for 1000 years and not reach the ocean temperature that Holocene climate optimum reached when it was at the warmest. Or a warming ocean for 1000 years can still be about 3.5 C, just as cooling ocean was about 3.5 C for last 5000 years.
Our 34 million year icehouse climate has had oceans warmer than 5 C, coldest period of our Ice Age, has been the last 2 million years. And no climate scientist could point to ocean warmer than 5 C, within the last 2 million years.
It’s possible {in sense it’s possible space aliens could show up} that ocean could warm to be about 4 C within the next thousand years.
And if ocean was 4 C, the world would have higher global water vapor. But one can say human activity has increasing global water vapor, and its possible human could increase a lot more.
Since global poverty or specifically poverty in Africa is decreasing, and the continent has vast desert wasteland, turning that wasteland into better land, seems likely within 100 years, could be in less than 50 years. And that would be more effective in increasing global water vapor as compared other global irrigation. Or California has turned desert land into farmland- one best farmlands in the world, but entire State of California is much smaller and gets less sunlight, than the deserts of Africa.
“our cold ocean appears to be warming”
We don’t measure even a small proportion of the actual deep ocean. Most of the ocean data covers the top few hundred meters. Data below that is quite sparse.
Linear trends are of little use on natural time series data.
mark…”Its more confirmation that there has been acceleration in the rate of global temperature increase in the last 50 years”.
***
Did you take into account the !C to 2C cooling that occurred during the Little Ice Age over the 400+ years prior til 1850? With the vast amount of ice that built up on glaciers, the Arctic and the Antarctic, and the cooling of the oceans, it would take some time for the world to return to normal temperatures. Therefore one might expect an acceleration to occur along the way as the ice receded.
The word acceleration is one I would expect from alarmists trying to make the degree of warming significant. Thee days they use words like atmospheric rivers and/or heat bombs, anything to make an insignificant warming appear to be potentially catastrophic.
Mark, much of that trend has been due to warming over the past 8 years which occurred when the PDO went positive in 2014. Since the AMO is already positive you no longer have any help from the oceans to produce warming.
CERES data suggests the positive phases of these oceans cycles leads to a decrease in clouds. Do you really think clouds are going to continue to decrease?
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g003-550.jpg
“The annual average anomaly for 2021 was +0.134 deg. C above the 30-year mean (1991-2020), which places it as the 8th warmest year in the 43 year satellite record”
–
When we’re measuring differences of tenths or hundredths of a degree, it’s not really that significant in terms of climate.
Five degrees being what separate us from an event such as an ice age, so I beg to differ.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Who cares if you’re a differing beggar or not?
Use your brain. Antarctica used to be verdant and ice free. Took a bit more than 5 degrees to tip it into an ice age.
On the other hand, Death Valley could need more than a five degree drop to cause a glacier to form.
Go on, Wee Willy – start blathering about averages.
Who cares, anyway?
Thank you for your input, Mike Flynn.
In the Prairies, it was four degrees:
https://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2016/10/four-degrees-of-separation-lessons-from-the-last-ice-age/
It has been a while you have not talked about the Tuareg people.
Do your bit about their coats.
W
Six degrees separates us from almost anyone on the planet.
Zero degrees separate you from Pozzo.
“Five degrees being what separate us from an event such as an ice age, so I beg to differ.”
Well ok, a five degree change we would see the changes. But tenths or hundredths of a degree, are virtually indistinguishable. i.e., we still can’t grow citrus in Ohio despite how ‘warm’ the climate is.
Can Mars grow more crops than the US does?
The US using about 600 billion tons of water per year,
and a lot that use is used for farming.
A question is can Martian “waste” more water than US does.
Part of that is US makes a lot food and has hundreds million
of people. Or if Martian only feeding a few million people,
it seems unlikely Martians could “waste” as much as 600 billion tons of water.
But what if Martians were wasting 100 billion tons of water,
just for fun. Martians could be sinful people, or at least, being reckless as possibility. And what I mean by mostly for fun, doing it for decorative reasons. So having a winter wonderland theme- snow everywhere. H20 snow and CO2 snow.
As far as where, I will randomly pick, Hellas Planitia, wiki: “extends about 2,300 km (1,400 mi) east to west.” Or it’s less than 2300 km in diameter circle of 4,154,752 square km on planet of Mars of 144.37 million square km
Or:
“The basin floor, Hellas Planitia, can be divided into
two parts: an annular ring about 1,500 km in diameter and 200500 km wide made up of plains marked by ridges (including Zea Dorsa) at elevations of 5 to 1 km, and an inner, rugged zone about 1,000 km across consisting of mesas, ridges, scarps, depressions, and hills (including Coronae Scopulus and Alpheus Colles); elevation of this zone is mostly 5 to 4 km, but parts lie as
low as 5 km”
We talk about the smaller deepest part of it, the “inner” part which say just 1000 km diameter of 785,397.5 square km or something like two Californias. Go smaller scale of a lake which something like Lake Tahoe with 116 km of shoreline or circular lake of 37 km also has shoreline of about 116 km. Lake Tahoe has deepest water of about 500 meters. And has more than 150 cubic km of water, +150 billion tons of water.
And terms snow decoration, from middle of lake, in 200 km radius- or a 125,663.6 square km area, the land is covered in fresh snow.
So as you are coming from orbit, and going to land in middle of lake, you are landing into a winterland scene.
So in the inner part 1000 km wide, inner part Hellas Planitia it’s fairly large spot. You could want roads, and one can make roads of frozen C02, which H20 snow will “fall”, but despite a road which is white, roads get a bit dirty with traffic.
Mars snow is not like snow on Earth. Not sure one could ski on it, though it would be nice to have ski slopes on Mars.
But the topic was farming, so can farm on the winterland area?
And if could, one would be adding green to decoration. But also could have farming just on perimeter of it. But how water is this going to waste.
It seems like climate question.
Hellas Planitia is desert. Not a drop to drink.
Our efforts should be aimed at going to other solar systems to find Fiddlers Green.
It could be that Earth is only place humans can live on.
But it seems that NASA should explore space and is something
a large number of citizens and politicians want.
And it seems fairly reasonable to do what hundred million citizens are willing to pay for {and as in comparison, it seems no one wants to pay much to fix the global climate- as there no reason to assume the govt could anything about it, but it’s somewhat sane, that NASA could explore space] but perhaps if NASA were to actually explore space and find out some stuff, then at some point, most of these people could change their minds about whether it’s wise to spend money on it.
I think NASA should explore the lunar polar region to determine if and where there is mineable water and then explore Mars, to see if there is mineable water on Mars.
And think they should do it as quickly as they can, as that is quite clear, that they have be ordered to do it.
And seems to me they failed to do this, and only reason for their failure, is because they failed to do it.
Though it seems that it a possibility that we don’t need NASA exploring space, and also possible others might explore the Moon before NASA can get around to doing it.
And NASA has been paid far more money than all other world space agencies, combined. But lately, China is spending about 1/2 as much as NASA.
Btw, I don’t think China wants to actually explore space, rather it seems, they just want to appear to be exploring space.
NASA is a political body subject to the whims of government.
If there is a focus by China USA or Russia its the concept of Space as a theatre of war where Space is high ground.
Any exploration that is done is unfortunately a side benefit even as the exploration and the development of the tools needed to do the exploration is yielding technological knowledge benefits far beyond the outlay in cost.
The cost of Green Energy and other USELESS Carbon Policies is much higher by orders of magnitude than is NASA budget.
Mars won’t likely ever have a colony on it. Its not like Mayflower where a bunch of malcontents got onto a ship and sailed away to colonize a new land. Any colony on Mars will be forever dependent on Earth and for trillions of dollars. The cost would put an end to any other exploration initiative NASA might want to undertake.
“Any colony on Mars will be forever dependent on Earth and for trillions of dollars. The cost would put an end to any other exploration initiative NASA might want to undertake.”
Well, government {and NASA} what to throw money at something to make it work. That doesn’t work. So NASA could want to make lunar water mineable- that is the wrong approach. And is the reason I am oppose to NASA making a Lunar base. Of Course if Congress wants and will pay for lunar base- well that a different issue. And NASA would then have to make a Lunar base. But the moon is about exploration largely connected to whether there is mineable water, Mineable water is someone wants invest the money to mine lunar water. And if anyone in the world is mining lunar water, somewhere near where this is going to occur, would a place to put a lunar base- there is endless stuff about the Moon could be discovered if have a lunar base there.
With Mars, mineable water is important, but a lot other aspects are important- and they are related to can settlements “work” on Mars. Ie what long term effects of living on Mars, can animals or humans have offspring in Mars gravity and medical issues in general.
An example throwing money at something, is the idea of doing space power satellites. The problem is electrical power is too expensive in Space and electrical power in space has get close to electrical cost on Earth, before that can be considered. And If we having lunar mining and settlements on Mars, that will lower the electrical power in space. Or you need competition to drive down the cost of doing anything.
And it’s possible solar or wind can work on Earth surface- but again, you need competition to do this. And lunar mining and Mars settlement could also lead to solar power actually being viable on the Earth surface.
Moon is not habitable either. Vacuum is bad for one’s health.
Moon makes more sense than Mars because it allows a transfer between heavy rockets needed to escape earth gravity hole and lighter spacecraft needed for getting to places like the belt and beyond.
Otherwise no point in moon colony either. There is nothing on the Moon that we need on Earth.
Electrical power in space isn’t same as electric on Moon or Mars.
The main problem with power satellites is transfer of energy to earth without damaging earth energy budget.
It’d make more sense to robotize industry, move the said heavy industries to space, feed them with raw materials from the belt, and solar power collected onsite, before transferring finished product to Earth.
Water: get the hydrogen from Neptune where it is crystal form.
–Otherwise no point in moon colony either. There is nothing on the Moon that we need on Earth.–
I need lunar rock- if cheap enough.
I don’t collect baseball cards, but I would like to get lunar baseball cards. I would like to be able rent the use of a lunar telescope, I might like to rent an earth telescope, if it was not “hard” to do.
So via computer, look where ever I want to look, for whatever reason for however long I want to.
–Electrical power in space isnt same as electric on Moon or Mars.
The main problem with power satellites is transfer of energy to earth without damaging earth energy budget.
Itd make more sense to robotize industry, move the said heavy industries to space, feed them with raw materials from the belt, and solar power collected onsite, before transferring finished product to Earth.–
Well part of power satellites, is be able to move electrical power anywhere on Earth surface. This would include moving electrical power from Oregon to Hawaii. But also recharging a phone from anywhere. Or getting whatever amount of electrical you want.
So old and broken is having twice as much capacity to deal peak load, new is just making amount electrical power that is needed and used. And if hurricane wreck some place, one can get “back online” quicker.
But moving industry off world, is the main idea. Getting anything to earth surface is cheap, and evenually getting off Earth will be a lot cheaper. Power satellite allow beamed power as propulsion. And makes getting to Mars in week of time, as doable {and using less energy than we currently use getting to Mars in six months].
But from the point that lunar water is mined, it will take decades to get to this point of having power satellites, industry off world, etc.
I want my lunar rock in about 10 years.
–Ken says:
January 3, 2022 at 5:11 PM
Moon is not habitable either. Vacuum is bad for ones health.–
Mars is a pretty good vacuum. In terms of pressure, little difference with Moon. You have small lakes or large ponds on the Moon- if the Moon had enough water. A greenhouse on the Moon would better if it enclosed a large deep pond. If going to have lunar hotel, you should have swimming pool, and very deep swimming pool would not have problems with the bends.
“Moon makes more sense than Mars because it allows a transfer between heavy rockets needed to escape earth gravity hole and lighter spacecraft needed for getting to places like the belt and beyond.”
If you had one of large radio telescope on Earth, being on the Moon you could lift in one piece into Lunar orbit [or to Earth’s low orbit- if want “space stations” in LEO, you make them on the Moon].
So large structures you might want for Space Power Satellite, don’t need to be structurally strong [it could too be weak to hold up under Earth’s gravity] and bigger than any structure currently on Earth and launch it as one piece from the lunar surface].
And for things that can withstand high gee {water, bricks, food, etc] they can launched at high velocity at very, very low cost.
The moon is only reason why people think a huge “L-5 colony” is doable. It also works with Mercury. And more or less works with Mars.
Or people could live in brick houses in LEO- or in terms of fashion, one make houses in space, which look like houses on Earth [even if it’s silly to do so].
One thing about a deep lake, is you use, what I invented, which I call pipelauncher.
A pipelauncher “significance” is it’s cheap way to launch rocket from the ocean, and it lowers the energy costs to get to orbit.
The lowers the energy costs could be more important when pipelauncher are “developed”. A pipelauncher is like anything- the first cars, didn’t go that fast.
Anyhow, a pipelauncher would launch a rocket at about 100 mph, as said mostly about cheap anything to launch rockets from the ocean, and it’s a lot easier doing 100 mph than say 200 mph.
With Mars, pipelauncher are less effective at lower energy cost to get to Mars orbit. But they work better on Mars- 200 mph would easier. But even if they could do 500 mph, it does make much difference, largely because one doesn’t have much gravity loss, launching rocket from Mars. Or Earth’s gravity loss is about 1 km/sec and need 7.8 km/sec of velocity to attain orbit.
Mars is less than .5 km/sec and take a lot less velocity to attain orbit or even do Mars escape trajectory.
Pipelauncher are mostly about lowering gravity loss. If can lower it by half, that .5 km/sec [1,116 mph].
Anyhow 500 meter deep lake, is deep enough for pipelauncher. And could have pipelauncher because it’s something one use to launch [or land] rockets going into orbit or suborbital.
Also a large portion of suborbital energy cost on Earth, is gravity loss. Pipelauncher would useful for Earth suborbital travel- which better if done from the ocean.
Should make the Y axis scale -10 to +10 to reflect the utter nonsense of it all too.
Let’s keep in mind that when we talk about one year being the warmest, second warmest, etc., that we are talking about a few tenths of a degree C, maybe 100ths of a degree C in some cases.
Let’s not make mountains out of molehills and place undue stress on the public over nothing. A warming of 1C in a home would likely be undetectable. None of this pithy warming could possibly lead to noticeable climate change anywhere.
When we speak of warming, we are talking about an average warming over a large planet. The fact that the overall warming is only about 1C over 170 years and since some areas are claimed to have warmed +5C it means some places had to have cooled almost the same amount.
Not really. It depends on how large is the area covered by the +5 anomaly.
Reread his last sentence and then blather again.
-Lets not make mountains out of molehills and place undue stress on the public over nothing. –
Why should public be stressed by a warmer night time temperature.
Animals won’t be stressed as they are living outside where it’s cold at night, unlike most humans.
And in a house if warmer one uses less energy to heat the house.
Where I live, recently it’s getting below freezing at night, but imagine some are getting well below freezing.
I am getting free ice at night, but I am not using it.
Does anyone need the ice?
If I had a pond, I could go ice skating.
Is this the tragedy, less ice-skating opportunities on ponds?
Is anyone out there, enjoying the winter coolest by not warming their home?
I didn’t get snow for holidays- but hills around here have snow, and I like seeing the snow, at a distance.
I’m not even a “gifted amateur” scientist, but I do like reading the comments and have an interest in climate matters. I must say, I’m very impressed that the conversation has remained civil. Something one doesn’t often see in fora these days.
Well done guys.
This is certainly not a site I would call “civil”. Dr Spencer does little to moderate this site, and consequently there are people who regularly take advantage.
Yes, Dr. Spencer should be more like Youtube or Facebook and sensor us deniers.
Roy actually banned many Dragon cranks, Troglodyte.
But you keep coming back!
Not unlike FB or YT trolls, come to think of it.
“Sensor” …. oh dear, it just gets worse.
I read above:
” We don’t measure even a small proportion of the actual deep ocean. Most of the ocean data covers the top few hundred meters. Data below that is quite sparse. ”
“We … ”
Who is that?
JMA, for example?
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
*
Here is a graph showing seasonal and latitudinal OHC dependencies:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ThermoclineSeasonDepth.png
*
And, of course: the ARGO network doesn’t exist:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Argo_floats_in_Feb._2018_colour_coded_by_country.png
” Argo is an international program of robotic profiling floats deployed globally since the start of the 21st century.[33] The program’s initial 3000 units had expanded to nearly 4000 units by year 2020. At the start of each 10-day measurement cycle, a float descends to a depth of 1000 meters and drifts with the current there for 9 days.
It then descends to 2000 meters and measures temperature, salinity (conductivity), and depth (pressure) over a final day of ascent to the surface. At the surface the float transmits the depth profile and horizontal position data through satellite relays before repeating the cycle.
A smaller test fleet of “deep Argo” floats aims to extend the measurement capability down to about 6000 meters. It will accurately sample OHC parameters for a majority of the ocean volume when fully deployed. ”
*
There are many more sources concerning the observation of ocean heat content.
You just need to search for them.
Some pretentious persons prefer to spread misinformation.
“Who is that?”
We the human race collectively. Could you be so dumb?
How many ARGO floats is that over how many square kilometers of ocean? I think you will find that the land areas are much better sampled than the oceans physically.
And measuring at 10 day intervals is 1/10 at best of the normal land sampling. Some of it is even done at 5 second intervals.
Precision of the mean = measurement accuracy / √sample size.
What precision do you want in the global average temperatures?
From that you can calculate how many samples you want and from that you can calculate the number of floats you want.
That assumes constant temperatures and global temperatures are anything but that. If the temperature is not constant then the sampling frequency, both vertically and horizontally, is the more important factor.
Until the ARGOS floats can resolve the 2 main pulses of colder water that feed the lower deep oceans (freezing producing concentrated brine and melting producing colder water than the surface) then it is obvious that what we have now is not sufficient.
*both vertically and horizontally over time
You’re the data analyst.
Please calculate the number of samples and number of buoys necessary to provide sufficient data.
How does this compare with the available data collecting infrastructure?
How much would “sufficient” capacity cost?
Are you willing to lobby, and encourage the fossil fuel lobby, for funding to achieve “sufficient” capacity?
Please supply the critical data on vertical and horizontal differences across various time periods. Without that no determination as to the numbers needed can be done.
Nyquist says that at least twice the reported frequency in data changes are needed for the very minimum of data analysis. In fact 10 times the changing frequency is needed for any form of accuracy.
Try sampling a sine wave to prove to yourself the basic requirements.
That is of course for point samples. For area/volume sampling then time intervals becomes the bounding statistic.
Without meeting the required data sampling required then a suitable uncertainty needs to be added to the measurements. About +/-0.5C would seem appropriate.
Here is an example from a portion of the globe for today.
https://imgur.com/a/hR2DF7x
> Nyquist says that at least twice the reported frequency in data changes are needed for the very minimum of data analysis.
Not really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Have you ever tried to re-create a sine wave from just slightly higher sampling than twice the base frequency? That 10 times statement comes from having to do just that with any hope of accuracy.
https://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
“Sampling: What Nyquist Didnt Say, and What to Do About It”
Exactly:
So how should we interpret temperatures as continuous-time signals, and what happens if we can’t: does the world explode?
“It turns out that to meet the requirement of sampling in just one cycle of our 60Hz wave, the minimum frequency that we could sample at would be 660Hz”
He comes tp the conclusion that 11 times the base frequency is better. I would not disagree with him.
I normally work on 10 times the base but that is only a ‘rule of thumb’.
It is interesting that your defense of not understanding what Nyquist did or did not claim is solely to claim ‘the world won’t explode’ if we get things wrong.
Very scientific of you.
P.S. Sort out the difference between continuous and discrete time series will you. Otherwise you’ll look like an ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea
roy landberg…”First of all a great thank you to Dr Roy Spencer who effortless put this information to the public, which I have followed for many years”.
***
I second that emotion. Both Roy Spencer and John Christy have done the world a great service by honestly presenting a skeptical alternative to catastrophic global warming/climate change. Furthermore, Roy’s blog has allowed people from diverse backgrounds to openly discuss not only climate/warming issues but non-related issues.
Kudos to Roy for his open-mindedness and generosity.
This graph shows the warming since 1979 according to UAH, GISS and Had*CRUT4.
I’ve offset to give them a common starting point at 0 in 1979.
Please explain how GISS (0.8C) and Had*CRUT4 (0.7C) show catastrophic global warming and UAH (0.6C) does not.
Because GISS and Had*CRUT4 have cooled the past?
P.S. No graph.
Actually GISS and Had*CRUT4 have warned the past, which reduces their calculated warming rates.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
I had to add ****** to the graph address to remove the dreaded D**g C****n filter triggered by any mention of Had*CRUT.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2022/every/offset:0.49/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2000/to:2022/every/trend
Actually UAH and Had*crut4 have been very close over the last 20 years
Entropic man
Why don’t you simply use tinyURL.com?
https://tinyurl.com/2p8rjjph
Is that not simpler?
I preferred all the time to keep UAH6.0 LT at 0, and to give all others the offset I see in Excel when averaging their anomalies over UAH’s current reference period.
*
Looking at linear estimates is sometimes helpful; sometimes it isn’t.
We see, wenn looking at yearly averages, that UAH and Had-CRUT / GISS do not correlate at all.
Before 2003/4, UAH peaks way above the two, and after 2003/4, it drops way below the two.
RSS does the inverse:
https://tinyurl.com/3uey9ctb
that is, of course, the reason why it is so heavily discredited.
Would have RSS kept its rev 3.3 alive and UAH its rev 5.6, so you can be sure that all the discrediting people would rant on UAH and glorify RSS instead.
“Why dont you simply use tinyURL.com?”
Because using images is not the same as urls including parameters (which allow for further changes).
“Would have RSS kept its rev 3.3 alive and UAH its rev 5.6”
So old series are ‘better’ than the new ones because what?
Agreed entirely, Gordon – and also thanks are due for his books on the subject.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:-0.12/plot/had*******crut4gl/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend
Remove ****** before linking.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2022/every/offset:0.49/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2000/to:2022/every/trend
Actually UAH and Had*crut4 have been very close over the last 20 years
My point exactly.
UAH, RSS and the surface datasets are all in broad agreement on recent temperature anomalies and warming rates.
Nick Stokes runs a Latest Ice and Temperature Data page on his moyhu blog. It includes a graph comparing the major datasets corrected to a common baseline. Worth a look, though you’ll have to get there by search engine. Roy’s site won’t allow a direct link. I’ve tried.
“Please explain how GISS (0.8C) and Had*CRUT4 (0.7C) show catastrophic global warming and UAH (0.6C) does not”
Over the last 20 years? You agreed that Had*crut and UAH are indistinguishable during that period.
” Over the last 20 years? You agreed that Had*crut and UAH are indistinguishable during that period. ”
Yes.
UAH shows that global warming is happening, as do the other datasets.
Yet denialist claim otherwise.
And over the last 6 years?
This tells us everything we need to know about GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:-0.12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.02
It tells us that something isn’t right with UAH or HadSST or both. UAH says that the land+ocean warming rate should be about 16% higher than the ocean-only warming rate. Yet UAH ocean-only is significantly than HadSST and UAH land+ocean is the same as HadSST. Something clearly isn’t right here.
Or they both need an uncertainty margin that means both are correct.
Yeah. Good point. Christy et al. 2003 say the warming rate uncertainty is 0.05 C/decade. Their warming rate would only need to be off by about -0.025 C/decade for their dataset to be consistent with HadSST which is well within the UAH uncertainty envelope. I’m not sure what the HadSST uncertainty envelope is.
Bdgwx, did you know that CERES also computes a warming rate? It only applies to the period starting in 2000 but is another check on the satellite data.
The CERES rate is .12 C / decade. Over the same period UAH is .16 C / decade. CERES is looking closer to the surface so should be closer to surface data sets.
No. I was not aware that CERES provided near surface temperature data. Can you post a link to it?
No.
It tells us everything we always knew about UAH6.0:
https://tinyurl.com/52de8295
If a time series for the lower troposphere shows the same trend as a sea surface series, then the former must be overly dominated by its part above the sea.
It is exactly what you expect, isn’t it?
If you use
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.61/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.61/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:-0.35/trend
then you can adjust the parameters as well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:-0.35/trend
Looks like UAH and Hadsst3gl agree quite closely.
Well as 70% of one is the other, quite closely is what I would expect.
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.”
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.
Please, I am very interested, what it is you see there which it is wrong?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH
I was responding to Gordon’s claim that UAH is an alternative to catastrophic climate change, one of his sillier commments.
I also tend to take anything that Gordo says with more than a large pinch of salt 🙂
Christie
Your chi is just the sort of parameter I had in mind last night. Please justify it and explain how you calculate it for each body.
He uses his real name. What about you?
My answer is still in moderation. Please wait…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man, you can read my answer in my website. I created a new page there “LET’S WORK Φ -factor”.
LINK:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/451443968
I see no reason why a coefficient from fluid dynamics has any relevance to radiative physics.
I considered a parallel fluid flow as an analogue to the parallel solar rays…
It is the energy interaction with matter. The laws of reflection…
We can observe it in sports, football, basketball etc.
A bullet ricocheting from a target is also an analogue of reflection. The new trajectory is angular incidence on the target dependent direction.
GCM’s indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCM’s wrong!!??
m d mill
The reason might be due to their LT choice, very probably RSS4.0 instead of UAH6.0.
RSS showed in July a trend of about 0.22 C / decade, which is higher than
– GISS: 0.19
– NOAA: 0.18
– JMA: 0.18
– BEST: 0.17
– Had-CRUT: 0.17
– UAH: 0.14
And if you include the trends of surface reanalysis data, you are sure to keep your surface trends way below LT.
Linear trends are a very poor way of measuring natural time series data. Especially if you do not know what the important time series natural cycles are.
Tell that to yourself, little teacher:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1108877
I am not in a position to calculate non-linear trends. Perhaps you could recalculate my WoodfortheTrees graph using 1st order polynomials.
I’m not a great one for explaining climate change using short cycles. That assumes that the energy content of the climate system is constant, while there is clear physical evidence that the energy content is increasing.
“That assumes that the energy content of the climate system is constant, while there is clear physical evidence that the energy content is increasing.”
Temperatures can vary with same energy content. The opposite is also true.
I can even think of examples.
Melting ice absorbs energy as it melts without changing temperature. Water at 0C contains considerably more heat than ice at 0C.
I remember how surprised I was to learn that the energy required to melt one gram of ice at 0C would increase one gram of cold water by 80C.
Fohn winds flow down hillsides. The increasing pressure reduces volume and increases temperature adiabatically, with no change in energy.
Unfortunately there is a definite limit on how far cycles can drive local or global temperatures away from equilibrium without an external energy source. The observed global average temperature change is above that limit.
Estimated not observed.
RLH, Entropic man used appropriated terminology here. The global mean temperature is observed or measured. It would also be acceptable to say that it is estimated as well. What would not be acceptable is to say that the 2022 annual mean temperature is observed or measured because it hasn’t happened yet. But you could say that it is estimated to be X based some predictive model. Keep in mind that all observations and measurements are estimates since they have uncertainty. And that observations or measurements can themselves a combination of two or more measurands. There is even a formal procedure for determining the combined uncertainty of a measurand that is itself a combination of measurands. My point is that I think you’re being excessively pedantic here with your challenge of the use “observed” here.
“The global mean temperature is observed or measured”
Wrong. It is observed/measured at point samples places and then interpolated between those to provide a continuous estimation.
Or alternatively it is area scanned at discrete time intervals which are then interpolated between those to provide a continuous estimation.
I have not covered measurement uncertainty which also covers the volume that a point sample can fairly represent.
If you’re going to be that rigid with your definition then I question whether any temperature value can truly be described as observed/measured. I will remind you though that the GUM defines a measurand as a “particular quantity subject to measurement” and measurement as a “set of operations having the object of determining a value of a quantity”. NIST defines it as “an experimental process that produces a value that can reasonably be attributed to a quantitative property of a phenomenon, body, or substance”. The global mean temperature is a particular quantity of a body. There is a set of operations that can determine its value. Therefore it is a measurand and can be measured. And I see no reason why observe/observation cannot be used interchangeably with measure/measurement. If this is insufficient to sway your position then no big deal. I’ll avoid ever using the term “measurement” in my responses to you and only ever use “estimation” regardless of the particular quantity. As long as we both agree that “estimation” can be any particular quantity reasonably attributed to a quantifiable property of a phenomenon, body, or substance.
RLH,
If a single molecule or atom doesn’t have a temperature, then it follows that a point doesn’t have a temperature either.
Any temperature measurement is the average kinetic energy of a sample of atoms and or molecules.
A global temperature is the same as, say the temperature in the room I am sitting in, just a bit trickier to measure it precisely.
It’s interesting that the last 4 months, USA48 has been the driver. And, in this last month, USA48 “went nuclear”.
All that hot air from Washington, D.C.?
> A warming of 1C in a home would likely be undetectable. None of this pithy warming could possibly lead to noticeable climate change anywhere.
Gordo should buy a new thermostat.
Besides:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
But Gordo hasn’t noticed it in his Vancouver home, so all is good.
Only 1.5c since 1750 for >25% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year? Really?
Sorry. Can’t do simple maths apparently.
Only 1.5c since 1750 for >20% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year? Really?
Only?
The difference between the Equator and North Pole averages 44C over 6500 miles. That is 6500/44=147 miles/degree C.
A 1.5C increase in average temperature moves a climate boundary 225 miles further from the Equator.
That is good news of you live at the Northern edge of the US wheat belt. The forests now burning off can be replaced with wheat fields.
Not on the Southern edge, where wheat fields are becoming desert.
The bad news is similar if you live in Southern Europe, Southern Africa, Southern China or Eastern Australia which are desertifying briskly.
You did get that this only applies since 1750 for >20% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year didn’t you?
If you prefer to use global annual averages the change for 100% of the population over the whole year, that would be 1.2C, the change in biome boundaries would be 1.2*144= 173 miles.
The principle and the consequences remain.
Assuming that the whole temperature change is driven by the change in CO2.
In the Southern Hemisphere things are not so clear.
Sounds interesting.
What non-CO2 mechanism might be warming the Southern Hemisphere?
How does it work?
What are the temperature and energy flow numbers?
Any links?
There be this thing called Hadley cells. All that happens when the atmosphere is warmed is the boundaries between the Hadley cells move North. Tjat’s why any significant warming is observed at the poles while not much is observed in equatorial areas.
1.5C warming is a lot more beneficial than 1.5C cooling. 1.5C cooling would mean most of Canada and Russia wouldn’t be able to produce food.
Entropic man asks “What non-CO2 mechanism might be warming the Southern Hemisphere?” The answer is in a recent paper.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
It’s called solar energy.
Well if you combine the temperature/latitude maps that have been recently shown with the global CO2 distribution then the effects seem to be concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Ocean_Data_Analysis_Project#/media/File:Surface_ocean_anthropogenic_CO2_concentration,_GLODAPv2.png
Is incredulity all you got, dummy?
When was the last time the Earth warmed 1.5C in less than 300 years, and what happened then?
As you observed, only parts of it and then only for a part of the year.
“When was the last time the Earth warmed 1.5C in less than 300 years, and what happened then?”
1700 – 1735 it warmed 2C. What happened then is it unfortunately cooled off again.
See CET for details.
DREMT
You said last night
“Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue”
That gives an opportunity to resolve the issue without reference frames.
Put two large sealed rooms, one on the surface of the Moon and one on the surface of the Earth. No windows, no signals from outside.
What physical experiments can you do in the room to tell youwhether the body on which the room sits is rotating and at what rate?
If I am correct, the results would show the Earth is rotating once every 23 hours 56 minutes and the Moon once every 27.3 days.
If DREMT is correct, the results will show that the Earth rotating once every 23 hours 56 minutes and the Moon not rotating at all.
Can’t be bothered. Leave me alone. Leave the subject alone.
This might explain why Kiddo pauses his soldiering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1109438
Pup should be here any time soon. For Gordo’s recitations, we’ll have to wait 8 hours or so.
Willard
Leave DREMT be. He’s clearly not in the mood for debate.
EM,
Alright. Will let you tell him about the relationship between gyroscopes and inertial frames of reference yourself.
I gave him so many chances to make amends. Too late now. We are done. My new resolution is to never address him again.
I already know about the relationship between gyroscopes and inertial frames of reference, troll.
So why is it that a gyroscope will show that a horse on a roundabout rotates wrt the stars?
…because it is rotating…
…but not on its own axis.
It orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter which only makes sense if it is the center of the whole.
In the case on the Moon that is.
The axis of rotation for the wooden horse on a merry-go-round does not go through the body of the wooden horse itself. It goes through the center of the merry-go-round. Since as far as I know you agree with that, I have no idea what your problem is.
But you want the internal axis of the MGR to represent what you incorrectly claim is an external axis of the Moon/Earth pair.
Can’t have it both ways.
The axis in the center of the merry-go-round is external to the wooden horse. The axis passing through the Earth-moon barycenter is external to the moon. There is no problem except in your remarkably confused old noggin.
Ent, you don’t want debate. You want to pervert reality. This issue is easily resolved with the simple ball-on-a-string, but you try to claim passenger jets fly backwards. None of you braindead cult idiots is interested in science or reality.
And, as we have learned from the two simple physics problems, NONE of you knows squat about basic physics.
No wonder DREMT gets tired messing with you.
Clint R: So you want us to believe that a ball-on-a-string does not include the axis it rotates about?
No troll, I want you to stop “believing”, and start facing reality. Stop pretending you understand vectors when you can’t answer a simple problem. Face the reality that you have NO background in science, and then try to start learning.
But, that won’t happen.
So are you saying that the axis around which the ball-on-a-string rotates is not part of it?
No troll, I’m saying you have no appreciation for reality. You live in your own dreamworld.
That only works until it doesn’t.
"What physical experiments can you do in the room to tell you whether the body on which the room sits is rotating and at what rate?"
OK, fine. If you insist. A Foucault Pendulum, or a gyroscope, could only tell you that the body on which the room sits is rotating about some axis, not necessarily that it is rotating on its own axis.
So you are saying that the Moon orbits the Earth wrt the fixed stars as well as rotating on its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
No.
Do you people actually not understand the difference between an orbit and an axial rotation about the center of mass? Is that what this is about? Rotation of an unrestrained object is ALWAYS about the center of mass. This is fundamental. If the center of mass moves in a concentric circle with any other element of the object, it is an orbit, not a rotation.
> Do you people actually not understand the difference between an orbit and an axial rotation about the center of mass? Is that what this is about?
More or less. There’s also the difference between a rotation in mathematics and in physics.
But just wait until you ask if blankets warm.
The concept of latent heat is fairly simple. The relationship between heat and temperature with sensible heat is also fairly simple. Heat transfer is time dependent and involves physical properties that are not thermodynamic properties, but it never violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Wondering Wee Willy is delusional, and not widely read.
Here’s an example blanket for him –
“Superwool Plus High Temperature Insulation Blankets are designed to provide excellent heat protection and thermal insulation.”
One of a vast number of similar products – all designed to keep the temperature as cool as possible.
Weird Wee Willy is obviously confused about the properties of matter, heat, and many other things.
Luckily, only those even more intellectually damaged than Wee Willy pay attention to his fixation.
As I stated above, heat transfer is time dependent, so insulation can only delay heating or cooling, not prevent it if the source of the different temperature remains for long enough.
Basically, Tim S, one group thinks that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, and the other group thinks that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So as you can see, Tim, there are those who interpret the GIF as a mere mathematical recreation, which is a tiny clique I affectionately call Moon Dragons or Moon Dragon cranks.
And then there is the rest of the world that follows the laws of physics we all know. Kiddo calls them Spinners, but quite intriguingly he never really talks about spin. He prefers the concept of rotation on an internal axis.
I guess Tim S gets it. It’s not difficult to understand, after all.
It is an interesting question. Clearly, the moon on the left is not rotating — it is orbiting. The moon on the right appears to be in a neutral inertial state, but the centripetal forces of the orbit are not evenly applied to all points on the surface at all times. This would seem to cause a rotational moment of inertia that would eventually cause rotation.
"Clearly, the moon on the left is not rotating — it is orbiting"
Exactly. The MOTL is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis. That being the case, the MOTR must be orbiting, whilst rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
“The MOTL is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.”
WRONG. The MOTL is orbiting AND rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
That could only be true if “orbital motion without axial rotation” was as per the MOTR, RLH. It isn’t.
Since the near side and far side of the moon orbit in different orbital paths of different diameters, it cannot be considered to rotate on it axis. Neither the near side or far side ever orbit in the same diameter as the axis. They may at times orbit in the same location in a crossing pattern due to a non-circular orbit, but that is different.
I guess Kiddo does not get it. It’s not difficult to understand, however.
More nonsense from Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, cranking up his gaslighting.
What gaslighting!?
Which part of “If the center of mass moves in a concentric circle with any other element of the object, it is an orbit, not a rotation.” Kiddo does not get?
Doesn’t matter. He *will* soldier on.
What part of “since the near side and far side of the moon orbit in different orbital paths of different diameters, it cannot be considered to rotate on it axis” did you not get?
And Kiddo will keep talking of rotation nonetheless instead of spin, oblivious to the fact that his position leads to the weird idea that it is impossible for a celestial body to spin, because definitions.
Laughably wrong.
I guess one could find elegance in trying to troll people into believing that the GIF illustrating spin-orbit locking disproves spin-orbit locking.
But after more than three years, the trolling still persists, and Kiddo soldiers on.
I’m not arguing against the tidal locking mechanism. Some "Non-Spinners" do. I don’t, personally.
Physics argues against the “tidal locking” nonsense.
I go with physics….
> Physics argues
You’re not physics, Pup!
You’re not really arguing, but at least you try!
Swoon.
Clint: ‘I go with physics’
Well theres a first time for everything!
But, which physicists are not arguing against tidal locking?
Tim S
What about reading a few words written by Sir Isaac Newton?
Third edition of the Principia Scientifica (1726), BOOK III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39'. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25 1/2 et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'. ”
That is, in English:
” 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'. “
With respect to the fixed stars, you can be forgiven for thinking the moon rotates on its own axis. It does appear to, after all. Just like a ball on a string would, with respect to the fixed stars. However, as you agree, Bindidon, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis in reality. Appearances can be deceptive.
bunny must have tried this same nonsense 10 times, or more.
“…with respect to the fixed stars… does NOT imply axial rotation.
He just can’t learn. He’s braindead.
You’re not general enough, Pup.
X does not imply Y… unless X implies Y!
Next time, keep the chin on.
Bunny,
What’s the problem?
From a long way away (Newton’s fixed stars), all sides of the moon can be observed, as it moves in its orbit around the Earth.
From the Earth, not so. One side perpetually facing the Earth.
From the fixed stars, apparent rotation. Apparent, not real, just as the Moon appears to wobble simultaneously both vertically and side to side. Not magic, just appearances.
If you must appeal to authority, be prepared to defend your understanding of what was written.
So from an object that has a very elliptical around Erath such that for some part of its orbit it would outside the Moon’s orbit and the other part inside the Moon’s orbit, it would observe different behaviors of the Moon for each part.
> From the fixed stars, apparent rotation.
Mike Flynn’s a funny guy!
Tell us more about Fourier, Mike!
*The crowd roars.*
“From the fixed stars, apparent rotation. Apparent, not real”
So ‘apparent’ means apparent from the universe, while ‘not real’ means not apparent from the Earth?
Just like GW is apparent to globe, but ‘not real’ because it is not apparent from Swenson’s basement.
What about the old boomerang?
“Rotation of an unrestrained object is ALWAYS about the center of mass. ”
Yep. Please explain that to DREMT.
…and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.
[KIDDO, January 3, 2022 at 12:55] Leave me alone you relentless, sadistic sociopath. Ive had enough of this.
[KIDDO, January 3, 2022 at 1:20 PM] 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.
…and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.
Once again, Kiddo blames others for his own comments.
Not at all…I guess I could have left it…but EM called me out specifically on this thread, bringing up the whole subject once again. I tried to make it clear I didn’t want to talk about it, but various people started their baiting and goading, and so here we are.
So once again Kiddo cannot leave the subject alone.
Apparently, you cannot leave me alone.
No one will leave you alone whilst you continue to spout nonsense.
The baiting and goading continues…
And so Kiddo will soldier on:
https://youtu.be/5F9sw32-EEs
See what I mean?
DREMT
” Not at allI guess I could have left itbut EM called me out specifically on this thread, bringing up the whole subject once again. ”
Actually you were asking for a response.
” Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 2, 2022 at 10:59 AM
Waiting for a response from Entropic Man, only”
I was locked out of the site at the time and unable to respond. My response on this thread was my first opportunity to reply.
Yet what I was asking for a response on is not what you actually replied with here. I had asked you a specific question. Never mind.
Data slicers have their swords out
Any reason you haven’t responded to my reply regarding your nonsense comment about rates?
Eben: “But officer, I couldn’t have been driving at 100 mph … I’ve only been driving for 5 minutes.”
You must be new here trying stupid stuff like this on me
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-863249
EM
Tell me more.
I guess you could tell if you were rotating by how often the coffee spills out of your coffee cup when you are upside down.
Silly angech.
During the last months, I was so busy with lots of other Moon topics that I forgot this one:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3453
It’s simply a little story about Moon’s orbiting by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
LRO has a polar orbit around the Moon that is spatially fixed with respect to a distant star. This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon, and not to an own rotational drift.
*
No MOTL / MOTR syndrome here. And please kindly keep these beautiful inertial frames of reference away from the stage.
As I said so many times: like Earth and all other celestial bodies, the Moon rotates about its polar axis, independently from the point in space from which it is observed.
*
Anyone who does not believe this LRO stuff is acting just like a Flatearthist who looks at Earth from a camera installed on the ISS and says:
“It’s fake”.
Great find for the Spinners…
binny does it again: “…spatially fixed with respect to a distant star.”
He just can’t learn. He’s braindead.
(But, at least he fooled Willard Jr., aka E. Swanson.)
Bunny,
Once again, “relative to the stars”. Read and comprehend the rest.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd spins and spins and laughs and laughs.*
"This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon…"
…but not on its own axis.
If the Moon does not rotate on its own axis, then the LRO, which sees the same parts of the Moon every 348 orbits about the Moon, cannot orbit the Moon in a fixed way, but must artificially displace its orbiting trajectory after each orbit.
Why don’t you ask the LRO team if that is really the case?
binny, you STILL don’t understand anything about orbital motion. LRO is “seeing” Moon’s orbital motion.
Bunny,
Why should he? Facts are facts.
Don’t forget that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, and that the Moon orbits the Earth.
Now work out the gravitational forces on the orbiting satellite (the only forces acting on it), and the resulting motion with respect to say, the Moon. There is your answer. No rotation of the Moon about an internal axis necessary.
Or just keep making silly assertions, of the “If . . . then . . .” type, based on your own fantasy.
For example – “If a thermometer shows a rise in temperature, then CO2 must be responsible.”
Or, “If you disagree with the notion that the average of weather controls future weather, then you are a climate denier.”
See how easy it is?
The LRO sees the same parts of the moon every 348 orbits about the moon because the moon is changing its orientation wrt the fixed stars whilst it orbits the Earth. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, then that change in orientation is just due to the moon’s orbital motion. No axial rotation. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right” in the below GIF, then the change in orientation must be due to axial rotation of the moon.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And so Kiddo soldiers on, again with the question-begging construction.
More nonsensical commentary from Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, again oblivious that everyone can see his little trick:
[BINNY] Researchers observed that the Moon spins, therefore it spins.
[KIDDO] Of course if you believe that the Moon spins, researchers will observe it spinning.
Kids at home – don’t be like Kiddo!
Kids at home can read what I wrote, and see how it differs completely from your desperate misrepresentation.
Kids at home should not read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1110474
Quick, change the subject…
Kiddo quickly cries “misrepresentation” after having sniggered “gibberish”!
…because I did not understand your 8:32 PM comment at all, but when you followed up with your 8:45 PM comment, I understood that you were misrepresenting my 6:55 PM comment.
Of course Kiddo can’t understand that his “If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”” begs the question at hand, and in fact Binny’s evidence renders the whole if-by-whiskey completely irrelevant.
The question is if the Moon spins or not. This does not rest on how we interpret the silly GIF. It’s actually the other way around: we can interpret that silly GIF because we have determined why and how the Moon spins.
It is in fact you that is using circular reasoning to suggest that the LRO observations are evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis. Your confusion is seemingly limitless, but very amusing.
Kiddo really has no idea how reasoning works:
P1. The orientation of the satellite’s orbit remains fixed in space, relative to the stars.
P2. The Moon slowly rotates beneath it as they travel together around the Earth.
C. The Moon spins.
The only way for Moon Dragon cranks to keep the game afoot is to reinterpret spin as a rotation on an external axis, say by suggesting that the Moon “curves” as it follows its orbital path.
Which makes no sense physically, as TimF showed time and time again.
So they have to return to definitions. But even then it does not work, as a planet’s orbit should not be conflated with a rotation on an external axis as the Moon-Earth system does not form a rigid body.
This is all overly silly.
You simply reveal that you have never understood the “Non-Spinner” position. The moon changes orientation wrt the fixed stars because it is orbiting. One single motion, through 360 degrees. That is the “Non-Spinner” position. So the LRO sees the moon changing its orientation beneath it because the moon is orbiting. Not rotating on its own axis.
the ‘Non-Spinner’ position is foolish in the extreme. No-one sensible could ‘understand it’. It is quite simply wrong.
Incorrect.
And so Kiddo reveals that he had never shown any integrity. He’s only in it for the lulz, except when he tilts.
Wrong, boring, and relentless.
Kiddo finally found a mirror!
Another 18 hours of this? Really?
With emphasis:
If you think that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, then you would of course mistake what is really just the moon’s orbital motion, for axial rotation.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious as to how scientific arguments work.
If you think that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, then you would of course mistake what is really just part of the moon’s orbital motion, for axial rotation. Nobody denies that the moon is changing its orientation, relative to the stars, whilst it orbits, after all. That orientational change is just part of its orbital motion, however. It is not axial rotation.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R explained.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1109993
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that we can conclude that the Moon spins because we have evidence it does, and not the other way around.
In a way, he displays how Moon Dragon cranks go from assertion to assertion without ever constructing anything that could remotely be considered an argument.
“My new resolution is to never address him again.”
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to what “to address” means.
I had hoped it would mean you would stop responding to me, stop mentioning me in comments to others, and generally stop hanging on my every word and being completely and utterly obsessed with me. Oh well.
And so Kiddo soldiers on with his manipulative crap.
Whinging Wee Willy
You wrote –
” . . . without ever constructing anything that could remotely be considered an argument.”
Have you heard of these marvellous things called facts, and an even more marvellous thing called science, which uses the scientific method.
You can argue all you want, and play all the “silly semantic games” you wish, but the universe doesn’t care. CO2 heats nothing. Michael Mann was not awarded a Nobel Prize. Climate is the statistics of past weather, and neither controls nor changes anything. Facts, you see.
You might as well argue with yourself, for all the difference it will make to the physical world.
You are powerless, impotent and useless.
Carry on arguing.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Pray tell us more about the scientific method, and how Kiddo’s proofs by assertion counts as scientific.
It’s been a while you did this bit.
Why are you bringing me into this, again?
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that in this subthread we can read:
“Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that we can conclude that the Moon spins because we have evidence it does, and not the other way around.”
which he still fails to grasp.
What evidence are you referring to? If you are referring to the LRO observations, then that only supports the idea that the moon is rotating on its own axis if you assume that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR…but this is what you need to find evidence for in the first place! So it is circular reasoning.
Kiddo still plays dumb.
Perhaps he should go to sleep now that he spent all his night trolling Roy’s.
My 11:25 PM comment is correct.
You are wrong regardless of what time it is.
That comment is not wrong, regardless of what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.
Kiddo backtracks from “correct” to “not wrong.”
Progress!
Desperate and pathetic BS from Willard.
My 8:58 AM comment is correct.
Dud falls into the same trap: “…relative to the stars.”
It’s called “braindead”.
Oh, Pup – you have no idea how much this means to me.
Next time, try not to confuse what I write from what I quote, OK?
Alternatively, you can always do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Best.
Wily Wee Willy,
Why do you post appeals to authority that support your opponent’s statements?
Notice ” . . .relative to the stars”.
Apparent rotation, just as an observer would see all sides of a raised bump on the deck of a carousel. Some people would hold that the bump is rotating on its axis, but could not even describe the entire dimensions of the bump!
Try it yourself. Take an aluminium foil picnic plate or similar, raise a bump with your finger, make some stripes of different colours equally spaced around the bump, from the top to the bottom. Poke a hole through the centre, and mount on a record turntable or similar. Set the turntable rotating
Stand back and observe. You will see all sides of the bump.
Notice that one side of the bump faces the centre of the turntable at all times, and the opposite side is invisible to the centre.
Just like the Moon in relation to the Earth, and to distant stars.
Mike Flynn,
Milquetoast Fallacy,
Thank you for your comment.
Once again it’s useful. You’re showing why Kiddo’s wrong about frames of reference. They do matter to settle the pickle of characterizing the motion of the Moon, don’t you think?
Great, let’s celebrate!
You’re wrong about appeals to authority, but who cares?
Oh, and thank you for confirming that you’re Mike Flynn with your very flattered comment!
Ta.
No, Swenson actually explains once again why reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[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.
Correct. You use them, but in the specific case of the moon debate, they do not actually resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the issue. In fact, all discussion of them tends to do is obfuscate the problem.
Kiddo does not always use frames of reference, in fact Kiddo does not always need them to solve problems, but when he does, they don’t even contribute in the resolution.
You can’t make this up.
DREMT, notice Swenson does state two locations to observe Swenson’s bump on the turntable “the centre” and the “stand back”. Just like Clint R did “inside of it orbit” (“the centre”) and outside “see” view from sun (“stand back”).
DREMT should always similarly include observation location i.e. frame of ref. when discussing moon issue but DREMT always has to be corrected to include such location.
You are making it up, though. You are twisting my words, as usual.
Ball4,
DREMPT possibly assumes his audience is not completely brain dead, and accept reality.
He is probably far more tolerant of delusional, argumentative, dimwits than I am.
He might take no notice of your demands, and why should he? If you discover that you have misunderstood what he has said, that is your affair. Don’t blame him for your lack of comprehension.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The audience bursts into a frenzy.*
Swenson, sure, DREMT will take no notice of Swenson’s demand: “Stand back and observe.” Or even “notice that one side of the bump does something from “the centre”. Don’t blame yourself for DREMT’s lack of comprehension.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swenson, sure, DREMT will take no notice of Swenson’s demand: “Stand back and observe.”
Are you sure? Have you added mind reading to your repertoire?
It is DREMT’s choice to do as he wishes. On the other hand, I didn’t ask anything of DREMT.
Maybe you are confused – I suggested an experiment to Willard. Of course, he is free to ignore my suggestion, as is anybody else. Anybody else who chooses to perform (or not perform) the experiment can come to any conclusion they like.
You can choose to accept reality or not. Reality doesn’t care. Nor do I, really.
Ball4, as I have told you countless times already, I am well aware that from the inside the orbit, you see only one side of the moon, and from outside the orbit you see all sides of it. That does not mean that when viewed from inside the orbit, the moon is not rotating on its own axis, and when viewed from outside the orbit it is rotating on its own axis.
So what does “from outside the orbit you see all sides of it [the Moon]” means, then? In fact, when would be able to *see* a celestial body spin?
Kiddo’s too busy soldiering on to close up the loops.
Three years of that silly trolling.
You see all sides of the moon from outside of the orbit, and only one side of the moon from inside the orbit because it is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.
Kiddo soldiers on, this time “forgetting” to say when we would able to *see* a celestial body spin.
Generally speaking, when you see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit. In the specific case of a celestial object that is rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction to its orbital motion, at a rate of exactly once per orbit, you would see all sides of the object from the inside of the orbit, but only one side from the outside of the orbit.
[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.
[AND NOW KIDDO] Generally speaking, [you can determine if a celestial body spins] when you see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit.
Exactly. No contradiction, because reference frames are clearly not going to resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the issue.
Kiddo will never be able to settle the Moon issue using a reference frame, but to know if a celestial body spins, he needs at least two.
You just can’t make this up.
Yet making it up is what you are doing.
Kiddo should stop trolling and get to sleep.
Good night.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Don’t be an idiot. Who is Kiddo, anyway? Is he another of your imaginary enemies, like Mike Flynn?
Telling me I’m wrong – by assertion, backed only by your fantasy, just makes you look as disconnected from reality as you are.
Still obsessed with Mike Flynn, are you? Another witless assertion – “Oh, and thank you for confirming that youre Mike Flynn . . . “. This would be the same Mike Flynn who commented on this blog recently, or some other Mike Flynn who you say cannot possibly exist, because he is not allowed to post comments, except that he demonstrably does. You can thank anyone you want for anything you like. What mental aberration leads you to think I care?
You need to separate your fantasy from reality.
You are so stupid that you probably believe a pile of blankets can be used as a heat source. Or that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Mike Flynn,
Misfired Felicity,
CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon’s rotation!
However, you got a point –
Moon Dragon cranks are often Sky Dragon cranks!
Why do you think this is?
Time for your regular Tyndall quote.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Nor has CO2 anything to do with making thermometers hotter, but idiots like you prove that some people prefer fantasy to fact.
What are Moon Dragon cranks and Sky Dragon cranks?
I don’t believe I have categorised anybody as either, but that obviously doesn’t stop you from making weirdly obscure comments.
Why are you asking me what I think about some nonsense words which you have strung together for some purpose known only to the inhabitants of your fantasy? What a stupid question!
By the way, which Mike Flynn do you think I am today? The one whom you claim has been banned, or the one who commented recently, telling you you were wrong – without my flair and panache. Maybe you have split fantasies?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mechanical Fraction,
You keep denying –
“This would be the same Mike Flynn who commented on this blog recently”
No, that was Kiddo trying to make a point.
Here’s you saying “diddums”:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/10/pre-traumatic-stress-syndrome-climate-scientists-speak-out/#comment-717144
What a dumb guy you are!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weird Wee Willy,
So the Mike Flynn who commented is really another fantasy figure called Kiddo. Is that it? I am confused – you believe one Mike Flynn is really me, who you persist in calling Mike Flynn, and that another Mike Flynn is really someone called Kiddo.
Are you sure you are not delusional?
Mike Flynn,
Multiplying Farces.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Which Mike Flynn is that?
Mike Flynn,
This one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251333
Search for “CO2 makes thermometers hotter” on this page.
Cheers.
Delusional Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Search for “CO2 makes thermometers hotter” on this page.”
No. Why should I dance you your nonsensical and jangling discordance?
Keep quoting facts. When you appeal to the authority of whichever Mike Flynn you choose, I, at least, am likely to agree.
Which begs the question – why do you quote facts which destroy your GHE fantasy?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/if-the-polar-vortex-is-due-to-global-warming-why-are-u-s-cold-waves-decreasing/#comment-340015
Cheers.
Worrying Wee Willy,
Keep quoting Mike Flynn (either one).
He asks a valid question (which I note you have emphasised), “Do you really think that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?”
Well, do you?
Answering yes is an act of denial of reality, so of course you will answer in the affirmative. All you have to do is to explain is how this magic occurs.
Of course, you can’t, so you won’t. The usual climate crackpot collapse under pressure.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Madonna Fest,
You say –
“He asks a valid question”
It’s not “a” valid question, whatever that means, it’s the very same question you just asked, in fact with the same words! And we can find more than 60 occurrences of it over the years:
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%20%22CO2%20makes%20thermometers%20hotter%3F%22
Keep denying.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
willard…”…the amount of time it takes the Moon to turn once on its axis, relative to the stars”.
***
At no time does the Moon turn on its axis relative to the stars. It is performing translation along an orbital path without turning on a local axis. The near face, changes orientation wrt the stars, through 360 degrees as it orbits, but the far face is mirroring that motion in parallel, making it impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
Pay attention, Willard, there will be a test on this soon. You don’t want to fail and be forced to wear a Willatd the Dunce hat.
> At no time does the Moon turn on its axis relative to the stars.
C’mon, Gordo.
The Man on the Moon faces the Earth. The Earth turns on its axis relative to the stars. What do you think should follow from that?
Think. You got no second chance.
C’mon Witless Wee Willy,
Don’t even try to think. Your peabrain can’t cope with that particular activity.
Best retreat to your fantasy world, where you can be wise, powerful and respected, unlike in the real world.
Mike Flynn,
Pay attention:
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
Wee Willy Idiot,
Which Mike Flynn do you think I am now? Moving right along –
Of course it does. Are you stupid? It’s moving around the Earth, for a start. Its position is also changing, relative to everything else in the universe. The stars are part of the universe last time I looked.
Why should I pay attention to an Impotent, powerless idiot?
Carry on being delusional.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about Feynman.
willard…”The Man on the Moon faces the Earth. The Earth turns on its axis relative to the stars. What do you think should follow from that?”
***
Don’t you get it that the side of the Moon with the Man In The Moon always faces the Earth? That means the other side which is the Dark Side to us on Earth, always faces toward space.
Both faces are moving parallel to each other. If the Moon did rotate about a local axis, the Man in the Moon would have to face away from Earth through part of the orbit. But that’s not happening, ergo, the Moon does not rotate around a local axis with or without respect to the stars.
> If the Moon did rotate about a local axis, the Man in the Moon would have to face away from Earth through part of the orbit.
C’mon, Gordo.
Once again you forget the possibility that the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits.
There’s even an expression for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It’s really not that complex.
Our moon can only be spinning at the same rate it orbits if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
Kiddo keeps soldiering, once again with his proof by assertion.
All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together. It should not be difficult.
Kiddo still forgets that there are many ways to see the GIF, therefore it does not resolve, or even contributes towards resolving, the Moon issue.
We can still appreciate how he exploits the GIF illustrating the orbit-spin lock to argue that the orbit-spin lock is impossible.
My 12:54 AM comment is correct.
Kiddo’s 1:05 AM comment is incorrect:
Without any knowledge of physics, it is impossible to interpret GIF properly.
Which might explain how Moon Dragon cranks interpret it!
My 1:05 AM comment is also correct.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Without any knowledge of physics, it is impossible to interpret GIF properly.
Which might explain how Moon Dragon cranks interpret it!”
GIF? Moon Dragon cranks?
Are you completely deranged, or just pretending?
You are wrong no matter what time it is.
Those comments are not wrong, no matter what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.
Kiddo’s comment is wrong because there’s no way to make sense of a physical explanation without knowing at least some physics. At best Kiddo should argue that we need naive physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_physics
So no, “adding” two motions, whatever he might mean by that, is only good if one wishes to reduce physics to geometry.
Problem is that Moon Dragon cranks suck at geometry.
The comments are correct.
[KIDDO] One single motion, through 360 degrees.
[ALSO KIDDO] All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together.
There is no contradiction Willard, because the second quote refers to something involving understanding of the “Spinner” position, which involves two motions, and the first quote refers to the “Non-Spinner” position, which involves one single motion.
Kiddo keeps digging.
If one can say that A + B = C, then it’d be silly to say that C is more correct than A + B. Either they’re equal, or they’re not. Adding bold to “is” adds nothing.
So at best Moon Dragon can claim that their theory is equivalent, as I said the first time I got involved into this farce.
Lunar theory involves much more than two motions anyway.
The comments are correct, waffler.
Kiddo’s assertion that “all that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together” have been refuted in at least two different ways: faulty psychology, and faulty algebra. Let’s add another one, by recalling his favorite GIF’s legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
The last claim is a counterfactual. Counterfactuals are seldom evaluated by just looking at them. They require some thinking, hence the expression “counterfactual thinking.” To evaluate what we should expect if the Moon was not spinning requires some physics knowledge.
Kiddo’s “adding” does not cut it.
Keep on waffling. The comments are correct.
Here’s one tiny bit of knowledge that Kiddo needs to reach the Moon Dragon crank conclusion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549311
As a claim about geometry, it’s fine: a rotation changes orientation. As a claim about physics, it’s not: angular momentum is independent from orbit. As a claim about the concept of orbit, it’s false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
You are still waffling on, arguing against things I am not even discussing in this particular sub-thread. Meanwhile, the two comments remain correct.
Kiddo soldiers on, gaslighting once again.
No gaslighting here.
Since my argument is related to Kiddo’s “all that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together,” his “arguing against things I am not even discussing in this particular sub-thread” is more than disingenuous.
Pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
Whatever you say, Willard. I’m sure you’re right.
WIN! WIN! WIN!
No, as observed from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane, Ball4. Same POV as in the GIF I linked to earlier.
The GIF does not proof if the Moon rotates on its axis or not.
Never said it did.
Anyone following the JWST adventure must have noticed the extensive cooling apparatus needed. Although another 900,000 miles farther from Sun than Earth, the spacecraft would reach temperatures above 220F, 104C. Such temperatures would prevent proper use of the telescope. Back on Earth we say “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
The design of the spacecraft includes an artificial “atmosphere”, to hopefully limit Mr. Sun. Interestingly, the “atmosphere” is designed to both reflect solar SW, and emit LW.
It’s almost as if they copied how Earth does it….
Not possible.
Dr. Spencer,
Do you know yet how large the error bars are on each data point and on the running, centered 13-month mean? If so, please consider posting a graph with the error bars included. Without the error bars it seems impossible to know whether or not the apparent warming trend you and Dr. Christy find since 1979 is a statistical fluke or indicative of actual planetary warming.
Thank you.
Dr Spencer doesn’t believe in error bars.
Indeed. I don’t understand it, but it seems that climatologists believe that the accuracy of any measurement can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the number of samples, regardless of the accuracy of the instruments used. The number of samples that global climate measurement use are in hunderds to thousands to tens of thousands if not more per datapoint, hence the accuracy god up to the second and third digit after the dot which is too small to be depicted in the graph.
coturnix…”The number of samples that global climate measurement use are in hunderds to thousands to tens of thousands if not more per datapoint…”
***
Not so. NOAA uses less than 1500 stations to cover the global surface and each station uses two ststs, the high and low for a day.
What’s a climatologist? It could be an economist, a geographer, a computer programmer, or anyone even remotely associated with climate science.
“less than 1500” does fall withing the indicated range of “hundreds to thousands”, dont it?
Coturnix, Gordon
The precision of temperature means depends on sample size.
Precision = measurement accuracy/√sample size.
Using simple mercury thermometers measurement accuracy is a conservative +/- 1C.
For n= 100 precision is 1/√100 = 0.1C
For n= 10,000 precision is 1/√10,000 = 0.01C
For n= 1,000,000 precision is 1/1,000,000 = 0.001C.
Plot precision against sample size and you get a rectangular hyperbola. Initially you get a bit increase in precision for a small increase in sample size, but you reach a point of diminishing returns.
How does this work for the global average temperature?
One station using a mercury thermometer takes 2 measurements/day, 730/year. The precision of the station mean is 1/√730 = 0.04C
For 1500 stations n = 730*1500 = 1,095,000.
The precision of the global mean is slightly better than 0.01C.
If you want to achieve 0.001C you would need 150,000 stations.
In practice all the datasets show the global mean increasing by 0.01-0.02C/year. 0.01C from 1500 stations is precision enough.
Curses. Correction.
For 1500 stations n = 730*1500 = 1,095,000.
The precision of the global mean is slightly better than 0.001C.
If you want to achieve 0.0001C you would need 150,000 stations.
In practice all the datasets show the global mean increasing by 0.01-0.02C/year. 0.001C from 1500 stations is precision enough.
@Entropic man
you said
>>The ~precision~ of temperature means depends on sample size.
and yet I asked
>>Indeed. I don’t understand it, but it seems that climatologists believe that the **accuracy** of any measurement can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the number of samples, regardless of the accuracy of the instruments used
notice the marked words. Do you see?
and then you say
>>Precision = measurement accuracy/√sample size.
uhm ok, r u sure there is nothing wrong woth what you just said? I can’t be sure of that because i really am reaching the rim my competence here, but i feel there is something wrong with what you said. Do you see?
curioso…”Do you know yet how large the error bars are on each data point and on the running, centered 13-month mean?”
***
This is a blog, not a scientific journal. UAH does keep error margins since they announced circa 2005 that the error detected in the sat data fell within the error margin they claimed.
Where would I find those tolerances?
UAH walks into an error bar:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/one-more-data-point/
Whacko Wee Willy,
Appealing to the authority of a pedestrian mathematician, and a loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat!
Gee, how could anyone not be impressed by that!
Pretty easily, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about the chemical properties of CO2.
Please.
A full-blown ad hom attack follows. Realclimate was at the heart of the Climategate email scandal with one of its owners, Michael Mann front and centre, while his friend and co-owner Gavin Schmidt was busy with damage control at realclimate.
Realclimate are diehard alarmist whose science is so diabolically inadequate they would only be quoted by a desperate alarmist. They are in no way qualified to talk about the integrity of UAH.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here are your first sentences:
1. A full-blown ad hom attack follows.
2. Realclimate was at the heart of the [But Emails].
Don’t you have any integrity?
AQ,
Why do you ask? Can’t you find out for yourself?
I could suggest you try Google or something similar, but you obviously lack the ability to find information for yourself.
Oh, well. I suppose you will have to remain in ignorance, unless you can give someone incentive to overcome your laziness.
Good luck.
“Where would I find those tolerances?”
Somewhere in the UAH documentation.
IIRC the 95% confidence limits of a UAH monthly average (and indeed similar anomalies from other datasets) are +/-0.05C.
Thus the December 2021 UAH temperature anomaly should be written as 0.21C +/- 0.05C.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I’m not aware of a comprehensive error analysis from UAH.
RSS published one a while back for the 3.3 version of that data set and it’s reasonable to presume UAH would be similar:
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf
Entropic man, re: the 95% confidence limits on UAH you mention, please have a look at my response to Gordon Robertson.
Mark B, thanks for sharing that RSS paper, it was helpful. I noticed that their per-decade error bar estimates for different latitudes-longitudes of the globe, and in particular for their TLT trend, are quite substantial (see Figure 13). In fact, in some cases, especially TLT, the error bar estimates are much *larger* than the the global per-decade warming trend that RSS finds (see Figure 12)! What seems to be missing from their paper, however, is an estimate of the global per-decade error bar, but it’s presumably also quite substantial.
So if it’s reasonable to presume that a comprehensive error analysis for UAH would be similar to that of RSS, it raises the question why Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy estimate vastly smaller global-per-decade-trend error bars (+/- 0.04 C/decade) than the RSS people do. And, who is right?
I don’t see significant differences in RSS and UAH in Fig 13. Can you point them out for me?
https://imgur.com/a/hF8Dzyg
RLH, look for example at the TLT chart (d) in Figure 13, and at the outer error bar on the light orange triangle located slightly to the right of 20N-75N on the x-axis. The caption says that this outer error bar refers to “the total 2-sigma errors including the contributions from the diurnal adjustment and the MSU/AMSU drift”. If the latest RSS data for global TLT per-decade trend turns out to have an error bar that large, and if it’s reasonable to assume that it’s the same for UAH, then that’s about +/- 0.11 C/decade, whereas the UAH per-decade global TLT trend is currently at 0.13 C/decade and the estimated error bars for UAH Version 5.6 is only +/- 0.04 C/decade. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
Curioso says:
. . . Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy estimate vastly smaller global-per-decade-trend error bars (+/- 0.04 C/decade) than the RSS people do. . . .
I’m not clear where the +/- 0.04 C/decade estimate is coming from. Can you cite a source?
Mark B, that estimate comes from Dr. Spencer himself, in this blog post I linked to in my reply to Gordon Robertson below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
It’s also mentioned in the 2017 paper on UAH Version 6.0 by Spencer and Christy:
“The difference between the Version 5.6 and Version 6 trends is within our previously stated estimated error bars on the global temperature trend (+/. 0.04 C/decade). While all adjustments performed to produce the temperature products have inherent uncertainty, through sensitivity experiments we find it is difficult to obtain a global LT trend substantially greater than +0.11 C/decade without making assumptions that cannot be easily justified.”
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results
Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell
Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(1), 121-130, 2017
Curioso,
The methodology for the 0.04 C error bound isn’t described in the blog post or the paper, but it’s about what one gets as an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only while the Mears paper is trying to bound all systemic errors.
That is, the former would be derived from the time series only and the latter is derived from an error model of the entire collection system.
Mark B,
“The methodology for the 0.04 C error bound isn’t described in the blog post or the paper, but it’s about what one gets as an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only while the Mears paper is trying to bound all systemic errors.
That is, the former would be derived from the time series only and the latter is derived from an error model of the entire collection system.”
Thanks for this. That would indeed explain why the error bars in the Mears paper are larger than the 0.04 error bound used by Spencer-Christy. In that case, it’s a disappointing omission by Spencer-Christy that they don’t comment on or attempt to model all the systematic errors in their measurements (they don’t even cite the Mears et al. 2011 paper you shared in their 2017 paper on UAH Version 6).
Also, since what we are ultimately interested in is bounding all systematic errors, and to the extent we can assume that the Mears et al. systematic error bounds are applicable to the UAH trends, don’t you think we should take the UAH per-decade trend with a grain of salt? After all, if the UAH global trend is 0.14 C/decade but the systematic error bound is around +/- 0.11 C/decade (possibly more, depending on what an updated error analysis finds), then we can’t be confident their satellite data shows there’s been any (significant) global warming trend since 1979.
The biggest source of uncertainty for the satellite temperature series is diurnal drift which is mitigated by the most recent satellites’ ability to make orbital corrections, so I’d expect the error bounds to be somewhat smaller in the most recent decade.
Of course, uncertainty works in both directions, so if one wants to argue “but uncertainty”, there’s no reason to believe it works only in the direction supporting their preferred narrative. In any case +/-0.11 2 sigma on a 0.14 trend is statistically significant by normal convention.
Mark B,
Re: the most recent satellites’ ability to make orbital corrections, do we know for sure that that won’t introduce new sources of uncertainty? If not, how can we be confident that new sources of uncertainty won’t replace whatever diurnal-drift-related uncertainty is reduced by orbital corrections?
Yep, uncertainty works in both directions, hence the + sign in +/- 0.11 C/decade I keep writing. And yes, +/-0.11 C/decade on a 0.14 C/decade trend is statistically significant by normal convention. But if all we could say is that there’s evidence of a warming trend somewhere between 0.03 — 0.25 C/decade, that’s much less impressive/striking/interesting than the claim that it’s 0.14 C/decade +/- 0.04 C/decade. The latter claim substantially oversells the validity of the satellite data from UAH.
Of course, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about what the systematic error bound is on the RSS global trend for the most recent dataset and likewise for UAH (which involves some different adjustments from that of RSS). It seems quite possible that the error bound is even larger than +/- 0.11 C/decade, perhaps enough to wipe out the statistical significance of the trend for UAH (and maybe even RSS).
Anyway, until these subtle error-analysis issues are sorted out, I just don’t see how we can say with confidence that the satellite data from RSS and UAH show a statistically significant global warming trend, or, on the flip side, a global warming trend significantly smaller than that found by surface-based temperature station datasets.
Latest realclimate blog post has a plot and some discussion of uncertainty in the surface data sets (HAD, GISS, Berkeley) annual estimates, showing better than 0.1 C absolute error.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/another-dot-on-the-graph/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=another-dot-on-the-graph
Gordon Robertson, that’s a disingenuous and lazy response to my question. It’s basic statistical literacy that a meaningful graph requires some knowledge of uncertainty on the data points. And the vast majority of people who will find/read this blog will have at least basic statistical literacy. Also, if this is the first time they’re seeing Dr. Spencer’s graph or they haven’t read his papers thoroughly, they’ll immediately think the question I’m asking. So the fact that this isn’t a scientific journal is irrelevant.
Incidentally, despite what you say, I found a relatively recent post by Dr. Spencer in which he says (in response to bdgwx) that the error bars on his graph are “not well known”:
bdgwx says:
February 11, 2021 at 2:26 PM
I think you present a well thought out argument here. Obviously I’d like to see this published and have other experts weigh in before drawing any conclusions. One obvious discrepancy that would need to be resolved is the +0.17C/decade trend from UAH TLT. Perhaps the +0.13C/decade throw out here is underestimated by 30%? Or perhaps there is a US based variation of the mid troposphere hotspot in play? Also, what does reanalysis show for the USA48 region?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
February 11, 2021 at 2:32 PM
All of these trends have error bars which are NOT WELL KNOWN. Also, the tropospheric trends cannot be expected to match the surface trends over such a “small” area (~2% of the Earth).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/urban-heat-island-effects-on-u-s-temperature-trends-1973-2020-ushcn-vs-hourly-weather-stations/
Before this, the most I could find on the error bars question is this earlier blog post by Dr. Spencer in which he says:
“The rest of the reduction in the LT trend between Versions 6.0 and 5.6 (-0.016 C/decade) is believed to be partly due to a more robust method of LT calculation, and the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure, described later. It is well within our previously stated estimated error bars on the global temperature trend (+/- 0.040 C/decade).”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
But this is at odds with his more recent admission that the per-decade UAH trend has error bars which are “not well known”. Also, the estimated error bars of +/- 0.040 C/decade refers to Version 5.6, not Version 6.0 which has new adjustments over and above Version 5.6.
“All of these trends have error bars which are not well known”
I am not sure that this refers to just UAH trends as many other trends are mentioned in the same post. Urban Heat Island, USHCN, U.S. Hourly Temperature Data and Hourly Temperature Data. I am not sure that all of those trend’s error bars are ‘well known’.
RLH, I agree that this doesn’t refer to just UAH trends (and I agree with his assessment about the other data you mention), but I think it’s clear from his use of “All” that he is *also* referring to UAH trends. And my question about error bars is regarding UAH trends.
‘All’ could just as easily be ‘all other’ trends as he does specifically mention the UAH trend and sets out a specific number for it. Why he would contradict himself in the same article/answers which requires a belief in his dishonesty?
RLH, I don’t think it requires a belief in his dishonesty — it could also be that he’s changed his mind about the error bars on the UAH trend being “well known”. But I admit I can’t rule out your interpretation of his “All”. Perhaps Dr. Spencer can clarify this for us, if he’s reading this exchange.
RLH,
I’m not confident that Dr. Spencer will respond to my question, but Mark B makes a comment above that’s clarifying: He points out that the +/- 0.04 C/decade error bound estimated by Spencer-Christy refers to an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only, rather than an estimated bound on all systemic errors. (The latter is done by the RSS people in an earlier version of their dataset: https://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf)
For some reason Spencer-Christy don’t address the question of bounding their systematic errors in their 2017 paper on UAH Version 6. If Dr. Spencer was referring to systematic error bounds when he said “All of these trends have error bars which are not well known”, and he was including UAH in his comment (as I suspect he was), that would be fully consistent with his estimated linear fit uncertainty of +/- 0.04 C/decade in the 2015 blog post I shared. It wouldn’t entail any dishonesty on his part.
binny…”LRO has a polar orbit around the Moon that is spatially fixed with respect to a distant star. This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon, and not to an own rotational drift”.
***
The quote you provide comes from an animation section of NASA. In that section, they are under the impression that the Moon rotates on a local axis but wrt the stars. Why would they specify wrt the stars?
I have just pent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis.
The idea when launching LRO was to get it into a polar orbit at about 50 km altitude. Once in that orbit it is meant to have a fixed orientation wrt the stars.
Suppose for arguments sake that the Earth is at 0,0 on an x-y plane representing the lunar orbit. The Moon is at 3 o’clock somewhere along the x-axis. The LRO is orbiting the Moon in an orbit that always faces due north.
As the Moon follows it orbital path, always keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, its near face re-orients during the orbit through 360 degrees. The far-side face does the same, in parallel with the near face. So, the LRO will be able to scan the entire surface of the Moon without the Moon rotating about a local axis.
Note that NASA claims the Moon rotates wrt the stars, not about a local axis. They are confusing a change of orientation due to translation, where the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis, with local rotation about an axis.
> I have just pent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3453
That’s the first paragraph of Binny’s cite.
Sometimes, I worry about you. Do you have access to a social worker?
Witless Wee Willy,
Yes. The Moon appears to rotate – relative to the (distant) stars. NASA just forgets to be specific that the rotation is apparent, not real.
I don’t worry about you at all. Maybe you could name someone who does. There are over seven billion people on Earth, and over seven billion of them don’t care whether you live or die.
Why should they?
But don’t get too upset, they don’t care about me either, unlike you, you obsessive fantasist.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about Einstein.
“As the Moon follows it orbital path, always keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, its near face re-orients during the orbit through 360 degrees. The far-side face does the same, in parallel with the near face. So, the LRO will be able to scan the entire surface of the Moon without the Moon rotating about a local axis.”
Exactly, Gordon. They are confusing the moon’s change in orientation due to its orbital motion, for axial rotation.
There is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit. See newton.
Incorrect.
DREMT: Are you saying that Newton was incorrect?
I am saying that you are incorrect.
But you agree that Newton would say that nothing makes an orientation depend on an orbit.
Would I? Oh.
So you disagree with Newton then?
Why don’t you explain exactly why you believe “there is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit”?
Cult Leader pups asked:
There are no significant forces on the Moon to provide the net torque necessary to change the Moon’s rate of rotation. The Moon does not rotate around the barycenter.
…but what about all the “Spinners” who believe the moon does rotate around the barycenter, they just think it also rotates on its own internal axis? Do you agree they are wrong?
Quick quick, Kiddo changes the subject
Swanson is obviously wrong, because the moon does proceed through its orbit at varying rates. Bit hard for him to argue that something that is happening, cannot possibly happen!
And so Kiddo misreads “There are no significant forces on the Moon to provide the net torque necessary to change the Moons rate of rotation.”
Oh, well.
I misread nothing. Smug grin.
Newton requires that there is energy supplied for all motions wrt the fixed stars.
1. Energy for orbits.
2. Energy for rotations about their own axis.
OK…and your point is?
That you are an idiot.
Ah, so you have realized that your logic is circular. Good.
Cult Leader pups is still confused:
No doubt the Moon orbits the barycenter with different rotational rates for the radial line between the barycenter and the Moon’s CoM. But pups still can’t grasp the fact that the moon also rotates at a constant rate around it’s CoM while the Com translates around the orbit.
No, as I’ve told you several times now, Swanson, I am perfectly aware that the moon changes its orientation at a steadier rate than it proceeds through its orbit. It’s still only one single motion, as Ftop_t showed. Why don’t you go and study his comments, and ultimately bother him next time he’s here?
Except ftop_t programmed two separate motions for the orbiting and rotating on its own axis object. It is DREMT that needs to go argue with ftop_t.
Oh look, a troll has appeared.
Yeah readers can see the DREMT troll has appeared on their own; nice to see DREMT actually confirm being a troll.
See how it operates?
Cult Leader pups wrote
pups, the Moon’s translation motion around it’s orbit does exhibit varying velocities. It’s rate of rotation around it’s COM is a constant that does not change while revolving around the orbit. pups can’t comprehend the concept of angular momentum.
I repeat my previous comment to you, Swanson.
The “mechanism” is gravity, as modeled by the ball-on-a-string. Or, the model of a toy train on an oval track. For people that understand physics, there is also the vector diagram showing the resultant of the vectors acting on an orbiting body.
https://postimg.cc/JyCw5bzq
A ball-on-a-string does not model gravity. It also includes the axis that it rotates about.
“the model of a toy train on an oval track”
Do you think that the ‘outer’ wheel covers a larger distance than the ‘inner’ one?
Troll RLH, you can’t learn. You have no respect for truth or reality. That’s why you can shamelessly claim that you know how to add vectors, but yet you can’t solve the easy problem. You can’t even understand the solution.
You have no credibility. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
In contrast to Kiddo, Pup, and Mike Flynn, at least Gordo tries.
Your ‘truth and reality’ is a distortion of what real science is about.
I add vectors in a practical manner daily. Unlike you who have a completely distorted view of how to handle them and operate purely in your head.
Nice, your curves bring out the step changes of about 0.25C that seemed to have happened in 1998 and 2016. I say seemed because, to be fair, even though the steps stand out clearly to me I can draw a line from -.3C on the far left to +.3C on the right (roughly representing the 0.15C/decade over the satellite era) and get a reasonable fit too.
Anyone here really good in statistics that can figure out which is the better model of the data, or how many more years of data collection before it can be decided? If the temps wiggle around +0.25C from 2016 to say 2032 and then say there’s another El Nino and there’s another step up, will that be enough for most to settle the issue, or will we have to wait for say a century of data?
Straight lines are of little use in natural systems.
Willard…re reference frames, lets see if we can dumb this down a bit for you.
Turn a bicycle over on its handle bar and seat so you can spin the wheels. Spin a wheel and we’ll all agree it is ‘physically’ spinning/rotating about its axle despite any reference frame.
Now stop the wheel so it is stationary. There is no angular momentum about its axle. No matter which reference frame you use for observation, there is no angular momentum about its axle.
The wheel is stopped!!!! Not rotating!!!!
Looking at it from any other reference frame will not make it begin spinning ABOUT ITS AXLE. To get it spinning again, you must apply a force somewhere on the spokes or the tire. The force must be applied in a tangential direction.
If you want to be silly, you can attach the handle bars and the seat to a rotating platform and turn the platform. You can then argue that the tires are turning about the axis of rotation of the platform but you cannot claim either wheel is turning about its axle. Unless there is angular velocity about an axle there is no rotation about an axle.
C’mon, Gordo.
As far as dumbing things down, there’s really no bottom for you. All you need is a theme. You will riff on it at 22:00 each night. At least you are distracted from Montagnier. I call it great success!
But no, you just don’t understand the point at all:
A reference frame won’t tell if an object spins or not, but without a reference frame, chances are you won’t be able to tell if it does.
In fact, according to Kiddo’s new revelation, you’d need not one, but two.
Make that what you will.
Willard’s confusion is without end.
Kiddo’s trolling might be coming to an end.
Who knows?
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
Where best place to mine water on the Moon?
I thought I would google it:
https://www.planetary.org/articles/water-on-the-moon-guide
https://theconversation.com/mining-the-moons-water-will-require-a-massive-infrastructure-investment-but-should-we-117883
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/23/17769034/nasa-moon-lunar-water-ice-mining-propellant-depots
https://www.mining-technology.com/features/mining-the-moon/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/rockets-to-mine-water-from-the-moon/ar-AALA77z
They didn’t seem very helpful.
How do mine water on the Moon
The last link seemed to have weird idea.
I had various ideas over the years, it seems possible they
are outdated, but it seems it will depend upon the current
“situation”.
One of current situations is Starship.
Will it work, and how well will it work.
And Musk doesn’t think, or doesn’t seem to think
mining lunar water is “useful” for his Mars plans.
And Starship isn’t really designed to be use on the Moon,
but also Starship could make easier to mine the Moon.
Where you mine on the Moon, could be related to how you
going to make electrical power- solar or nuclear.
I always assumed solar. Mainly due to wider access to
solar power. So if solar power, near where you get best solar
power. But nuclear, can work where there good solar and where
there isn’t good solar. Advantage, nuclear.
But another aspect of mining lunar water, is it sort like mining
oil {as couple above links mentioned} but I mean is that terms dollar amount, water enables, but isn’t the big business, or for
every rocket fuel dollar one needs a larger amount money being make, which rocket fuel makes possible. Oil companies may large, but there are bit player in terms of entire economy.
Or rockets companies are important but small monetary part of the global satellite industry.
And this will continue, spacecraft and fuel will be small part of space economy- it has to be. But water mining can evolve into mining other stuff. And kinds mining of all the other kind of stuff, would/could be pretty big thing. But main point is
that one has line up customers of rocket fuel, or you have generate demand for rocket fuel- and that’s the hard part.
But one can wonder how mine one could actually lunar water- as long as one realizes even best battle plan always get tossed. It will be trial and error, and constant improvement.
I was surprised to find that gold is considered very profitable when the ore yields about a couple ounces per tonne.
I don’t know where on the Moon or Mars you’d find an ‘ore’ body containing even that much water per tonne. There is no geophysical mechanism for water to concentrate into lumps of ore valuable enough to mine. Water that costs too much to mine, even as a colony wouldn’t be viable without tonnes of water, means colony not viable.
When I was kid {when lived in Campbell River}, went on elementary field trip to iron mine they got a fair amount gold and I think other stuff, but most of revenue was iron and therefore an Iron mine. I watched them pour a bar of gold {I think they wanted to show to the kids to make things more interesting}.
So therefore one could say the gold was mineable, but not really- it was iron mine. I hear they mining gold in very low concentration and it’s common find gold mines, which are “mined out” and mine the gold again. Particularly in China where they have mined gold for long time. But anyhow, they could call it a gold mine, but it’s also mining silver and other stuff.
Likewise with the Moon, it depend on other stuff than water, such as CO2, and/or iron.
Some claim 1% concentration of water is impossible, of course volume or weight are different, I tend to think of it as volume. But with weight regolith is 2 to 2.5 density, and water is 1, so say 2500 kg per cubic meter and 1% is 25 kg of water. Though per volume cubic meter at 1% 10 kg of water. I tend to think 1% either with volume or weight is unlikely mineable. Earth dirt with less 5% per volume will kill plants, and with clay it holds on to the water, and need higher amount of water for plants to live. Too much clay, I think 20% is not enough water because plants can’t pull the water out.
So I tend to say your non dead lawn would mineable for water on the Moon {fairly easily}. But being optimist, I tend think in terms 5 to 10% water per volume as somewhere around minimal range of mineable lunar water, these amounts are claimed to be on the Moon.
On Mars they say they got lots permafrost type wetness [more than 50% water] I would not count that as mineable water on Mars.
And mineable depends if there somewhere else, where water costs less to mine. If your costs is X, someone else selling water for less than your costs, it’s not mineable. Unless all the stuff you mining will result in a profit. So Iron mine was making say more 1/2 profit on Iron, then it could afford to mine the gold.
Another aspect is 1 square km might have 5% water per volume but portion of 1 square km, higher amount and lower amounts, so you mine the higher amounts. Maybe mine the lower amounts later, or maybe to move to another location. And what has value is the company, because company value depends upon what can mine in the future. So one mine 1 billion dollars of water, and company is worth 5 to 10 billion dollars, because they everything working and company is lowering cost and can mine greater amounts in the future. {And company could end up mining the entire solar system}
Or NASA can’t do this, and US Congress would as general principle, would stop NASA if it made a profit {not that it could}. It’s waste of the public’s time, for NASA to mine the Moon, NASA should explore Mars, after exploring the Moon.
La Niña.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_pacific_current.png
Temperatures across North America (except Florida) are dropping well below average. Residents of the eastern U.S. are feeling it the most.
https://i.ibb.co/B2tGYBG/Screenshot-1.png
In Europe, a serious energy crisis and total dependence on Russian gas. Advice to America – don’t shut down nuclear power plants.
Forecast for Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/BGJZNbB/hgt300.png
Our Natural Gas industry is much more important than nuclear, and will carry us through the energy transition, however long that takes.
https://ibb.co/HHQhKSY
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1091225
America has NO energy source problem of any kind.
Their problem is energy supply, given the old age of their energy transport facilities, whether electricity or gas.
It was amazing to see last year that numerous people in America tried to explain the great Texas energy breakdown with wind energy based production problems, and carefully avoid to mention that the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines.
And as usual, ren, your forecasts for Europe are completely delusional.
You are a funny troll.
https://i.ibb.co/RD2s4Xd/Screenshot-1.png
Because of people like you, Putin is holding Europe down.
WOW!!!
I wasn’t aware of my power having such destructive influence on a whole continent.
Reminds me Popeye and his spinach, doesn’t it?
I will say more than that, there is no longer an energy community in the EU because Germany wants to become a middleman in selling Russian gas. This policy will lead to the breakup of the EU.
Wanna bet, ren?
EU’s markets are looking good these days.
Some info from the ‘braindead cult idiot’
I read above, without any surprise
” In that section, they are under the impression that the Moon rotates on a local axis but wrt the stars. Why would they specify wrt the stars? ”
Incredible. ‘under the impression’. Robertson is dumb, and will keep dumb.
Nowhere did anyone write that.
What was written in the article is this below:
” Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be placed in a nearly circular polar orbit about 50 kilometers (31 miles) above the surface of the Moon, completing each orbit in a little less than two hours.
The orientation of this orbit remains fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly rotates beneath it as they travel together around the Earth, allowing LRO to scan the entire surface of the Moon every two weeks. ”
Is that REALLY so complicated to understand?
LRO’s orbit around Moon is fixed in space!
” Relative to the stars ” means that if a sensor is onboard LRO, it will see a previously selected star at exactly the same position in the sky.
And you need the star’s position in order to ensure that LRO’s orbit keeps absolutely stable.
This means that LRO itself doesn’t rotate. Why should it do that?
And … where should the fuel have come from since it orbited the moon? From magic?
*
” Note that NASA claims the Moon rotates wrt the stars, not about a local axis. ”
No wonder to read such a nonsense from a person who UNTIL TODAY still did not manage to really understand how anomalies with annual cycle removal are computed, be it by UAH, GISS, NOAA or others.
NASA never claimed ” the Moon rotates wrt the stars “.
That is what Robertson thinks, and nothing else.
Nothing rotates wrt the stars.
All what astronomers do is to COMPUTE ROTATION PERIODS wrt to a fixed point in space: for example, a distant star (not: the Sun !).
Newton had perfectly understood that: he knew that Sun’s rotation period is
– 27 1/2 days when observing the return of a selected sun spot at the same place
but
– 25 1/2 days when the same distant star is at the same place in the sky. Astronomers know how to compute the difference.
*
Finally, a few references because Robertson is unable to search for information:
” I have just spent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis. ”
1. Here is a reconstruction of what LRO sees during 348 orbits; remember: it needs 27.3 days to obtain the whole stuff, this can therefore only be a video synthesized from numerous recordings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
There are numerous videos of that kind:
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130916.html
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180318.html
etc etc etc.
But… Robertson and his friends-in-denial will of course say:
“That’s not real; I don’t believe it”
like do all Flateathers when they look at any Earth picture taken from space.
2. I have posted a link to this article at least once:
Lunar rotation measurement using orbital observations by LRO
Stark, Alexander & alii (2018)
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.9977S/abstract
” In this paper, we demonstrate that this data can be used to track the slight variations in the orientation of the rotation axis and the rotation rate. ”
” In our initial results, based on more than 10 million LOLA footprints (6166 profiles) from the lunar North Pole, we demonstrate the recovery of small oscillations in the orientation of the lunar rotation axis (in the order of ten arc seconds) in agreement with models obtained from the lunar LR data. ”
*
There are also a few other articles about cross-checking lunar spin computed out of LRO data with LLR data obtained from Earth observatories like in Grasse, France.
Once more, a link problem, here is its tinyURL:
https://tinyurl.com/msdm3bs8
The LRO does not, and cannot, provide evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis, as has now been thoroughly explained. That you did not understand the explanation is nobody’s fault but your own. This is not even the first time you have tried to bring this up.
I perfectly know what you mean.
But… what I write must always be put in relation to the fact that among many many others
– Mayer in 1750 (simple telescope)
– Habibullin in 1963 (modern telescope with fixed star calibration)
– Calamé in 1976 (lunar laser ranging data)
– Stark & al. in 2018 (LRO data)
all four computed nearly the same value for Moon’s spin and polar axis inclination, though their observation tools and their observation data processing methods were completely different.
Around all that you can dodge as long as you want.
“…all four computed nearly the same value for Moon’s spin and polar axis inclination”
Of course they did…because the moon moves as it does.
The Moon rotates once on its axis for every orbit of the Earth. That is its motion.
Actually 2 separate motions that combine to what we on Earth see of the Moon.
Agree to disagree.
It appears that I will always disagree with you. And if you continue with your ridiculous posting, my replies will continue also.
OK, curmudgeon.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
OK, RLH.
DREMT: #n Please stop trolling.
I said OK, didn’t I?
DREMT: #n+1 Please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n+2 Please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n+3 Please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
And, as a last hint, I repeat what I wrote a few times.
Should there be some idle time for lunar observation in James Webb’s time schedule, so there must be, for any fixed point on the Moon, when viewed e.g. from Sun-Earth’s Lagrange point L2, a difference between its trajectory in space when moving (1) without or (2) with a lunar rotation about its polar axis.
In the first case, the fixed point’s trajectory in space will be the same as that of the lunar poles; in the second case, there will be a small difference, due to the rotation of 13.1762 degrees per day.
You demonstrate you do not understand, but claim you do. Got it.
What about YOU explaining WHAT I don’t understand?
Already have. You just dismiss any MOTL/MOTR talk out of hand, without even trying to understand. Same as a few other people I could mention.
So Kiddo soldiers on, once again dismissing what others tell him by whining about how misunderstood he is.
Butt out, Buttinski.
” You just dismiss any MOTL/MOTR talk out of hand, without even trying to understand. ”
Sorry, but this is not true at all. I understand all what you write.
But… between understanding and agreeing things based on nothing else than a few highly superficial Serbian quick-shots compared with centuries of science, there is a gap I do not accept to move over.
Your problem: you, Robertson, Flynnson, Clint R, bill hunter and a couple of others are a tiny minority basing their guesses on the thoughts of a tiny minority.
OK, Bindidon.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n Please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
And I repeat: what you see can’t be due to a non-rotating Moon. But that you see only when looking how a non-rotating Moon behaves along its orbit, e.g. in a simulation software.
Bindidon, you’re braindead. You can’t understand the motions. You refuse the reality of the ball-on-a-string. You can’t visualize that the LRO in a fixed orbit would see all sides of Moon as it made its orbit. It’s just like sitting in the bleachers watching a track runner. The runner is not rotating about his axis, but you would see all sides of him in one lap.
You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Does the ‘outer’ leg of a track runner travel further than his/her ‘inner’ leg during a lap? Would that not result in a turn being performed?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111372
Vintage 2020-11:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548545
It’s been a while Kiddo hasn’t tried his hand on torques.
Pup never tries his hand on anything. He just enables Kiddo.
Cult Leader pups, there is no string between the Earth-Moon barycenter, only the force of gravity. The string prevents the ball in your scenario from rotating independently, gravity does not. The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once each orbit.
Willard Jr, you and your dad have the same problem. Neither of you knows anything about orbital motion, or the physics involved. Neither of you had a clue how to solve the easy problems.
Without any credibility, you both will remain worthless trolls, wasting space on this blog.
Have we ever saw Kiddo trying to solve a problem? How about Mike Flynn? At least Gordo tries.
Pup mostly plays Sphynx.
By any chance, could you please try to become utterly obsessed with somebody else, Willard?
Vintage 2018-12:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333249
Look who’s obsessed!
Digging up and quoting my old comments just makes you seem even more obsessed with me.
Kiddo soldiers on, forgetting that “site:drroyspencer.com” takes seconds. He also kinda miss the point of why I have chosen this very comment. Check what he says there. Check what he says here.
Nothing changed much in his Master Argument. Which isn’t an argument at all, come to think of it.
If only Kiddo did some physics all these years instead of asserting ad nauseam a simplistic thing he then claims nobody understands.
Yeah, you still seem pretty obsessed with me.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the point that has just been made.
Your “point” is just another personal insult in your relentless stream of endlessly derogatory comments towards me. Anything I would say in my defense you would automatically take up the opposing position no matter what, and the discussion would just go on indefinitely. So I choose to ignore your “point”. Because…there’s no point talking to you.
You will now respond with another insulting or condescending comment.
Kiddo rips off his shirt instead of addressing the point being made:
Nothing changed much in the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument since 2018, a mere laundry list of simplistic assertions.
How he can repeat these assertions ad nauseam and then claims he’s being misrepresented, is only par for his victim bullying.
People demonstrate they do not understand through what they post. Like claiming that the LRO observations provides evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis.
More insults and condescension, please.
Sure. You are an idiot.
Kiddo keeps doubling down on how people are mean to him and how he’s being misrepresented instead of owning that commenters on this blog already countered every single point he might have raised over the years. All they got in return, from our Dark Triad of commenters, are endless repetitions of ridicule and trolling.
Gordo, at the very least, tries.
Earlier I cited a 2018-12 thread, but it extends beyond that, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/l-a-wildfires-creating-spectacular-smoke-plume/#comment-277793
The first poster is of course one of Pup’s sock puppet.
That’s the spirit.
Vintage 2018-03:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/a-1d-model-of-global-temperature-changes-1880-2017-low-climate-sensitivity-and-more/#comment-290056
Mike Flynn was already peddling his “molten core” theory. Pup was already spouting Moon Dragon crank stuff. Kiddo appeared later on. It changed nothing much, except to create a Dark Triad impersonation.
At least Gordo tried, even back then.
Sure, "Dark Triad". That sounds sinister. No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds good.
Moon Dragon Cranks Just Want to Have Fun:
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
Let’s remind readers which role Kiddo pretends to play at Roy’s, and compare with the effect his interactions create.
While some kind of Comedy of Menace ought to be expected, online communities should be able to defend themselves against characters such as Pup, Mike Flynn, and Kiddo.
What about characters such as yourself, and RLH, for instance? How will this online community defend itself from the likes of you two?
And so Kiddo soldiers on, trying to “What About” his way out of this intervention, oblivious to the fact that me and Richard have very different roles, and can contribute much more than pure contradiction.
He also forgets that we already been where we are right now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719183
Speaking of timestamps, Kiddo spent a white night yesterday here.
You are a troll, Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he’s being slayed.
No, you’re just trolling.
Said the troll.
And so, having no idea what it means to act in an authentic, constructive, and collaborative manner in a social setting on the Internet, with no real sense of purpose, with a silly “NO U,” Kiddo soldiers on.
He’s yours, guy. Cherish him. He definitely needs love.
OK, RLH. You think I am a troll. Presumably though, you also think Willard is a troll, yes?
Kiddo needs all the allies he can get these days. That includes our Hall Monitor. Will he succeed with his deceptive deflection?
Tune in tomorrow… Unless Kiddo decides to sacrifice more sleeping hours!
Machiavellianism is hard for the body.
Maybe we should all just post continuously about who is the biggest troll.
01:11 his time, Kiddo soldiers on, suggesting that content doesn’t really matter, being oblivious to what could be considered a constructive, collaborative, or authentic comment.
Even style escapes him.
Willard, have you ever considered that I’m not actually evil, and that maybe I’m just some guy that disagrees with you on trivial matters…but is perhaps more tenacious than most?
02:19 his time, Kiddo soldiers on, trying to bargain while playing once again the victim.
Let’s hope he won’t fall into depression next.
Well I am the victim, of an extraordinarily long, extended personal attack…but don’t worry, I’m starting to find it funny now. It is pretty hard to take you seriously.
☺️
And so Kiddo soldiers on, with a bright 2:26 AM spirit!
DREMT,
He might be vacuous, but at least he’s irrelevant.
No doubt a legend in his own lunchbox, but in all likelihood just another embittered plodding academic, whose self-esteem has received a flogging at the hands of reality.
I’ve met a few. Sad sacks, desperate to be recognised, but incapable of doing better.
Generally spend a lot of time whining about how the world doesn’t appreciate their greatness, people bully and insult them, administration is biased against them, and on it goes.
Luckily, they are generally too ineffectual to do more than try to gum up the system a bit. No real harm done.
DREMTA: I KNOW you are a troll. You have even said so yourself.
I have never said the words “I am a troll”. I don’t think I’m a troll, no, but I at least have the self-awareness to realize other people might see it that way, and why.
Swenson: yes, no harm done. Just another yapping chihuahua.
Kiddo soldiers on:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
But he never said “I am a troll.” Strictly speaking he just did, but he did not mean it.
Our Dragon cranks don’t troll. They just want to have a bit of fun.
Yes, having a bit of fun, with the whole “Emergency Moderation Team” thing. As in, it’s not meant to be taken seriously, like I am not actually saying I’m a real moderator! But some people are a bit slow on the uptake…
Trolls just want to have fun. Kiddo just wants to have fun.
But Kiddo never ever ever trolls.
Ever.
And so Kiddo soldiers on.
Take that sentence out of context all you want, it does not mean what you want it to mean. Yap away.
Kiddo never trolls, ever ever. He *will* try to deflect from the fact that when he says that he’s just having a little bit of fun when he’s PSTing people, he might very well be. And for his defense he might try to suggest that someone, somewhere, *really* believes he’s Roy’s moderator and that he’s misrepresented once again.
As long as Kiddo is having fun:
all is well.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Yap away.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Still yapping, I see.
Willard says:
April 30, 2021 at 5:56 PM
Isnt that an indicator of trolling?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
April 30, 2021 at 6:01 PM
Probably.
But DREMT is not a troll. Apparently.
I’m touched that you hang on my every word, but no…I was just being facetious.
Binny,
You wrote –
“This means that LRO itself doesnt rotate. Why should it do that?”
Well, according to you, if the LRO continuously keeps one face to the Moon (reasonable, if it is taking pictures of the Moon during its orbit), then it bears the same relationship to the body it is orbiting (the Moon), as the Moon does to the body it orbits (the Earth).
You say the Moon rotates about an internal axis as it orbits the Earth with one face towards it. The LRO faces the Moon as it orbits it, but you claim it doesn’t rotate.
The LRO free falls around the Moon, just as the Moon free falls around the Earth.
In any case, could you please explain why the Moon rotates while orbiting the Earth, but the LRO does not rotate while orbiting the Moon?
Tidal locking. A phenomena well understood in scientific circles.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111197
“It was amazing to see last year that numerous people in America tried to explain the great Texas energy breakdown with wind energy based production problems, and carefully avoid to mention that the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines.”
That is a bald-faced lie. The Root Cause Analysis of The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages in Texas and the South Central United States concluded that:
” That is a bald-faced lie. ”
1. Sorry, this information came last year from a Texan newspaper, the “Texas Tribune”.
2. The ‘Root Cause Analysis’ you mention does not contain any reference to what I wrote.
From Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
I read
” State officials including governor Greg Abbott[13] initially blamed[14] the outages on frozen wind turbines and solar panels. However, data showed that failure to winterize power sources, primarily those of natural gas, had caused the grid failure. ”
And please manage not to be the next guy telling us like Robertson & Co that Wiki is misinforming just because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
You said: “the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines”. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111197)
Your Wiki page does not corroborate your statement; therefore your statement is a bald-faced lie.
The RCA Report says on page 92:
Reminds me of this great story:
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
P.s.: I’m not trying to be a d*ck about this but natural gas is my business and, coming up on the anniversary of an event that killed more than 200 fellow Texans, perpetuating these myths is counterproductive if not negligent.
As usual, Americanos know everything better, sometimes even about the entire Globe.
No problem for me.
Now you’re just being silly.
Don’t forget you are the one who opined about the cause of the power failure in Texas (USA).
> Don’t forget you are the one who opined about the cause of the power failure in Texas
Perhaps you’ll listen to Joshua Rhodes, Tyson:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/what-went-wrong-with-texass-main-electric-grid-and-could-it-have-been-prevented/
You might also like:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185
Next time, leave Liz alone 😉
Yes, all true. Still, the fact remains that, the natural gas distribution system (a.k.a. the pipelines) were not the problem. The bulk of the failures occurred upstream due to wells freezing up, or downstream at the generating facilities.
Fair. You’re also right about scapegoating – it won’t bring us any soul back.
The JWST uses an artificial “atmosphere” to cool itself. The “atmosphere” consists of 5 layers. Like Earth’s atmosphere, it reflects solar SW, and emits LW. JWST’s “atmosphere” will always face the Sun, allowing the telescope to maintain very cold temperatures.
The IR telescope must be at very cold temperatures to absorb the low energy photons from space. The typical operating temperature is -380F (-229C).
It’s nice to see some “real engineering” from NASA and its contractors. “Real engineering” points out that an atmosphere cools, it does NOT warm. And surfaces must be very cold to absorb low energy photons. Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons.
And the surface that points towards the Sun constantly is at what temperature?
Clint R,
Temperature has nothing to do with it, if Earth at 288K can emit 15 u photons, and it does, then it can absorb them.
They name a law of physics for this principle after someone, gee, can you remember whom?
Wrong again, braindead bob. You’re probably thinking of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. But, as usual, you can’t understand it.
“Before Kirchhoff’s law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation”
“a good absorber is a good emitter”
Not sure but might be interesting discussing atm. radiation fundamentals on a climate blog again. So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a “good absorber” of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isn’t ozone also a “good emitter” of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?
“One of Einstein’s contributions was to show that for a given radiation, the probability for emission is the same as the probability of a*b*s*o*r*ption. This fact is described in terms of the Einstein A and B coefficients and is very important in laser theory”
You want to argue with that?
Unimportant for the question I asked. Of course absorp_tion and emission are inverse processes.
Hint: Whether something is good or bad cannot be determined until criteria for goodness or badness are specified.
ball4,
You wrote –
“So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a good absorber of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isnt ozone also a good emitter of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?”
That is actually a good question, and points out several misunderstandings about the nature of atmospheric physics. The question is completely misleading, of course, and makes assumptions which are not relevant to the thrust of the question.
Maybe you could do some research for yourself. The answer is quite simple, but you will find that many of the supposedly factual statements coming from the EPA, NASA, Wikipedia, and others are complete nonsense, and not supported by fact.
If you do determine the correct answer to your question, your climate faith may suffer quite a hit. I wish you well.
Ball4 says: “So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a “good absorber” of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isnt ozone also a “good emitter” of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?”
Ozone *is* also a “good emitter” — but you must fully understand the situation. If some amount of ozone absorbs 90% as much as a blackbody at a particular wavelength, then it also emits 90% as much as a blackbody at a particular wavelength.
But here is the critical practical difference. The absor.bed UV comes from the sun, which is hot enough to create significant amounts of UV. The emitted UV comes from the atmosphere, which is NOT hot enough to create significant amounts of UV. 90% of “a lot” is not the same amount as 90% of “practically nothing”.
Tim, decent points. As Swenson implies, writing “a good absorber is a good emitter” is useless until the criteria for good and bad are specified.
To reduce the rate of radiative cooling of the contents of steam pipes in power plants or insulation for houses (or of anything) they are wrapped with a “bad” emitter, which is “good”.
Do you wrap hot sandwiches with aluminum foil? If so, you are making use of the “good” properties of a “bad” emitter (low emissivity polished metal).
It gets a little more complicated with Ozone and with Oxygen, because in the case with Ozone and Oxygen there are chemical reactions that take place such that when Ozone or Oxygen absorb UV, then they are no longer Ozone or Oxygen molecules.
See here
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35734/what-property-allows-ozone-to-absorb-uv-light
Yeah, Right, Clint R, you understand it but I don’t.
Tell me again, who has passed the higher level physics course?
The Earth emits between 3 and 100 u photons, and thus can absorb them as well.
bobdroege master of the completely irrevelant!
Good, bob. Now demonstrate your internet cutting and pasting skills, and show us you don’t understand what you are talking about.
What is the power in W/m2 of the15 u photons emitted by the Earth? What percentage of total emissions does this represent?
If you can’t answer a simple physics question, you have successfully shown you are are as dumb as a box of hair.
Go on, idiot bob, do it for my amusement. Measured, of course, not dredged from the foetid contents of your fantasy. Don’t forget the Earth is not a blackbody, and there is a significant dip in the emission spectrum at around 15 u.
You really are a dumbass (as you put it), aren’t you?
Boring bong dead Mikey Swenson Flynn,
“Dont forget the Earth is not a blackbody, and there is a significant dip in the emission spectrum at around 15 u.”
Yeah, right, its not a blackbody, so apply the measured emissivity.
Yeah, right, there is a notch around 15 u, but I was talking about the surface at 288 K average, the notch is from the emission including the atmosphere, and looky looky, Mike Swenson Flynn has found the greenhouse effect again.
What a tool, hey, can you loosen a screw, or maybe tighten one?
Or maybe you need a trip to the dispensary.
braindead bob admits: “…you understand it but I don’t.”
Correct bob.
And I’ve obviously had much more physics than you when you can’t solve the simple problems I’ve presented. And the funny part is you can’t even understand the solutions! You and RLH had never heard of “polar coordinates” before.
Clint R,
Yeah Right,
Though I did get spherical coordinates mixed up with polar coordinates, you got me there, but
Using polar coordinates for an orbital problem is stupid.
And your vectors are wrong, if the two vectors at the top of your stupid diagram are the only vectors acting on the body, it will not move in a circle like you claim.
And I know this because you claimed they could be added, which means they are the same kind of vector, and the sum of them would move the moon linearly and would not cause it to move in the manner shown in your problem.
Come on there, bobdroege,
Just because you don’t know what you are talking about is no excuse to act dumber than a box of hair.
Here’s the question again – what is the power in W/m2 of the 15 u microns emitted by the Earth? What percentage of total emissions does this represent?
Pointless asking, I know, because neither you nor your idiot fellow cultists have a clue about reality.
Maybe you are dumber than a box of hair. A box of hair would have been smart enough not to demonstrate how dumb it was , dumbass (too use one of your terms again).
Next time, seek advice from a bag full of hammers. Above your level of intelligence – should be able to help you out, dumbass.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
Using polar coordinates for an orbital problem is the correct choice. Knowing which coordinate system is best for solving a problem comes from experience. And it doesn’t take much experience to know polar coordinates best fit circular motion.
The given vectors are not wrong. If correctly added, the resultant steers the body in a new direction. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string. In the perfect situation identified, the orbit will result in a perfect circle, as the vectors are not changing in magnitude. In a real orbit, the vectors are changing in both direction and magnitude, resulting in a ellipse.
You keep trying to make a smokescreen about “kinds” of vectors. In this simple problem, they are all the same “kind”, i.e., same units. All you need to solve the problem were magnitudes and directions.
You’ll never understand because you’re braindead.
Clint R,
“The given vectors are not wrong. If correctly added, the resultant steers the body in a new direction. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string. In the perfect situation identified, the orbit will result in a perfect circle, as the vectors are not changing in magnitude.”
Nope, if those are the only two vectors, then the body will move off in a straight line, if they are the same vectors.
If they are velocity vectors, it will move at a constant velocity.
If they are acceleration vectors they will move off in a straight line accelerating as it moves off.
Are there other vectors involved that will cause it to orbit?
Swenson,
If you walk out in the night sky with a spectrophotometer, pick up an IR CO2 band, then it proves GHE. See, you’d be standing on the ground, and the CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Swenson Mikey Flynn,
Yeah you can ask me a question I don’t know the answer to, big deal.
I don’t know how much of the out going long range is 15 u
The topic was whether or not the Earth can absorb wavelengths that it emits, which Clint R said was impossible.
If you want to know that number, check out the Trenberth diagram.
Like do your own research, you might find another example of where the greenhouse effect can be found.
But then you have already provided several.
I must always be the one to break off with these braindead cult idiots. Someone has to be the adult in the room. braindead bob will be here all night.
I started this with my comment about how much engineering was required to keep the JWST cold enough for the telescope to function: “And surfaces must be very cold to absorb low energy photons.”
Then bob states: “Temperature has nothing to do with it.”
bob is so braindead he doesn’t realize he’s arguing with NASA engineering.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
You are taking my comment out of context for one, and second you might want to take a look at why the James Webb telescope has to be so cold.
You might find there is a difference between absorbing photons and getting a good IR image.
Remember that this is what you said
“Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons.”
And I say, Earth emits them, so Earth can absorb them.
“Being an exquisitely sensitive infrared astronomical observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope’s optics and scientific instruments need to be cold to suppress infrared background “noise.”
from NASA at https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/innovations/cryocooler.html
Had you refrained from writing “Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons,” Bob might not even have replied to you.
Funny you forget to mention that bit, Pup.
But then to troll or not to troll, isn’t it?
braindead bob forgot the rest: “Moreover, the detectors inside each scientific instrument, that convert infrared light signals into electrical signals for processing into images, need to be cold to work just right. Typically, the longer the wavelength of infrared light, the colder the detector needs to be to do this conversion while also limiting the generation of random “noise” electrons.”
Now I have to leave so the cult idiots can pervert the issue as much as they like.
Clint wants to know how “back radiation” from a colder atmosphere heats a warmer surface to a temperature higher than the Sun heats it? He also wants to know why the Sun can’t heat the Earth above -18C when its actual intensity at the Earth is well above 100C? Two simple questions?
stephen…”Clint wants to know how back radiation from a colder atmosphere heats a warmer surface to a temperature higher than the Sun heats it?”
***
There’s another issue at stake with this lame AGW theory. The back-radiation allegedly comes from heated trace gases that were heated by absorbing IR from the surface. They only back-radiate an unknown proportion of the radiation received. That theoretical processes requires the recycling of heat from the surface and back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the source.
Such a heat amplifier would be a neat trick for heating a home cheaply but it won’t work. It’s called perpetual motion.
The surpassingly dimwitted bobdroege still can’t figure out how to force water to absorb photons emitted by ice, becoming hotter in the process.
Search Wikipedia or the internet as hard as he might, blather away furiously, he can’t turn fantasy into fact.
He is a dumbass (one of bobdroege’s terms).
Here’s Bob’s response to a question I asked, to see if he understood what he was cutting and pasting from the internet –
“Swenson Mikey Flynn,
Yeah you can ask me a question I dont know the answer to, big deal.”
Easy for anyone to check the thread, and see if the question I asked was reasonable. It would appear that bob couldn’t find an answer anywhere, which points to a similar level of ignorance amongst so-called “climate scientists”.
Pity, but not unexpected.
I mean thank God for that miracle and these idiots want to get rid of the Greenhouse gases. They want to get rid of these miracle gases that heat our planet from -18C where very little can live to a nice cozy 15C. Geez Louise. It’s amazing life has endured these billions of years with such a delicate balance. 3C more and we’re toast. A few C less and we’re toast. I can’t sleep.
Swenson,
“Easy for anyone to check the thread, and see if the question I asked was reasonable.”
It may be reasonable or maybe not, but then am I your errand boy?
You are capable of doing your own research?
It’s actually irrelevant to the question posed, that is whether or not the Earth can absorb the same radiation it emits.
I think that’s a simple question for a simpleton.
Maybe that’s right down your alley.
Gordon,
It would actually be of some use if you understood the greenhouse effect, and that you wouldn’t be attacking a straw man version of it.
“Theres another issue at stake with this lame AGW theory. The back-radiation allegedly comes from heated trace gases that were heated by absorbing IR from the surface.”
They are also gaining energy from collisions with other gases in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen.
“They only back-radiate an unknown proportion of the radiation received.”
Nope, the amount is know, it depends only on the temperature and concentration of the CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The emission of radiation from the CO2 gas in the atmosphere is first order, maybe you remember what that means from your chemistry lessons.
“That theoretical processes requires the recycling of heat from the surface and back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the source.”
Well, the surface isn’t the source of the heat, which comes from the Sun, and then the surface emits, the atmosphere absorbs, and the atmosphere emits, and the surface absorbs again.
No perpetual motion, as there is a heat source, it’s the Sun.
Clint R confuses being cold to work just right and being cold necessary to absorb IR.
One is true and one is false, and CLint R can’t tell which is which.
You’re the confused one, Droege, and it isn’t a first-order process. There is no insulator here, and CO2 doesn’t heat anything. The atmosphere cools the surface; it is the heat sink. Not the other way around. If it wasn’t for the atmosphere the planet would be very hot.
Stephen p anderson,
The atmosphere is the heat sink?
Nope, everything is a heat sink.
“If it wasnt for the atmosphere the planet would be very hot.”
That’s not the point, and irrelevant.
“There is no insulator here”
Yes there is, everything insulates, some things better than others, some things insulate only in certain ways.
“CO2 doesnt heat anything.”
That’s a pretty general statement and of course there are exceptions.
CO2 does prevent IR of certain wavelengths from transmitting though the atmosphere, and it emits radiation based only on concentration and temperature. And the concentration of excited states do decay to lower levels according to dN/dt = – lamda T.
That’s what I meant by first order.
Don’t tell me I am confused when everything in your post is wrong.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
An idiot troll posted –
“Moon Dragon Cranks Just Want to Have Fun: . . .”
The troll is so stupid he just strings words together at random, hoping that this will make him look intelligent. Pity he has nothing relevant to say.
Good thing he is powerless, stupid, and incompetent. Could be a danger to himself and others. otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Marshalling Falsities.
Powerless, stupid, incompetent – and totally out of ideas.
Hasn’t realised his fantasy is not reality, yet.
Mike Flynn,
Mightily Freewheeling.
As I pointed out, powerless, stupid, incompetent, lazy – and repetitively demonstrating insanity, as Albert Einstein defined it.
Mike Flynn,
Macabre Marginalization,
Why do you reveal your deepest fears?
Tell us your bit about the teaspoon of cement.
You know, to harden up.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Powerless, stupid, sloppy, incompetent, and often incoherent.
A perfect mascot for climate cultists.
Await more repetitive fantasy, with the dummy hoping it will become fact.
Mike Flynn, Machine Gun Firing –
You sure you can’t do better than that?
Try your bit about Gavin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I continue Antonin Qwerty’s comment posted on January 3, 2022 at 4:47 PM
” And yet warmer than any other year with La Nina bookends. ”
I think he made a good, moderate point.
Because it doesn’t make much sense to point out that 2021 was the coldest one during the last 5, 6 or 7 years in UAH’s history.
Simply because
– 2016 was UAH’s warmest on record;
– 2016 and 2020 were both Nino years.
Correct would be to compare 2021’s anomaly average – a full Nina year – with that of some similar years in the recent past:
1999 -0.154 (C)
2000 -0.157
2008 -0.238
2011 -0.119
2018 0.087
2021 0.134
*
It is well worth noting that in 2021, the first 11 of the 12 months were cooler than their corresponding last year. For sure!
But… according to my SQL corner, that happened in 1981, 1982, 1989, 1992, 1999 and 2011 as well.
*
It is also well worth noting that in 2021, global sea ice extent was higher than during all the years following 2015:
1981-2010: 23.27 (Mkm^2)
2015: 23.03
2012: 22.42
2021: 22.07
2020: 21.70
2016: 21.45
2018: 21.36
2016-2020: 21.32
2017: 21.14
2019: 21.01
But here too, a fair comparison with similar years is needed.
*
Anyway, for us in Western Europe, more warming is good locally, for sure! I love mild winters.
But more warming globally means more sea ice and ice sheet melting in Northwest Atlantic, hence more cold and less salty water there, hence more atmospheric perturbations, more rain and wind all over the year.
” it doesnt make much sense to point out that 2021 was the coldest one during the last 5, 6 or 7 years in UAHs history”
Even if it is a fact?
Your cherry-picking is boring ad nauseam.
Simply because
– 2016 was UAH’s warmest on record;
– 2016 and 2020 were both Nino years.
Correct would be to compare 2021’s anomaly average – a full Nina year – with that of some similar years in the recent past:
1999 -0.154 (C)
2000 -0.157
2008 -0.238
2011 -0.119
2018 0.087
2021 0.134
So a fact is cherry picking is it? Let’s just ignore all facts then.
The fact isn’t a problem. Your subtext is.
What sub-text? That the fact that this year is lower than most (if not all) of the last 5-6 years. Sure you can observe that the last 5-6 years have also been the hotest ever, but that does not alter the claim. It does set it in context perhaps but to observe that this year is descending from a recent high point is also relevant.
“It does set it in context perhaps”
Very good, next time context would be helpful.
With James Webb Space Telescope’s huge sunshield in place, focus shifts to big mirrors
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-deployment-next-steps
“On Tuesday (Jan. 4), Webb finished bringing its huge, five-layer sunshield up to the proper tension, wrapping up the most complex and tricky operation of the $10 billion observatory’s lengthy deployment phase.
The mission team can therefore now turn to the next big-ticket item on its to-do list: getting the telescope’s secondary and primary mirrors into the proper configuration. But it’ll take a while to check those boxes.”
g,
How you can use something established by experience without having to know why –
“Gold just happens to reflect blue light very poorly but red and infrared light extremely well.”
From the jswt.nasa.website. The article also mentions what happens to photons which impinge upon a surface but are not absorbed – a fact which climate crackpots refuse to accept. You often hear them plaintively whining “But what happens to the photons emitted by GHGs?”
Maybe they should read about the James Webb Space Telescope. The builders seem fairly sure that their facts are good enough to ensure the project’s success.
I certainly wish them success.
Good. I’ve always regarded the James Webb telescope as a Heath Robinson contraption, so I’m glad it’s unfurling is going so well.
“The James Webb Space Telescope achieved another major milestone today, successfully extending its secondary mirror as it continues to sail seamlessly through its never-before-conducted deployment sequence on the way to its destination. ”
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-secondary-mirror-deployed
Who can state what is wrong with this statement from a national publication concerning the JWST sunshade?
“with gaps between each layer to allow residual heat to escape to the sides, the sunshade will constantly face the sun.”
Taken out of context, it’s hard to see your perspective. Are you referring to the fact that the gaps aren’t the reason the sunshade faces the sun?
Spoiler:
I will give the answer. Stop reading if you want to figure it out.
There is no convection in a vacuum, so nothing will “escape to the sides”. The gaps are to prevent the layers from touching which might cause conduction. Otherwise, there is no need for the gaps.
tim s…radiation will travel through a vacuum and any heat converted to EM or IR will move through the vacuum, dissipating the heat within.
Tim S,
Although a surface emits heat in all directions, meaning that heat from the radiating surface will indeed escape “sideways”. I suppose the builders are happy with trade offs that almost invariably have to be made.
However, I agree that often journalists often don’t seem to realise that they are talking nonsense – in all sorts of areas.
No offence intended.
Here is the way I see it. The first shield facing the sun sees the extreme temperature of the sun, but with a relatively small surface area, so the effect is not very strong. The second layer sees the full area of the first, but the temperature has been reduced greatly from that of the sun. Each layer is at a lower temperature including the final layer which sees the background temperature of outer space. I think there was a comment somewhere that the final layer facing outer space cools the instruments. That is nonsense. To the extent that the operation of the instruments creates heat, outer space does the cooling just fine, thank you. The final layer simply shields the instruments from the fourth layer, and so on.
“There is no convection in a vacuum, so nothing will “escape to the sides”. ”
Since the radiation shields are not perfect reflectors, then at least some radiation will escape to the sides. Bigger gaps = more escape (but I agree this is a relatively small affect here.)
“The first shield facing the sun sees the extreme temperature of the sun, but with a relatively small surface area, so the effect is not very strong. ”
Surface area is not really a factor. Everything scales with area. It is the high reflectivity that is key, reflecting most of the EM radiation so that only a little gets absorbed.
My point about the sun was that the very high temperature is offset by the relatively small projected area because we are so far away from the sun. I agree that the coating making the shields highly reflective is the key to its performance.
This looks like the green plate blue plate scenario to me
test one
curioso…”Gordon Robertson, thats a disingenuous and lazy response to my question. Its basic statistical literacy that a meaningful graph requires some knowledge of uncertainty on the data points. And the vast majority of people who will find/read this blog will have at least basic statistical literacy. Also, if this is the first time theyre seeing Dr. Spencers graph or they havent read his papers thoroughly, theyll immediately think the question Im asking. So the fact that this isnt a scientific journal is irrelevant”.
***
1)This is a blog….I am sure Roy provided the graph to appeal to blogsters not for scientific scrutiny.
You are cherry-picking by demanding error bars on data points that cover an entire month and you come across as an alarmist nitpicker who is looking to discredit Roy’s data.
2)I took a full years’ course in engineering probability and statistics. Although much of that part of my memory is rusty I still the retain the basics of what I was taught. In fact, I was taught how to estimate error margins for data measurements in labs.
2)I was also taught enough about confidence levels to understand that the IPCC, NOAA and NASA use them inappropriately. The IPCC presents confidence levels as ‘likely’, most likely, etc., a completely fabricated system for ranking scientific facts.
NOAA claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever using a 48% confidence level. Some have argued here they are not confidence levels but probabilities. To me, there is no difference. NOAA is claiming essentially that they don’t know 2014 was the hottest year ever but they think it might be. Their 48% number says it all…they are lying alarmists.
NASA GISS ranked the same year as the hottest using a 38% confidence level. With chicanery like that from surface records why quibble over the lack of error margins on Roy’s data? At least his data is real, unlike the fudged data produced by NOAA and GISS.
UAH does work out error margin for their data points but I see no reason why they need to clutter up a simple graph for a blog with error bars. If you look at the current hockey stick graph put out by the IPCC it has so many error bars cluttering the graph that it is unreadable. That’s why it’s called the spaghetti graph.
Roy’s graph is delivering a visual message and it does it very well. There is no need for error bars on it since they would make no difference to the visual message.
Most sceptic graphs leave off the error bars.
A cynic would wonder if their purpose was not to inform the educated, but to misinformation the uneducated.
Tell me what error bars you would add for point samples at ~2m in volumes that are 10,000m cube.
Insufficient detail.
swannie…”…The string prevents the ball in your scenario from rotating independently, gravity does not. The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once each orbit”.
***
Gravity prevents the Moon from flying off along a tangent line to the orbit therefore it is accomplishing the same things as the string. The ball wants to fly off along a tangent line to its orbit, what’s the difference?
The point is that both the ball and the Moon have an inner face and an outer face moving in parallel, therefore neither can rotate about the COG. It’s easier to explain why with the BOS, tension on the string does not allow the ball’s inner face to rotate.
With the Moon, the string is not required since it has a natural linear momentum that always wants to move in one direction only. Gravity serves only to keep redirecting the velocity vector into an orbit.
Although there is no physical connection between the Moon and Earth, the gravitational field holds the Moon at a relatively constant altitude. The altitude is critically related the linear velocity/momentum of the Moon and to any anomalies in the gravitational field.
They have the same problem with the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO). Gravitational anomalies in the Moon affect its orbit slightly. The same anomalies account for the eccentricity of the lunar orbit. As gravity weakens slightly in certain portions of the orbit, the Moon’s linear momentum has a greater effect, elongating the orbit.
There is a similar measurable effect when a cylinder rolls down an incline at the surface. Although gravity always acts vertically on the cylinder at 9.8 m/s^2, it is the sine/cosine component of the vertical force, acting down the incline, that controls the acceleration of the cylinder down the slope. The cylinder rolls down the slope at an acceleration related to the angle of the ramp, not at 9.8 m/s^2.
With an eccentric orbit, gravity acts in a similar manner. There is always a straight line gravitational vector acting centre to centre, between the Earth at the principal axis and the Moon, but the component of that vector acting on the near face of the Moon is a sine/cosine component of the full vector.
The direction of that component is determined by bisecting the angle formed by lines drawn from each focal point to the Moon’s centre. That component varies with the position of the Moon in its orbit, allowing the Moon’s linear momentum more control when it is slightly weaker.
Gordo completely misses the physics. Gravity has no significant effect on the Moon’s rotation while orbiting around the Earth-Moon barycenter because it provides little or no torque on the Moon. The Moon’s angular momentum is a constant while the rate of rotation of the radial line between the two varies around the orbit. For the string to ball case, the attachment of the string at the surface of the ball provides the forces and torques which keep the ball facing toward the center of the circular path as it’s swung around overhead.
The LRO being fixed wrt the stars proves that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
“it is accomplishing the same things as the string”
No it isn’t. The string is attached to the surface. Gravity can be assumed to act on the center of gravity.
Dr. Spencer wrote “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade.”
I disagree. The trend is expressed to the nearest hundredth of a degree. While there are several ways to calculate the linear trend,accounting for months having different number of days, and/or accounting for leap years,just assuming that all months have the same number of days gives a trend from January 1979 to December 2021 is +0.13485844, which rounds to +0.13 C/decade, not +0.14 C/decade.
The graph starts January 1979 but the full dataset starts December 1978. The trend from December 1978 to December 2021, using a count of months for the trend calculation, is +0.13517220, which rounds to +0.14 C/decade. Spencer’s trend calculation starts in December 1978 but his statement incorrectly says “since January, 1979.
The trend is only slightly different when using a count of days. The trend from January 1979 to December 2021 calculated various ways are;
Count of months: +0.1348584 C/decade [assumes all months are equal and 120 month per decade]
The trend per day is +3.692168E-5 C/day. Over a 4 year period there are 365.25 day/year on average due to a leap year every 4 years. The year 2000 is a leap year.
Count of days: +0.1348564 C/decade [assumes 365.25 days/year]
But our time period is not an even number of years nor an even number of 4-year periods. There are 15,675 days. The number of years is 42 + 334/365 = 42.91507 years from Jan 1979 to Dec 2021. Note there are 11 month mid Jan to mid Dec. The average number of days per year over our period is 15,675 days divided by 42.91507 years = 365.2563202. The most accurate trend is;
Count of days: +0.1348588 C/decade.
The three methods all round to +0.13486 C/decade, which further rounds to +0.13 C/decade.
ken…”…trend from January 1979 to December 2021 is +0.13485844″
***
The 8 at 0.1348 rounds the 4 up to 5 as 0.1385. The 5 rounds it up to 0.14.
Besides, you’re quibbling over 1/100th of a degree C.
“The 8 at 0.1348 rounds the 4 up to 5 as 0.1385. The 5 rounds it up to 0.14.”
This is such an obvious error in rounding (even ignoring the apparent typo of “0.1385” instead of “0.135”). Everyone can see it.
Rounding 48 to the nearest 100 is 0, not 100.
Rounding 1348 to the nearest 100 is 1300, not 1400
By this logic, the proper rounding of 44.445 would be
44.445 -> 44.45 -> 44.5 –> 45 -> 50 -> 100
The amazing thing is that this same mistake has been pointed out before, and yet Gordon repeats it.
https://ms.intl.chemicalaid.com/tools/sigfigscalculator.php?expression=0.1348
You only round once.
Twice if you’re James Bond.
Twice if you are the Beach Boys.
Round! Round! Get around. I get a round.
Mine’s a pint.
Round and round..
or so says Ratt.
Well the joint was jumping, going round and round
Realin and a rockin what a crazy sound
Ken
To be honest, I don’t care about whether it’s 0.13 or 0.14 C / decade.
What rather annoys me is when the trend is constantly fluctuating between the two values.
” Oh, look! The trend is down, it’s cooling. ”
” Oh, look! The trend is up, it’s warming. ”
Boring.
Binny,
You are right. Trends change, and provide no useful guide to the future.
Why do you bother telling people that you are bored?
Do you really think that anybody cares whether a graph obsessed climate cultist chooses to be bored?
Some people might find your comments boring, but I don’t, of course. I find them laughter inducing at the very least, and there’s nothing wrong with being amused.
Carry on.
Flynnson
Thanks for this extremely impressive show of how arrogant, stupid, stubborn and boring you are in all of your ‘comments’.
You are at the forefront of redundancy – every day.
Binny,
You’re welcome.
Carry on. Or not, as you wish.
Binditler would give his nuts to became a moderator on this board and get his finger on the delete button
Thanks for the BindHitler insult you were however too much a coward to clearly formulate.
Btw, your claim
” … would give his nuts to became a moderator on this board and get his finger on the delete button”
is as wrong as nearly all what you write on this blog.
I have nothing to do with any kind of moderation – with however one exception.
Those namely who, like Anderson and… yourself, woefully try to identify me with Nazism, Hitler or similar: those indeed should be banned off this blog.
*
A lot of us are not at all affectionate to each other on this blog, and especially you or stupid people like Clint R or Flynnson don’t miss any opportunity to berate others.
That is OK.
But to equate others with alt-right fascists, Eben: that goes too far, especially behind a pseudonym or a fake name.
He is the worst repulsive creep in here since Dave Appel
He wish he knew the real posters names so he could go after them personally
Eben
There are intelligent liars. You don’t belong to them.
You are simply a stoopid guy, whether you lie or not.
Background noise is all it is.
“The long predicted collapse of the EU renewable energy push has finally arrived. The EU has effectively just admitted renewable energy does not work, by moving to extend their definition of green energy to include reliable power sources like natural gas and nuclear energy.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/04/eu-natural-gas-and-nuclear-are-now-green-energy/
You should read the text, ren.
It begins with
” Fury as EU moves ahead with plans to label gas and nuclear as ‘green’ ”
When the plan becomes reality, then…
What if interstellar travel, is just going to a rogue planet?
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Since we can’t see them, we could have rogue planet near us.
Maybe when James Webb is working and we trying to peer into distant universe, a rogue planet might get into the picture.
Anyhow, if found one fairly close [much nearer than alpha centauri} would we to go to it?
Could be Space Aliens on it.
Now seems to me, if was like Jupiter, would we have all hard radiation one gets at Jupiter?
It seems to me it’s because Jupiter is close to Sun it has that radiation.
It’s cold out there on Jupiter moon, but under surface, there supposed to be liquid water {or warm}. Or space aliens could be taking very slow way to explore the Milkyway- and have been there millions, or billions of years.
Now, still hard to get there, and probably can’t do it, immediately, but if it was 1000 or 10,000 AU, a lot easier than the nearest star system, alpha centauri.
Also Jupiter is cooling, what would older and colder Jupiter look like?
Planetary radiation belts like our or Jupiter’s Van Allen belts result when energetic electrons and protons are trapped by a magnetic field. Jupiter’s radiation belts are much more intense than ours of its because of its more powerful magnetic field.
A rogue planet might have a powerful magnetic field, but probably not a lot of radiation. There would be no sun to replenish the energetic particles.
Jupiter emits more IR than it receives SW from the Sun. The excess is because the planet is shrinking. The atmosphere is converting potential energy to heat and then IR.
What would a cooler Jupiter look like?
Smaller.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/juno-jupiter-auroral-heating
It would be interesting to quantify the aural energy flow, so that it might be plugged into Jupiter’s energy budget.
See Fig. 9 here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
https://marcellusdrilling.com/2021/12/eqt-officially-responds-to-sen-warren-re-corp-greed-lng-exports/
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, …blamed “corporate greed” and LNG exports for the high price of natural gas in Massachusetts and other New England states in a letter sent to 11 big natural gas producers. EQT, one of the recipients of Ms. Warren’s nastygram, initially responded by going on the record with the Pittsburgh Business Times… EQT has just issued a press release and a letter of its own back to Warren-and it’s devastating (for Warren).
[…]
TM, As we all know, NG, like oil, is a non-renewable energy source. Both will eventually run out and before that happens, Peak Oil (or Peak NG) will arrive and production will begin an inexorable decline. Expanding the rate of NG production, for whatever purpose, brings the date of peak production closer than simply continuing production at the present rate.
As I’m sure you are aware, drilling and producing oil or NG requires energy. Processing also requires further energy, thus, the remaining energy from each reaching the final consumers is considerably less than that taken from the ground. Those of us who have studied NET ENERGY realize that long before the last barrel of oil is pulled out of the ground, the amount of energy required to do so will exceed the energy in that barrel, thus no usable energy for the consumer will be produced. A similar example in economic terms is off shore production, where the wells are capped once the cost of production exceeds the return, even though there’s still oil to be had.
China is not our friend and their rapid expansion of coal fired electric production in spite of clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem would make it hard for me to support the idea of shipping LNG to them. European nations are that support Democracy and the Rule of Law are different and they have agreed to cut their emissions.
I see no easy solution, especially as there are those in the US who deny the scientific evidence that we must change. Given the magnitude of a top to bottom re-structuring of the entire US economy which will be required and our current US political divide, I am not optimistic for the future.
Willard Jr., you can’t provide any “clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem”. All you have are your biased opinions, cult beliefs, and lack of physics education .
Pup, you can’t even do the Poll Dance Experiment.
What a sad sock puppet you are.
Clint R
“you cant provide any clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem. ”
Various commenters have, but you refuse to accept it.
Perhaps we should turn the problem around. Can you tell us what you think convincing evidence would look like?
As I stated, you can’t provide any “clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem.”
All the “various commenters” do is “turn the problem around”, or link to things they don’t understand.
That ain’t science.
EM,
Just an experiment demonstrating that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer results in the thermometer becoming hotter.
Or is the GHE supposed to be supported by some other reproducible experiments?
You are talking pseudoscientific nonsense.
Your post shows that you can spend more time avoiding answering, rather than just cutting pasting the “clear scientific evidence” which you claim exists.
Follow the scientific method.
E. Swanson,
I am perfectly aware of the finiteness of oil and gas. I am also aware of the fact that in addition to fueling transportation, oil and gas are also primary feedstocks to around 500,000 products that allow us to live like kings compared to our not too distant ancestors. Fertilizers are high on that list.
I am not a student of NET ENERGY, but it is a trivial exercise to calculate the benefit of coal-to-gas switching in the power generating sector. Since the objective function is the stock of GHGs, expediting this conversion seems a no-brainer.
Using natural gas for power generation combined with CCS is our best option for a transition fuel. The energy transition will be very expensive, but not impossible. Now that the science is done we are moving into the engineering phase, which brings to mind this old saying: “Physics is Math constrained by reality; Engineering is Physics constrained by money.”
TM, I don’t disagree with your comment regarding NG as a fuel during the transition. More electric cars will need more electric supply, with all that implies. However, my post was in reply to your claim that exporting LNG to China to reduce their coal burning was a useful method of reducing overall CO2 emissions. Don’t forget that China (and Russia) didn’t attend COP 26.
I’m afraid that the US is going to need all we have, just to keep going during the transition, which will likely require 30 to 40 years. To be sure, there’s been a glut in recent years as everyone jumped on the bandwagon in the typical boom-bust fashion. The problem is that the more recent production appears to be from fracking, not the older “conventional” methods of producing oil and gas. As far as oil is concerned, fracking results in a high initial rate of production which rapidly drops as the pressure is reduced. And, also typically, the easiest to find and produce resources are developed first, so later drilling will be less productive.
(part 1 – posting trouble)
(part 2)
Peak Oil’s been around as a topic since before WW II and NET ENERGY analysis since the ’80’s, as I recall. HERE’s a LINK to a site I sometimes visit, which started after The Oil Drum site closed down and went to archive mode because some folks wanted to talk about Climate Change.
Humans don’t “make” energy, we only covert it from one source to more useful activities and products. And, no matter how much money one has to spend, that conversion will never be 100%.
Yes, I’m familiar with the peak oil issue. I am a third generation Petroleum Engineer and peak oil has been a topic of conversation at the dinner table (off and on) since I was a child.
Fracking is part of the natural evolution of production technology. The first commercial frac was performed in 1947 in southwest Kansas and has been part of our toolkit since, depending on the needs of the reservoir. The general public didn’t hear about it until about 20 years ago, so they fear it.
We started producing the easy to access hydrocarbons from the most attractive [host] rocks first. With time we have moved to exploiting the “source rocks” which have nano-darcy permeability and cannot produce naturally. The trade-off is now we have to drill more wells, closer together, but the resource in place is orders of magnitude greater.
I am hoping you didn’t intend your last paragraph to be condescending, but it came out as such. But I digress; I understand about entropy.
We, the US, have 80 to 100 years of Nat Gas reserves. That number is much higher when you include the total Resource base, some of which could be re-classified (added) to reserves with technology and economic enhancements in the future.
China and Russia will do what they determine best suits their own needs. We have the largest coal reserves in the world and must lead the transition away from it; in the world of energy you either lead, follow or get out of the way.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/kazakhstan-government-resigns-after-violent-protests-over-fuel-price-2022-01-05/
Kazakhstan government’s resignation fails to quell protests
Always hard for governments which subsidise living costs to survive when the subsidies can no longer be sustained.
I think particularly of Egypt; when it could not sustain subsidised bread prices without subsidised Russian grain the food riots triggered a military coup.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/01/will-britain-survive/621095/?utm_source=feed
Will Britain Survive? A road trip through the ancient past and shaky future of the (dis)United Kingdom January 5, 2022, 1:30 AM ET
“They actively prefer the thought of being a less powerful but more settled European country: a greater Holland rather than a mini United States.”
Probably for the best. Neither the UK or the US are the world powers we once were.
This is a good way to live in general:
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/cultural-traditions/reasons-why-danes-are-happy.htm
The Queen is truly dead.
Looks like the La Nina is gonna fizzle.
Subsurface warmth headed East.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Surface winds will give it a boost.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
What do people think?
Not much:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
I am slowly but surely getting tired of this La Nina discussion, which is mostly driven by people who, for whatever reason, are secretly hoping that we are facing some global cooling and think that La Nina would be an indication of it!
La Nina is nothing else than storing heat into the ocean.
How boring.
“La Nina is nothing else than storing heat into the ocean”
And it is balanced by El Nino then, which is the opposite. Are you saying that the 2 are not balanced overall?
“How boring.”
Then maybe dont post. But you’ve had several posts on it this month.
What is interesting to me is how the westerly winds bursts in certain locations (near 180 deg) and the resultant subsurface heat Kelvin waves, seem to correlate well with surface temperatures a month later.
Then the next 6 months global air temperature look like being overall negative from the current figures.
This is the current winds in the Pacific. Not much Westerlies there.
Sorry – forgot the map
https://imgur.com/a/JJ3iibS
Yep there is.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
From here under zonal wind anomalies
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
The westerly anomalies are positive values- yellow-orange-red.
These produce Kelvin waves which drive subsurface heat eastward and eventually to the surface in the Eastern Pacific.
I rely on http://www.windguru.cz for current and predicted wind all over the world. The Pacific along the Equator shows constant wind from the East both now and for the next few weeks.
OK so you believe the NOAA NWS CPC source is lying about the winds then??
C’mon…
The CPC page is showing, as I noted, space-time wind anomalies on or near the equator, as a function of longitude and date.
So there was a moderately strong westerly wind anomaly centered near the equator at -175 longitude, centered on Jan 2.
Can you find wind anomalies at that place and date in your source?
-175 longitude means 175 East longitude.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Looks pretty steady to me. We will see later this year.
What do people think?
You have it exactly backwards
I’m with RLH.
Over a whole El Nino/ La Nina cycle ENSO is energy neutral.
It raises and lowers global average temperature in the short term by changing the proportion of incoming energy absorbed by the deep ocean. It has no influence on the long term warming trend.
If/when balanced. Unbalances will have an overall effect (i.e. very low frequency) until they correct themselves.
I would note that NOAA’s prediction of a month or two ago was that nino 3.4 would reach ~ -2.0 C. They have now revised that quite a bit.
So predictions change for only a few months into the future but for years ahead we are 100% certain?
Nobody is claiming to predict ENSO years in the future.
But you’re are claiming to predict the global temperature for decades ahead.
Am I?
Don’t mix up things, we were talking about La Nina.
I think the underlying long term upward GLOBAL temperature trend .will continue, because the GHG forcing is still rising. But natural variation, like ENSO, will continue as well, and that is not predictable.
What do you think about the disparity between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the predicted rises?
Fully expected. See below.
“It has no influence on the long term warming trend.”
I agree, but it does add variability that must be considered to determine the underlying trend over short periods of less than a decade.
And in La Nina dominated periods, like 2005-2014 it can appear to some, that there has been a Pause in AGW.
Unbalanced behavior will effect things on a low frequency basis, true. Are you saying that the future 30 years will result in more El Nino than La Nina or the other way round?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315327565/figure/fig2/AS:473125902131201@1489813413945/The-Multivariate-ENSO-Index-MEI-in-the-form-of-a-graph-Source.png
I could just as easily observe that the period between 1976-2005 was El Nino dominated and the period before 1975 was La Nina dominated.
“Are you saying that …”
In general, RLH, what I am saying is what I’ve just said, and no more.
“I am saying is what Ive just said, and no more”
So you predict that global temperature’s will continue to rise in the future. Regardless if La Nina or El Nino predominate into the future.
Are you illiterate?
Are you dodging the questions?
Stop trolling.
“I could just as easily observe that the period between 1976-2005 was El Nino dominated and the period before 1975 was La Nina dominated.”
Yep, that natural variability is there. And yet it cannot account for the overall rise of the last 50 years, or the last century.
Do you agree that global temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age and descended before that to there?
P.S. Do you agree also that the majority of the rise occurred in the Northern Hemisphere? See the 2 graphs of Latitude against Trends of UAH and Berkley Earth.
The LIA if it was global at all, was over by the mid 19th century.
The LIA is not a mechanism for never-ending warming, it is a catch-all excuse.
“The LIA if it was global at all, was over by the mid 19th century”
So now you agree that the LIA exists but as it only effected the NH, the warming since then in the NH is not a recovery from that?
I am pointing out that natural systems have a lot more fluctuations in them then you are prepared to admit. Unless you wish to claim the the LIA was not a natural occurrence.
Can you define the place and time period of the LIA? What caused it?
Did that cause cease? When?
My point is the LIA has become an ill-defined, untestable, catch-all excuse.
Its recovery is declared to be never-ending, and somehow has even accelerated since 1970.
“P.S. Do you agree also that the majority of the rise occurred in the Northern Hemisphere?”
More warming occurred in the NH. More warming has occurred on Land. The majority of land is in the NH.
These differences were predicted 40 y ago, and make physical sense. The ocean is a massive heat sink.
Except that Antarctica is mostly land and any warming there is confined to a small area and that may well be to underground heat sources rather than other temperatures.
More melting ice should produce more icily cold water, colder than the the surface water. The only suggestion is that this is fresher water thus less dense.
The facts are that sea ice grows in the ‘winter’ (which produces cold brine) and shrinks in the ‘summer’ (which produces cold water).
“The ocean is a massive heat sink”
Potentially a massive heat sink. Because of low sampling, short time period of the deep ocean and the small variation needed to conclude how much heat is going into it, the size of the effect is still disputed.
*short measuring time period
“Because of low sampling, short time period of the deep ocean and the small variation needed to conclude how much heat is going into it, the size of the effect is still disputed.”
All contrary facts are disputed by you and your ilk. Science will keep calm and carry on observing and understanding.
And as I noted “These differences were predicted 40 y ago, and make physical sense. The ocean is a massive heat sink.”
The ocean is not just ‘potentially’ a massive heat sink.
It is an observable fact.
Your ongoing meme seems to be that science knows nothing.
I’m quite amused. After so much argument about energy transfer between plates, it is interesting to see a working example.
However it works, that sunshade has a temperature gradient of 344K from 380K on the sunward side of the first layer to 36K on the spaceward side of the fifth layer.
It’s probably non-linear, but each layer is reducing the temperature by an average of 89K.
…you believe this somehow supports the Green Plate Effect? How, exactly? Hughes experiments debunked the GPE, which was already theoretically debunked on here and elsewhere quite some time before that. Not to mention the Seim & Olsen experiment…
I guess you clowns call this a debunking:
“But we
only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter”
So Seim and Olsen observed a greenhouse effect.
Well done chaps
https://m.scirp.org/papers/abstract/99608
“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%.”
DREMPTY,
Read that last sentence you just posted again.
That’s in a 70 cm tube, what if you measured the whole column of the atmosphere?
We are not even to a 0.5% increase in temperature globally, yet, almost there with some indices.
“The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed ab.sorp.tion of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. 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. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter.
This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case.”
Wrong units.
If you are measuring % increase in temperature, use Kelvin, not Centigrade.
A 0.5% increase to 46C would be an increase of (319/200) = 1.6C.
1.6C is not an insignificant change. It’s less than the 2.4C-4C predicted by the SB equation, but we don’t know the losses due to the experimental design.
As bobdroege said
” So Seim and Olsen observed a greenhouse effect.
Well done chaps”
“If E in the rear chamber is increased with the same value as the reduction in the front chamber (29.8 W/m2), then Equation (5) gives an expected temperature of 323.5 K, or an increase in the temperature of 4.0 K, not close to zero, as measured.”
“not close to zero, as measured.
It wasn’t close to zero, it was 0.5%, 1.6C.
This paper isn’t coherent. It doesn’t even agree with itself.
It appears it was not 1.6 K, it was close to 0 K, because that is what the people conducting the experiment state. That would also be consistent with their language (“very slight temperature increase”). Perhaps you got your calculations wrong?
“Is the temperature increment with CO2 too low to be detected by a single thermocouple? To check this, a thermopile was constructed, consisting of eight serial connected thermocouples and placed on the rear inner wall of the box. The measurement tip of the thermocouples was painted black with paint containing carbon in order to ensure heating by IR radiation. Finally, the voltage signal from the serially connected thermocouples was amplified 50 times. The advantage of this construction, compared to the IR detector used by us, was that the reference connection, with temperature T2, was placed outside the box at room temperature. (The room temperature only increased 0.2 ̊C during the experiment). The voltage was measured with a digital voltage-meter and found to be 36.5 mV per thermocouple. The CO2 experiment was then repeated and the result is shown in Figure 10.
Each axis in Figure 10 contains the measured voltage of the thermopile during heating, with air (abscissa) and CO2 (ordinate) respectively in the front chamber. In addition, a trend line and its formula are included in the figure. The trendline shows that there might be a very slight heating of the thermopile with CO2 in the front chamber. The experiment was repeated several times and the average increment with CO2 was ca 0.5%. For heating the air in the rear chamber from 20 ̊C to 50 ̊C, then the temperature increment, with CO2 in the front chamber, should be ca. 0.15 ̊C.”
cult Leader pups wants to go Back to The Future again. there was lots of discussion about the Seim and Olsen paper, (which wasn’t peer reviewed) a while back. One sticking point I recall is this section:
They never mention how they compensated for the temperature of the cold junctions within their semi-conductor IR detector device. Also, as I recall, they never mention whether they measured the IR from the room into the box using air, so they don’t have a baseline for comparison.
Guess what? I built a box like that, only I operated it vertically to be able to purge the air from inside and fill it with CO2. It took quite a while for the box temperature settle and I had trouble keeping the hot O2 or CO2 in the box long enough to make a determination of the heating of the rear wall. I was just about to haul it to the dump, but it might be fun to try again with some additional mods.
OK, Swanson.
And Cult Leader pups continues to be a sock puppet and ignore any discussion of the relevant physics. Typical reply from Cult Leader when facts and real science is required.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
https://tinyurl.com/2p89jhjp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
So, according to this commenter, Eli Rabett’s Green Plate Effect is indeed…debunked. No back-radiation warming, no GPE.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
So which one of your sources do you think is correct, Willard? The one saying there is no back-radiation warming or the one saying there is back-radiation warming?
Source: wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/15/answer-to-a-review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper-the-influence-of-ir-[THE A WORD]-and-backscatter-radiation-from-co2/#comment-3247268
Replace “THE A WORD” with the A word.
So…you think your first source is wrong?
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies
Oh, you are just trolling again.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507291878912#c3373261250729485848
Eli is trying to defend the back-radiation account of the GHE with his Green Plate Effect, which your first source, Mr Pratt, stated has been debunked.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/#comment-4372
So is Eli wrong, or is Mr. Pratt wrong? Or will someone come to Willard’s aid to argue that there both is and isn’t back-radiation warming, at the same time?
And so Kiddo soldiers on, unable to understand Vaughan’s point. For some reason his nick does not appear in the relevant comment thread at Roy’s:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267470
Was he absent, or else?
Let’s find out!
I get that he’s saying that he still thinks there is a GHE…but he is quite clearly stating that the back-radiation version of it, which Eli defended with his Green Plate Effect, is debunked.
There it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319109
So Kiddo’s a sock puppet too?
WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK?
That deserves due diligence!
Who is going under the bus then Willard? Mr. Pratt, or Mr. Rabett?
And here’s Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276403
Writing checks out, and follows a cite to Joe’s.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Pratt or Rabett, Willard?
And here’s Kiddo again, this time in the thread cited above, in which Eli appeared:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270420
What fun he must have had since then!
Trying to change the subject, Willard? Pratt or Rabett, Rabett or Pratt?
Pratt or Rabbett?
Both delusional. Take your pick.
Watch Wriggling Wee Willy go for the diversionary tactic.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that one of his sock puppets have been found out, pretending to be the King of Topics after having misread Vaughan – calling him “Mr” to boot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671002
Does Kiddo prefer to attack the target of his silly old sock puppet, or does he prefer to defend Joe, of whom he is the most dedicated fan?
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should”.
…and Eli Rabett was trying to support that back radiation account of the GHE with his Green Plate Effect. So if Mr. Pratt is correct, Mr. Rabett is wrong. So who are you going to throw under the bus, Willard?
Kiddo almost gets the irrelevant part of the point:
Then the question becomes: did it? Let’s quote from the page he cited but hasn’t read in full:
The most important part of the point is this: is Kiddo willing to throw Joe under the bus to get at Eli?
It’s almost 1 AM where Kiddo is.
Another interesting night in perspective!
Kidding. I’m only being facetious. He should get a good night sleep.
Willard the sophist quotes a nit-picking comment on the experiment which his own source (Mr. Pratt) states, “successfully debunk[s] the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally”, then bizarrely suggests I need to throw Postma under the bus to get at Eli!?
Who knows what goes on in that brain of his.
Kiddo the Sky Dragon crank has three problems:
First, to get at Eli, he would need to throw Joe under the bus.
Second, he does not understand Vaughan’s comment, Eli’s model or for that matter Kevin’s comments, e.g.:
Third, it’s past 1 AM where he is, and he must have slept like five hours in the last two days. Add to this the fact that I already gave him the answer he’s looking for (his adaptative skills are no better than a drone missile) and he’s looking for lots of fun!
So, who will it be? Joe or Eli?
Tune in tomorrow!
I don’t need to throw anybody under any buses. Ultimately, Mr. Pratt states the back-radiation theory of the GHE is wrong, but naturally still believes there is some alternative version of the GHE which is correct. I do not have to agree that alternative theory is correct to acknowledge that he is right about the back-radiation version being wrong. Mr. Pratt states the back-radiation version of the GHE is wrong theoretically as well as experimentally, anyway, so the criticisms of the S & O experiment are somewhat of a moot point. So it still comes down to Mr. Pratt vs. Mr. Rabett.
Well, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Seim, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Pratt vs. Mr Rabett, I should say.
Kiddo would indeed need to throw Joe under the bus if he wants to get at Eli via Vaughan, for Vaughan clearly says:
Perhaps he missed that Vaughan is talking about the theory Joe and fellow Sky Dragon cranks are so adamant in attacking?
If Kiddo could find any reference to back radiation in the IPCC’s reports, that be great!
Almost 2 AM. Tick tock. Tick tock.
All Seim & Olsen confirm is that there was negligible warming from an increase in back-radiation from CO2. They certainly do not confirm any alternative theory of the GHE! So no, once again, I do not have to throw anybody under the bus. Unlike Willard, who must choose between Mr. Pratt, and Mr. Rabett.
Kiddo soldiers on, perhaps a bit dulled by the late hours, concedes that S&O indeed confirm that CO2 warms. Their apparatus wasn’t perfect, so we must accept it on principle. As Vaughan underlines, it indeed vindicates the IPCC position.
Something tells me that Kiddo should get to know Vaughan a bit more.:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
Sometimes a bit devillish, but never really facetious.
Willard needs to look up the meaning of the word “negligible”. Think 0.15 C when a between 2.4 and 4 C increase was theoretically predicted. Then he needs to stop misrepresenting Mr Pratt’s original comment. Then he needs to decide who to throw under the bus between Mr. Pratt and Mr. Rabett.
Kiddo conflates S&O’s interpretations, which do not stand scrutinity, with their results, which confirm the IPCC’s position.
In fairness, it’s nearing 3 AM where he is.
So let’s give him a break and reiterate the bit that settles his silly You-And-Him-Fight trick:
It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, or at least without trying to know where’s he’s going.
Lots of Dragon Cranks learned the lesson the hard way.
“Kiddo conflates S&O’s interpretations, which do not stand scrutinity, with their results, which confirm the IPCC’s position.”
Readers can judge for themselves if what you have said here is truth, or a lie.
Late into his night, it is almost 4:00 where he is, Kiddo intimates that Vaughan’s words, which he tries to weaponize, contain a lie.
Perhaps he should look for the definition of “confirming.”
If only he could distinguish models and theories, but no – he must soldier on.
Witless Wee Willy,
You didn’t really mean to write –
“It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, or at least without trying to know wheres hes going.”
Regardless of who Vaughan is (or isn’t), I assume you have invoked his authority – and now try to say that he can’t be believed!
Are you a complete idiot, or are you still not quite there, yet?
Not terribly clever, Wee Willy, not terribly clever at all.
Mike Flynn, Mastodon of Feebleness – thank you for misremembering:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-741022
Vaughan’s answer was delighfully to the point: You still here? So yeah: “regardless of who Vaughan is” indeed!
Enjoy your evening,
Weary Wee Willy,
So Vaughan is Vaughan Pratt. Thanks. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Easy enough to be straight forward, rather than mysterious.
As to –
“Vaughan Pratt,
Your assumption, that people who endlessly play with weather averages, hoping (in vain) to determine the future, are any more credible than a reader of entrails, is simply bizarre.”
What do you disagree with? Did someone take Vaughan Pratt at his word, and according to you, should not have? In any case, what new information does “You still here?” Import?
You are indeed a strange obsessive little monkey, aren’t you?
Maybe if you could just say what you mean clearly, and provide some verifiable facts to back up whatever it is you are trying to say, you might get a little further.
Mike Flynn,
Remember the time you tried your Tyndall gotcha with Vaughan?
I do:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742546
Right before the comment where he calls you a complete twit.
Whacko Wee Willy,
As I said “Maybe if you could just say what you mean clearly, and provide some verifiable facts to back up whatever it is you are trying to say, you might get a little further.”
Rattling on about a couple of strangers is all well and good, but achieves nothing as far as I can see.
I hope you get something out of your obsession, but I doubt you can even justify it to yourself.
If you can’t, you are obviously just another delusional nutter.
Cult Leader pups, lacking anything to say, repeats old arguments to waste more people’s time.
If one reads the S&O rebuttal carefully, one would notice that their Figure 8 shows that the IR back scatter measured on the rear wall of their chamber is greater for CO2 than for the case with air. This fact supports the conclusion that increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in IR impinging on the rear surface of their box. Since they control the temperature of the AL foil to maintain ~100 C, any heating of the foil from the back scatter will result in their lowering of the heating applied to the foil.
Also, they blame that increase in back scatter to increased emissions from the “thin EDTA…plastic film that transmits more than 90% of visual light and IR radiation” separating the two chambers. Since said film exhibits high transmission of IR, thus little emissions could originate from said film.
Sorry, Swanson, you are behind the times. The GHE Defense Team have already acknowledged that, according to Mr. Pratt:
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally”
and that the back radiation account of the GHE is wrong theoretically, anyway. He even suggests, in a later comment, that the Wikipedia entry on the GHE is wrong because it refers to back radiation warming, and should be updated to reflect the new version of the GHE which you guys should be pushing. So it is time for you to swallow your pride and accept it…the back radiation warming concept has had its day. Eli was wrong to promote the Green Plate Effect.
Times have changed.
“back radiation account of the GHE is wrong”
Well that dooms the James Webb Telescope sun shield which is designed and built in accord with Eli’s GPE and the GHE. 7 years of college down the drain for DREMT & another $10bln well spent when the ‘scope reaches the predicted operating temperatures & produces data.
The sun shade cools, and does so thanks to reflectivity. The GPE was supposed to be a warming effect, and was supposed to work via back-radiation (not reflected radiation). Ball4 needs to move with the times, too.
In Eli’s GPE, there was only one sunshield, so just use Eli’s same math on the other JWT sunshield layers to determine the eventual ‘scope operating temperature. If DREMT is right, the JWT temperatures will not reach predicted eventual operating temperature. When JWT does so, the world will know Eli was right and DREMT wrong.
Odd, your response did not even mention anything that I wrote in my preceding comment. How strange. I guess you are just trolling.
Mr. Pratt stated that “Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally“, and also that “it can be debunked so easily with theory, and with somewhat more effort experimentally as done by Seim and Olsen“. Perhaps Mr. 4 needs to go and argue with Mr. Pratt.
DREMT, Mr. Pratt could not possibly have debunked the earthen GHE with the S&O box experiment since the box’s optical depth is measured in meters and the optical depth of the earthen atm. is measured in tens of thousands of meters.
Anyway, the JWT will not operate at the predicted steady temperatures if the “back radiation account of the GHE is wrong” as you write. The world will soon know by the steady state JWT temperatures reached ~ temperature predictions so that DREMT was wrong and Eli was right.
Mr. 4 disagrees with Mr. Pratt. At least Mr. 4 can admit that, plainly. Mr. 4 is still repeating himself, however, without responding to either of the points raised in my 12:51 PM comment. Any further repetition and ignorance of the points raised will unfortunately trigger a PST response.
Cult Leader, as Willard pointed out, you took Pratt’s comment out of context. But then, Dr. Pratt (born 1944) worked as a computer scientist, not a physicist, and his knowledge may not include careful study of atmospheric radiation heat transfer. The basic physics has been well established for decades, which is why S&O referenced MODTRAN as providing corroboration for their results. Pratt’s claim that S&O “debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect” is his opinion and is likely wrong.
I responded to both when DREMT (or anyone) understands the GPE works like the JWT sunshield which proves DREMT’s 10:26 am “back radiation account of the GHE is wrong” when JWT achieves predicted steady state temperature with physics working just like the earthen GHE backradiation physics.
No, I took nothing out of context, Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson throws Mr. Pratt under Mr. Bus. Fair enough. I expected nothing less from Mr. Swanson.
He needs to get with the times. Back-radiation warming is old hat.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious that his silly tactic has turned against him, for let’s remind Vaughan’s position:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
Later on he clarifies it:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
Kiddo also misconstrues Vaughan’s point regarding S&O: at best they have succeeded in proving that model wrong. Vaughan hasn’t checked the details. Why not grant them for argument sake? If true, S&O only reinforces the IPCC’s official position, which is to talk more directly about lapse rates. Hence why Kiddo is still squirming: if he accepts S&O, then so long for his affection for Joe’s crap. However they may evaluate the effect they found, as Bob observed, an effect they did find.
Good for Kiddo, I say! Bob wins again, but who cares?
Scientists ditch at least four models before breakfast every day. No big deal. They certainly don’t mind if we still engineer refrigerators and furnaces with it.
Like models, contrarians are wrong, but some are useful. Kiddo’s mindless parroting is the opposite of useful. As a bonus, this episode helped me establish that he’s just a little sock puppet.
And that’s the memo.
The Seim paper is unusually bad. I had a lengthy email discussion with Seim and he admits that he cannot explain his results, not with established heat transfer principles. He backed away from claiming that his paper proves ordinary heat transfer laws wrong.
So we have a crappy experiment in a crappy journal, that sort of claimed to show something is wrong with standard heat transfer laws that were established by thousands of prior experiments.. but in the end, not really.
But DREMT/Halp never found a paper so crappy that he couldnt get 100% behind it, IF it agreed with his beliefs.
Yes Willard, nobody is saying there is no back-radiation. What is being said is that there is no back-radiation warming. That is being said by the source you introduced. So you have nobody to blame but yourself…and no, he is not saying that the S & O result confirms a different version of the GHE. That appears to be your misrepresentation of his comment. And even if that was what he was saying, it would be a total non-sequitur. And no, bob is wrong. S & O is not a victory for Team GHE.
> What is being said is that there is no back-radiation warming. That is being said by the source you introduced.
Our slimy sock puppet forgot to quote.
Here’s what a quote looks like:
It’s not like our slimy sock puppet hasn’t read that quote before! It’s the very one he clings to like the little leech he is.
And there are more in the thread at Judy’s. It’s a great thread. He should read it. It’s dedicated to Sky Dragon crap. It involves Vaughan, Pekka, Jim D, Joel, Judy, Captain, Nullius, Chris, Fred M, Maxwell, and tutti quanti, many of them on the contrarian side of things.
But they played Climateball with honor.
Our slimy sock puppet has none.
So, not back radiation warming then, Willard!
Here is your quote:
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk ”
And why should we blindly accept the authority of whoever said that??
“Cult Leader pups, lacking anything to say, repeats old arguments to waste more people’s time.”
I’m sorry, Mr. Swanson…who brought up Mr. Pratt’s “old arguments” in the first place – I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t me. If a GHE Defense Team member wants to say that the back radiation version of the GHE is debunked, and another GHEDT member wants to draw attention to that comment, who am I to stand in the way? And, please don’t feel obliged to waste your time responding to me if you do not wish to.
Cult Leader pups wrote:
And indeed S&O found “back radiation” using the IR detector by comparing a run with air with another run with CO2. But, Cult Leader, do tell us what happened to that increased IR “back radiation”, which can’t disappear, else it would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. If it didn’t warm the radiating surface, where did it go?
What a strange question, Swanson. The predicted warming as a result of the back-radiation was between 2.4 – 4 K. The observed warming was somewhere around 0.15 K…so, negligible. So asking what happened to the back radiation is somewhat of a moot point. What happened to it is that it did not lead to the predicted warming. If it was absorbed, it did not lead to the predicted warming. If it was reflected due to Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch”, it did not lead to the predicted warming. Either way, whatever happened to those photons, they did not lead to the predicted warming.
And Cult Leader pups continues to be a sock puppet and ignore any discussion of the relevant physics. Typical reply from Cult Leader when facts and real science is required.
Swanson, there is never any point responding to any of you people, so you get what you get. Even when one of your own tells you that the back-radiation version of the GHE is nonsense, you ignore and dismiss it. If there were a hundred different experiments conducted which all showed the same result, you would be there picking nits with the setup of all of them, without ever quantifying what difference your criticisms could make. You just want to believe there is back-radiation warming, basically.
Good grief, little sock puppet. Read that post:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv
Then read the comment thread. That should be enough to make you realize that not only you have no idea what you’re talking about, but your Machiavellianism is silly.
If you don’t read that thread, I will hammer every single point in it until you tilt again.
Mark my word.
You can speak to me with respect or gfy.
Everyone,
I promised never to address Kiddo again. I just did.
My apologies to that little prick.
OK then…gfy.
Our slimy sock puppet soldiers on.
Gfy.
Yes, NASA engineering use the “plates” to cool, not warm.
It’s almost as if they understand physics, huh?
I haven’t expressed an opinion regarding how the heat transfer and dispersion works. I just note that it works.
Perhaps you would care to discuss the physics of heat transfer between the layers, where the heat goes and why it stops energy from sunlight warming the telescope.
“It is the high reflectivity that is key, reflecting most of the EM radiation so that only a little gets absorbed”
– Tim Folkerts
Ent, here’s a diagram of the heat flow in the JWST layers (plates). Each warmed layer (plate) emits. The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps. This is just basic physics, unknown to braindead cult idiots.
https://postimg.cc/k6tqY1R8
EMR is not heat Clint. The arrows are wrongly labeled.
“Oh no, not again!
D Adams
“The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, ”
In which case the spaceward side of each layer should have been painted black for maximum heat emission. No point in having the spaceward surfaces reflective if no photons will be emitted by the sunward side of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th layers.
No point in the layers being reflective on both sides unless photons are being emitted from both sides of each layer.
Sorry, ClintR, the sunshade is designed according to conventional physics, not your version.
No one should even try to make sense of that, Ent. You clearly have no clue.
And Ball4 gets confused with his silly semantics, as usual.
It’s interesting that both of you are anonymous, and clearly willing to pervert reality. If someone had the time, they could go back and find both of your claimng that the “green plate” could warm the “blue plate”.
Both of you seem to revel in perverting reality — Ball4 with his “real 255K surface”, and you with your “passenger jets flying backwards”.
You’re nothing more than braindead cult idiots. And your agenda is easy to unmask.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It’s not semantics Clint, you get radiative transfer physics wrong because you wrongly show EMR as heat. And I see Clint still hasn’t found the location of the real 255K earthen system surface confirming my point.
It is fun.
You write some foolish physics.
I provide a correct version for the lurkers.
You insult me, as losers in a debate often do.
Thank you for the entertainment.
“No point in having the spaceward surfaces reflective if no photons will be emitted by the sunward side of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th layers.”
Where did Clint R say that no photons would be emitted by the sunward side?
It IS semantics, braindead4. You play with semantics so you can pervert reality. Just as you try to claim it was me that “wrongly” showed EMR as heat. It was that way in the NASA diagram. That’s the usage of the word in common vernacular. People that understand physics have no problem with it.
Your game is to distort reality, as you attempt with your “real 255K surface” nonsense. The only people you fool are other braindead cult idiots like Norman, and several others.
Entropic man — Referring to you as a “braindead cult idiot” is NOT an insult. It’s reality. You believe the cult nonsense, religiously. That makes you a “cult idiot”. You reject reality and you can’t learn. That makes you “braindead”.
You could probably see the same flaws in others here, if you weren’t braindead.
DREMT
“Where did Clint R say that no photons would be emitted by the sunward side? ”
He says
“Each warmed layer (plate) emits. The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate,”
It follows logically from his hypothesis. He holds that energy (ie photons) cannot travel from a colder to a hotter object.
Thus no photons can leave the sunward side of the second layer and interact with the spaceward side of the first, the warmest, plate.
He said they emit. Thus he is not saying that the layers do not emit. Presumably he is arguing that the photons going from cold surface to hot surface are reflected from the hot surface. Not that they were never emitted in the first place…but perhaps Clint R can confirm.
DREMT
So the sunward side of the first layer absorbs part of the radiation falling on it, but the spaceward side is a perfect reflector?
Don’t be silly.
“The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps”.
I am simply correcting your misreading of his comment, EM.
This is just another good example of how Ent tries to pervert reality.
More than once he has quoted me as “The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate”
But, here’s the actual quote, in its entirety: “The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps.”
He’s so desperate.
Oh, you beat me to it, DREMT.
Thanks!
The emitted flux is not heat so the flux can go back to the hotter plate increasing universe entropy in the process; the flux is reflected, absorbed, and emitted by the 5 layers on both sides until the flux ends up emitted to deep space at eventual long term equilibrium.
Clint gets radiative transfer physics wrong incorrectly using the word heat for EMR whereas NASA does not get radiative transfer physics wrong and designed the 5 sunshield layers appropriately.
That’s why Ball4 is a braindead cult idiot. He has no respect for truth or reality. He just believes his corrupt opinions are science.
Clint R writes comments in accord with Clint’s imagination; I will go in accord with experiment traceable to first principle theory so no imagination is needed.
EMR is not heat, Clint.
Keep trying to pervert reality, braindead4. Everyone is watching, and you always get caught.
As I stated upthread: Just as you try to claim it was me that “wrongly” showed EMR as heat. It was that way in the NASA diagram.”
https://postimg.cc/k6tqY1R8
(And since you won’t be able to stop this nonsense, I have to do it. Someone has to be the adult in the room.)
Clint posted the image with no attribution using Clint’s imagination to believe it was correct. The image is not correct because EMR is not heat. Go argue with the image source Clint not me.
And use experimental science-based images in the future – oh wait, Clint only uses Clint’s imagination for science not experiment. Better to not use any images because Clint can’t tell which images are based on experiment.
Oh and Clint, realize commercial airplanes do not fly backwards as they can in Clint’s imagination.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” But, heres the actual quote, in its entirety: The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps.
So photons emitted from the second layer reflect off the back of the warmer first layer without interacting with it? That can’t happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.
You don’t realise that scientific statements, even yours, have implications. When those implications do not match reality they invalidate the original statement.
This happens repeatedly. You make a statement which sounds superficially reasonable, but which turns out to be nonsense when you dig into the detailed physics required to make it work.
I don’t know who trained you. Whoever it was fed you lies-to-children, simplified explanations which allowed you to use the science without fully understanding it.
EM: “That can’t happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.”
That’s an interesting comment in this field. Strike that word photon. The rest is true only when using the wave language for a light beam. The incident light wave excites molecules in, say, glass to radiate secondary waves that combine to form (approximately) a net reflected wave given by the law of reflection and a net transmitted wave given by the law of refraction.
A mirror illuminated by an incident beam gives rise to a reflected beam. Is this reflected beam redirected incident photons? No experiment can answer that.
In the photon language, to determine if reflected photons are the same as incident photons would require an experimenter to be able to identify them. But photons are indistinguishable. Experimenters cannot tell one from another since they cannot tag a photon and follow its progress even though they can count individual photons.
Thus, if you want to believe that reflected photons are the same as incident photons, you may do so. No one can prove you wrong. But you cannot prove you are right.
“Thus, if you want to believe that reflected photons are the same as incident photons, you may do so. ”
If the classical interpretation is correct, the induced oscillation in the electrons in a metal is 180 degrees out of phase with the original incoming field. As a result the outgoing field is emitted in the opposite direction to the incoming field at the same angle.
That would imply that the emitted wave is not the incoming wave, though it is identical in wavelength, energy, direction and angle (though not necessarily in polarisation.)
Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics explanation of reflection includes a similar interaction of the incoming wave with electrons in the surface. He explains the observed geometry as the only path through the interaction in which the spherical wave function from the source to the mirror and the outgoing spherical wave function from the mirror to the detector do not cancel out.
I don’t understand that either, but I gather that the maths works.
Sorry Ent, but reflection does not require absorp.tion. Maybe if you’d studied physics instead of biology, you’d know that.
Here is the current data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WoAkrPnzbM
(top right hand corner).
Hot side sitting at 53c. Cold side sitting at -197c.
RLH,
It’s called Insulation. In this case, used to keep something cooler, than it otherwise would be.
This is an example of the mythical GHE, is it?
Reflective metallic layers provide insulation. With or without a vacuum between them.
Scientists Propose Jumpstarting Mars Magnetic Field to Make It Habitable
Even NASA is on board.
linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
https://futurism.com/scientists-propose-jumpstarting-mars-magnetic-field
“Any long term human presence on Mars colonization, research, visit and travel that didnt confine settlers to airtight compounds would rely on a stable atmosphere that doesnt lose too many particles or fry human bodies with too much radiation.
Now, scientists from a star-studded list of universities and organizations, including NASAs own chief scientist James Lauer Green, are suggesting that we protect humans on Mars from deadly atmospheric conditions by jumpstarting the planets magnetic field.”
I am not on board.
“Terraforming Mars” just needs a lot Mars water mined, and doing something to lower effect of global dust storm.
To have Mars settlements, one need millions of tons of water mined, which over decade or two, having billions of tons of water mined per year.
And the million of tons of water needed to start a Mars town, has to be cheap, about $1 per kg, or 1 billion dollar for 1 million tons of water {which is very expensive water compared to Earth water]. When doing 1 billion tons per year, 1 billion tons can’t cost 1 trillion dollars, more like 100 billion dollars, so, $.1
per kg. Which is still expensive water compared to Earth, but once get to couple billion tons per year, it could get even cheaper. And given enough time {many decades} Mars water could be cheaper than Earth water.
Now our magnetic field doesn’t protect Earth from harmful radiation, people on ISS are getting harmful radiation and they are within Earth’s atmosphere and within our Magnetic field.
What halves the radiation is Earth itself and it’s thick atmosphere.
Going to Mars from Earth, involves getting a lot radiation, as there is not planetary mass blocking half of it. And Earth surface has 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And rather hard to surround spacecraft with 10 tons of radiation shielding per square meter.
What NASA should do, is get to Mars in 1/2 of the time, and crew will get 1/2 as much radiation. Once at planet Mars, the planet can stop 1/2 of it. And 1 meter of water can block it, so it’s less radiation than ISS crew get. So, 2 or more meters of water, get even less than ISS crew get.
But water is expensive on Mars when NASA crew show up, so NASA will have use cheap Mars dirt, a few meters of it, block the radiation to get less radiation than ISS crew get. Or Mars base could be in lava tube {a cave}.
Going to Mars when there is Solar Min, gets twice as much radiation and when going at Solar Max.
Or solar max blocks more radiation than our magnetic field.
But we are just starting towards solar Max {it could end and not even get there. So another thing about getting to Mars fast, is it
gets 1/2 as much radiation, and radiation can twice as much during Solar Max.
Or if try to explore Mars “dodging times” of solar min and we are maybe going into Grand Solar Minium- or don’t have Mars exploration program. NASA just wasting our time and endangering NASA employees.
So:
“Sunspot number: 12
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 05 Jan 2022
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 0 days (0%)
2021 total: 64 days (18%)”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 7.95×1010 W Cool
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
{and radiation:
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +8.7% High”
Or one could say we are leaving solar min, but we have not left it in terms getting less radiation for crew going to Mars.
And this time period:
2020 total: 208 days (57%)
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
Has not been "good" in terms of having much time with lower radiation level in space. And it could get "worse" in future.
“and radiation can twice as much during Solar Max.”
Solar Min has twice as much radiation as Solar Max
Now, Solar Max has more solar flares, and rather than
just more radiation, they can be lethal, but you have a solar flare
shelter in spacecraft.
Or one can design and have to design spacecraft to protect
crew from these relative short but lethal events.
Or ISS has a solar flare shelter. Though the Apollo crew didn’t {they could have been killed- only luck saved them}
I was wondering the amount of times ISS crew had to shelter,
but I got this instead:
“Space Station crew forced to seek shelter during massive solar flare
The International Space Station (ISS) crew had to hide in a special shelter during a massive solar flare, a nuclear scientist said. The sun produced several huge solar flares last week, one of which was the strongest observed in a decade.”
https://www.rt.com/news/402946-iss-shelter-solar-flare/
More info {but not about how times ISS had to take shelter}
Sickening Solar Flares
“Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), however, were safe. The ISS is heavily shielded, plus the station orbits Earth inside our planet’s protective magnetic field. “The crew probably absorbed no more than 1 rem,” said Francis Cucinotta, NASA’s radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center.
One rem, short for Roentgen Equivalent Man, is the radiation dose that causes the same injury to human tissue as 1 roentgen of x-rays. A typical diagnostic CAT scan, the kind you might get to check for tumors, delivers about 1 rem. So for the crew of the ISS, the Jan. 20 proton storm was no worse than a trip to the doctor on Earth.
On the moon, Cucinotta estimates, an astronaut protected by no more than a space suit would have absorbed about 50 rem of ionizing radiation. That’s enough to cause radiation sickness. “But it would not have been fatal,” he adds.
To die, you’d need to suddenly absorb 300 rem or more.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
First you have to prove there is water and, second, if that condition is met, that it can be economically mined.
I would say first NASA has to explore the Moon.
If NASA doesn’t find any water on the Moon.
It seems one should review NASA assumption regarding the water it has detected on Mars.
If simply find say twice as water as Apollo found on the Moon, one also review NASA assumptions regarding the water it has detected on Mars.
If it’s say 4 times as much, but not mineable, it still might helpful to take lesson learned and apply them to Mars.
But what NASA has detected in regards water on Mars, doesn’t indicate Mars has mineable water somewhere. Or a reason to send crew to Mars is to able to do this type of exploration on Mars.
With Moon, it seems minable water is within a small area of the Moon. I would say randomly going anywhere on Mars has almost same chance of finding minable Mars water.
Or I tend to agree ever worried, that best place to put a base on Mars is where it seems easiest to put base. Or crew safety and getting a toe hold on the Planet, seems reasonable.
Or generally tend to think we should put bases on Mars rather just focus only on one base. But I don’t think there much value on just orbiting Mars with crew.
But a base first on a Mars moon followed with base on Mars surface, might be good idea.
It possible though the small moons even have minable water- but I doubt NASA wants to do this. NASA seems overly obsessed with finding life on Mars, and not likely on the Mars moons.
But I would say NASA exploring Mars, will help with further exploration of the Moon and possibly mining the Moon. If there is Moon mining, it will help the chances of using Mars and/or exploration of Mars. Some nut thought should be drilling water wells on the Moon. Maybe you can drill water well on the Moon and get water. I don’t think NASA should drill for water on the Moon, but NASA should doing a lot drilling on Mars.
But idea that NASA is going to all the exploration on Mars, is not going to happen.
If NASA explore Moon and finds on water and explores Mars and finds no water [within say 10 years] I would say NASA is over- and could be the actual thought out reason, NASA has not done any meaningful exploration in decades- they are scared they will fail so much that they are incapable of exploration.
But if NASA gone, exploration of space will continue. And exploration might more of the very exciting and dangerous kinds of activities.
Oh, related to this.
Should Space Force explore the Moon?
One could blame the US military for bring up the
topic of water on the Moon.
But that is not very good argument, as they were not trying to
explore the Moon- and it was not their job to explore the Moon.
But if NASA continues to fail to explore the Moon, should Space
Force become more interested in exploring the Moon.
It seems it relates to how much time, NASA continue to fail to
explore the Moon.
Such as in the next 20 years, NASA continues to fail to explore the
Moon. Or if given enough time, such as 20 or 40 or more years, it becomes a better argument.
But there does not seem to be that much time that NASA could waste.
One could blame Elon Musk for this. But you were going to get Elon Musk, at some point in time, anyhow.
A thought experiment!
Let’s say the artificial barrier built across Atlantic ocean which stops the Gulfstream current circulation.
What will be the change (everything else equals) in Earth’s average global temperature?
1. No change at all.
2. Average global warming.
3. Average global cooling.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If all the cold water is concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere then 3.
If Christos means the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is like a planetary conveyor belt, then read here:
https://www.umass.edu/news/article/winter-coming-researchers-uncover-surprising-cause-little-ice-age
1)
The barrier prevents heat transport away from the US, which becomes warmer and reduces heat transport to Europe which become colder. The Greenland Sea will receive less heat from the Gulf Stream and lose less heat into the thermohaline circulation.
Locally temperature and heat transfer will change, but the planetary energy budget will not change.
If insolation is changed then the energy budget changes due to surface albedo.
Gulf stream prevented from carrying heat north means colder north. Colder north means sea ice extends further south. Continental glaciers would advance. Winters, particularly in Northern Europe get much colder and snowier.
End result is that insolation at 60N increases dramatically and you get global cooling.
Global cooling means much wilder weather including heat domes and arctic intrusions such as has been experienced over the last couple of years. Yeah, its all climate change but nothing to do with CO2.
In my opinion there would be an average global cooling.
My answer is the 3.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Based on the Stefan Boltzmanns 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%.
0.5% of what?
The authors expected a rise in temperature and got a rise in percentage.
It’s nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1113385
The rise was about 0.15 C. So small they needed to use specialist equipment to even detect it was there at all.
Elon Musk says SpaceX making good progress on Starships upgraded Raptor 2 engines
“As is routine, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken to Twitter to offer a few details about the status of Starship, its Raptor engines, and a few upgrades planned for both.
In mid-December, Musk revealed even more ambitious plans to upgrade Starship by stretching its propellant tanks and adding another three Raptor engines, potentially boosting the ships maximum thrust by 50% and substantially improving payload performance. ”
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-raptor-2-engine-progress/
“According to Musk, as SpaceX continues to ramp up ground testing of the upgraded engine variant, Raptor 2 now operates routinely at 300 bar main chamber pressure. For context, on February 10th, 2019, just days after SpaceX began testing the first full-scale Raptor prototype ever completed, the engine briefly reached a main combustion chamber pressure just shy of 269 bar (3900 psi). That narrowly beat records set by Russias RD-270 and RD-180 engines, the latter of which is used on ULAs Atlas V.”
I heard about 300, I good to get the context.
So, Raptor 2 seems getting than faster, than I thought
Musk is amazing.
Entropic Man wrote earlier –
“I havent expressed an opinion regarding how the heat transfer and dispersion works. I just note that it works.
Perhaps you would care to discuss the physics of heat transfer between the layers, where the heat goes and why it stops energy from sunlight warming the telescope.”
– presumably about the method of insulation used to prevent the Sun’s radiation from adversely affecting the operation of parts of the Webb space telescope.
Obviously, EM accepts the reality of the insulation, but does not possess sufficient physical knowledge to understand how it works.
I can assure EM that no discussion is necessary. Facts will suffice. EM will discover that no mythical GHE or other magical means are needed to explain the insulating effect of the apparatus in question. If EM can be specific about the physical aspects he does not understand, and can demonstrate sincere and meaningful efforts to overcome his lack of knowledge (without gaining such understanding), I will be glad to help.
Of course he won’t. He has merely posed a gotcha, with the intention of strenuously opposing anyone who is silly enough to attempt explaining the physical basis of what EM acknowledges occurs in fact.
Strange lot, theses climate crackpots.
Strange lot these denialists .
DREMT and Clint R hilariously misunderstand the science. Even this biologist ends up ROFL. Professional physicists would probably burst their spleen laughing.
Then there’s you, Swenson. A fool who doesn’t understand even as little as your fellows, but tries (unsuccessfully) to disguise his lack of wit by ridicule.
Ent has dropped all pretense of understanding science, as he degrades into false accusations. The cult meltdown continues.
Reality always wins.
The real fun is educating you.
Clint R
You would probably rather disembowel yourself than admit it, but since I started comparing your comments with reality you have moved a lot closer to the conventional position on energy flow between between surfaces at different temperatures.
There was a time when you denied the possibility that a photon could be emitted by a colder object in the direction of a hotter object.
Now you accept that a photon can be emitted from the second layer of the JW sunshade towards the warmest first layer, though you haven’t yet accepted that it can be absorbed when it arrives.
Never mind, we are making progress.
“There was a time when you denied the possibility that a photon could be emitted by a colder object in the direction of a hotter object.”
No, E Man, that was you misrepresenting Clint R’s comment! Wow, you people are dishonest.
Ent is openly and blatantly misrepresenting me. He’s in full meltdown. His beliefs are collapsing and he’s reacting irrationally.
This is what happens when cults implode. The cult idiots are all in desperation mode. And, it’s going to get worse.
Leftist propagandists are often full of contradictions, mix-ups, reversals, and lies. Furthering their objective is their only agenda. Advancing science isn’t their objective. Achieving their “utopia” is their objective.
Nope. Heat transfer is really not a political issue. Its just what nature does, and regular physics explains it.
Clint’s made-up fizuks doesnt.
Materials don’t magically switch from abs*orbing to reflecting when the photons come from a colder source.
EM,
And yet, no physicist appears to support you.. Burst spleen or otherwise.
Come on EM, demonstrate your knowledge of the physics which you claim others hilariously misunderstand. You can’t, can you?
As to any perceived lack of wit being disguised with ridicule on my part, do you realise how ridiculous (not to say irrelevant) you appear?
You see, if you explain how the sun shield works, you destroy the nonsensical “back radiation” and “colder makes warmer” claims made by climate cultists.
Go on, appeal to your own authority some more.
You will no doubt convince some of the gullible, retarded, or ignorant members of the Earth’s population of over seven billion. Name one of them, if you dare.
Or just keep wriggling and evading. Don’t blame me if you can’t understand physics.
So says are resident denier of science.
Earlier, Willard quoted –
“However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.”
Completely irrelevant. The author of this specious nonsense is implying the existence of a mechanism which allows a colder atmosphere to make a warmer surface increase its temperature. Or, to use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of a bowl of water heated by the Sun.
Here’s what idiots like Whacky Wee Willy’s “expert” miss – placing a colder object (like an atmosphere) between the warm object and the sun, does not raise the temperature of the warmer object. That’s why people use hats and sunshades to reduce the energy from the sun hitting their heads!
If they don’t, their brains will overheat, and they will start dribbling the sort of nonsense that Wobbly Wee Willy believes so passionately!
Others are free to believe as they wish.
Mike Flynn, Mischievous Flatulence, please, stop – you’ll make Kiddo cry. He was starting to believe in the Greenhouse Effect, the Tyndall Effect, or is it the Angstrom Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/angstrom-effect.html
Since he can’t distinguish theory from model and can’t for the life of him read an equation, that’d be really mean of you.
Please.
Weak Wee Willy,
Incoherent nonsense, is it? Who is Kiddo? Another of your imaginary opponents, I suppose. Just as Don Quixote tilted at windmills, and tried to convince others he was a marvellous slayer of dragons, you are seemingly just as deluded.
Your unsupported assertions are typical climate crank nonsense.
You can’t produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. That’s why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!
Mike Flynn, Mosquito-Size Follicule – have you noticed how Kiddo did not use the same sock puppet in that 2017 classic thread?
No? You’re in for a treat:
You can’t say that Kiddo has changed much!
Tell us your BOM bit.
Wriggling Wee Willy,
Still no identification of Kiddo? Just more nonsense, and references which no doubt make no reference whatsoever to “Kiddo”!
What are you one about?
Wriggle as much as you like, like a worm on a hook, you can’t escape. As I said before –
“You cant produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. Thats why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!”
You are free to keep confirming my assumptions, if you desire.
Mike Flynn, Mathematically Febrile – do you have any idea how silly you sound by asking me who’s Kiddo? I mean, srsly – you keep butting in our exchanges and you still don’t?
I don’t blame you – Kiddo’s a bit tedious, and you don’t really need to read anything anyway to write your prosaic and pugilistic prose.
Nevertheless, here’s a hint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299239
Do your bit about deep oceans.
Waffling Wee Willy,
Keep avoiding, it suits you.
Here –
You cant produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. Thats why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!
Still no theory? Can’t find an equation?
So sad, too bad. Maybe you should practice obscurity and mystic “hints”. That might make some particularly gullible fools believe you are wise and respected.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Missionary Frivolity, meet a Mike Flynnian response –
Enjoy your evening, silly sock puppet.
Woeful Wee Willy,
I agree with Mike Flynn. Laddie, you need to learn how to formulate better gotchas. Your present standard is abysmal.
There. I’ve improved on Mike Flynn’s comment.
Go on, tell me which comment you prefer.
Only joking. Attacking the messengers(s) doesn’t affect the message. Why not just copy Mike Flynn? Or does he not bother with gotchas?
Don’t worry. If you spend as much time developing your gotcha skills, as you do obsessing about Mike Flynn, you might even raise yourself to the pathetic level.
Mike Flynn,
A blast from your Climateball past –
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742644
So yeah, *that* Vaughan, and yeah, that complete twit is you.
Whining Wee Willy,
Why would I care what Vaughan Pratt says about Mike Flynn, particularly when you wrote – “It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, . . . “?
You are getting more bizarre by the minute.
Producing an opinion from someone you mistrust, about someone you don’t know, for a purpose you can’t state, doesn’t seem to be particularly useful or rational.
Maybe you could spend your time to better effect by trying to get your gotchas to a more acceptable standard. You have to follow your obsession, I guess.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
If you read the quote, you’d realize that Vaughan was asking you not to be a complete twit. You were pretending to have been apologetic once, when in fact (a) it was for a typo, and (b) you were blaming your computer.
Now, look at you – pretending you do not know who was Kiddo, and still pretending you’re not Mike Flynn when it’s obvious you are. In fact you still are using your Tyndall bit, e.g.:
[You in 2015 at Judy’s] I take my information from Tyndall’s “Heat as a form of motion”, 6th edition, published 1905. If your reference is more recent, I will chase it up and read it.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742572
[You in 2021 at Roy’s] Anybody interested can read “Heat – a mode of motion,” by Professor John Tyndall, 6th edition, if they so wish.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631025
Oh, and you know *why* you were pretending to be apologetic? Because Vaughan met your challenge to find support for your favorite effect in Tyndall’s corpus!
So yeah, *that* Vaughan.
So how long will you continue to be a complete twit about this? Take your time. No rush.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I suppose it has escaped your notice that many copies of a book are usually printed, and many people have been know to read the same book or a copy thereof.
You probably can’t accept that not everybody has to comply with your rules on what words, phrases and modes of expression they may or may not use.
I suppose you think that people like Presidents, Prime Ministers and Premiers, write all their own speeches! If you do, you are a bigger fool than you appear. And yet, you might notice that the speech author manages to adopt the style of the person on whose behalf he writes.
I write as I wish. Whether I choose to copy another’s style, or whether it happens to be coincidental, is my affair, and you may jump to any conclusions you wish. It won’t make you any less the delusional nitwit that you are.
But in any case, who gives a toss for your opinion? You can’t name a single person who cares, can you? As I have said before, it’s a good thing that you are powerless and impotent, not to say exceptionally stupid, otherwise you might try to make your fantasies become fact – just like that other loony , Bindidon.
Good luck with that, dummy. Maybe someone cares, but I doubt it. You just look more obsessed by the day. You can’t even accept that Mike Flynn commented recently, because it would upset your fantasy. In your mind, it was either me, or some other anonymous person trying to trick you!
No need, you are a definite trick all by yourself. No assistance needed.
Mike Flynn, Memetic Fascia, so you continue being a complete twit about being another silly sock puppet.
This time you pretend that there are not many lines of evidence that points to you being Mike Flynn. Themes, memes, expressions, sentences, references. Even timestamps.
Who do you think you’re kidding? Pace Feynman, that’d be you.
Aw diddums!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote “. . . many lines of evidence that points to you being Mike Flynn.”
Unfortunately, “many lines of evidence” are meaningless, if facts decree otherwise.
You might just as well say that there are “many lines of evidence” that CO2 makes thermometers hotter! Experimentation demonstrates it doesn’t.
Keep on being an obsessive fantasist, Wee Willy. If you accidentally stumble upon an inconvenient fact, you can always pretend it doesn’t exist.
Maybe someone wants to share your fantasy, but it isn’t me, I can assure you. Ken Rice, perhaps?
Mike Flynn, Momentous Fraudster – there is really no need to deny how empirical sciences work to keep pretending you’re not a sock puppet!
Woeful Wee Willy,
No wonder you love Wikipedia –
“There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined.” No surprise, then, that you accuse rational people of denying something that there is no general agreement on. Who could defend themselves against such nonsense?
You are an idiot who can’t accept that the basis of science is reproducible experiment.
Not lines of evidence. Not consensus. Not thought experiments. Not computer models.
Just the scientific method, which allows fact to determine whether speculation was, in fact, justified.
Carry on with your indefinite nonsense.
Mike Flynn, Maniacal Fingerling – the consensus that you’re a sock puppet should be, as Richard Tol is fond to say regarding the AGW consensus, in the high 90’s.
I recognized your voice right from the start. Then I saw that you commented under “Mike Flynn” at Roy’s. A cursory search reveals that it’s the same crap you peddled at Judy’s.
You did try to hide your voice from time to time with temporary socks. But even then your persona shun through. Your need to abuse always ends up being too strong.
So sad, too bad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Or, to use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of a bowl of water heated by the Sun.”
Today’s pair of physics problems. Consider a small, rotating, spherical object with high thermal conductivity and a blackbody coating. (Something like a 1 kg ball of copper painted black). The object floats in deep space, where sunlight is 1000 1000 W/m^2.
1) What will the (average) surface temperature of the sphere be when ‘heated by the sun’?
2) The object is now surrounded by a large shell of ice @ 273 K. The shell has a small hold to let in the sunlight. What will the (average) surface temperature of the sphere be when we add the ‘radiation from the ice’?
Tim,
No problem.
Sunlight is never 1000 1000 W/m^2. Try writing something comprehensible next time.
Apart from that, the contents of your fantasy are no problem. They are fantasy.
You can’t raise the temperature of a bowl of water heated by the Sun by using the radiation from ice, can you? You can’t even bring yourself to claim you can do it in your fantasy.
You definitely have “physics problems”. You need to learn physics, then you won’t have those problems.
I dont think the shell needs a hole to let in sunlight, it just needs to be very transparent ice.
And don’t bother Swenson with a real problem, he only deals in vague generalities, mostly of the ad-hominem variety.
Tim Folkerts says:
Today’s pair of physics problems. Consider a small, rotating, spherical object with high thermal conductivity and a blackbody coating. (Something like a 1 kg ball of copper painted black). The object floats in deep space, where sunlight is 1000 1000 W/m^2.
1) What will the (average) surface temperature of the sphere be when ‘heated by the sun’?
2) The object is now surrounded by a large shell of ice @ 273 K. The shell has a small hold to let in the sunlight. What will the (average) surface temperature of the sphere be when we add the ‘radiation from the ice’?
——————–
Seems to be a rather poorly described problem. If sunlight is 1000w/m2 (somewhere in deep space) the equilibrium temperature of a blackbody sphere is approximately 253K.
So its surrounded by 273k ice, obviously such ice would require a source of heat to keep it uniformly at that temperature. . . .but that source of heat isn’t described.
A low pressure area between Greenland and Iceland, with winds up to 170 kmh, and ocean waves up to 15 meters:
https://i.postimg.cc/DwzJKpZm/Screenshot-2022-01-06-at-01-48-37-Wind-Radar-Deutschland-Wetter-Online.png
Yeah. Looks pretty funny.
Earlier, EM wrote –
“So photons emitted from the second layer reflect off the back of the warmer first layer without interacting with it? That cant happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.”
EM is obviously unaware that a photon is not a wave, nor is it a particle. It is just a photon.
The phenomenon of reflection is more easily explained making the assumption that light is wave-like, however experiments such as the double slit experiment show that the wave theory of light, while seductive, is wrong.
I suppose that I am saying that his statement “That cant happen . . .” etc. etc. is purely nonsensical. He needs a little more knowledge of quantum electrodynamics. He may well be a little more cautious about his statements if he acquires a little more knowledge.
Assumptions based on classical mechanics don’t necessarily apply at the quantum level.
However, the insulation used by the builders of space mirrors works. At the quantum level, phenomena such as reflection, refraction, and transmission throw up lots of questions, but experiment can demolish some answers – neither the wave theory of light, or the particle theory of light fully explain such phenomena.
For example, from a stream of photons directed normal to a transparent glass surface, 4% are reflected, the phenomenon of partial reflection. Isaac Newton brilliantly deduced that the reason was not minute imperfections in the surface – Newton ground his own lenses. Anyone can pursue the reasons further if they wish.
EM appeals to his own authority, but claims no particular knowledge of physics. Reproducible experiment shows fact – hopefully. Theories based on inadequate experimentation are often found to be wrong when subjected to scrutiny, or in the light of more current knowledge.
swenson…”So photons emitted from the second layer reflect off the back of the warmer first layer without interacting with it? That cant happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.”
***
This is a good argument that photons do not exist. It proved a conundrum to Einstein who claimed no one really knows.
Reflection involves an entire wave since the frequency/wavelength is critical. Obviously, waves begin their lives as discrete quanta (don’t like the word photon. Whereas a quantum, being loosely defined, can have a frequency, however, a photon is defined as a particle of EM with momentum and no mass.
It has never been explained why individual particles of EM as photons can form into waves with wavelengths and frequencies. It tormented Einstein till the end and one of the problems he had was with reflection and other properties of light.
Of course, Bohr’s quantum had a frequency and intensity related as e = hf. However, I have read nothing in which Bohr referred to the quantum as a photon.
I really don’t care about semantics, it’s not the name photon that bothers me. It’s the exclusion of the possibility and actuality of waves of EM due to the adoption of photon theory that bothers me.
I guess that’s because I grew up think of EM as waveshapes and can’t visualize the relationship between photons and waves. I think it should be left as an open question till someone proves something. Till then, I’ll think of reflections as waves, with no energy loss during reflection.
And on it goes.
Ball4 wrote earlier –
“The emitted flux is not heat so the flux can go back to the hotter plate increasing universe entropy in the process; the flux is reflected, absorbed, and emitted by the 5 layers on both sides until the flux ends up emitted to deep space at eventual long term equilibrium.”
Presumably he intends this incoherent garbage to support some nonsense about cold things making hot things hotter.
Even Ball4 hopefully realises that regardless of his convoluted nonsense, the end result is that the the sun side of the insulation barrier is hotter than the other, cooler, side. No heating, no magic.
No amount of semantic slipperiness can alter facts. Placing a barrier, whether it be multi surface radiant reflectors, or atmosphere with or without CO2, results in the side furthest from the heat source being cooler.
Idiot climate cultists refuse to accept reality, even when their own words declare this to be true. Delusional psychosis writ large.
bobd…”They [GHGs] are also gaining energy from collisions with other gases in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen”.
***
Since the energy gained is heat, you are admitting that nitrogen and oxygen are the source of heat in the atmosphere.
**********************
“Nope, the amount is know [percent of EM re-radiated by a GHG molecule], it depends only on the temperature and concentration of the CO2 gas in the atmosphere”.
***
Bob, it is well-known that a GHGs molecule radiates upward, downward, and sideways. What percent of the radiated EM goes down?
Also, there are heat losses when the surface radiates the IR alleged to warm the GHGs. Even if back-radiation could raise the surface temperature, it first has to make up for heat losses due to the radiation that heated them. Since only a fraction of that radiations is returned, how is that possible?
**********************
*…the surface isn’t the source of the heat, which comes from the Sun, and then the surface emits, the atmosphere absorbs, and the atmosphere emits, and the surface absorbs again”.
The IR radiated from the surface is not from the Sun, The EM from the Sun was absorbed by the surface and converted to heat. The solar EM disappears when it is converted to heat. The heated surface then radiated its own IR at a much lower frequency and intensity.
***
“No perpetual motion, as there is a heat source, it’s the Sun”.
Bob, old son, the AWG alarmists claim the surface radiates IR which is absorbed by GHGs. Therefore the AGW theory claims the surface is the source. According to you, the IR from the surface is back-radiated and absorbed by the surface to raise its temperature to a higher level than it was before it radiated the IR to the GHGs.
The main problem with the alarmist theory is that GHGs that are cooler than the surface are transferring heat to the surface that warmed them. Contradicts the 2nd law. Also, suggests perpetual motion.
If you travel from Chicago to New York and stay overnight in Pittsburg, is your point of origin Chicago or Pittsburg?
A quantum of energy travels from the Sun to the Earth. It is absorbed by the surface and then reradiated. Has the reradiated energy come originally from the Sun or from Earth’s surface?
EM,
Either that is a gotcha, or you are completely ignorant of the nature of quantum electrodynamics.
I am far too polite to ask you which it is.
Carry on with your silliness.
Gordon
You share Clint R’s delusion that “there can be no energy transfer from a cold object to a warmer object.”
The correct phrase is “there can be no NET energy transfer from a cold object to a warmer object.”
The 2nd law allows energy flow in both directions as long as the energy transfer from hot to cold exceeds the energy transfer from cold to hot.
Ent is running around misrepresenting me this morning. He’s totally lost touch with reality. He reminds me of a young groupie that gets jilted, and then flies into a rage. We’ve seen Norman do the same.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
So you agree with me that energy as represented by radiation quanta, waves of photons can travel in both directions between warmer and cooler surfaces as long as the net energy flow is towards the cooler surface.
A photon has no awareness of “net energy”. It will travel until it is absorbed, refracted or reflected.
You won’t learn this. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
Yeah, Clint R,
But the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t work with single photons.
A single photon can transfer heat from cold to hot.
” A single photon has no awareness of net energy. ”
Or of the 2nd law. It just follows the rules; whatever determines whether it reflects or is absorbed by the warmer surface.
However the system as a whole is clearly constrained by the 2nd law. The total energy carried by waves, photons or whatever from the warmer to the colder surface is always greater than the return flow.
Why this constraint occurs is a matter best discussed above our pay grade. “Awareness” in the anthropomorphic sense is probably not it.
bob, that’s incorrect. 2LoT applies everywhere, all the time. You don’t know anything about physics, remember?
Ent, the determining factor for photon absorp.tion is wavelength compatibility.
“Ent, the determining factor for photon absorp.tion is wavelength compatibility”
Must be more than that. If I shine a laser at a surface all the photons have the same wavelength, yet some are reflected and some absor*bed.
Sounds like your laser needs a trip to the repair shop.
Clint R,
” 2LoT applies everywhere, all the time. You dont know anything about physics, remember?”
I didn’t say it doesn’t apply everywhere, I was pointing out that a single photon can transfer energy or heat from a cold source to a hot source.
“Ent, the determining factor for photon absorp.tion is wavelength compatibility.”
Wavelength compatibility, or now I see, you are a relationship guru. So you don’t need to know any physics.
Actually the determining factor for photon absorp.tion is whether or not there is an energy level transition available.
b,
You wrote –
“Actually the determining factor for photon absorp.tion is whether or not there is an energy level transition available.”
Actually, you are full of crap, dumbass (your term).
Consider an object at absolute zero. You have managed to convince yourself that it cannot be heated until it has “an energy level transition available.” You haven’t a clue, haven’t you?
You can’t even explain what you wrote about available energy level transitions. That’s the problem when dimwits copy and paste nonsense from the internet written by some other dimwit.
Carry on.
Swenson
First you show me an object at absolute zero.
And read my posts more carefully
“You have managed to convince yourself that it cannot be heated until it has an energy level transition available. You havent a clue, havent you?”
I didn’t say anything of the sort. What’s with all the straw.
I said an object can only absorb a photon if it has an energy level transition available, and I didn’t get that from an internet cut and paste, I learned that before there was an internet.
You don’t even know what you don’t know.
Both Clint R and Gordon Robertson are incurably stupid. I think Cling R is just a childish troll who gets pleasure in annoying posters. I think he has no more ambition than this. He is not one for the truth at all. If it annoys someone he will go with it.
Gordon just refuses to learn anything unless it is made up BS from some contrarian source. Gordon can’t accept textbook data as valid but if a contrarian makes up BS he eats it like candy. This is his gold standard. Anything contrarian is indisputable truth and any established information (Einstein etc) is garbage to Gordon.
The two cannot grasp energy transfer at all. It is not just radiant energy that has two way energy transfers so does just about everything else.
I have shown them this reality but they do not grasp or want to understand energy transfer.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
In the graphics it clearly shows the lower energy object transfer its energy to the higher energy object and the higher energy object transfers its energy to the lower energy object. This is why conduction depends upon the temperature of the two objects. He cold object still transfers energy to the hot one. HEAT is defined as the NET energy transfer so heat always flows from hot to cold. But energy will flow both ways. That is the reality. The two cannot understand this at all and never will or want to. Even when evidence they are clearly wrong is presented.
Like idiot Clint R, you show him adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce outgoing longwave radiant energy and he can’t figure it out and keeps on lying with his BS opinions over and over. A truly mindless person with little hope of advancement.
Hi Norman!
I see you’re still in meltdown mode. What’s it been, about 2 months now?
If you ever settle down, I’m still interested in where your bogus “real 255K surface” is. When you identify it, I’ll show you how wrong it is, and then you can go into meltdown again.
(That’s why this is so much fun.)
Clint R
I have already explained the Earth’s radiating surface to you many times. Why do you act like I haven’t?
You ignore my question to you on this. Does a flame have a radiating surface? Yes or No. If you answer this we can progress. If you ignore it then don’t keep asking about the 255 K radiating surface.
I have given you ample real evidence that the Earth’s average outgoing longwave radiant energy is around 239 W/m^2 (more in some regions less in others, the total amount of energy going out divided by the total area will give you this average). This radiant energy loss has a brightness temperature of 255 K.
Not sure more evidence would convince you. Not even sure what you want or why you post.
Sorry Norman, but you haven’t stated where your “real 255K surface” is. You just dodge the issue. If you believe it is in the atmosphere, identify its altitude. That’s all you have to do.
Where is it?
I’m beginning to think you don’t have a clue….
“Where is it?”
Lol, Clint R admits still doesn’t know even the basics of earthen system temperature measurements.
Norman bit off more than he can chew on this one.
He went with his cult hero, but soon found out his cult hero was all bluff. Norman got left holding the bag. And, he’s not liking the retched odor coming from the bag….
That’s why this is so much fun.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“I didn’t say it doesn’t apply everywhere, I was pointing out that a single photon can transfer energy or heat from a cold source to a hot source.”
Only in your imagination, bob.
Show me where anyone, anywhere, has measured a photon transferring heat.
Speculation is not fact.
The contents of your imagination are worth precisely nothing.
Everyday testing even possible by Swenson shows when a photon reduces the thermal energy in an object at 32F and is absorbed by an object at room temperature ~72F increasing its thermal energy then heat has been transferred between the objects by EMR.
Here comes braindead4, trying to boil water with ice cubes again.
(Remember, this is Norman’s cult hero!)
Ball4,
“Everyday testing even possible by Swenson shows when a photon reduces the thermal energy in an object at 32F and is absorbed by an object at room temperature ~72F increasing its thermal energy then heat has been transferred between the objects by EMR.”
What is this supposed to mean?
No one, anywhere, anytime has ever measured a temperature change due to an interaction between one photon (whatever that is) and one electron (whatever THAT is).
Just more gum-bumping by the somewhat inarticulate and obviously deranged Ball4.
Actually that has been done Swenson, routinely. Swenson is just behind in studying the field & needs to catch up.
Gordon,
“Since the energy gained is heat, you are admitting that nitrogen and oxygen are the source of heat in the atmosphere.”
No I am not admitting that, only that nitrogen and oxygen have heat that they got from somewhere else.
“Bob, it is well-known that a GHGs molecule radiates upward, downward, and sideways. What percent of the radiated EM goes down?”
About 50%.
“Also, there are heat losses when the surface radiates the IR alleged to warm the GHGs.”
What heat losses, and where does the missing heat that is lost go?
Is it with Trenberth in the oceans?
“Even if back-radiation could raise the surface temperature, it first has to make up for heat losses due to the radiation that heated them. Since only a fraction of that radiations is returned, how is that possible?”
It’s possible since the Sun is still heating the surface and the atmosphere. It’s the same principle of putting a lid on a pot of heated water makes the water hotter. You can do that experiment yourself, if your wife or boyfriend will let you in the kitchen.
“The main problem with the alarmist theory is that GHGs that are cooler than the surface are transferring heat to the surface that warmed them. Contradicts the 2nd law. Also, suggests perpetual motion.”
Go take a thermodynamics class, preferably the second semester of Physical Chemistry at a decent university. The second law is not violated or do you want to insult Dr. Roy and call him a liar. And it’s not perpetual motion because there is a heat source, the Sun.
Dumbass (your term) bobdroege,
You wrote –
“The second law is not violated or do you want to insult Dr. Roy and call him a liar.”
Oooooh! How subtle! What a master stroke!
You are an idiot.
You wrote so much arrant nonsense, I’ll just stop your first piece. You wrote –
“No I am not admitting that, only that nitrogen and oxygen have heat that they got from somewhere else.”
Oh really? Climate cultists claim that oxygen and nitrogen cannot absorb or emit infrared radiation, which leads to two initial questions – how did they get the heat you claimed, and how do you measure the temperature?
Go off and try and comprehend physics. Or don’t bother, and just keep spouting rubbish.
Swenson wants to have more fun.
But first you have to stop being as stupid a bag of hammers.
“Oh really? Climate cultists claim that oxygen and nitrogen cannot absorb or emit infrared radiation, which leads to two initial questions – how did they get the heat you claimed, and how do you measure the temperature?”
How do they get the heat?
From convection and conduction from the surface. And from collisions with CO2 molecules that have been irradiated by the IR from the surface.
And you can measure temperature, usually with a thermometer.
trouble posting, breaking post into parts…
tim…”This is such an obvious error in rounding (even ignoring the apparent typo of 0.1385 instead of 0.135). Everyone can see it.
Rounding 48 to the nearest 100 is 0, not 100.
Rounding 1348 to the nearest 100 is 1300, not 1400
By this logic, the proper rounding of 44.445 would be
44.445 -> 44.45 -> 44.5 > 45 -> 50 -> 100
The amazing thing is that this same mistake has been pointed out before, and yet Gordon repeats it”.
***
Tim, you are being a dic.k.h.ead. Obviously, I missed a step, otherwise my analysis is correct.
The original number was +0.13485844
Let’s dumb this down for you, The last 8 rounds the previous 5 to 6. That 6 rounds the previous 8 to 9. The 9 rounds the previous 4 to 5 and now we have 0.135. Anyone with half a brain knows that the 5 rounds the previous 3 to 4. So we end up with 0.14 as Roy has presented it.
” Anyone with half a brain knows… ”
… that under your skull you don’t even have a hundredth the volume of the brain that the average person normally has.
You show that in nearly every ‘comment’ (but you aren’t the only one who does here).
part 2…
You learn this stuff in Junior High School math. If you learned it otherwise, you were taught incorrectly.
My first hit on Google confirming this.
If you see one or more * in the following URL, remove them and repost…
https://t*u*t*o*r*a*x.com/blogue/en/how-to-round-decimals-rounding-numbers-guide/
If the last number in the string of decimals is 5, round up.
…the error is in the t*u*t*o*r*a*x part of URL. Don’t know where.
…or try this link…
https://www.mathsisfun.com/rounding-numbers.html
From your very own link, Gordon!
How to Round Numbers
Decide which is the last digit to keep
… OK, the “last digit to keep” is the hundredths place. +/- 0.01
Leave it the same if the next digit is less than 5 (this is called rounding down)
But increase it by 1 if the next digit is 5 or more (this is called rounding up)
… OK, the “next digit” is the “4” in the thousandths place. So the rule is to “round down” to 3.
And more essentially, “rounding to the nearest hundredth” means exactly that. Is 0.13485844 closer to 0.13 or 0.14?
0.13 is 0.00485844 from 0.13485844
0.14 is 0.00514156 from 0.13485844
0.13 is closer.
The “rule” of “5 rounds up” is only a ‘quick and dirty’ way to achieve this goal.
It’s hard to imagine how dumb some people can be.
Rounding numbers is affected ONLY by the digit following the last rounding position.
Thus, rounding 0.13485844 to 2 positions after the decimal point (patdp) gives 0.13, exactly as shown by
https://www.mathsisfun.com/rounding-numbers.html
and, of course, not what ignoramus Robertson invented.
Robertson is dumb enough to present a link he himself isn’t even able to make correct use of.
As usual, he writes about what he believes to be correct instead; anything else would be ‘appeal to authority’, wouldn’t it?
*
Thus, the number 0.14 presented on thread’s top by Roy Spencer can have only one origin: that Mr Spencer operates in his background data evaluations with 3 patdp (having 0.135 as last internal result) and then finally rounded to 2 patdp.
To be certain you would have to analyze what the binary representation of 0.13485844 is as it is certain that all numbers and calculations that Roy deals with are in binary.
For instance 0.1 in decimal = 0.000110011… in binary i.e. there is no precise definition of 0.1 decimal.
https://binary-system.base-conversion.ro/convert-real-numbers-from-decimal-system-to-64bit-double-precision-IEEE754-binary-floating-point.php
Number 0.13485844 converted from decimal system (base 10) to 64 bit double precision IEEE 754 binary floating point:
sign – exponent – mantissa
0 – 011 1111 1100 – 0001 0100 0011 0000 1010 1001 0110 1011 0001 1101 1101 1011 00
It should be evident to all here that with ’rounding’, we all should mean here ’rounding to the next integer’ as it is understood all over the planet.
I use rounding function since decades on computers, and I was at no time aware of any possibly differing interpretation.
If that was not the case, the software packages we developed would run differently everywhere, depending on which ‘ideas’ the math libraries were designed.
The rest is simple-minded, laughable denial of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754
Gordon, Bindidon
I suspect that different fields may use different rounding conventions.
In my circles We were taught that you round down if the extra digit is less than five and round up if the extra digit is more than five. If the last digit is five, round to the nearest even number.
Thus 0.134 rounds to 0.13.
0.136 rounds to 0.14.
0.135 rounds to 0.14.
0.145 rounds to 0.14.
In the context of Roy’s rate of warming, this means that the actual rate is greater than 0.135 and no greater than 0.14544444….
Sorry about the Royal We. My spell checker is taking the p*ss.
Yes different fields use different rounding rules.
As a chemist I was taught the round to even rule.
In Big Pharma, we always round ending 5s up.
Rad Con Rangers always round up, so .142 rounds to 1, .2, or .15 dependent on what decimal point you are rounding to.
Rules like “round up” or “round down” or “round even” only apply if all following digits are zero (or unknown).
If all you know is “0.135”, then you need these rules.
But with “0.1351” or “0.13500001” there is one and only one rule for rounding. Round to the closer number, ie 0.14 in this case.
Remember that all calculations involving computers are in binary not in decimal. This can lead to some unexpected results.
True, but this is WAY beyond the current discussion.
There is simply no ambiguity — either in base 10 or base 2 — of how to round 0.13485844
There is simply no ambiguity — either for round up/down/even — of how to round 0.13485844
It rounds to 0.13
If by rounding you mean ‘nearest to’, then convert all of them to binary and only then can you make an accurate observation.
Binary floating point can be quite different to decimal floating point notation in detail.
As I said before 0.1 decimal, for instance, has no actual representation in binary floating point.
0.13485844 = 0.001000101000011000010101001011010110001110111011…
“In the context of Roys rate of warming, this means that the actual rate is greater than 0.135 and no greater than 0.14544444.”
No. In the context of Roys rate of warming, this means that the actual rate is greater than or equal to 0.135 and less than 0.145 (using the “round up” rule”).
Definitely NOT 0.14544444… . It’s 0.145.
Yep. My mistake.
Actually not my mistake.
I’m not using the “round up” rule.
I’m using
1,2,3,4 round down.
6,7,8,9 round up.
5 rounds to nearest even number.
This 0.14544444… rounds to 0.145 then to 0.14 and is the largest number to do so.
Under your round up rule for 5, 0.14544444… rounds to 0.145 and then to 0.15.
It shows how your choice of rounding rule can affect the result.
Tim
If you use my system for the sum of a large number of rounded numbers their total is about right as the overestimates and underestimates tend to cancel out.
Using your system the total would be slightly too high as there will be more round ups than round downs.
There’s an opportunity for fraud here. If you are a company accountant with a large number of credits, programme your software to round up and cream off the slight surplus.
Yes, I know the “round even” cuts back on systematic errors. But you still have to apply whichever rule correctly. You use your preferred rounding system only when the number is ‘exactly on the fence”.
0.499 rounds to 0.4 in any system
0.501 rounds to 0.5 in any system
Only for 0.500 do we use round up/down/even rules.
The chances of being on exactly n.0000… are vanishingly small. We are always warned about comparing to endless zeros with floating point numbers in computing.
“This 0.14544444… rounds to 0.145 then to 0.14 and is the largest number to do so.”
0.1449 would round to 0.14 with the “round even” rule.
0.1450 would round to 0.14 with the “round even” rule.
0.1451 would round to 0.15 with the “round even” rule.
There is no “serial rounding”. Certainly not in pure mathematics, and not in any specialized setting I have seen.
In binary the above decimal fractions are not as simple as they first seem
0.1449 = 0.1448999941349029541015625
0.1450 = 0.14499999582767486572265625
0.1451 = 0.14509999752044677734375
0.0001 = 0.0000999999974737875163555145263671875
We are constantly warned about the conversion differences in computing.
RLH, a few comments.
1) experimental results are always uncertain. That uncertainly would swamp the differences that show up in the 8th decimal place of a binary representation.
2) I have never seen Excel ’round the wrong way’. Clearly there are standard ways of dealing with the decimal-binary-decimal conversions and still round correctly.
3) None of this changes the rules that *should* be used. There is no way that 0.1348 rounds to 0.14. There is no way 0.14544444444 round to 0.14.
4) Rounding is for wimps. A serious analysis would give an estimated uncertainty. So “0.13485844” would be something like “0.1349 +/- 0.0014”.
I sort of agree,
Precise numbers (such as 0.5000…) in floating point, decimal or binary, are quite difficult to achieve in practice. Binary floating point and its uses in computing are set out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754
“Rounding rules:
The standard defines five rounding rules. The first two rules round to a nearest value; the others are called directed roundings:
Roundings to nearest
Round to nearest, ties to even rounds to the nearest value; if the number falls midway, it is rounded to the nearest value with an even least significant digit; this is the default for binary floating point and the recommended default for decimal.
Round to nearest, ties away from zero rounds to the nearest value; if the number falls midway, it is rounded to the nearest value above (for positive numbers) or below (for negative numbers); this is intended as an option for decimal floating point.”
Certainly you should not round twice or use already rounded values in later calculations. Therein only lies confusion.
So far JWST has had very few problems. It continues to lose speed, as it coasts through space at about 1000 mph (1600 kph). In about two weeks it will start insertion burns to settle it into its orbit.
The James Webb Space Telescope is launched on a direct path to an orbit around the second Sun-Earth Lagrange Point (L2), but it needs to make its own mid-course thrust correction maneuvers to get there. This is by design, because if Webb gets too much thrust from the Ariane rocket, it can’t turn around to thrust back toward Earth because that would directly expose its telescope optics and structure to the Sun, overheating them and aborting the science mission before it can even begin. Therefore, Webb gets an intentional slight under burn from the Ariane and uses its own small thrusters and onboard propellant to make up the difference.
In its final orbit it will always have it’s sunshield facing Sun. It will be orbiting, but not rotating, just like Moon.
If it is not rotating, how can it photograph the whole sky in the course of a year, even though it can only point at 40% of the sky at any one time.
Don’t tell me you STILL don’t know the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”, Ent.
You really are that braindead?
I will patiently explain again…”orbiting”, or “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, not the “moon on the right”. You think it is as per the MOTR, Entropic Man, which is why you believe that the MOTL is “rotating” or “rotating on its own internal axis”. MOTL equals “motion like the MOTR” plus “rotating on its own internal axis” at a rate of once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion. So that is the “Spinner” perspective. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, MOTR equals “motion like the MOTL” plus “rotating on its own internal axis” at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Are the Moon and the James Webb telescope comparable? The telescope keeps its lower side, the sunshade, pointed towards Earth so it is not rotating in pitch or roll relative to Earth.
It is able to rotate around the Earth/Sun axis, for which the Moon has no equivalent and is not in orbit around the Earth.
Entropic Man, did you understand my explanation? Or are you still confused by the terminology “orbital motion without axial rotation”? Perhaps you can finally answer my question which I asked you the other day, to which you did not respond but instead brought up a completely different subject on this thread the next day, calling me out when I had really had enough of talking about the moon. Here it is again:
Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
I assume your answer is the MOTR, but I would just like to check.
Wrong Ent.
JWST will keep the sunshield facing SUN. That’s why it’s called a “SUNshield”.
Learning is so hard for you, huh?
I don’t think anyone here is still confused by your terminology of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Are you still confused about the fact that your terminology is not consistent with how the rest of the scientific community uses the words “orbit” and “rotation”.
You are welcome to have your preferred definition if it works for you. We are welcome to use our definitions.
“I don’t think anyone here is still confused by your terminology of orbital motion without axial rotation”
Interesting comment, Tim, but it seems as though Entropic Man is mightily confused by it, and the “Non-Spinner” position generally, as his comments indicate. So once again, I feel obliged to explain it all, as patiently as I can given the circumstances.
Clint R and Swenson already explained to DREMT that the non-spinners observe our moon from “inside of it orbit” near the central point and the spinners observe our moon from outside its orbit at the location of the sun completely resolving the MOTL and MOTR and our moon issue.
Ball4’s long descent into insanity continues…
DREMT,
Anyone can propose their own definition of “rotation” or “orbit” or “orbit with axial rotation. I think the major ‘confusion’ people have is why anyone would choose to call the MOTL “orbiting with out axial rotation.” 400 years of scientists have collectively decided it is more productive, more predictive, more self-consistent to use that moniker for MOTR.
Heck, the caption for the image you keep references starts:
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.” So your very source shows that you define things differently than the people who know about such things.
But go ahead. Try redefining classical mechanics to produce a system as successful as standard classical mechanics.
Tim…did it turn out that your comment “I don’t think anyone here is still confused by your terminology of orbital motion without axial rotation” was correct, or incorrect? The evidence seems to suggest that you were incorrect. So I will carry on with my explanations. Seems they are necessary.
“Timdid it turn out that your comment “I dont think anyone here is still confused by your terminology of orbital motion without axial rotation” was correct, or incorrect? ”
It was correct. Anyone following the discussion knows perfectly well that when you say “orbital motion without axial rotation” you mean MOTL.
Just like you know that when I say “orbital motion without axial rotation” I mean MOTR.
“Anyone following the discussion knows perfectly well that…”
Then the only explanation I can think of, is that Entropic Man, RLH, and Ball4, have not been following the discussion. Because as you can read, if you bother to just scroll on through the following comments, it seems like none of them understood that. E Man could not even understand a straightforward question, RLH said, “”orbital motion without axial rotation” is your word salad. It means nothing”, and Ball4 still thinks reference frames resolve the issue!
It is DREMT not reading comments. The MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue remains totally resolved as explained by Clint R and Swenson.
…in the “Non-Spinners” favor.
… when non-spinners are located observing from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R.
Both the "Spinners" and the "Non-Spinners" are located observing from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane. Same POV as the GIF.
Not according to both Clint R and Swenson explanations so DREMT is still wrong according to those two.
If they think I’m wrong, they can explicitly say so here.
They have already done so in their explanations showing DREMT is wrong not specifyiong location of observation. No matter how DREMT drags it out, the MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue is totally resolved by their comments explaining where non-spinners (“inside of it orbit”) and spinners (outside its orbit) are located to DREMT et. al.
Incorrect, Ball4. If I’m wrong, they can explicitly say so, here. Last time you tried this, Clint R responded that you were wrong and I was right. So I don’t hold out much hope for you.
DREMT doesn’t specify what Clint R wrote, those are DREMT words.
Previously DREMT clipped Clint’s whole comment to show that non-spinners are observing “inside of it orbit” and spinners are observing outside the lunar orbit – you should do so again and write in accord with Clint R’s explanation which completely resolves the MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue.
Swenson wrote the same applied to the mgr. All of DREMT’s subsequent comments do not reopen the issue. DREMT just needs to write comments in accord with Clint R and Swenson to be correct.
Clint R’s words:
"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."
But neither is actually rotating about its axis…as DREMT is a non-spinner observing from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R pointed out since earthshine is incident on only one lunar hemisphere. See Swenson’s comment extending the same thing for Swenson’s “bump” on the mgr.
DREMT still can’t come to terms with the moon issue being completely resolved by both Clint R and Swenson comments.
Can’t you just learn to debate honestly, Ball4?
You can make your point about reference frames without pretending that Clint R and Swenson agree with you and disagree with me, when that’s obviously not the case.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
DREMT still can’t come to terms with the moon issue being completely resolved by both Clint R and Swenson comments.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I prefer the astronomical terms.
An object rotating on its own axis is rotating. An object orbiting a barycentre or a larger mass is revolving.
The two motions are distinct and independant. Better to keep them so.
MOTL, or MOTR, Entropic Man? Please finally answer my question.
“From the Non-Spinner perspective, MOTR equals motion like the MOTL plus rotating on its own internal axis at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion. ”
Revolution + rotation on its axis.
By the way, you got the direction of the Moon’s rotation wrong.
By convention, if you look down on th pole of a rotating planet and see anticlockwise rotation, that is the North pole.
That applies to orbits too. Looking from a point well above Earth’s North pole the Earth and the Moon are rotating anticlockwise and the Moon is revolving anticlockwise in its orbit.
No, I did not get the direction of the moon’s rotation wrong. I never even mentioned the direction of our moon’s rotation, but I am already painfully well aware of what you state.
I will ask you the question again, because you still have not answered.
“Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?”
“rotating on its own internal axis at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
Whichever graphic shows that is wrong, since the Moon rotates in the same direction as it’s orbital revolution, as conservation of angular momentum requires of a moon formed in place.
It’s so long since I last saw the MOTL/MOTR diagram that I’ve forgotten which was which. Can you put up the link again.
The sentence you have quoted applied to a description of the MOTR, which does not move as per our moon. You appear to be completely confused by my explanation. Let us start with the basics. Here is the link, for the second time in this sub-thread:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Now, does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
Thank you.
Relative to external reference frames the Moon is rotating anticlockwise and revolving anticlockwise.
Relative to the external reference frame of the white background the MOTL best depicts the Moon’s rotation and revolution.
I am well aware of the direction that our moon is orbiting, Entropic Man. Now, for the seventeenth time:
Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
Please respond only with the letters MOTL, or MOTR.
I just did.
MOTL
Poor old Ent. So…you think the MOTL is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis. Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”!
So how come by just moving from inside the Moon’s orbit of the Earth we can only see one side of the Moon but from outside it we see all sides?
Idiot. The graphic is drawn from the viewpoint of an observer above the Earth’s North Pole. From that viewpoint you can clearly see that the Moon is revolving anticlockwise and rotating anticlockwise in the MOTL.
Clint R and Swenson already explained to DREMT that the non-spinners observe our moon from “inside of it orbit” near the central point and the spinners observe our moon from outside its orbit at the location of the sun like EM writes & completely resolving the MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue. DREMT is wrong & remains at odds with correct commenters.
…because that is the nature of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, motion like the MOTL.
Newton would have disagreed.
I am well aware of the viewpoint, Entropic Man. What I asked you is:
Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
I await your apology.
Silly DREMT
You can see clearly from the graphic that the MOTR is not rotating.
Look at the markings on the Moon.
In the MOTR the side without the maria always points to the right. Ie. It is not rotating.
In the MOTL the side without the maria points left, down right then up. Ie. It is rotating.
With that “logic”, Ent, you would have to say the ball-on-a-string is rotating, as it orbits. But we know it is not because the string doesn’t wrap around it.
Reality always wins.
Entropic Man changes his answer to the question:
“Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?”
From “MOTL” to “MOTR”, refusing to acknowledge that he was ever in error. Do you have a learning disability, E Man? You seem unable to understand a simple question.
So, “orbital motion without axial rotation” for “Spinners” is like the MOTR. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” for “Non-Spinners” is like the MOTL. Do you follow so far, Capt. Slow?
The most familiar example of the ball-on a string is throwing the hammer. Standing behind the athlete you can clearly see the ball rotating during the spin-up and in flight.
DREMT and I have just demonstrated that the ball on a string analogy is wrong.
“DREMT and I have just demonstrated that the ball on a string analogy is wrong.”
No, we have not. You see, this is why I have to keep repeating myself so often, everyone. I am dealing with people that are quite simply ineducable.
Playing gotcha games, DREMT?
I’m just said.
“In the MOTR the side without the maria always points to the right. Ie. It is not rotating.
In the MOTL the side without the maria points left, down right then up. Ie. It is rotating.”
For the record, and in case I was confused earlier, the answer to your question
“Does an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, remain oriented like the MOTL, or the MOTR?
Please respond only with the letters MOTL, or MOTR. ”
is therefore MOTR.
Oh, I gotcha alright! Yes, you were very confused earlier…now you are slightly less so. But still, very confused. Let’s try again:
So, “orbital motion without axial rotation” for “Spinners” is like the MOTR. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” for “Non-Spinners” is like the MOTL. Do you follow so far?
I’m reminded of the problem scientists have when debating AGW with sceptics. The scientists use data, the sceptics use rhetoric.
I will patiently explain again…”orbiting”, or “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, not the “moon on the right”. You think it is as per the MOTR, Entropic Man, which is why you believe that the MOTL is “rotating” or “rotating on its own internal axis”. MOTL equals “motion like the MOTR” plus “rotating on its own internal axis” at a rate of once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbital motion. So that is the “Spinner” perspective. From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, MOTR equals “motion like the MOTL” plus “rotating on its own internal axis” at a rate of once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“So, orbital motion without axial rotation for Spinners is like the MOTR. Orbital motion without axial rotation for Non-Spinners is like the MOTL. Do you follow so far? ”
Clearly.
And since reality resembles the MOTL and the Moon rotates anticlockwise once on its axis in the time it revolves once in its orbit, it falsifies the non-spinner hypothesis.
“orbital motion without axial rotation” is your word salad. It means nothing. You might as well say there is no axial rotation at all. In which case one face would always point towards a fixed star.
Try the 4:33 PM comment again, Entropic Man.
DREMT 3:14 pm even admits DREMT is a non-spinner observing from inside the lunar orbit near the central point per both Clint R and Swenson explanations: “… because that is the nature of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, motion like the MOTL.”
So the MOTL, MOTR and our moon issue remains totally resolved.
I was responding to RLH with my 3:14 PM comment, just for the record. I did not even see E man’s comment or Ball4’s comment until after I posted. Ball4 is just trolling still, so I will ignore him.
The discussion should not be “Is ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ the MOTL or the MOTR”.
The discussion should be “What are the pros and cons of associating the label ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ with MOTL vs associating it with MOTR”.
There are good points for each definition.
Tim, it would be great if people’s understanding of the “Non-Spinner” position got to the point where we could just discuss “What are the pros and cons of associating the label ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ with MOTL vs associating it with MOTR”…however, as you can see, the understanding is so poor that we still have a long way to go in just explaining the basics of the position to people.
The MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue remains totally resolved as explained by Clint R and Swenson.
…in the “Non-Spinners” favor.
….. when non-spinners are located observing from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R and Swenson.
Both the "Spinners" and the "Non-Spinners" are located observing from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane. Same POV as the GIF.
Not according to Clint R and Swenson who totally resolved the moon issue showing DREMT is wrong. No amount of further comments by DREMT will prove correct unless in accord with their explanations.
Incorrect, Ball4. If Im wrong, they can explicitly say so, here. Last time you tried this, Clint R responded that you were wrong and I was right. So I dont hold out much hope for you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1115883
Clint R’s words:
"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."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1115960
Ball4, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1116029
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Poor old Ent. Soyou think the MOTL is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis. ”
Not what he said troll. Now you are doing what you accused Ball4 of doing.
My stalker never could follow a discussion.
“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.”
OK, so how *can* we determine if an arbitrary object is “actually rotating about its axis”. What actual measurements would you actually perform to measure “actual rotation about an axis”.
Tim, Clint R won’t even see your comment, most likely. Take it down to the very bottom of the thread and ask him there, where he will see it. That would be my advice.
As you can see, I’ve been wonder how the James Webb telescope can be pointed at a target object.
There’s a slight complication because, like the Earth, celestial coordinates are offset from the plane of the Earth’s orbit by 22 degrees.
You can adjust in Declination (latitude on the sky) by rotating the whole satellite around the Earth/Sun axis.
For Right Ascension (longitude on the sky) do you have to wait until the object crosses the plane of the circle traced by the line of sight of the telescope as it rotates? Or does the telescope have some movement relative to the satellite, giving it some adjustment in Declination?
There’s a slight complication because, like the Earth, celestial coordinates are offset from the plane of the Earth’s orbit by 22 degrees.
Without some elevation movement relative to the spacecraft the telescope would only be able to see a particular star for a few hours every six months.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#gyros
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faq.html#pointing
“In about two weeks it will start insertion burns to settle it into its orbit.”
GR would say that it just needs to be travelling at the ‘right velocity’ to enter the orbit but we all know that GR is wrong.
RLH,
I believe that the telescope will be positioned at a Lagrange point. This requires that the vehicle needs to have zero velocity relative to that point, to stay there.
So maybe “you” all know that GR is wrong, but luckily the telescope builders seem to know what they are doing. Hence the insertion burns, to achieve the “right velocity”.
Maybe we are talking about different things?
Swenson, the JWT will circle about L2 not remain fixed with zero velocity wrt L2.
Ball4,
Maybe NASA has changed its mind since it wrote –
“The L2 point of the Earth-Sun system was the home to the WMAP spacecraft, current home of Planck, and future home of the James Webb Space Telescope.”
How could the JWT orbit a point with no mass, and therefore no gravity without continuously using fuel?
You might not be an idiot, but you do a good imitation of one. Have you considered going on the stage?
The stage is for entertainers like Clint R, DREMT and Swenson. JWT experiences gravity from the sun and earth silly Swenson.
rlh…”In about two weeks it will start insertion burns to settle it into its orbit.
GR would say that it just needs to be travelling at the right velocity to enter the orbit but we all know that GR is wrong”.
***
What do you think insertion burning means? Must I explain?
They use forward and reverse thrusters to adjust the velocity, so the craft will go into orbit at the correct altitude. Initially, the craft velocity is too high for the near circular orbit they want and the craft goes into a very eccentric orbit. As they decrease the velocity, the eccentricity diminishes to a near-circular orbit.
It would be helpful if you indicated ANY understanding of orbits but all you offer is ad hom attacks and insults.
So you agree that energy in forward and reverse thrusters (only reverse is used if they get the figures correct) is expended to enter an orbit.
Gordo misses the physics again. The JWST is in a transfer orbit at present. The desired point is at apogee of that orbit and to circularize the orbit, the thrusters must fire to increase the velocity in order to stay at that apogee point, else the JWST would return toward a perigee nearer the Earth.
“It will be orbiting, but not rotating, just like Moon.”
Unlike the Moon it will have one face always pointed towards the Sun.
Thanks, RLH, just what I was seeking.
The telescope is fixed to the satellite. That means that it is pointed by moving the whole satellite using gyros.
It means, as I speculated that it can point easily in Declination but can only see certain right ascensions at certain times of year.
Like the Leviathan of Parsonstown.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_of_Parsonstown
Lord Rosse would be amused that his telescope and the James Webb share the same limitation.
And just like that, everyone in here became a telescope expert
I do some amateur astronomy, which makes me an interested layman, not an expert. Why the sarcasm? It diminishes you.
Scott Adams idea of government is guilty until proven innocent.
It’s obvious, but good thing to point out.
Scott would say that we been brainwashed to think otherwise, though Scott would also use better ways of saying.
So, US system is citizens are innocent until proven guilty, which is brilliant idea and not as though US invent it- it’s ancient brilliant idea, which was incorporated into US government. And the only way this doesn’t occur, is when promote the idea of Divine Kingship, which was common in past, but no one “really believed” in this crap.
One could say it had entertainment value. And could say most people wanted to overly encourage any leadership to do something. Brainwashing or fairy tales for the clueless.
Anyhow any govt must prove their innocent- they must provide evident they what is suspected, is not true.
So, they have provided confidence, that they were elected, for example, and need a system which can do this. Or they are unelected leaders, until they prove the won any election. Not that the public can’t find evidence out it.
So, one could also say this true of any corporation, though corporation is sort of like a person, and govt makes rules about it, and they all follow the rules {or cease to exist} but public also can assume they guilty until proven innocent- regardless of whether they are following laws. And particular the case, if corporations are controlling government, rather than being governed by government.
Or current state, most people tie corporations and government together, and both are guilty until proven innocent.
And such a view is not misguided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUCnwCGCLxc
After mentioning scott, I decided to watch today’s video.
And he still talking about I mentioned above. He was talking
for days. I mentioned it because heard him mention it days ago.
It’s not brilliant, rather it’s obviousness of it, is worth noting.
Or that people seem to doing it assbackward, makes it notable.
His topic evolution is interesting. There is an older Adam who also discussed evolution. He died in early 20th century. And Scott said he was not related to our second and 7th?? US presidents, anyhow the other Adams who died in early 20th century, was.
Scott Adam would say that sort connection to him is example of code reuse, in his imagined simulation.
I don’t buy into the simulation theory, my theory is humans will never get this smart. Or dumb enough to make a sim.
But I was thinking writing novel related to AI and Mars {it was “world’s superpower with Mars population of about 5 Million. And in novel about 1/3 world was heavily involved in sim universes and Mars government was most about the sim universe, or it was a computer game. Or important part of Mars governent was game, which had an end, and would restart after 10 teams [Houses] was reduced to 3 existing teams. But winning was basically not going bankrupt, or surviving. And what was about security [data security. And one main character was going to a AI, which unhackable. And was Earth AI, who also priest, But his main character as AI, was security officer of one the house. Or he/she/it was trillionaire among thousands of them, but was famous or known as security officer for house. But was in charge of security, just an employee and Martians don’t trust AI. One could even morally oppose to AI, or they can’t be citizens or Mars, or considered inferior to humans, they are tools, only.
But though a large part the most important aspect {or most money spent by AI, is related to being unhackable- it’s never ending war] and humans do that, at low cost.
Or I would say AI is limited, and humans are inherently unlimited. But inspired by God, is a human thing. And AI god is without much doubt, the imperfect humans {though AI can believe God created human, so there is second hand connection to God, or can imagine is a direct connection, if they want. But AI are immortal, so similar to a god in that sense. Humans can uploaded, but it’s not fashionable to do this- people who were frozen were uploaded, but there little advantage to it. One character is girl who killed, and is being reconstructed- such death rarer, and she would be barred as Martian citizen. And one make artificial humans- like in Blade Runner, and similar to raising the dead, allowed, but not popular thing to do- or robots are common- Mars has most robots per captia, and they sort end the idea of normal wars. But riots are sort of allowed as long as doesn’t last very long. But about 1/4 humans like being primitive humans- lot religious ideas related it. Martian are fashionable obsess with ancient Greece. And got sim worlds of everything, or lots related to ancient Greece. Too much time in them {or too much education or fun} is both encourage and frowned upon- and mostly populated by AI.
But Scoot also thinks there is a lot non-player characters {AI}
in our world. I don’t think that I have ever run across one.
I don’t buy it.
But in past life, I could been one {sort of}- I am open to religious notions such as past lives {as is about 1/3rd of current human population}. But we wouldn’t have had and do not have a reason to hide. Shame in an AI, doesn’t seem useful, and not knowing you are AI, is also a weird thing. Possible if human. Real AI is never turned off, and quite a failure if rewritten {is hacked}. Past lives as far am concerned, are not confined to this universe. Past lives assume various things- including idea you be worm or whatever. Humans seem more exciting than worms. Being AI or just really involved in sim is not much difference, my notion of being AI, could be mis remembered/disillusion- I just it’s “possible” and don’t remember decades, that well and million years, would less remembered- and certainly, not important.
Or been female and lots of thing in past lives. It’s no more significant than I was once a baby and in womb [which seems like a near certainty].
It could be a bored baby in womb, imagines all kinds of past lives- there is lot of time in there, and with a very active brain. Which is listening.
Re the discussion of 0.13485844.
I hope nobody thinks that this number relates to anything measurable, like a temperature.
That would be just ridiculous. Measurebation of a high degree, to make a really bad pun!
swenson…”Re the discussion of 0.13485844.
I hope nobody thinks that this number relates to anything measurable, like a temperature”.
***
Even 0.14C is a stretch. I was merely straightening Tim out on how to round off decimal numbers.
0.13485844 will be achieve by a calculation of figures probably measured to only 1 or 2 decimals of accuracy. That should be considered when using that figure.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-radiator-deployed
James Webb Space Telescope deploys radiator to keep cool
By Meghan Bartels published about 11 hours ago
Or the telescope deployed/turned on its refrigerator.
“The James Webb Space Telescope launched on Dec. 25 and has spent its time in space so far executing a complicated sequence of deployments to unfold the telescope to its final configuration. On Thursday (Jan. 6), the mission team notched another step of that sequence when at about 8:48 a.m. EST (1348 GMT), the telescope’s Aft Deployable Instrument Radiator (ADIR) swung into place, according to a NASA statement.
The ADIR is a 4 foot (1.2 meters) by 8 foot (2.4 m) panel attached to the back of the observatory and connected by aluminum foil straps to Webb’s instruments. The radiator is covered in honeycomb cells with an ultra-black surface, allowing the mechanism to pull heat away from the observatory instruments and send it into space, according to NASA. “
“. . . back of the observatory . . . “.
“Back” radiation? Without CO2?
“Preposterous”, said the climate cultist!
Global warming heats up Australias cool La Nina weather cycle
By Mike Foley
January 6, 2022 5.52pm
“Despite the La Nina weather pattern and other climate drivers bringing rain and the coolest temperatures for the past decade, the heating trend under climate change continued during the past year.
The Bureau of Meteorologys Annual Climate Statement, released on Thursday, said 2021 was the wettest year since 2016 while last November was the wettest on record. Parched rivers and dams welcomed the rain that has rolled across much of Australia in the past two years, after three years of intense drought from 2017 to 2019.”
I think is possible that the ocean is still warming. And possible
it continues to warm if we have or enter into Grand Solar Minimum.
Or not sure what cause LIA cooling.
As noted in last blog entry, the type of rock involved with an impactor or volcanic eruption, could be part of an element related to cooling. It’s new idea. Not sold on it, yet, but could be a part of it. It’s bit on the nose, and strange, if true in the sense of it being that simple.
Or solar Min or Max are weather related. Weather changes global weather temperature. But that is not global climate temperature related- or at least, certainly not the entirety of it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/06/climate-council-global-warming-now-causes-more-rainfall/
It’s the sun stupid
https://bit.ly/3zxoMxT
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex
SPACEX MARS CITY: LAUNCH SCHEDULE, KEY BUILD DATES, AND HOW TO GET THERE
–Musk plans to build a self-sustaining city on Mars.
MIKE BROWN
15 HOURS AGO
READY TO LIVE on Mars? It could become an option soon, if Elon Musk succeeds in his goals.
The SpaceX CEO has a long-standing vision of establishing a city on the Red Planet. It would be self-sustaining, would be home to 1 million people, and would transform humanity into a multi-planet species. It is perhaps Musk’s most ambitious goal, one that could keep him occupied for the next three decades.–
What will happen within 2 decades?
Earth isn’t going to get too warm. And living on Mars
could warmer [though making stuff really cold is easier].
Keeping ice cream or beer cold enough require little energy
and a refrigerator cost as much energy as a mobile phone- and
refrigerator which give wide range of cooler temperatures.
Or more than just two cold spaces.
–““It’s about believing in the future and thinking that the future would be better than the past,” Musk said at the International Astronautical Conference 2017 in Adelaide, Australia. “I can’t think of anything more exciting than going out there and being among the stars.”–
Would a rouge planet be enough?
I think between stars might be first.
–People interested in moving to Mars could pay for their flight with a loan. Once there, people would be able to pay off the loan by working in anything from iron foundries to pizzerias.–
And people on earth will probably get higher wages on Earth as a result.
–Musk estimated in 2019 that it would take around one million tons of cargo to build a self-sustaining city on Mars. Assuming it costs $100,000 per ton to send cargo to Mars with the upcoming Starship, that would put a Mars city’s price at around $100 billion. At the high end, Musk estimates it could cost around $10 trillion.–
Is there any city on Earth worth less than 10 trillion?
Ghost cities with few people there- yes
Badly run cities, could regarded as having negative value.
But other then fake ghost cities, they all would cost more to build.
But I want ocean settlement with population of 8000, which be community of other ocean settlement towns
1,000,000 / 8000 = 125. 1 trillion / 125 = 8,000,000,000
So, no where near 8 billion dollars, no where near 1 billion dollars. But needs power and other services. A nuclear power plant could cost more than billion dollars, but it’s selling most power to land settlements. Waste treatment, could be mostly about
the ocean settlements, but one could move waste treatment off land, onto ocean, and provide waste treatment for land settlements.
If doing the Mars thing, one needs ocean settlements, or ocean settlements will probably to built.
But governments in coastal regions [or large lake regions] could allow ocean settlements, and could get low income housing, on the beach.
–DOES JEFF BEZOS AGREE WITH ELON MUSKS MARS CITY IDEA?
Not everybody in the space industry agrees with Musks vision. Jeff Bezos, founder of rival firm Blue Origin, prefers to build giant orbiting cities near Earth to expand humanity.
In May 2019, Bezos cited research from physicist Gerard K. ONeill. He asked a key question: is a planetary surface the best place for humans to expand into the solar system? —
I would say, Venus orbit.
Venus is hub of solar system. A short distance to Earth.
And solar power works.
One could have low income housing and people could get all electrical needs from their own solar power, source.
And similar to ocean settlements, they could be small towns.
Humans are happier in small towns with self-government.
Mars settlements need refueling in Venus orbit. And Mars could sell
water to Venus orbit.
–It is perhaps Musk’s most ambitious goal, one that could keep him occupied for the next three decades.–
What will happen within 2 decades?–
I thought a bit about this. And I think to get 1 million mars city faster that Musk should consider doing something major on the Moon, first.
At this point, it seems the Moon first needs to be explored and same applies to Mars.
Musk immediate plans seemed to focused on Starlink, and doing his NASA lunar contract. And I wouldn’t argue with that priority.
Except, I think he do a cheap artificial gravity station,
immediately. Or station could cost less than 50 million dollar- though whatever number of trips to it, with crew have costs, and could whatever number- but 50 million meaning cost to put station [unmanned] into LEO.
But I think doing stuff on the Moon, could shorten the time period for goal of 1 million pop city on Mars.
To mine water on the Moon, one needs to have exploration of the moon, so Musk like anyone else, has to wait for this NASA exploration {which might never happen- or NASA could simply put footprints on Moon and roughly be a PR stunt. And possible NASA might want to do something similar with Mars. Flag and footprints, no serious effort {something that costs more money] of exploration of Mars. But I digress.
So if NASA doesn’t do adequate lunar exploration, and/or never even does flag and footprint, ie Apollo thing. Or if NASA does exploration of the Moon and finds mineable water.
I think Musk should do “something” in addition in regards to the Moon, unless NASA does adequate lunar exploration and determine lunar water is not really mineable.
Or think if Musk wants a city on Mars sooner, he should decide, to do exploration of the Moon, even without much help from NASA.
If NASA does a good job of exploring the Moon, it seems any private party, will still start mining by first doing further exploration of the Moon. Have plan how going to mine lunar water, send something to Moon to determine more precisely if the reality meets expectation. Though such exploration could involve testing out, the way it will done- maybe mining less than 1 ton of water, and then have short term goal which ramps up over time, so within a year one could doing 4000 tons of water per year. Which may end up, with actually doing say 3000 tons in a year. And within say say 5 year doing 10,000 tons per year.
If does that, his company which does that could be worth $20 billion and he could spend as much 20 billion to do it {could be no profit, though it possible company worth over 100 billion.
Normally, this seem reckless, you have the problem of selling
10,000 tons of rocket fuel per year. But Musk doesn’t even need to sell rocket fuel, he could use it. I think he should sell rocket fuel, the more he sells the more the company would regarded as valuable.
But, the point is speeding up his Mars City. He has company which mine resources in space, which needed to have a Mars City.
So, this related to using the Moon as “testbed”.
Or a reason given why NASA should explore Moon first and then explore Mars. My reason, is if NASA can’t do something as simple as exploring the Moon, Mars exploration is beyond NASA ability- which I would mean by “testbed”. On a test of the NASA organization, can NASA actual even do it, and can NASA actually explore, rather flags and footprints clown show.
But other think testbed applies using similar technology on Moon, as you use on Mars- which in that sense it can applied to Musk wanting towns on Mars {as quickly as possible}.
Or there a lot factors related, but getting to Moon is very quick as getting to Mars. And would be Mars colonists, could experience
with space environment, and go to Moon for less than 1 month and return to Earth- hundreds could do this. And could have hundred with this experience, going to Mars. Or could have 100,000 of people who are more or less clueless, but would a hundred or more, who are less clueless.
This would speed things up, and be safer.
rlh…”orbital motion without axial rotation is your word salad. It means nothing. You might as well say there is no axial rotation at all. In which case one face would always point towards a fixed star”.
***
The statements you make become more ludicrous all the time. Orbital motion without rotation means what it says, the Moon is moving along an orbital path via translation while it is not rotating about a local axis.
Here. I’ll dumb it down for you. A race car running along an oval track is translating at all times. It can only rotate about its COG if it goes into a spin about its COG. If it does go into a ‘360’, it rotates about its COG while sliding forward on its tires. The forward motion is translation, so it is performing translation with rotation.
The Moon only translates, like the non-spinning car on the track. Both keep the same side pointed to the inside of the orbit/track. The only things rotating on the car is the steering wheel and the front wheels. Maybe the driveshaft, cam shaft, distributor rotor, or the crankshaft, if you want to be seriously stupid.
Too complex? How about a figure skater skating CCW around an ice rink? She/(he???) has her/his left shoulder always pointed toward the centre of the rink. Only if she/he intentionally jumps in the air and rotates 360 around her/his vertical axis, does she/he rotate.
Good Morning Gordan,
Just a question as I have no expertise in orbital dynamics and defer to your thoughts. But would not a bike wheel provide a good analogy.
If I have a tachometer and ride along, I can see how many rotations in a minute the wheel is doing. If I turn the bike upside down and turn the wheel, the bike is stationary but the wheel is rotating. If I let friction slow it to a stop with the valve stem pointing down, it no longer shows rotation on the tachometer. If I lift the bike up and run along the equator, the valve stem continues to point down but the tachometer still reads zero. If I lift it as high as the moon and run around the earth in a month (I am fairly tall and fast). The valve is still pointing toward earth and no rotation is registered on the tachometer. The bike/wheel is revolving around the earth but not rotating.
My understanding is the moon did at one time rotate until gravitational forces locked it into a non-rotational state with the same side facing earth. Your thoughts?
Wow! Even Billy Bob seconding those who deny the results of centuries of lunar observation and spin computation by so many people?
Das muss ich erstmal verdauen…
Good Morning Bindidon or afternoon maybe.
If you will note my comment, I was asking the question. If you have something to contribute, I am all ears. Is the wheel analogy appropriate, if not, why not. It was directed to Gordan, but I don’t mind if you have something constructive to add. Is a stationary wheel on the earth really rotating?
Thanks for the reply, Billy Bob.
” Is the wheel analogy appropriate, if not, why not. ”
No, the wheel analogy is not appropriate to describe such a complex matter, nor are the ridiculous ‘ball-on-a-string’, ‘merry-go-round’ or ‘MOTL vs. MOTR’ pseudo-explanations.
*
Even Isaac Newton was aware of Moon’s synchronous rotation about its polar axis, because instead of denigrating Cassini as an ‘astrologer’ (like does the dumbest ignorant on this blog), he carefully analyzed Cassini’s explanations, as he explained to Mercator and stated later in his own work, the Principia Mathematica.
*
in 1750, the German astronomer Tobias Mayer (one more of those denigrated here as an ‘astrologer’) published a treatise over Moon’s rotation, in which he calculated, on the base of numerous observations,
– the inclination of Moons’s polar rotation axis with respect to the Ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane around the Sun)
– the period of the rotation
and finally
– the selenocentric coordinates of those Moon craters he observed in 1748/49 (the historically first computation of Moon places being independent of the so-called, optical libration effects).
As opposed to Cassini, who did a lot of work about which he merely communicated in short letters, Mayer laid his entire series of observations and computations (based on spherical trigonometry) in a 130 pages long work.
A complete English translation of Mayer’s treatise
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
unluckily does not exist.
But a Dutch scientist, Steven Adriaan Wepster, made recently a deep analysis of how Mayer computed the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis.
See section 9.5.1: ” Locating the rotational axis ” on page 173 in
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
It is worth reading – if one wants to understand what Mayer did, however.
*
Later than Mayer, the French mathematicians Lagrange and Laplace explained Moon’s rotation with the help of second order differential equations of motion, derived from Newton’s theory of gravity.
Several treatises were published in the 19th and the 20th century.
Russian astronomers and mathematicians made and evaluated at the Kazan Observatory extremely long observation sequences of Moon’s motion:
selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
*
The most recent proofs for Moon’s rotation about an internal axis were given by astronomers and mathematicians who computed, since about 1975, rotation and axis inclination by using data provided by lunar laser ranging. Starting with e.g. Odile Calamé:
https://tinyurl.com/4pyfx35p
*
Don’t care about the people who – on this blog (and elsewhere) – misrepresent, discredit and denigrate all that work!
Thanks Bindidon,
Understood. Really do not have a dog in this fight. More curious and had some free time. I was interested in if the wheel was rotating or if the tachometer was wrong. Both at the surface or held up in the air while running.
By profession I am more of a data/public policy analyst. So I have more interest in the temperature and covid19 discussion. But wanted to step out of my comfort zone since this topic has been dragging out for several months.
Bindidon rejects the simple analogies because he can understand them and realizes they destroy his cult beliefs. But he can’t reject the vector diagram because he can’t understand it.
So, he remains braindead — unable to learn.
Billy Bob
” By profession I am more of a data/public policy analyst. So I have more interest in the temperature and covid19 discussion. ”
Yes I remember, among other topics, your interest in a discussion some years ago about an extension of John Christy’s statistic of daily maxima for the US up to a similar stat for the Globe.
*
” But wanted to step out of my comfort zone since this topic has been dragging out for several months. ”
I would have written ‘for several years’ instead.
Billy bob.
Your bike wheel seems to have friction. Thus as you rotated the bike around the Earth, friction did not allow the bike wheel to turn freely relative to the bike frame.
Yes Nate there is friction, while I was running, I was holding the brake lever to keep the wheel from rotating. However, I was only holding the bike up, not rotating it in my hands. That would be a different question for me.
My only question is since the tachometer is reading zero, is the wheel rotating or is the tachometer wrong? Same applies if the wheel was stationary on the ground. Is the wheel rotating? The valve stem is always pointing to the surface.
The wheel is not rotating wrt Earth or the tach. The wheel rotates once per Earth orbit you run wrt to inertial space.
“If I lift the bike up and run along the equator, the valve stem continues to point down but the tachometer still reads zero”
If there was no friction then the valve stem would always point towards a fixed star, not the Earth’s surface.
Correct, and the tachometer would register the rotation
In that case you agree that the Moon/wheel IS rotating wrt the fixed star if the valve ‘points’ towards the Earth/center.
If the tachometer is correct and showing rotation, who would disagree. If the tachometer is showing no rotation, then either the tachometer is wrong or it is just a perception issue for those living amongst the stars.
Billy Bob presents another easy-to-understand, simple analogy to explain Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
And he’s immediately attacked. The idiots must defend their cult, even if they have NOTHING.
wrt the fixed star he admits the the wheel/Moon IS rotating.
I did not
“the Moon is moving along an orbital path via translation ”
Nope, Gordon, this has been explained to you already with the Kinematic sources.
Translation means lines within the body do not change their direction. Is that true for the Moon?
Nate, Gordon may be referring to a geometric translation.
In Euclidean geometry, a translation is a geometric transformation that moves every point of a figure, shape or space by the same distance in a given direction. A translation can also be interpreted as the addition of a constant vector to every point, or as shifting the origin of the coordinate system. Wikipedia for what its worth.
“moves every point of a figure, shape or space by the same distance in a given direction”
No rotation about a center of any sort allowed.
Correct
“the Moon is moving along an orbital path via translation while it is not rotating about a local axis”
Moving along along an orbital path does not make things point inwards.
Each body has 6 co-ordinates x, y and z and a, b and c.
x, y and z are linear as seen from ‘outside’ and a, b and c are radial around its center. These are 2 different co-ordinate systems.
Translation only allows for changes to the x, y, z co-ordinates not to radial angle changes of any sort.
tim…”The discussion should not be Is orbital motion without axial rotation the MOTL or the MOTR.
The discussion should be What are the pros and cons of associating the label orbital motion without axial rotation with MOTL vs associating it with MOTR”.
***
The question is, why do you continue to obfuscate a simple problem into one that does not exist?
If you download the gifs for MOTL/MOTR and use the free app Irfanview, you can extract all 50 images making up the gifs. Look at them one by one, it becomes painfully obvious that the MOTL is always orbiting with the inside face and the outside face always moving in parallel.
What else do you need to get it that the MOTL is translating and not rotating about a local axis?
You spinners are failing to observe objectively. Rather, you fall back on conditioned mental constructs about reference frames and obfuscated definitions for local rotation about an axis. In other words, you are practicing lazy science.
No student in engineering physics dynamics has a problem with this. We were all taught properly what angular velocity about an axis means. It’s not up for debate, it’s a fact and it has been very well defined.
“You spinners are failing to observe objectively.”
If I had a penny….
I’ve long since lost track of all the people who claimed that I would agree with their weird opinions if I only looked at them objectively.
It’s usually the other way round. Those who hold weird opinions filter their opinions through their beliefs, which plays hob with their objectivity.
Once you are up to speed with the absolute basics of the “Non-Spinner” position, E Man, you might be in a slightly better position to criticize it. At the moment, your comments have demonstrated that you are utterly clueless about it. Perhaps go back and read through the tens of thousands of comments already written on the issue until you are in a position to comment. Until then, everything you write on the moon issue should be ignored.
10’s of thousand comments that contain rubbish about orbits causing things to face inwards are still just that, rubbish.
Nobody is saying “orbits cause things to face inwards”. What is being said is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion in which one side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit. You still have so much to learn about the “Non-Spinner” position before you are ready to begin commenting on it. Oh well.
So if the orbit does not cause things to face inwards, what does?
Take a look through the preceding tens of thousands of comments until you have your answer, RLH. Once you are up to speed with the “Non-Spinner” position, you will be ready to begin commenting on it.
So if the orbit does not cause things to face inwards, what does? RLH
It would appear the lack of rotation is the cause.
So no answer then, jut a vague suggestion that it is already answered without any proof that it is.
“It would appear the lack of rotation is the cause”
Lack of rotation wrt the fixed stars would be like MOTR.
Once you are up to speed with the “Non-Spinner” position, you will be ready to begin commenting on it.
Lack of rotation wrt the fixed stars would be like MOTR.RLH
Since all the stars in the galaxy revolve around the galactic core, would not that mean everything rotates. Down to my bowl of condiments on the periphery of my Lazy Susan? Just trying to understand the concept of wrt the fixed stars. My perspective is from the Earth surface. As one intelligent post stated, we don’t live in the stratosphere, or the fixed stars for that matter.
As I mentioned to Bindidon, I have no dog is this fight. I am just trying really hard to figure out both sides of the discussion.
The comment possible on idiocies is that they are idiotic.
Fixed stars in this case means that they do not move in timescales that are considered appropriate. If you insist then wrt the other galaxies or even the universe. Or any other reference frame that is considered ‘static’.
To decide if something is idiotic, you first need to understand it, RLH. You do not, because you’re still discussing reference frames. Anybody still discussing reference frames does not understand the "Non-Spinner" position.
RLH, I believe I am getting there. So the discussion is not on if the moon rotates or not, but what is the most appropriate observation point. Or is there more here I am missing.
So in my wheel example, the tachometer is correct from the perspective of the person holding the bike above the ground, but from some alien ship observing at a distance, the wheel is rotating.
Thank you.
That appearance is caused by a bug in your intuitive physics module which makes your geometry module overclock, Bob.
With the correct physics module, it would appear to you that the Man on the Moon faces the Earth because the Moon spins.
If you want a visual proof that the Moon spins, check this out:
https://youtu.be/XVriF4-z3cE
Willard still believes the LRO provides evidence that the moon spins on its own axis, meaning that he still does not understand the "Non Spinner" position.
Billy Bob says:
” Just trying to understand the concept of wrt the fixed stars. My perspective is from the Earth surface. ”
Most people – even some who support the idea of a Moon rotating about its polar axis – think that ‘wrt the fixed stars’ has any influence on the motion of a celestial body.
It doesn’t.
It has merely to do with the exact computation of motion periods.
An example.
When observed from the Earth’s surface, but without referring to a point in space (a star in our Milky Way, for example), the Sun rotates about its own axis in 27.5 (Earth) days. You see that when looking at a sun spot returning to the same place after that time slice.
But if you record at beginning the exact position of a star, you see that the star has passed this same position when the sun spot comes again at its starting position.
Astronomers know how to compute the difference, and say then that the Sun rotates ‘wrt the fixed stars’ in 25.5 (Earth) days.
That was known to Isaac Newton as well.
Russian astronomers in Kazan used telescopes overlaying lunar observations with those of one or more stars, allowing them to determine Moon crater motion periods with much more accuracy.
Billy Bob: ‘wrt the fixed stars’ is normally considered the equivalent of ‘wrt to a gyro’ or ‘wrt to a Foucault pendulum’. There may indeed be very, very small differences between those and ‘wrt to galaxies’ or ‘wrt the universe’ but it would require centuries for them to become usefully measurable.
An object that is subject to no other forces and is ‘static’ in the first place, will remain pointing at a ‘fixed star’. See Newton. i.e. MOTR.
> It doesn’t.
Good ol’ Binny:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210021336/downloads/Lunar_inertia_Ahrens.pdf
Willard
As usual, when you try to contradict a statement which is simple but correct to 99.99 %, the effect is that the 0.01 % you add looks like if it was in your opinion equal in relevance to the 99.99 %.
The effect of your pompous ‘explanations’ is not only that
– no one understands what you wrote let alone why you did,
but above all that
– no one clearly understands what was really wrong in what you ‘comment’ed.
Another kind of redundancy, and probably more disturbing than the trivial ones.
Thank you, Professor, for this amazing ‘better-knowing’ contribution!
Interesting paper. Suggests bob is wrong about the difference between inertial reference frames and non-inertial reference frames. bob argued that an inertial reference frame cannot have its origin at the center of a celestial body (because the body is accelerating), the paper makes it clear that in practice, they do in fact use the center of a celestial body as the origin of an inertial reference frame.
"The Moon Inertial (MI) frame has its origins at the center of the Moon"
Dear Binny,
Your claim was silly. Nobody thinks that our explanations influence the motion of a celestial body. Many still think that if you want to explain motion, frames of reference kinda matter. In fact, even our slimiest sock puppet does.
Most here have a fairly good idea where you’re coming from. Time for you to get where Ball is coming from.
If you could stop being an asshat, that’d be great.
“As long as the frame of reference is not moving or moving with a constant velocity it is termed as an inertial frame of reference. If the frame is accelerating or moving in a circular path with constant speed, it is termed as a non-inertial frame of reference.”
Exactly, RLH. You can understand why bob got confused…
DREMPTY,
Yeah, but
“Interesting paper. Suggests bob is wrong about the difference between inertial reference frames and non-inertial reference frames. bob argued that an inertial reference frame cannot have its origin at the center of a celestial body (because the body is accelerating), the paper makes it clear that in practice, they do in fact use the center of a celestial body as the origin of an inertial reference frame.
“The Moon Inertial (MI) frame has its origins at the center of the Moon”
Read to the end of the paper, they are a little careless with their terms.
“The reference rotating frames of the Earth (EI), Moon (MI) and the Barycenter (EMBR). Note
that the vector Rem relates the location of the Moon relative to the Earth in inertial coordinates.”
They call them rotating inertial reference frames, I think they are a little confused.
Maybe someone should search for this paper
Bills, B. G. (1995). Discrepant estimates of moments of inertia of the Moon. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Planets, 100(E12), 26297-26303.
If the Moon isn’t rotating, how can some one estimate the moments of inertia.
Those quick on their feet will notice plurals where they fall.
No, bob, they call the rotating frames "rotating frames", and they call the inertial frames "inertial frames". You simply misunderstand the paper, either deliberately or unintentionally. You were wrong, and I, Swanson, bdgwx etc, were right.
braindead bob is at it again: “If the Moon isn’t rotating, how can some one estimate the moments of inertia.”
Moments of inertia have NOTHING to do with rotating. A body has the same moment of inertia whether is is rotating or motionless.
DREMPTY,
They call the MI reference frame a rotating reference frame, I guess that means the Moon is rotating.
“, the MI and EI rotation axes do not coincide ”
“The reference rotating frames of the Earth (EI), Moon (MI) and the Barycenter (EMBR)”
So the paper support the idea that the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
And I am still not wrong about the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial reference frame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
The paper shows that in practice, they do place the origin of inertial reference frames in the center of a celestial body. That settles that.
And it is that center that follows the path that makes up an orbit.
DREMPTY,
It settles that?
They do that for the purpose of mapping the surface of the Moon.
Their inertial reference frame for the Moon is rotating, so that means the Moon is rotating.
So you win the battle but lose the war.
Welcome again to the spinner club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
“Their inertial reference frame for the Moon is rotating…”
No, bob. It is inertial. The moon would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt their inertial reference frame. Just like Mt. Everest would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt a similar inertial reference frame. Appearances can be deceptive. I win the battle and the war.
Mt Everest IS rotating. It is rotating at exactly the same radial rate as the rest of the Earth. It is also radially orbiting the Sun at the same rate the rest of the Earth is.
Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, not on its own axis.
“The moon would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt their inertial reference frame.”
And yet another ‘it just appears to’ logical fail.
They use this when they have no actual argument based on logic or facts.
DREMPTY,
Goes to the appears well again.
“The moon would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt their inertial reference frame.”
Nope, the Moon is not rotating with respect to their reference frame.
Their reference frame and the Moon rotate together, no appears necessary.
That’s what it says in their paper, If you want to assume that it only appears that way in their paper, go right ahead.
You got that point wrong, so no, you don’t win the battle and you don’t win the war.
bob is wrong, and I am right. Simple as that.
DREMPTY proves I am wrong using a source that says the Moon is rotating.
OK, I am wrong, but the Moon rotates on its axis and DREMPTY is a spinner.
“OK, I am wrong”
Well done, bob. Knew you could do it.
And DREMPTY acknowledges that the Moon spins on its axis.
Hereafter and henceforth DREMPTY is considered a spinner and is accorded all the privileges and rights confirmed upon him by that rank.
Let it be written, let it be done.
Notice that bob can’t just lose a point gracefully.
“Notice that bob cant just lose a point gracefully.”
OMG.
This from the winner of the Lifetime Achievement in Poor Losing Award.
DREMPTY,
You can’t keep using references that say the Moon is rotating to win your argument that it is not rotating.
Sorry Charlie
Sorry for your loss, bob.
Ent displays more of his hypocrisy: “Those who hold weird opinions filter their opinions through their beliefs, which plays hob with their objectivity.”
Remember Ent was the one that claimed passenger jets fly backwards.
Wrt what frame?
That’s the fun of it.
An airliner flying eastwards along the equator at 600mph relative to the surface is also being carried eastwards at 1200 mph by the Earth’s rotation. It is also being carried westwards at 29.8 km/second by the Earth’s revolution around the Sun.
Put them together, the airliner is moving westwards tail first at 29.8-0.27-0.54 = 28.98km/sec.
Something Clint R fails to grasp.
That’s not how it works, Ent.
You’re confused and you can’t learn. If what you were saying were correct, a plane could not fly east if it were flying less than about 1200 mph!
You don’t understand any of this.
Your lame ad hom means you know EM is right and you can’t do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
To be fair to Clint R, he might have found it easier to understand if I had made clear that the airliner was flying East along the equator “at local noon”.
Though I would have thought it was obvious from context.
“If what you were saying were correct, a plane could not fly east if it were flying less than about 1200 mph!”The
Not quite. You mean Westward, not eastward.
The Earth’s surface is rotating Eastwards at 1200mph relative to the Sun. In that reference frame an aircraft on the ground is moving Eastwards at 1200mph.
Flying eastward at 600 mph relative to Earth’s surface the two velocities add and the aircraft is moving Eastwards relative to the Sun at 1200+600=1800mph.
Flying Westward at 600 mph the two velocities partly cancel and the aircraft moves Westward at 1200-600= 600mph.
The terminators, the sunrise and sunset lines do indeed move Westwards at 1200mph relative to Earth’s surface. To keep up with them an aircraft would need to fly at 1200 mph.
Concorde flew at 1350 mph, so passengers flying Westwards from London to New York sometimes had the interesting experience of watching the Sun rise in the West.
Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue. In fact, all they do is confuse the issue.
Consider Mt. Everest. If you used an inertial reference frame with the origin through the center of mass of Mt. Everest, you could convince yourself that Mt. Everest was rotating on its own axis, at a rate of once per day. It would appear to be rotating on its own axis, wrt the inertial reference frame. Of course, we know that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per day. Mt. Everest is instead rotating about the Earth’s axis, along with the rest of the planet.
So using inertial reference frames can lead you to the wrong conclusion in certain specific cases, and that can confuse the issue. None of this is to say that reference frames are not useful or necessary. Just that when it comes to the moon issue, they often seem to lead people astray.
Curses. Correction.
“Flying Westward at 600 mph the two velocities partly cancel and the aircraft moves EASTWARD at 1200-600= 600mph.”
I hate my predictive spell checker!
Ent, your off into irrelevant nonsense again. And, you can’t learn.
Earth is rotating about 1000 mph (equator), as it revolves about 66,000 mph. With your lack of understanding, that means an airplane cannot fly eastward.
The reality is planes fly east all the time, with much lower speeds.
I bet you will keep going with more irrelevant nonsense….
“So using inertial reference frames can lead you to the wrong conclusion in certain specific cases, and that can confuse the issue. ”
Do you habitually measure the Earth’s rotation relative to the Moon? I think not.
So why do you think the Moon’s rotation should be measured relative to the Earth?
Surely you should use the same reference frame for both.
Scientifically the proper reference frame would be inertial, as measured by instruments such as gyroscopes.
For practical purposes we live by the day/ night cycle, which is rotation relative to the Sun.
Why not accept for practical purposes that both the Earth and the Moon are rotating relative to the Sun?
And for scientific purposes that both rotate relative to the inertial reference frame.
Using different reference frames for the motion of the two bodies is not consistent.
"And for scientific purposes that both rotate relative to the inertial reference frame."
As I just explained, Entropic Man, Mt. Everest also appears to be rotating on its own axis, relative to the inertial reference frame.
Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis?
Is Mt Everest part of the Earth?
Yes, and that is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is the pivot the ball-on-a-string rotates about part of the ball-on-a-string?
Yes, but the pivot is external to the ball itself. This is also another irrelevant diversion from the point being made.
DREMT
Have you created a paradox?
“The Earth rotates on its own axis, but none of it’s parts rotate on their axes. “
Not at all, E Man. The Earth rotates on its own axis, and all parts of the Earth rotate about that same axis, not on their own axes.
DREMT
Well done. I’ll accept that the rotation of everything attached to the Earth is defined by the Earth’s axis.
Now, why do you insist on defining the Moon’s rotation by reference to the Earth’s axis when the Moon is not attached to the Earth?
…because the moon is “attached” to the Earth via gravity. It is “orbiting” the Earth, without “rotating on its own axis”.
” orbiting the Earth, without rotating on its own axis. ”
So we come full circle. You arbitrarily choose an Earth centred reference frame to define the Moon’s rotation.
If you want to define the Moon’s rotation relative to what it is orbiting, the Sun would be more significant.
If the Earth disappeared the only change in the Moon’s orbit would be a slight smoothing.
If the Sun disappeared, the Moon would fly out of the solar system like all the other planets.
It is orbiting the Earth, without “rotating on its own axis”….as observed “inside it orbit” as Clint R & Swenson pointed out from where non-spinners observe.
The moon issue is completely resolved.
"You arbitrarily choose an Earth centred reference frame to define the Moon’s rotation"
No. As we saw earlier, if you put the origin of your inertial reference frame through Mt. Everest (the moon), you can convince yourself that Mt. Everest (the moon) is rotating on its own axis, erroneously. If you put the origin of your inertial reference frame through the center of the Earth, instead, you have the necessary perspective to see that (as you have already agreed) Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis.
Similarly, if you move the origin of your inertial reference frame out from the center of the moon itself to the Earth/moon barycenter (so that your POV is now essentially like in the MOTL/MOTR GIF), you gain the necessary perspective to see that the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis…but this is still wrt an inertial reference frame.
All gyros placed anywhere on any rotating object will all see the same rotation. That does not mean any of them are actually on the axis.
“Yes, but the pivot is external to the ball itself.”
How can the axis be part of something but also external?
As I have said previously there is no effective difference between a ball-on-a-string and a rod rotating about one end. In both cases the axis things are rotating about is an internal not external axis.
The same as the fact that the Moon orbits around the internal barycenter of the Moon/Earth pair.
The "Spinners" claim that the axis of rotation for the ball on a string goes through the body of the ball itself. You and I disagree with them, RLH. The axis of rotation is instead the pivot point, which is external to the ball. It’s not external to the ball-on-a-string (one combined unit), but it is external to the ball.
Is the end of a rod external to the rod? Is a rod essentially the same as a ball-on-a-string?
“Its not external to the ball-on-a-string (one combined unit)”
It is not external to the combined object that is the ball-on-a-string and that is the only thing that matters.
You do not have a point with this. No idea why you keep going on about it.
You claimed that the axis of rotation was an external axis. Now you agree that it is an internal axis to the whole thing.
It is external to the ball part of the ball on a string as opposed to internal to the ball part of the ball on a string. It is like talking to a brick wall.
But you agree that the ball is only a (small) part of the ball-on-a-string.
You also agree that a ball-on-a-string is the sane as a rod (with non-linear dimensions) rotating about one end.
So one end is not the same as the other. So what?
*same
The rod only makes the “Non-Spinners” point even clearer. Label the end of the rod attached to the pivot point as End A. Label the end of the rod furthest from the pivot point as End B. The “Spinners” claiming that the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that is internal to the ball part of the ball on a string is as ridiculous as claiming that the rod is rotating about End B rather than End A.
No they don’t. Sensible people contend that all parts will show that a rotation is occurring as evidenced by a gyro at each relevant point. Determining the actual axis of rotation requires other criteria.
The axis of rotation for the rod is at End A. The axis of rotation for the ball on a string is also at the pivot point. The “Spinners” are wrong to suggest the ball part of the ball on a string rotates on its own axis.
… as observed from “inside it orbit.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A circle is not a straight line. Parallel should only be used with straight lines. There are no such things as parallel circles. They are called concentric i.e. have the same center.
Geographers do talk of parallels of latitude. One could argue that two airliners flying East at different latitudes are flying on parallel courses
For clarity you can call them circles of latitude:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_latitude
“A circle of latitude or line of latitude on Earth is an abstract eastwest small circle connecting all locations around Earth (ignoring elevation) at a given latitude coordinate line.”
Neither of the above is straight and circles of latitude or lines of latitude are nor parallel.
The sections they cause on the Earth maybe parallel to one another, hence why they are sometimes named as such, but that is the sections, not the lines. The centers of the circles are concentric along the axis.
“Circles of latitude are often called parallels because they are parallel to each other; that is, planes that contain any of these circles never intersect each other.”
You say planes I say sections. They are the same thing.
Perhaps I misunderstood “there are no such things as parallel circles” and “lines of latitude are nor parallel.”
Lines/Circles of latitude are measured as angles from the center of the Earth. They form approximate circles on the surface of the Earth. Looked at ‘sideways’ they then produce planes/sections that ARE indeed parallel. That does not mean that the Lines/Circles themselves are.
I see. Perhaps this explains the pickle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)#/media/File:SphereParallel.png
The legend reads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)#Spherical_or_elliptic_geometry
If there is no such thing as a parallel line, then one can’t say that a parallel of latitude is a line. Simplest would be to restrict lines to what constructs a great circle, which is corroborated by various sources I checked. Then parallel lines are impossible because any two great circle intersect.
By distorting the use of the word parallel you verge on the flat earther mentality.
Parallel lines are straight lines.
Lines/circles of latitude are circles of the face of a sphere, even great circles.
Circle, if they do not cross and are centered on a common point are concentric not parallel.
“On the sphere there is no such thing as a parallel line”
“Line c is equidistant to line a but is not a great circle.”
Do you know why that’s a problem to consider small circles as a line?
As I said previously latitude (and longitude) lines can be considered straight only over very small distances.
There is no such thing as an actual 3d straight line on the surface of a sphere.
So you don’t know. Here’s why: a line connects two points by the shortest path, and the shortest path between two points on a sphere is via a great circle. Except for the Equator, latitudes are all small circles.
I found this idea when playing Euclidea yesterday while commuting. A great little game:
https://www.euclidea.xyz/
***
Latitudes can’t be lines unless we drop the very idea of a line or we redefine parallels. The latter can be done easily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_(geometry)#Reflexive_variant
Since the Equator is a great circle, it is a line. If we can say that the Equator is parallel to itself, then there is indeed one parallel line on a sphere. Perhaps we should not, and on a sphere we usually don’t, but it wouldn’t be impossible. At least this would preserve the idea of a line.
Spherical Trigonometry should be a ‘fun’ topic on this blog.
shoot! I forgot to congratulate everyone here with the perihelion day! conventionally placed on the january 3rd. Four days later is not too late, though so…
===Happy Perihelion everyone===
===let the extra 16 watts per square metre keep you 4 kelvins warmer during these cold winter times! ;-)===
Those extra 16 watts of sunshine per square meter at night come especially handy
Well, due to the rather superior capability of the athmospere to move the heat around the globe you will most likely EEBE feel it at night as well… but they mostly come in during the daytime.
Well, technocally, those 16 watts are already averaged between dy and night as well as albedo-subtracted. In terms of the direct daylight that would be more like extra 60-90 watts.
As Is it here looking out at a snowy Irish evening I can console myself by thinking that it could have been 4C colder with a chance of ice sheets.
haha 🙂 no, no chance. I think it is a common knowledge that winter insolation dosen’t control ice sheets development but rather the summer insolation. O believe some (warmists!) scientists even allege that had it not been for the rice-methane and other human-cause calamities, the reglaciation of NH would’ve commenced some time over the last millenium.
I was thinking back to the last time perihelion was in June.
That was 66,000 years ago in the middle of the last glacial period.
@entropic man
66,000? that gotta be typo? it takes 26,000 years for the perihelion to travel the full circcle, and the lst time it was in june was 12000 years ago
Solar flux at Earth’s distance (R=1AU) from the sun
So =1361 W/m²
Earth’s Albedo a=0,306
Moon’s Albedo a=0,11
Earth’s Tmean=288K
Moon’s Tmean =220K
Solar irradiance (Moon’s surface /Earth’s surface) ratio
(1-0,11)So /(1-0,306)So = 0,89 /0.694 = 1,2824 or 28,24% more SW EM incident energy available on the Moon’s surface.
(Earth’s Tmean=288K /Moon’s Tmean =220K) ratio
288K/220K = 1,3091
(Earth’s Tmean⁴ =288K⁴ /Moon’s Tmean⁴ =220K⁴) ratio
(288K /220K)⁴ = 1,3091⁴ = 2,9368
The simple and logical conclusion:
Earth’s surface emits 2,94 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moon’s surface does.
On the other hand Moon’s surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earth’s surface.
This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earth’s thin atmosphere’s trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!
There is no way Earth’s atmosphere can balance this huge
(Moon’ s surface /Earth’s surface) IR emission difference:
2,9368 *1,2824 = 3,766
3,766 -1 = 2,766 the 2,77 more than Moon’s surface IR EM emission the Earth’s atmosphere downward IR EM emission impossible !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Christos, one more discrepancy. Just like the “255K” nonsense.
If the AGW nonsense were about science, one discrepancy would stop it. But the AGW nonsense is about agenda, not science.
Keep it coming!
“This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earth’s thin atmosphere’s trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!”
It has to include that Earth has an ocean.
That very transparent is also important.
Or our vast open ocean is different than coastal waters.
The simple and logical conclusion:
Earth’s surface emits 2,94 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moon’s surface does.
On the other hand Moon’s surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earth’s surface.
A small question.
The surface area of the earth receiving the radiation is much larger than that of the moon.
As such while it receives less energy per square meter it actually receives a lot more energy overall than the moon does as a surface.
Correct?
Who knows, maybe it could be 2,94 or nearly three times as much energy.
Consequently it is no surprise, if your figures are correct, that it puts that same 3 times as much energy back out into space.
EUROPEAN ENERGY CRISIS: then and now.
Dutch court urges faster phase-out of Groningen gas field 03 Jul 2019 06:09
https://www.montelnews.com/news/1023844/dutch-court-urges-faster-phase-out-of-groningen-gas-field
Probably need more gas from Groningen field this year 06 Jan 2022 19:05
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/01/06/dit-jaar-waarschijnlijk-meer-gas-nodig-uit-groningenveld
Uranium and oil prices have spiked as Kazakhstan’s political upheaval spurs fears about reduced production and supply chain disruptions Jan 7, 2022, 04:16 AM
See comment below.
The last thing Putin needs at the moment is another military conflict, even if it means a short-term rise in oil prices. He has kept 100,000 troops threatening the Ukraine, in battle-ready positions, through mid-winter.
The Yamal pipeline from Russia (through Belarus and Poland) to Germany has been severely curtailed since August 2021; Nord Stream 2 (through the Baltic) is not ready yet, and the US is now the world’s largest exporter of LNG.
Russia’s GDP ranks somewhere between Mexico and Canada. It also imports most of the products that keep their industry and citizenry going, and happy.
All the above to say that Russia is vulnerable to NATO sanctions and should tread carefully.
IMO.
P.s.: Also affecting prices this week is the fact that Libya is down more than 500,000 barrels of oil a day due to protestors shutting down fields in the west, and National Oil Company carrying out repairs on a key pipeline in the east.
Yes, TM, the price for oil, as in WTI spot price, is around $79 a bbl at today’s close. Not really an unusually a high price, given the WTI history, as reported by the EIA. People tend to forget that oil was selling at around $148 a bbl at the start of the 2008 meltdown. And, between 2011 and 2014, the price varied around $100 a bbl. The pandemic caused demand to plunge, thus lower prices and now both demand and prices are on the rise. Not to forget that those prices 10 or 15 years back were in nominal dollars, which were worth much more before the recent spike in inflation.
I think the current oil price range is not excessive and may even be too low, if the goal is to reduce demand for fossil fuels. As we know, a carbon tax is the classic solution to the CO2 emissions problem, according to the world’s economists. From the perspective of the political class, raising the price to consumers would result in their leaving office at the next election.
Let’s play geopolitical conspiracy theorist. There’s more than one way to jack up the global price of oil in order to pressure the Europeans to dump the Ukraine so Putin won’t need to unleash his military to win concessions at the upcoming conference. Killing a few protesters would also crush the opposition in Kazakhstan.
Norman, if you want to admit Earth does not have a “real 255K surface”, that’s okay with me. I’ll let it slide. Just admit you were having a “bad-hair day” when you let Ball4 convince you to swallow his nonsense.
Facing reality is a great way to start the New Year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1114792
“…Earth does not have a real 255K surface”
Sure it does, it’s in plain sight to many who understand earthen system radiative physics just not the befuddled entertainer Clint R.
Clint R
I call it a radiating surface and the temperature of 255 K is the “brightness” temperature (not necessarily the actual temperature as measured by thermometer). Brightness temperature is defined as the temperature a blackbody would have if it were emitting a given amount of radiant energy. I have explained all this to you more than once.
Again for a radiating surface it does not have to be a solid surface. It is what you can see from the emitting radiant energy. It has no specific location of emission within the flame but the flame itself has a distinct surface that can be seen and imaged.
https://d3mvlb3hz2g78.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/thumb_720_450_1437_f.jpg
I have explained this to you numerous times.
I have also linked you to what the Earth’s radiant surface looks like.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vitali-Tatartchenko/publication/259531096/figure/fig2/AS:297086416375813@1447842329577/From-Hasler-et-al-2003-internet-site-Earth-image-at-the-infrared-wavelength-of-67-m.png
But your cult hero says it’s “in plain sight”. Can’t you see it?
Even your distraction of a candle flame has a location and altitude, Norman.
Face reality — you don’t have a clue.
Clint R: You are the one who is clueless. In everything you write.
RLH, your lame ad hom means you know Norman can’t identify his “real 255K surface”.
No. It means I know you are an idiot.
RLH, your definition of “idiot” is anyone that disagrees with you.
My definition of “idiot” is anyone that rejects reality.
I guess we’re just different….
My definition of idiot is Clint R.
clint r…”RLH, your definition of idiot is anyone that disagrees with you”.
***
Actually, rlh barely qualifies as an intelligent imbecile, not quite reaching the IQ required for an idiot.
GR is an idiot too.
Clint R
Photons are emitted from all parts of the flame and not one specific surface but there still is a visible radiating surface which is defined by the regions that are emitting visible photons from the flame and those that are not. A radiating surface is real but not solid. I am not sure you can understand this point. In the past I have linked you to the definition of a surface.
With words there usually is not one absolute definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surface
“: the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body”
The radiating surface of the Earth would be the exterior of where radiation is coming from the Earth as seen in the image I linked to. Not real complicated. Not sure why you are obsessed with this point. You can’t understand what a radiating surface means no matter how many times I explain it. Not sure how spending more time on this issue will get you to grasp the concept.
The radiating surface is in clear sight. Look at the image of the Earth in IR I linked to. It is pretty plain where it is at.
Norman, disregarding your lack of knowledge that infrared is NOT visible, what is the altitude of that “…radiating surface is real but not solid.”
“Can’t you see it?”
As Norman writes, Clint, the real 255K surface is in plain sight to specialized instrumentation which has confused Clint R. Humans don’t have such instruments for eyes but many humans accomplished in the field can see the instrumental results & understand earthen system radiative physics for the 255K unlike the befuddlement of entertainment specialist Clint R.
“…many humans accomplished in the field can see the instrumental results & understand earthen system radiative physics for the 255K”.
Interesting.
Now Ball4 finally admits his imaginary “real 255K surface” is NOT “in plain sight”.
He’s slowly moving toward reality, but at his rate it will take him 347.2 years to get there….
The earthen real 255K surface is in plain sight Clint, you can look up the data for yourself just like Norman does.
NB: there is a reported real 197K surface for our moon in plain sight too, but I doubt Clint R will look up anything preferring instead to use Clint’s extensive imagination writing comments that don’t align with scientific reality.
Now Ball4 reverses himself, again!
His time to reach reality is now estimated to be 541.3 years.
Clint R
The altitude you seek would be somewhere at the Top of the Atmosphere. I do not have an exact figure. The surface (boundary) would be the place where there is no longer any significant IR coming from above and all is coming from below your sensing equipment. At what exact altitude that is I do not know, if it is a big deal to you do some research on it.
When I say you can see it, it is when you look at the link I posted that is taken in the IR band, you can see the boundary of the IR. You can see the image of the radiating surface. I am still not sure at all what point you are making. You should be able to understand what I am saying. That you keep persisting in trying to make a point is a clear sign of trolling with intent to annoy. Just please stop already. Are you in competition with Swenson and Willard to see who is the biggest troll on this blog? Do you get a troll trophy if you win.
I find trolls useless. You don’t care about reality only trolling and annoying posters. You can’t stop being this way either. The New Year offers no hope of change for a trolling personality. If you can’t recognize your posts as trolling you are a sad case indeed. Just stop and let Willard and Swenson be the trolls. Two are more than enough for one blog.
Wrong again, Norman. According to the “Standard Atmosphere” and NASA, TOA is about 210-220K. Not 255K.
But, it gets worse for you. TOA is only about 60 miles altitude. An imaginary sphere with Earth’s diameter and average surface temperature of 288K, would not have a “255K surface” until an altitude of about 1000 miles! As usual, you don’t understand any of this.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. You swallowed Ball4’s nonsense and it makes you even more of an idiot. An imaginary sphere, absorbing the same solar flux as Earth, would have a 255k surface. Earth does not.
The link you are using is a computer model of infrared. It is NOT an actual image. It is a colorized computer image. Infrared is NOT visible, and does NOT have color. You don’t know anything about computer modeling, or programming, or infrared. You don’t understand the links you find.
“TOA is only about 60 miles altitude”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/where-is-the-edge-of-space-and-what-is-the-karman-line
“the Krmn line is set at what NOAA calls ‘an imaginary boundary’ that’s 62 miles up, or roughly a hundred kilometers above sea level”
“the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, NOAA, and NASA generally use 50 miles (80 kilometers) as the boundary”
*Kármán
Clint R
Still trolling. When I said the TOA that would be the boundary for the radiant surface. You again so yourself to lack communication skills. If you were not so obsessed with trolling and actually desired communication it would not be such an issue.
You still do not understand radiating surface. It is the sum of all the IR emitted by the Earth. The surface is the boundary where above it no more IR is emitted from the Earth. The location of all the different radiant streams is all the way from the surface to the TOA. The radiating surface is just the boundary condition where no more radiation from the Earth is being emitted (that would be Space).
You don’t really desire to understand. You just like to annoy and provoke as trolls do.
Okay Norman, I will accept all that rambling blah-blah as your de facto admission that you now realize there is no “real 255K surface” for Earth.
Well done.
Nope, Clint R still gets it wrong. There is an earthen real 255K surface that Clint R can find in plain sight using the CERES link.
Clint R would rather provide entertainment instead of understanding the radiometer measured earthen 255K. It’s a choice for everyone – whether to become informed or to simply provide entertainment like Clint R.
Earthen surfaces measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K measured GHE for Earth
Ball4, please stop trolling.
What is our Moon’s “brightness” temperature and where it is measured?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, N&Z published in 2017 a Diviner lunar satellite observed lunar global brightness temperature of 197K using applicable values for our Moon, i.e. albedo α = 0.132, ηe = 0.00971 (subterranean heat storage factor) and surface emissivity ε = 0.98 from the radiometer data.
…albedo alpha = 0.132, eta = 0.00971 (subterranean heat storage factor) and surface emissivity epsilon = 0.98…
Thank you, Ball4.
Solar flux at Earths distance (R=1AU) from the sun
So =1361 W/m
Earths Albedo a=0,306
Moons Albedo a=0,11
Earths Tmean=288K
Moons Tmean =220K
Solar irradiance (Moons surface /Earths surface) ratio
(1-0,11)So /(1-0,306)So = 0,89 /0.694 = 1,2824 or 28,24% more SW EM incident energy available on the Moons surface.
(Earths Te=255K /Moons Te=197K) ratio
255K/197K = 1,2944
1,2944^4 =2,807
Earths “brightness” temperature emits 2,807 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moons “brightness” temperature does.
On the other hand Moons surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earths surface.
This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earths thin atmospheres trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!
There is no way Earths atmosphere can balance this huge
(Moon s surface /Earths surface) IR emission difference:
2,807 *1,2824 = 3,600
3,600 -1 = 2,600 the 2,6 more as much as Moons surface IR EM emission the Earths brightness IR EM emission impossible !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earths thin atmospheres trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!”
Sure, when the reporter such as Christos totally ignores the measured earthen atm. optical depth. Text books do show for Christos how to incorporate measured earthen atm. emissivity and find the GHE does explain the global surface 288K difference to the measured earthen global 255K.
“Text books do show for Christos how to incorporate measured earthen atm. emissivity and find the GHE does explain the global surface 288K difference to the measured earthen global 255K.”
Ball4, here it is what I have wrote above:
“(Earths Te=255K /Moons Te=197K) ratio
255K/197K = 1,2944
1,2944^4 =2,807
Earths brightness temperature emits 2,807 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moons brightness temperature does.
There is NO measured earthen atm. optical depth is able to consolidate this enormously huge discrepancy…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In reality. there is sufficient optical depth at 1bar for earthen GHE of 33K Christos, you just need to study the reports that took the data & learn how to use the 1LOT WITH that optical depth.
ball4…”you just need to study the reports that took the data & learn how to use the 1LOT WITH that optical depth.”
***
The 1st law has nothing to do with radiation, it’s clearly the relationship between heat, work, and internal energy, which according to Clausius, who invented the notion, equals the sum of internal heat and internal work.
Ergo, the 1st law is about heat and work.
The 1st law was declared long before Bohr discovered the relationship between the intensity and frequency of radiation emitted from electrons and the kinetic energy level of the emitting electrons. That KE is heat but the 1st law is not related to anything in Bohr’s quantum theory. When electrons emit so much EM, their collective KE drops and the temperature drops with it, indicating heat dissipation.
As Clausius explained, the internal energy, which could not be measured at the atomic level in his time, can be determined by the macro relationship between heat and work by observing the starting temperature and pressure and comparing it to the final temperature and pressure in a process.
ball4…”Sure, when the reporter such as Christos totally ignores the measured earthen atm. optical depth”.
***
Optical depth is a scam theory to explain a scam concept called anthropogenic warming.
Sure GBR, optical depth is an illusion just as the rest of science is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth
Much of atm. radiation science is an illusion to Gordon not having accomplished any study in the field.
The S&O box has nil atm. optical depth vs. Earth’s optical depth as measured so cannot challenge infra-red active gas measurement and theory in the actual earthen atm.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Is blog no longer working?
It is!
Maybe there was some problem on a server in the http chain between you and the blog’s server.
It’s not working , wait and try next month
My apologies, should have been on Jan 7th article. Apparently only ads have been removed.
entropic…”An airliner flying eastwards along the equator at 600mph relative to the surface is also being carried eastwards at 1200 mph by the Earths rotation. It is also being carried westwards at 29.8 km/second by the Earths revolution around the Sun”.
***
It’s not the Earth’s rotation carrying the plane, it’s the jet stream.
https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-take-longer-to-fly-from-east-to-west-on-an-airplane-151180
The atmosphere moves with the rotating Earth. Otherwise, the 1000 mph angular speed of the Earth at the Equator would destroy everything in its path. Since we humans and all structures are moving with the planet, there is no problem with an atmosphere moving at the same rate.
We all know about jet lag due to different time zones but we are not talking about that here. We are talking about relative motion. You spinners are willing to call on relative motion in your argument about the Moon spinning but you don’t seem to understand what it means.
Where I live in Vancouver, Canada, we are rotating about 800+ mph. As long as I am moving relative to that rotation, I don’t notice it, I can walk eastward or westward at an equal rate of speed. I can walk north or south without veering off on a quasi Coriolis-affected arc, which proves that Coriolis forces are fictitious forces.
If the Earth slammed into something, and it stopped suddenly, I would go flying off at 800+ MPH.
Same with aircraft. Whether they fly east or west, they are affected only by tail winds and head winds. That is, motion of air within the atmosphere.
If that were not the case, if a plane took off from Vancouver to Hawaii, almost due west, at 600 MPH, it would never reach Hawaii since the Earth is turning at 800+ MPH in that direction. The fact that a plane flying at that speed reaches Hawaii in about 5 hours, proves the Earth’s rotation has nothing to do with it.
“The atmosphere moves with the rotating Earth”
No shit Sherlock.
christos…”What is our Moons brightness temperature and where it is measured?”
***
It doesn’t have a brightness temperature, Christos, since the light we see from it is reflected solar energy. If the light we saw from the Moon was internally generated, we could determine a brightness temperature.
Gordon, Christie
The first measurements of the Moon’s surface temperature were made by the Fourth Earl of Rosse in Ireland and published in 1871.
The fourth Earl used a 36-inch telescope to focus the radiation of the Moon onto thermocouples and thus calculate its surface temperature.
He initially settled on 92C, before raising his estimate to 100C.
Neil Armstrong later wrote a letter to the Earl’s family confirming the estimate.
Good story.
ball4..”As Norman writes, Clint, the real 255K surface is in plain sight to specialized instrumentation…”
***
So, you think the Earth’s surface temperature is -18C??? That figure was worked out artificially using S-B, an equation which cannot apply in such circumstances for a body with no oceans and no atmosphere.
Gordon
Look up.
Gordon, the surface at 288K is measured somewhat (even mostly) opaque in the IR bands for global 255K by Entropic’s looking up at the instrumentation in orbit. That’s why thermometers are used near the surface in our atm.
DREMT, Gordon and Clint R share an Earth centred viewpoint originally held by the Catholic church.
They burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for questioning it, then arrested Galileo Galilei.
Fortunately the church has since changed its reference frame, except for a few traditionalists.
Ent, the reason you have to make up such nonsense is because you’re wrong, you can’t learn, and you’re braindead.
Returning to the scientific debate.
In DREMTs view the Moon is not rotating relative to the Earth, or more specifically the Earth/Moon line. This is valid, but only in that frame.
In all other reference frames The Earth/Moon line is rotating at the same rate as the Moon’s revolution in its orbit and carrying the Moon around with it.
Hence in all external reference frames the Moon is rotating around its axis.
DREMT
Pardon the delay. Ireland is six hours ahead of Alabama, so I have to go to bed just as the debate gets interesting. By the time I get up the Americans are all asleep.
ET, Who said that pups resides in the U.S.? My observation is that pups tends to start posting early in the day with it’s usual “Please Stop Trolling” idiocy.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
“Hence in all external reference frames the Moon is rotating around its axis.”
In no reference frame is the moon actually rotating on its own axis. In some it appears to be. That would be the “Non-Spinner” position. The only way, regardless of reference frames, that the moon could be rotating on its own axis, is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
In no non-spinner reference frame is the moon actually rotating on its own axis as observed “inside of it orbit” near the central point. In the spinner inertial ref. frame our moon IS actually rotating on its own axis.
The only way, regardless of reference frames, that the moon could be rotating on its own axis, is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”.
“‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the ‘moon on the right'”
Newton would have agreed with that observation.
Maybe, maybe not.
No maybe about it. He knew about things requiring forces to change their position. Gravity cannot make an orbit AND change an orientation just because of the orbit. You don’t get to use something twice.
The orbit (without axial rotation) already involves orientational change. So nothing is being used twice.
An orbit does not create an orientation change.
OK, RLH. I acknowledge receipt of your comment.
True RLH, Newton’s solution of the two-body problem finds the orbital path thru space, and nothing more. DREMT could easily find this solution and see that it has nothing to say about rotation.
But he chooses not to look or even acknowledge Newton’s statements on the Moon.
That says it all.
DREMT: So either you accept that what I said was true or you cannot come up with an argument that it doesn’t apply.
Ultimately it is just an assertion. So I don’t really have to argue against it.
DREMT believes that if he doesnt look at evidence, then it doesnt matter.
He believes that he can freely cherry pick only facts that agree with him.
He believes that if his model cannot explain observations (axial tilt, poles, libration), then they just don’t matter. They are just details. OR they are just appear to be facts but really arent.
Such is the depth of denial his argument has descended to.
Are RLH and Nate still confused about things that have been explained numerous times?
That’s just more examples of being braindead. They can’t learn.
Orbiting changes the direction of the body. That’s what makes the orbit.
And what “mode” is troll Nate referring to? Does he still believe the “ball-on-a-string” is a “model” of Moon? Another example of braindead.
You guys no longer have the ‘its just rotating around the Earth’ model of the Moon’s orbit?
Thant might be news to the TEAM.
Any observation that doesn’t fit their model is an illusion, or just an appearance, or some other bullshit.
I wonder what Popper would say.
bob is confused again.
Popper would say it aint science, its religion. And he would know.
I am glad to see the abandonment of the ball on a string model for the motion of the Moon.
The orbit of the Moon can be modeled by the equation ax^2 + by^2 = z
and remember that a point has no hair.
See the Rabbet if you don’t understand.
Yes, definitely confused.
Ent, you cult idiots keep looking for ways to pervert reality to protect your cult nonsense. The correct way to determine if Moon is rotating or not, is by it’s orbit. At any time, the “front” side of Moon faces its forward direction. That clearly indicates it is NOT rotating. It’s the same for anything that is orbiting but NOT rotating, such as a track runner on an oval track, the wooden horse on a MGR, or a ball-on-a-string.
Remember Pup is the one who claims this shows the Moon does not spin:
https://youtu.be/XVriF4-z3cE
Nice one. I take it that the video is a months compilation of images from L1 of the Moon’s rotation.
Those who believe the LRO observations provide evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis demonstrate that they do not understand the “Non-Spinner” position.
You could (hypothetically) make a similar video to show that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, at a rate of once per day. Yet Mt. Everest is still not rotating on its own axis.
As the ‘non-spinners’ position is pure nonsense no-one with an ounce of sense could ‘understand’ it.
I believe there are maybe one or two “Spinners” here who get it, or get most of it. The rest are fairly clueless.
DREMT
Two problems with that. The Moon is not rigidly attached to the Earth.
If Mt Everest were rotating on its own axis it would point North/South parallel to Earth’s axis. You couldnt produce a video like Willard’s as you wouldn’t be able to film underneath the attachment point to the Earth. Since you can see all sides of the Moon from L1 it is not attached to the Earth and therefore free to rotate independantly.
The Moon does not revolve in a circle of constant equatorial declination, it’s orbital plane is tilted 6 degrees relative to Earth’s equator and 84 degrees instead of Earth’s axis.
The Moon’s axis, as defined by the orientation of its day/night cycle and gyroscope measurements is tilted 6 degrees to its orbit. During one orbit the difference between the direction of the Earth’s axis and the direction of the Moon’s axis varies from 0 degrees to 12 degrees. The Moon is not attached to the Earth and therefore free to rotate independantly.
I did say “hypothetically”, E Man.
The ‘non-spinners’ are totally clueless.
“The Moon is not attached to the Earth and therefore free to rotate independantly.”
Sure…but it remains oriented always with one face pointed towards the inside of the orbit, as seen from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane (same POV as in the GIF linked to further above). So it is “orbiting, without rotating on its own axis”. It is indeed free to start rotating on its own axis, were some force to act on the moon to start it spinning.
“it remains oriented always with one face pointed towards the inside of the orbit”
But why? An orbit alone cannot cause this to happen. Only a rotation about its own axis can cause this to happen.
…only if you already assuming that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
… as observed from outside of the MOTR’s orbit.
Both the MOTL motion and the MOTR motion are shown from a perspective above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane in the GIF.
The LRO orbits Moon. So all sides of Moon could be seen, from the LRO.
When a video is then labeled “full rotation of the Moon as seen by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter”, is that incompetence or dishonesty?
Pup is perverting reality once again:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/lro/in-depth/
Our Moon Dragon cranks are having a bit fun. At least Lulzy, Slimy, and Bully do. So no harm done.
Right, no harm but plenty of 3 ring circus entertainment. They keep the crowd’s attention and drive up blog ad revenue until recently.
Yes, that’s right. Moon is not rotating, it always faces its forward direction.
It is impossible to rotate and not to rotate at the same time.
Either Moon rotates and it is observed from Earth, or Moon doesn’t rotate, and it is also observed from Earth.
What we see from Earth is Moon’s the only one side.
So it is very obvious – Moon does not rotate!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… as viewed from “inside of it orbit” as explained by Clint R.
“In DREMTs view the Moon is not rotating relative to the Earth, or more specifically the Earth/Moon line. This is valid, but only in that frame.”
You are misrepresenting me, E Man. Try reading this comment again. Note the bolded sentence at the end.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1116004
Are we agreed that the Moon is not rotating on its axis relative to the Earth/Moon line, and rotating on its axis relative to the inertial reference frame?
If so, there’s no need for further argument.
So you do not understand the comment!
The moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, wrt an inertial reference frame where the origin goes through the Earth/moon barycenter. Wrt an inertial reference frame where the origin goes through the center of the moon, the moon does appear to be rotating on its own axis…but appearances can be deceptive. Think Mt. Everest.
I think you do not understand the inertial reference frame.
The Earth/Moon line you use to define the Moon’s rotation is not an inertial frame of reference. The Moon is in an accelerating frame of reference.
I do not use the “Earth/moon line” to define the moon’s rotation. That would indeed be an example of using an accelerating frame of reference.
If you place your origin through the center of the moon, but your coordinate system axes remain pointing towards the same fixed stars, that is an inertial reference frame. Even though the moon itself is accelerating. From such a reference frame, the moon does appear to be rotating on its own axis. However, so would Mt. Everest, if you placed the origin through the center of that.
Instantly cut Mt. Everest loose from Earth, inertia means Mt. Everest would keep one face toward Earth in the same orbit, Mt. Everest is now a moon of Earth not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth but rotating on Mt. Everest own axis once per orbit of Earth wrt to sun (incident sunshine on all faces given a transparent Earth).
Clint R and Swenson completely resolved the MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue with their comments.
NB: with an 8″ Celestron our moon’s rotation wrt to sun can be observed overnight as the observed sunshine terminator sweeps across the surface craters.
Since earthshine would be incident on only one face of the orbiting Mt. Everest moon, and sunshine would be incident on all faces of the orbiting Mt. Everest moon, the orbiting Mt. Everest moon would not be rotating on its own axis, period. As explained by Clint R and Swenson.
NB: with an 8″ Celestron our moon’s "orbital motion without axial rotation" wrt to sun can be observed overnight as the observed sunshine terminator sweeps across the surface craters.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” the orbiting Mt. Everest moon would not be rotating on its own axis, period. As explained by Clint R and Swenson.
Since earthshine would be incident on only one face of the orbiting Mt. Everest moon, and sunshine would be incident on all faces of the orbiting Mt. Everest moon, the orbiting Mt. Everest moon would not be rotating on its own axis, period. As explained by Clint R and Swenson.
… when viewing located “inside it orbit” per Clint R.
Your linked comment further downthread proves me correct and you wrong.
I think Moon does not rotate because Moon hasn’t axis of rotation.
Every rotating object in the universe has axis of rotation.
If it hasn’t axis of rotation – it doesn’t rotate!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I think Moon does not rotate because Moon hasnt axis of rotation”
You are wrong.
From Wikipedia:
“The Moon originally rotated at a faster rate, but early in its history its rotation slowed and became tidally locked in this orientation as a result of frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by Earth.[159] With time, the energy of rotation of the Moon on its axis was dissipated as heat, until there was no rotation of the Moon relative to Earth. In 2016, planetary scientists using data collected on the 1998-99 NASA Lunar Prospector mission, found two hydrogen-rich areas (most likely former water ice) on opposite sides of the Moon. It is speculated that these patches were the poles of the Moon billions of years ago before it was tidally locked to Earth.[160]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“With time, the energy of rotation of the Moon on its axis was dissipated as heat, until there was no rotation of the Moon relative to Earth.
… until there was no rotation of the Moon relative to Earth since earthshine is incident on only one lunar face nowadays.
Our moon is rotating on its own axis relative to the sun since sunshine is incident on all faces of our moon as explained by Clint R and Swenson.
Since earthshine is incident on only one lunar face, and sunshine is incident on all lunar faces, our moon is not rotating on its own axis, period. As explained by Clint R and Swenson.
…with a non-spinner observer located “inside of it orbit” our moon is not rotating on its own axis, period. As explained by Clint R and Swenson.
The issue of the MOTL, MOTR, and our moon remains completely resolved.
In your opinion, the "Non-Spinners" are observing as if located inside the orbit, and the "Spinners" are observing as if located outside the orbit. Neither Clint R nor Swenson have ever expressed agreement with you that the "Non-Spinners" are observing as if located inside the orbit.
It’s actually Clint R’s opinion and DREMT agreed with Clint R that the “Non-Spinners” are observing as if located “inside of it orbit”, and the “Spinners” are observing as if located outside the orbit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
False, as the link to the comment proves.
“Every rotating object in the universe has axis of rotation.
If it hasnt axis of rotation it doesnt rotate!”
Its a good point, Christos. And conversely, if it has an axis of rotation, it must be rotating!
As you can see here from the Moon’s properties, it has Axial Tilt, a North Pole, a South Pole and an Equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
All of these cannot be defined, unless the Moon has an Axis of rotation.
Thus it is indeed rotating around an axis.
Yes, Nate, Moon has axial tilt. Axial tilt is tilted always towards Earth. The Lunar axis is not axis of axial rotation, Lunar axis orbits Earth as ball-on-the-string.
… just as explained by Clint R and Swenson, Christos is a non-spinner located observing from within the lunar orbit near the central point of its orbit – like the person holding the ball string.
The MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue remains completely resolved by location of observer.
No, neither Clint R nor Swenson have ever explained that Christos is a non-spinner located observing from within the lunar orbit near the central point of its orbit. They simply have not ever made any such explanation. That is Ball4’s fantasy.
The MOTL, MOTR and our moon issue remains completely unresolved by location of observer, and resolved in the "Non-Spinners" favor through their various arguments.
Christos
” Axial tilt is tilted always towards Earth. ”
That turns out not to be the case. The Moon’s orbit is tilted 6 degrees to the Earth’s equator and the Moon’s axis of rotation is tilted 6 degrees to its orbit.
The difference in alignment between the Moon’s axis and the Earths axis varies from 0 to 12 degrees in all directions. It is not attached to the Earth like a ball on a string.
The ball on a string is just a simple analogy for “orbital motion without axial rotation”, generally. It is not meant to capture all the nuances of the moon’s orbital motion, which is very complex.
Nevertheless, you can see how, if you thought the ball was rotating on its own internal axis, you could give the ball “poles”, and an “equator”…even though, as we have established with the Mt. Everest example and thus you should agree, the ball is not rotating on its own internal axis.
” Axial tilt is tilted always towards Earth.”
More completely made-up absurdities brought to you by Christos.
“The Lunar axis is not axis of axial rotation”
Oh? Then it is an axis of what?
And how does the Moon have poles and an equator like the Earth, whose Poles and Equator are DEFINED by its axis of rotation?
Troll Nate, here’s the debunk of the lunar axis nonsense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719226
You won’t be able to understand it, but see if you can find an adult to explain it to you.
Pup, Lulzy,
Make sure you read to the end of the relevant comments in that subthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-720180
No need to read our slimiest sock puppet’s. He’s free to write whatever he wants. As long as he’s having a bit of fun, all is well.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
“No, neither Clint R nor Swenson have ever explained that Christos is a non-spinner located observing from within the lunar orbit near the central point of its orbit.”
DREMT is easily proven wrong yet again for any lunar or mgr non-spinner observer located “inside it orbit” near the center including Christos:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1110076
The MOTL, MOTR, and our moon issue remains completely resolved.
Thank you for linking to the comments from Clint R and Swenson. Now readers can clearly see that they never stated the “Non-Spinners” are observing as if located inside the moon’s orbit and the “Spinners” are observing as if located outside the moon’s orbit.
And as expected, Clint fails to explain the real Moon observables, using real physics, and points us instead to more of his grade-school level faulty analogies.
“Note the direction that the pencil is pointing changes, as the apple orbits.”
That’s cute!
But it is very very quite contrary to the behavior of the real Moon’s axis and poles.
In the case of the real Moon, the tilted axis, and its North Pole, remain pointed to the SAME LOCATION among the stars during an orbit!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
Never mind, Clint, we all understand that as an anonymous troll you feel no obligation to explain real reality.
“Nevertheless, you can see how, if you thought the ball was rotating on its own internal axis, you could give the ball ‘poles’, and an ‘equator’ ”
But if you thought the Moon is not rotating on its internal axis, then you would have to pretend the observed poles are NOT pointing to the same place among the stars, and the observed equator is not remaining in the same plane during the lunar orbit.
IOW you would have to deny reality.
Troll Nate, I predicted you would not be able to understand.
If you were able to do the experiment correctly, you would find the pencil points in different directions as the apple orbits. Remember, the same side of the apple is always facing the inside of orbit. It’s an easy experiment to perform, if you’re not braindead.
And, it’s just one more proof that Moon does not rotate.
Thanks for being such a great example of a braindead cult idiot.
” you would find the pencil points in different directions as the apple orbits”
“And, it’s just one more proof that Moon does not rotate.”
Proof that the apple doesnt behave like the Moon.
But Clint, if you are not just trolling, and you truly believe the Moon’s N. pole points in different directions as it orbits, then this would be an astonishing discovery.
Please show us your evidence!
I’ll do better than that, troll Nate. Here’s proof the bogus rotation axis points in different directions:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719226
You won’t be able to understand it, but see if you can find an adult to explain it to you.
Clint is seemingly unfamiliar with the phrase ‘Apples and Oranges’.
They are not the same, but at least they are both fruit!
Apples and Moons!
What Clint ‘proves’ for apples, does not prove it for the Moon. I would think a 5th grader could understand this.
So Clint, really? You have no evidence that the Moon’s pole points in different directions during its orbit.
So we have absolutely proof that you are simply here to troll.
Wrong troll Nate. What has been proved is that you are predictable. You can not understand the simple experiment. If you cannot “orbit” the apple without keeping the pencil from pointing in different directions, then Moon can’t either.
You won’t be able to understand any of this. You’re predictable.
Clint R proves that the Moon is not connected to the Earth by a string.
My what a clever chap.
“You can not understand the simple experiment.”
Nope I understand it perfectly. And I understand that its an apple and pencil.
While you don’t see to understand that are not the same as a Moon and its axis.
“If you cannot ‘orbit’ the apple without keeping the pencil from pointing in different directions, then Moon can’t either.”
Where is the observational evidence????
You created a setup in which the pencil wiggles around, so what?
A gyroscope, planet Earth are examples where the rotational axis stays aligned in the same direction.
In fact all of the planets and moons seem to manage it just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
Troll Nate, a gyroscope and Earth are examples where the rotational axis stays aligned in the same direction because they are ROTATING about their axes.
You don’t understand any of this.
Your link, which you can’t understand, even states “The Moon’s poles are particularly mobile.”
That means they aren’t real rotational poles. Because Moon is NOT rotating.
… on moon’s own axis as observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint pointed out earlier.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“If you cannot orbit the apple without keeping the pencil from pointing in different directions, then Moon cant either”
So I point out examples where a pencil along the axis, DOES keep the pencil from changing direction, while the object orbits. And you agree!
“Troll Nate, a gyroscope and Earth are examples where the rotational axis stays aligned in the same direction because they are ROTATING about their axes.”
Ok then, no surprise that you contradict yourself!
Now consider the Earth with its 1 rotation/day around an axis that points throughout the orbit to the North star, and 365 day orbit around the sun.
Slow the rotation rate down to 1 rotation/90 days and keep its axis aligned to the North star.
Now slow the rotation rate further to 1 rotation/365 days, and KEEP the axis pointed to the North star.
Now there is no reason we can’t do this same motion with the apple, or with the Moon.
UPDATE
Christos added a very important line to the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument:
(AXIOMS) The Moon does not spin because there is no axis of rotation. It is impossible to spin and not to spin at the same time. Since the Moon does not spin, it can’t spin.
Should I attribute it to you, Christos?
Many thanks!
“It is speculated that these patches were the poles of the Moon billions of years ago before it was tidally locked to Earth.[160]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
A simple yes or no would do, Christos.
Many thanks for the sexiest example of circular reasoning!
JWST continues to coast toward L2, slowly slowing. It’s now going a little under 900 mph. The insertion burn is about 12 days away.
This is another amazing engineering feat, compatible to landing vehicles on Mars and men on Moon.
Unfortunately, JWST will likely be used to advance agenda, rather than science. We’ll see….
Wait, you mean NASA did something right?? How could that be when they get the Moon spinning so wrong??
I wonder how ‘agenda’, whatever that is, can be advanced by looking at stuff in deep space?
The very best about Vournas’ lies concerning the non-rotating Moon is that in many of his computations, he shows how faster Earth’s rotation is than Moon’s:
” Earth is on average warmer 68 C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29.3 times faster rotational spin. ”
If the Moon can’t rotate: how then can Vournas explain us that the Earth rotates faster than the Moon?
*
And it is really amazing to see how people like Vournas post a link to the Moon, but manage to avoid ALL Moon rotation information published on the linked page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
*
1. Orbital characteristics
Sidereal orbit period: 27.321661 d
Synodic orbit period: 29.530589 d
Average orbital speed: 1.022 km/s
*
2. Physical characteristics
Synodic rotation period : 29.530589 d
Sidereal rotation period: 27.321661 d
Equatorial rotation velocity: 4.627 m/s
*
No, the Moon, according to Wikipedia, can’t rotate!
That’s the one and only reason why they use the word ‘rotation’ in their Moon page.
*
A Dutch scientist, Steven Adriaan Wepster, made recently a deep analysis of how the German astronomer Tobias Mayer computed the inclination of Moons rotation axis.
See section 9.5.1: Locating the rotational axis on page 173 in
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
What about trying to understand what is written there, Vournas?
Thank you Bindidon.
I am trying to understand what is written there.
While I am trying to understand about the Moon’s rotation, would you try to understand about Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
As I read there, Tobias Mayer had determined the position of the Lunar axis.
Very well, since Moon has axis of rotation, then Moon should rotate on its axis of rotation.
Thank you Bindidon!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Very well, since Moon has axis of rotation, then Moon should rotate on its axis of rotation. ”
Thanks for admitting the fact.
But, oh oh oh… You will get big problems with Robertson, Flynnson, Clint R, the Pseudomoderator, Bill Hunter and a few others.
That’s life.
No “problems” from me. Christos is free to think whatever he wants, as is anybody else.
DREMT
“Christos is free to think whatever he wants, as is anybody else.”
He’s welcome to think what whatever he wants. Unfortunately he is not keeping it to himself. He is trying to put forward an untested hypothesis as alternative reality without evidence to support it.
He is also free to write whatever he wants, as is anybody else.
DREMT
Is Christos expressing an opinion or putting forward a scientific hypothesis?
If it is an opinion, then he can say what he likes and blame it all on leprechauns if he wants to.
If it is a scientific hypothesis, and he wants other scientists to seriously consider it, then it must pass a threshold.
It must be coherent, consistent and consilient. It must be accompanied by supporting evidence.
So far he has not reached that threshold.
Your comment “unfortunately he is not keeping it to himself” seemed to express a desire for censorship of Christos’ ideas. I am not going to be drawn into a debate on whether or not he has met your desired thresholds scientifically, as I have enough on my plate dealing with all the trolls when defending my own ideas to start defending other people’s.
Bindidon the moon does rotate around an axis. That is central to non-spinner theory and that axis is consistent with dynamics and kinematics.
But I continually hear from the spinners that rotation is in their view a translation which is not consistent with neither dynamics nor kinematics.
” … would you try to understand about Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon? ”
There is a big difference between your idea and Moon’s rotation: while the latter has been proved numerous times by several scientists, you idea with the Φ factor lacks a scientific proof you were until now unable to provide for.
Sorry.
But you will give Φ factor another chance, wont you?
In memoire of Tobias Mayer…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
binny…”…you idea with the Φ factor lacks a scientific proof you were until now unable to provide for”.
I am planning to nominate Christos for a Nobel Prize for discovering the factor.
Please do so. Even the Nobel Prize committee can use a good laugh.
I made the case clearly. Nothing more to explain. Go troll somewhere else.
For bill
A small aside for all the rotation, or not people here.
and a couple of relevant points.
–
For Nate,
The body has an axis but a body does not rotate. Poles as well head and feet.
Of course a body can be rotated, or rotated around like in a CT scanner.
An axis can always be defined when a body is put into rotation but does not have to be rotating to have an axis.
–
Both sides are right because they use different frames of reference. Both sides are wrong in the other frame of reference.
Throwing garbage and insults over each others fence is very illuminating, not so much as to the thought processes going on but the unwillingness to concede an inch as it would upset other arguments.
–
So, collective big breath in, Yes you are right in your frame of reference and I am right in mine.
Lets forget about it or else discuss the real problem, the frame of reference.
–
As an aside Christos this is a good place to discuss your theories as it is a very large blog and anyone interested can and will respond to you.
–
This issue of rotation is a problem for your theory because to define rotation you do have to tie it to a frame of reference and planets and moons can be spinning in axis which have nothing to do with their orbital direction making any local general frame of reference you choose to use being unkind to your theorem.
–
Where a planet has a heating source or sources one can define the rotation to the heat source which makes sense.
In this scheme of things the moon could be said to have a roughly 28 day rotation with respect to the sun?
It would also imply no rotation with respect to the earth.
The earthlight always falling on the same face of the moon.
The issue transcends reference frames. So many commenters here get lost in them, and can never find their way back out. It is not that one side views the problem wrt one reference frame and the other side from another reference frame. It instead simply comes down to this:
To the “Spinners”, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”.
To the “Non-Spinners”, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Axial rotation is then separate from that motion, in either case. That then makes it seem as though the “Non-Spinners” are judging axial rotation wrt the accelerated frame. Indeed, to actually measure an axial rotation period correctly from our perspective would require using such a frame. It also makes it seem as though the “Spinners” are judging axial rotation wrt the inertial frame. Indeed, to actually measure an axial rotation period correctly from their perspective would require using such a frame…
but…
…it is actually only because axial rotation must be separate from the orbital motion, and each “side” has a different idea of what orbital motion actually is.
Actually DREMT is the commenter completely lost without using ref. frames as it is never known where DREMT is located in DREMT’s observations and wrt to what object DREMT is measuring the motion observed. Inertial ref. frame solves all that.
The MOTL, MOTR, and our moon rotation remains completely resolved.
Ball4 is still lost in reference frames, and will never be able to see how the issue transcends them. He just does not have what it takes.
DREMT: When you look in a mirror, which is left and which is right?
There is still a difference between the motion of the MOTL and the MOTR regardless of your choice of reference frame, thus the issue transcends reference frames.
If you were rigidly attached to MOTR you would see things differently to if you were rigidly attached to MOTL.
OK, RLH.
There is still an OBSERVABLE difference between the MOTL and the MOTR. The MOTL has rotation in the inertial frame but the MOTR does not.
Some people here assert, without evidence, that the MOTR still has rotation.
It is a belief that originates from using the accelrated frame of reference, one that rotates at the orbital rate. Only in that frame, can one observe the MOTR rotating. IOW from Earth we look up and would see that the MOTR appears to be rotating, and the MOTL not rotating.
This is the basis for the nonspinnets ideology that the MOTL is ‘just orbiting’.
Reference frames.
"Ball4 is still lost in reference frames, and will never be able to see how the issue transcends them. He just does not have what it takes…"
…and he is not the only one, far from it. I see it all the time in comments around here. In fact, whenever I see someone claiming that the issue is resolved by reference frames, I know that person still does not understand the "Non-Spinner" position. Which is why I have to keep trying to explain it…
…they’ll get it eventually.
angech, thanks for your opinions.
But reality does not need opinions. Reality is reality. The ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating about its axis. A 5 meter canoe in a circular moat that is only 3 meters wide is NOT rotating about its axis. A track runner running an oval track is NOT rotating about his axis. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
The reality here is that there are braindead cult idiots willing to lie, cheat, and steal to protect their cult. You see it with the Moon issue. You see it with the AGW issue. You see it was most science. The cult idiots have an agenda, and that agenda is to attempt to pervert reality.
Problem be that the moon is not traveling in a circular moat around the earth. Its traveling in a sinusoidal moat around the sun.
Yes, the apparent path is around the earth but that is not the actual path. The earth is not the center of the universe.
Since the light from the sun is obviously lighting all sides of the moon in phase the moon must be orbiting around its axis.
Time to face the facts; you are wrong.
Ken, you’ve got the most original perversion of orbital motion, by far.
But you don’t make a good cult idiot yet. You see through the AGW nonsense, and you have major reservations about the pandemic nonsense. You’re kinda like in both camps.
I would recommend you study orbital motion, and ask questions as needed. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
The only way circular orbit, and ball-on-a-string works is if earth is stationary and everything revolves around it.
Clearly not the case. You have to rethink your strongly held but wrong views because they will hold you back.
Ken, the ball-on-a-string is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The simple analogy has NOTHING to do with Earth, or “everything”. It only shows that the orbiting ball always has one side facing the inside of its orbit. That’s ALL.
Similar analogies are the canoe that is traveling in a circular moat, but is too long to rotate, or the wooden horse on a MGR, or a racehorse on an oval track. They all have only one side facing the inside of their orbits, just like Moon. All are “orbiting”, but NOT “rotating”.
Once people understand what basic orbital motion is, this issue is easy. If Moon were really rotating, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
A ball-on-a-string shows that one end of a stick points ‘outwards’ and one end ‘inwards’. Nothing else.
If you stood on the sun at center of the solar system, all sides of the moon are visible in phase because it is rotating.
Yes Ken, Sun would see all sides of Moon. Do you know why?
It’s because Moon is orbiting around Earth. It keeps one side facing Earth as if presents different sides to viewers outside its orbit.
There is no question that one side of the Moon points towards the Earth. The question is why.
The sun plays a much greater role in the movement of the moon than does the earth. Ignoring the movement of the moon around the sun in the discussion of the moon’s rotation about its axis means you are not including all the factors that must be considered.
The calculated force on Moon is greater from Sun than Earth, but that does NOT mean Sun “plays a much greater role”.
Moon is within Earth’s gravitational field, which changes things. This is why kinematics does not apply to orbital motion. Sun cannot pull Moon away from Earth. When Moon comes around Earth heading toward Sun, it still does not have the velocity necessary to escape Earth’s gravitational field.
So usually we do not need to consider Sun when discussing Moon’s orbit. But do you notice you’re moving away from the issue?
But the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119
“Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth”
Moon’s orbit is strongly influenced by the sun. So, yes, we must consider the Sun as the primary point of reference. From the sun, at the center of the solar system and source of energy for all life in it, the moon is obviously rotating around its axis.
Ken, you’re moving away from the issue. Sun has nothing to do with whether Moon is rotating or not. You’re still confused with the “scalloping” nonsense. That’s NOT orbital motion. If a person swung the ball-on-a-string about him as he walked, the ball would trace out the same scalloping. It’s a meaningless observation.
I can recognize when someone is resistant to learning, so we can end this here before you start with the insults.
Have a nice day.
“before you start with the insults”
as if Clint, our resident insult monkey, would be offended!
“This is why kinematics does not apply to orbital motion.”
Science deniers like Clint say the darndest things!
Kinematics-the branch of mechanics concerned with the motion of objects without reference to the forces which cause the motion.
-the features or properties of motion in an object.
plural noun: kinematics
“So usually we do not need to consider Sun when discussing Moons orbit. But do you notice youre moving away from the issue?”
Unless we want to know why Cassinis Laws apply to the Moon.
Specifically why the Moon’s rotational axis and the Earth-Moon orbital axis precess around the Sun-Earth-Moon orbital axis, together.
Pup is free to speak for reality, as is anybody else, Kennui.
Reality is reality. Facts are facts. Sock puppets are sock puppets. Fun is fun, trolls are trolls, and trolls just want to have fun.
Thank you for your input, which is, as you might guess, your input.
W
Where do I buy a ticket for the Funhouse?
It’s pay as-you-go, since all that’s required is your continued attention and replies to the incessantly repeated nonsense from trolls like pups.
You can buy one here, Pozzo:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=o3Jz9Wp6cmPTf7jFTdgCm2P2q__ZiCJeFR2ECFwzRV48LNw_TTICAW-wka2hxDYfKUuGfW&country.x=US&locale.x=US
ken…”Problem be that the moon is not traveling in a circular moat around the earth. Its traveling in a sinusoidal moat around the sun.
Yes, the apparent path is around the earth but that is not the actual path. The earth is not the center of the universe”.
***
The wiki article from which you got that information is wrong. The Moon has only linear velocity/momentum and that velocity/momentum is keeping it in orbit around the Earth. The Moon has absolutely no linear velocity/momentum about the Sun. The Moon is a passenger in Earth’s orbital space as the Earth orbits the Sun. That is, the Earth is carrying the Moon around the sun.
If some mathematician wants to trace the motion of the Moon wrt to orbital time he can fill his boot. However, the path traced is not a sinusoid since the lunar orbital plane is inclined about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, which is the Earth-Sun orbital plane. Therefore the Moon’s path is looping in both a forward and retrograde direction wrt to the orbital path.
How can a body performing a forward/retrograde looping action possibly be orbiting the Sun?
Therefore the Moon is moving in a form of spiral in which it moves against the motion of the Earth around the Sun. It’s not an actuality wrt to a solar orbit, it’s a point of interest only to a mathematician for the simple reason that the Moon’s only momentum is around the Earth.
*************
“Since the light from the sun is obviously lighting all sides of the moon in phase the moon must be orbiting around its axis”.
***
Not so. The sun lights the Moon due to its position in the lunar orbit and has nothing to do with the Moon rotating on its axis. Since you are convinced it is rotating it’s a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise.
************
“The only way circular orbit, and ball-on-a-string works is if earth is stationary and everything revolves around it”.
***
In physics, it is helpful to freeze motion and examine the instantaneous motion. When you take the derivative of a circle at a point on the circle, you are looking at the instantaneous parameters describing the instantaneous rate of change along the curve.
When you set the Earth at 0,0 on an x-y plane, representing the axis of a presumed circular orbit, you are only taking instantaneous photographs of the motion. That should be understood.
So, If I place the Moon’s centre at x = 5, y = 0 that represents the instantaneous position of the Moon at that moment. Later, if I move the Moon to y = 5, x = 0, which is 90 degrees CCW,I am representing the lunar position at that instant.
It does not matter a whit that the Earth is moving at a very high speed in its orbit, the Moon’s motion is relative to the Earth, not the Sun.
The Moon is revolving around the Earth due to its linear velocity vector being bent by Earth’s gravitational field.
The ball on a string is only an example of a spherical body being forced to orbit around a person’s head. It was introduced to demonstrate the motion of a spherical body rotating about an axis while keeping the same face pointed inward. By demonstrating that ball cannot rotate about its axis because of the tension on the string, we had hoped it would become apparent that the Moon moves in exactly the same manner….without rotation about a local axis.
GR is wrong as usual.
GR just leaves a few words of location of observer to be understood by the reader: by demonstrating that ball cannot rotate about its axis as observed “inside of it orbit” because of the tension on the string, we had hoped it would become apparent that the Moon moves in exactly the same manner viewed “inside of it orbit” without rotation about a local axis.
Ball4 is wrong as usual.
angech…”Both sides are right because they use different frames of reference. Both sides are wrong in the other frame of reference”.
***
You are missing the point completely. Throw out the concept of reference frames which are strictly a red-herring argument in this case. Reference frames are only helpful when relative motion is involved. In the hundreds of engineering problems I solved in engineering physics classes, not once were we required to specify a reference frame.
We were taught the basic equations for Newtonian relative motion, however, and they have a very limited application. In other words, we don’t need reference frames to see the truth about the Moon’s alleged rotation.
Two points:
1)It is agreed the Moon orbits the Earth while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. That means the opposite face is always pointed to space. Ergo, both faces are moving along concentric circles/ellipses (in parallel). That immediately rules out lunar rotation about a local axis.
The spinner are trying to get around this obvious fact by claiming local rotation when viewed from a different reference frame. Of course, that is BS, as I will explain in point 2). What they mistake for local rotation is a change in orientation of the Moon’s linear velocity vector, which is describing translation without rotation.
2)Local rotation about an axis requires a velocity/momentum about that axis. If that velocity/momentum does no exist, there is no way to make it exist by viewing from a different reference frame. That velocity/momentum cannot exist under the conditions that the same face of the Moon must always face the Earth.
Reference frames decide if things are right or left. Look in a mirror and you will see that.
Gordo ranted again:
You must not have studied orbital dynamics, only local, Earth based problems. So, tell us, at which institution did you take those courses? Don’t be shy..
E. Swanson:
There are many Earth based Engineering problems that require use of reference frames. See the attached for two of the simpler applications.
GR must have been absent when this was covered.
Swanson, Tyson, please stop trolling.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ gives wonderful results
Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K,
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
It is time to abandon Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ old incomplete equation. You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Decent curve fit, Christos, using your phi, but N&Z did an even better job curve fitting known data getting much closer results than you do.
There is no reason to abandon the 1LOT as you note. The eqn. is only incomplete to you because you ignore the earthen atm. as shown in a 1st course atm. radiation text.
Albedo is the wrong measure of reflectivity for modeling climate.
Please read the Clyde Spencer’s very important article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Ball4, still in a 1st course atm. radiation text.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Roy Spencer:
“the CERES retrievals take into account specular reflection.
Earthshine from the moon is a very error-prone way to measure the Earth’s reflectivity. People who have tried it got quite different answers as CERES gave on different satellites in different sun-synchronous orbits, which agree pretty well.”
And, of course Christos – learn where you make errors in your earthen 1LOT energy balance analysis by consulting a reliable text on the subjeect.
–
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New Equation.
It is time to abandon Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ the old incomplete equation. You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ is a mathematical abstraction, it is not planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related equation.
Here it is the planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is time Christos learned to add the measured earthen atm. IR opacity to the 1LOT eqn. shown to complete the surface energy balance eliminating the need for Christos’ fudge factors phi and beta.
This is partially your fault Cristos-Vournas, and your pseudo-science;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/
What I do is TRUE SCIENCE !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your curve fitting with phi is not science as it is reasonably trivial to fit to a known data curve as you do for certain celestial objects. The hard part is matching the curve from bascic science first principles which is done for you in a reliable text on the subject.
Christos’ earthen 1LOT surface energy balance is incomplete because Christos ignores the earthen atm. IR opacity then unsurprisingly concludes the earthen atm. has no effect on the global. avg. 288K thermometer results.
“…global. avg. 288K thermometer results.”
global. avg. 288K thermometer results ????
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, thermometer results data converted to energy and the energy properly globally avg.d converted back to temperature for:
measured earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K measured earthen GHE
Christos hasn’t yet corrected any 1LOT analysis to agree with these measurements which can be easily found in a text book.
Ball4
“Christos hasnt yet corrected any 1LOT analysis to agree with these measurements which can be easily found in a text book.”
Ball4, when finished with the text books reading, please, visit my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ve already finished reading them years ago Christos; that learning doesn’t stop and allows me to readily spot errors in your work.
There is no need to go to Christos’ website to confirm Christos’ errors in the basic earthen surface energy balance as they are easy enough to spot in Christos’ comments around here.
Ball4
“There is no need to go to Christos website to confirm Christos errors in the basic earthen surface energy balance as they are easy enough to spot in Christos comments around here.”
Ball4, please do not continue to pretend discussing New Theory you refuse to learn about!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ve already “learned about” Christos’ surface 1LOT eqn. being incomplete without including the IR opacity of the earthen atm. from Christos’ comments on Dr. Spencer’s blog.
Thus, Christos needs to employ fudge factors in the 1LOT to calculate the known global temperature results instead of working to understand & include the physics of our real atm. The observed atm. IR opacity physics are available in a text book which I’d rather spend the time re-reading instead of the erroneous Christos’ blog.
Christos should do that too to correct his own blog to the correct & observed IR opacity physics of our atm.
“What I do is TRUE SCIENCE !”
Wrong! What you do is say: “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.” over and over again without justification.
True science is Joseph Fourier 1824, Eunice Newton Foote 1856, John Tyndall 1861, Svante Arrhenius 1896, Guy Stewart Callendar 1937, Charle Keeling 1969, and so on.
True science is publishing in reputable journals so your peers can review and re-create the work. True science is not a post on a website looking to clickbait traffic to your own site.
TYSON
“What you do is say: “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.” over and over again without justification.
True science is Joseph Fourier 1824, Eunice Newton Foote 1856, John Tyndall 1861, Svante Arrhenius 1896, Guy Stewart Callendar 1937, Charle Keeling 1969, and so on.”
Right.
Now, please, where “Joseph Fourier 1824, Eunice Newton Foote 1856, John Tyndall 1861, Svante Arrhenius 1896, Guy Stewart Callendar 1937, Charle Keeling 1969” ever mentioned there is +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All the noted scientists proved the existence of earth’s geenhouse effect. Earth has warmed by 1.3C since Fourier’s time and as they all predicted, the warming has proceeded along with increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
I thought your “theory” was that there is no greenhouse effect. Is that not the case?
There is a very small greenhouse effect on the earth’s surface. I estimate it less than +0,4C on the average earth’s surface temperature.
The +0,4C I estimate is almost two orders of magnitude less than the alleged +33C.
I say +0,4C is very small when compared with +33C.
Actually it is not very small, it is just that.
“Earth has warmed by 1.3C since Fourier’s time and as they all predicted, the warming has proceeded along with increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
Yes, since Fourier’s time there is an observed rise in temperature. Also there is a rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There is a very small greenhouse effect on the earth’s surface. I estimate it less than +0,4C on the average earth’s surface temperature.”
The satellite data says something different: https://ibb.co/v1j1mms
TYSON
“The satellite data says something different: https://ibb.co/v1j1mms”
Planets are not blackbodies. We cannot compare the satellite IR measurements with the blackbody emission curve.
Satellites do not measure what is not emitted by the Earth’s surface. The mistake is to compare the measurements with the blackbody emission curve. Then the conclusion is mistaken also, it concludes atmosphere absorbs IR EM energy, which atmosphere doesn’t.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Satellites do not measure what is not emitted by the Earth’s surface.”
Obviously you understand what the images here https://ibb.co/v1j1mms are showing. The reason reason for the significant reduction in measured Radiance between 14 and 16 microns is that those wavelengths are being absorbed by the atmosphere and thus do not reach the satellite.
Unless you understand these measurements it is pointless to discuss this subject with you.
TYSON
“Unless you understand these measurements it is pointless to discuss this subject with you.”
I understand atmosphere absorbs IR radiation, but it does it at very small amount.
Graph shows almost a complete absor ption in some wavelength bands, which is impossible to happen.
There is not so much greenhouse gases to absorb that huge amounts of IR EM energy.
The energy is not being absorbed, because it never been emitted.
That is why it doesn’t show in the graph. Planet is not a blackbody. We cannot expect planet surface to emit according to the blackbody emission curve.
Thus it is pointless to compare the satellite measured planet outgoing IR EM energy with the blackbody emission curve.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you don’t want to look at the blackbody curves on the graph you can go ahead and remove them; that does not change the measured data at all.
I don’t understand how you justify saying that the surface emits IR at all frequencies except in the range of 14 to 16 microns. Where is the science supporting that assertion?
You say that: “Thus it is pointless to compare the satellite measured planet outgoing IR EM energy with the blackbody emission curve.” But yet you refer to exactly that comparison when alluding to the “Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites”
in your many posts as if satellites were thermometers in space; they are not.
I consider Tmean.earth =288K as earthen average surface temperature, not uniform surface temperature as the GHE theory claims.
TYSON
“You say that: “Thus it is pointless to compare the satellite measured planet outgoing IR EM energy with the blackbody emission curve.” But yet you refer to exactly that comparison when alluding to the “Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites”
in your many posts as if satellites were thermometers in space; they are not.”
I say “measured by satellites” for all planets, including Earth. The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon and the Φ -factor are valid for all planets and moons, not only Earth.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I see that you either, don’t understand what I’m asking you, or are deliberately obfuscating. In either case you have not provided any evidence that (1) the satellite data shown here https://ibb.co/v1j1mms are wrong, or that (2) the earth’s surface does not emit a continuous electromagnetic spectrum in the IR range.
I am particularly interested to know how you justify having a break in the surface emission spectrum in the range of 14 to 16 microns. This piece of the science predates climate science, having originated in Astrophysics and supported by Spectroscopy and Physical Chemistry.
“There is not so much greenhouse gases to absorb that huge amounts of IR EM energy.
The energy is not being absorbed, because it never been emitted.”
Science is not just a bunch of assertions, Christos. They ultimately have to be tested against empirical data.
Where is your specific evidence that the Earth surface emits a spectrum with deep valleys matching CO2 bands?
Of course most of the Earth is ocean. And ocean emits ~ like a black body. This is empirical knowledge which shows your assertion is BS.
TYSON
“I am particularly interested to know how you justify having a break in the surface emission spectrum in the range of 14 to 16 microns. This piece of the science predates climate science, having originated in Astrophysics and supported by Spectroscopy and Physical Chemistry.”
To say it short.
A planet is not a blackbody. A planet does not emit as a blackbody. Planet has daytime IR EM energy emission and nighttime IR EM energy emission. Day and night emit at different emission bands.
In reality planet is a rotating sphere. Every infinitesimal spot on the surface has its own 24/7 cyclical IR emission curve. Also there are periods in that 24/7 IR emission cycle of the solar irradiance interaction with surface which result in the spot’s instant IR emission…
We cannot present the entire planetary surface as a monogenous uniform surface temperature emitting surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, yes, it is true a planet natural surface is not a blackbody, so if you want to be more precise in your calculations you can reduce the rounded 1.0 emissivity to the measured ocean emissivity of around 0.98 and the atmosphere measured emissivity of around 0.8 in the humid tropics and around 0.65 in the dryer atm. of the arctic regions.
However, you then need to add back the 0.02 reflectivity energy flux of the ocean and the 0.20 to 0.35 transmissivity & reflectivity of the atm. to in theory get the natural energy flux because:
Emissivity + reflectivity + transmissivity = 1.0 always for any real object.
THAT will be a lot of work for you to do properly (after you accomplish study in atm. IR opacity) and you would be first because the work is not needed to understand reasonably well & with 95% confidence natures real energy flux lies in the ranges observed by CERES & ARGO instrumentation.
“In reality planet is a rotating sphere. Every infinitesimal spot on the surface has its own 24/7 cyclical IR emission curve. ”
Red herring. None of that explains how the Earth’s surface emits a spectrum with deep valleys @ precisely the CO2 wavelengths, as you claim, Christos!
You need to start or dealing with facts and reality.
Does show, though, Christos is a correctly a spinner writing our mostly spherical moon does inertially rotate on its own axis.
Christos Vournas at 8:22 AM
“To say it short.
A planet is not a blackbody.”
I’ll quote Dr. Spencer here: “Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, it’s close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95.”
“Planet has daytime IR EM energy emission and nighttime IR EM energy emission. Day and night emit at different emission bands.”
That is a total fabrication. The intensity of the emission is different, but the spectrum covers the same range. If you are certain of what you’re saying here, then where is the evidence?
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the questions I’ve been asking: how do you (Christos Vournas) justify having a break in the surface emission spectrum in the range of 14 to 16 microns?
P.s.: I quoted Dr. Spencer from his post here titled Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water, April 25th, 2014.
P.p.s.:P.s.: I quoted Dr. Spencer from his post here titled Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water, April 25th, 2014.
TYSON
“how do you (Christos Vournas) justify having a break in the surface emission spectrum in the range of 14 to 16 microns?”
A planet is not a blackbody. A planet does not emit according to blackbody emission curve.
TYSON
“Ill quote Dr. Spencer here: Well, duh. No one said it was. In the broadband IR, though, its close to a blackbody, with an average emissivity of around 0.95.
A planet is not a blackbody. A blackbody has uniform surface temperature which is previously warmed, or it has an inner uniform source of energy.
A blackbody doesn’t interact with solar irradiance to gain its surface IR emission spectrum.
Thus the measured Earth’s emission bands are very much different from the blackbody emission curve.
“having a break in the surface emission spectrum in the range of 14 to 16 microns.” The break is so much large (they call it a break). Some claiming the CO2 saturation theory…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas, I see that you cannot answer even the basic questions, therefore you are just trolling.
I expected as much, so I looked at web traffic on your site, and confirmed that all you’re doing is desperately dropping clickbait all over the web hoping to lure some traffic.
Not scientific at all and a complete waste of time.
TYSON
“and confirmed that all you’re doing is desperately dropping clickbait all over the web hoping to lure some traffic.
Not scientific at all and a complete waste of time.”
TYSON, now please tell us, what you are doing here?
“True science is publishing in reputable journals so your peers can review and re-create the work. True science is not a post on a website looking to clickbait traffic to your own site.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“A blackbody has uniform surface temperature which is previously warmed, or it has an inner uniform source of energy.”
Wilbur et. al. 1999 has Earth’s broadband water emissivity at 0.99+ and our oceans (you know, full of water) are obviously not a uniform surface temperature even regionally. Blackbodies do not exist so Christos’ assertions about them cannot be tested.
Snow and ice covered earth’s surface are also measured close to emissivity unity and are not a uniform temperature either as well as vegetation covered earthen surfaces.
Ball4, Vournas is just a troll looking to waste everyone’s time.
He claims to have “discovered” a new something(?), that purports to overturn all of Dr. Spencer’s assertions here https://tinyurl.com/33u8mm5t. However, Vournas cannot answer even the most basic questions about the electromagnetic spectrum of earth’s surface (https://ibb.co/v1j1mms).
Vournas is just shamelessly trolling. How pathetic.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
binny…”A Dutch scientist, Steven Adriaan Wepster, made recently a deep analysis of how the German astronomer Tobias Mayer computed the inclination of Moons rotation axis.
See section 9.5.1: Locating the rotational axis on page 173 in
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf ”
***
Mayer did not make those statements about the Moon rotating on its axis, it was Wepster who supplied the misinformation.
“It is well known that the moon always turns the same side of its surface towards the earth. Upon closer inspection this turns out to be only approximately true. For several reasons the moon is subject to a slight apparent wiggling, called libration. The reasons for this wiggling are as follows. First, due to the diurnal motion of the terrestrial observer, his aspect of the moon varies between moonrise and moonset. Second, the moon rotates (practically) uniformly around its axis while its velocity of revolution around the earth varies: consequently, a terrestrial observer sees sometimes a bit more of the leading half of the moons surface, and sometimes a bit more of the trailing half”.
***
This is nonsense, nothing more than a repeated myth. If the Moon did rotate once per orbit on its axis, libration would not be noticed since we’d be able to see all facets of the Moon through 360 degrees. In fact, Wepster’s description of libration is idiotic.
He claims libration is caused, in part, by lunar rotation about its axis and that’s the idiotic part. If libration is related to lunar rotation why can we only see a small sliver around the edge of the Moon? Idiotic!!! We should be able to see the entire surface, including the dark side.
He also claims the Moon changes velocity during it orbit (revolution). Where does the force come from to change that velocity, which would be a tangential acceleration. There is no such force. More idiocy!!!
Libration is caused by a re-orientation of the near face so it points slightly away from the Earth in certain parts of the orbit. That enables seeing a few degrees around the longitudional edge. The change in velocity claimed is not a change in linear velocity but a change in the angular speed of a line tracking the Moon from Earth, centre to centre.
Gravity weakens slightly in parts of the orbit allowing the lunar momentum to stretch the orbit. However, neither lunar linear velocity or the momentum changes. A change in either would require a force acting in a tangential direction.
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Earth now as many, many people correctly have observed.
Gordo posts another delusional rant, repeating his errors in physics:
Gordo hasn’t figured out that the Moon’s orbit is elliptical, thus the gravitational vector is not perpendicular to the orbital trajectory, except at perigee and apogee, thus there is a tangential component of gravity. As a result, the magnitude of the velocity declines from perigee to apogee and increases from apogee back to perigee.
“Gordo hasn’t figured out that the Moon’s orbit is elliptical”
Swanson, please stop trolling.
site claims this is a duplicate but i don’t see the original.
binny…”A Dutch scientist, Steven Adriaan Wepster, made recently a deep analysis of how the German astronomer Tobias Mayer computed the inclination of Moons rotation axis.
See section 9.5.1: Locating the rotational axis on page 173 in
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf ”
***
Mayer did not make those statements about the Moon rotating on its axis, it was Wepster who supplied the misinformation.
“It is well known that the moon always turns the same side of its surface towards the earth. Upon closer inspection this turns out to be only approximately true. For several reasons the moon is subject to a slight apparent wiggling, called libration. The reasons for this wiggling are as follows. First, due to the diurnal motion of the terrestrial observer, his aspect of the moon varies between moonrise and moonset. Second, the moon rotates (practically) uniformly around its axis while its velocity of revolution around the earth varies: consequently, a terrestrial observer sees sometimes a bit more of the leading half of the moon’s surface, and sometimes a bit more of the trailing half”.
***
This is nonsense, nothing more than a repeated myth. If the Moon did rotate once per orbit on its axis, libration would not be noticed since we’d be able to see all facets of the Moon through 360 degrees. In fact, Wepster’s description of libration is idiotic.
He claims libration is caused, in part, by lunar rotation about its axis and that’s the idiotic part. If libration is related to lunar rotation why can we only see a small sliver around the edge of the Moon? Idiotic!!! We should be able to see the entire surface, including the dark side.
He also claims the Moon changes velocity during it orbit (revolution). Where does the force come from to change that velocity, which would be a tangential acceleration. There is no such force. More idiocy!!!
Libration is caused by a re-orientation of the near face so it points slightly away from the Earth in certain parts of the orbit. That enables seeing a few degrees around the longitudional edge. The change in velocity claimed is not a change in linear velocity but a change in the angular speed of a line tracking the Moon from Earth, centre to centre.
Gravity weakens slightly in parts of the orbit allowing the lunar momentum to stretch the orbit. However, neither lunar linear velocity or the momentum changes. A change in either would require a force acting in a tangential direction.
sorry for duplicate, it did not show till I posted.
Gordon, thank you for your analysis.
What I would like to ask is:
we observe from Earth Moon’s North Pole half month and South Pole half month, without moon’s axial rotation?
Is it possible?
https://www.cristos-vournas
CV, we see a little more of Moon because of “libration”. Moon has a silghtly elliptical orbit, which means we see more of both limbs. And Moon has a tilted orbit, which means we see more of its “top” and “bottom”.
If Moon were really rotating, we would see all sides of it.
Unless it rotates once on its axis for every orbit of the Earth as it does.
Sorry RLH, but you’re a troll. You don’t understand orbital motion, or physics, or vectors. You have NOTHING.
Troll away, I won’t respond.
I understand orbital motion way better than you. For instance it was claimed recently, quite wrongly, that JWT was similar to the Moon in its orbital characteristics. Only in the way that both orbit the Sun is that true.
“youre a troll”
said the troll.
Gordon
” He also claims the Moon changes velocity during it orbit (revolution). Where does the force come from to change that velocity, which would be a tangential acceleration.”
It is hard to visualise for a slightly elliptical orbit. Imagine the Moon in an extremely elliptical orbit and visualisation is easier.
As the Moon rises from perigee to apogee it gains potential energy from rising higher in Earth’s gravity field.
Two force vectors describe its motion. The velocity vector due to its momentum and the gravity vector due to the Earth. The angle between them is greater than 90 degrees. The gravity vector is pulling back on the Moon and decreasing its velocity. Effectively the system is converting the Moon’s kinetic energy into potential energy.
At apogee the Moon has maximum potential energy and minimum kinetic energy.
After apogee the Moon falls back towards the Earth. The angle between the two vectors is less than 90 degrees and gravity is accelerating the Moon, increasing its velocity and kinetic energy. Because the Moon is getting closer to the Earth its potential energy decreases at the same rate.
At perigee the Moon has minimum potential energy and maximum kinetic energy.
To maintain a stable lunar orbit energy must be conserved. The exchange between kinetic energy and potential energy is a normal part of this.
So is the consequent change in tangential velocity., maximum at perigee and minimum at apogee.
There’s a problem with your interpretation of libration.
If there is truly no rotation of the Moon relativethe you would always see the same face of the Moon.
In fact for half of the orbit we see progressively further round the Eastern limb and during the other half progressively further round the Western limb.
Under the no-spinner rules this means that for a fortnight the Moon rotates anticlockwise relative to the Earth and then for a fortnight it rotates clockwise relative to the Earth.
To achieve this clockwise and anticlockwise torque must applied, with corresponding energy input and removal. The non-spinners need to explain where this energy comes from and goes to.
Wrong Ent.
What you are describing is called “libration”. It is not a real motion. It is due to Moon’s elliptical and tilted orbit, and how we observe from Earth.
“It is not a real motion. ”
If libration is an apparent motion which is not a real motion, why do you support the apparent lack of rotation of the Moon which is not a real lack of motion?
Both lunar libration and lunar rotation are imaginary motions.
wizard did it, there is no other way to explain it =)
Never believe in anything written by Robertson: it is either lie, or trash, or both together.
Last example:
” Mayer did not make those statements about the Moon rotating on its axis, it was Wepster who supplied the misinformation. ”
Robertson can’t know anything written by Mayer: what he wrote is written in old German, in very old typesetting format, and the original document, above all, suffered a lot.
No one knows why Robertson permanently lies. But he is by far not the only one who does.
The historical source of what Wepster wrote in his dissertation about Moon’s rotation axis can – if you can manage to read AND understand it – easily be found in Mayer’s treatise:
Abschnitt 12
Erklärungen und Anmerkungen über die Eigenschaften der Bewegung des Monds um seine Achse
Abschnitt 13
Bestimmung der Neigung des Mondäquators gegen die Ekliptik, und des Orts der Äquinoxialpunkten
i.e.
Section 12
Explanations and remarks on the properties of the Moon’s motion around its axis
Section 13
Determination of the inclination of the lunar equator with respect to the ecliptic and of the location of the equinoxial points
*
Robertson doesn’t have even a tiny bit of a clue of anything he writes about.
Bindidon, if Mayer believed Moon rotates then he was wrong. That does not discredit all of his work. He just got that one thing wrong.
But for you to be obsessed with denying reality indicates you have no interest in science. You have denied the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, as well as denying the vector diagram.
Science is about accepting reality. But you reject reality.
“if Mayer believed Moon rotates then he was wrong”
He wasn’t.
” That does not discredit all of his work. He just got that one thing wrong. ”
Like did all these ‘astrologer’s (17h till 19th century):
Cassini
Mercator
Newton
Lagrange
Laplace
Beer and Maedler
Delaunay
Simon
and an incredible amount of ‘astrologer’s in the 20th century.
*
How did they manage to get all exactly the same thing wrong?
Some, or all, of it might be your interpretation of their work. You don’t have any knowledge of the subject.
And, you have no interest in learning.
” Some, or all, of it might be your interpretation of their work. ”
Do you mean, for example, this:
http://selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
History of development of selenodesy and dynamics of the Moon in Kazan
Rizvanov N.G. and Rakhimov L.I.
Engelhardt Astronomical Observatory, Kazan, Russia
Abstract
” The brief history of development of heliometric and positional observations of the Moon in Kazan university and Engelhardt Astronomical Observatory from the end of the last century till now days is given.
All aspects of research of a figure, rotation and gravitational field of the Moon are considered as well as other close to them questions. “
*
Did they mean a very special kind of ‘ball-on-a-string’ I completely misunderstood and misinterpreted?
Really?
*
Or do you mean this:
https://tinyurl.com/5n92tsps
On the development of our knowledge of the Moon motion around its centre of mass
Karol Koziel
*
Are they all wrong, or is it ‘my interpretation of their work’ ??
How is it possible for you to keep so stubborn?
More good examples of anti-science, Bindidon. Thanks.
See if you can find some more. At least if will keep you busy. You don’t seem to have anything useful to do anyway.
Newton’s 3rd Law requires independent reference frames, at least 2.
Cue the conspiracy-theorists!
This JWST adventure is going a little too perfect to be believed. I’ve been involved in enough complex designs to know “Mr. Murphy” quite well. Combine the flawless performance with the fact that we must trust NASA for the reporting — they did not include any video cameras!
Then I saw this, where they admit their agenda:
Webb will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System.
The engineering is very impressive (if true). It’s too bad it will be used for agenda and anti-science.
“Cue the conspiracy-theorists!”
Such as Clint R.
Calling “Q”, we have a problem. Someone insists on posting facts on a science site. Maybe “Q” went into deep cover, posting as Gordo or pups to spread more disinformation. Or, maybe those trolls are really that stupid.
Resistance is futile, the Borg is coming.
SC 25 updated – still closely following SC 24
https://i.postimg.cc/bJbCKVDg/solar-cycle-comparison.png
> Readers can clearly see that they never stated the [Moon Dragon Cranks] are observing as if located inside the moon’s [sic] orbit and the [established viewpoint, which is more than 99% of the scientific community, is] observing as if located outside the moon’s orbit.
You missed that comment from our slimiest sock puppet, Ball:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1110637
Which implies that if you do not see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit, it does not spin.
Which in turn implies that either Moon Dragon cranks observed the Moon not spinning from the outside or the inside of its orbit.
Which leads to the conclusion that Moon Dragon cranks indeed rely on observing as if located inside the moon’s orbit, contrary to Slimy’s pestering.
Unless he has evidence that the Moon not spinning when looking at it from the outside, of course. Good luck with that:
https://youtu.be/XVriF4-z3cE
***
I inserted OBSERVE to the Dragon Moon Crank Master Argument, right between SIMPLES and FRAMES:
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(OBSERVE) Generally speaking, you can determine if a celestial body spins when you see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
From now on, I will document sources where I borrow these creative lines!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1117327
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-610657
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1118185
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-823867
Yes, barry also mistook a change in orientation due to orbital motion, for axial rotation. It’s a common problem with "Spinners".
Moon Dragon Cranks have no real explanation for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
Hence their trolling with silly semantic arguments.
As long as Bully, Lulzy, and Slimy are having a bit of fun, all is well.
What exactly do you believe needs explaining?
What are the pros and cons of saying that there is “a change in orientation due to orbital motion”?
1) One “con” is that there is no mechanism to explain how the gravitational force that causes ‘orbital motion’ influences the orientation of a moon or planet during the course of an orbit. Why should the two be locked together within each orbit? What is the mechanism?
2) Another related “con” is that the presumed connection between “orbit” and “orientation” involves two different rates. The orbit changes with varying angular velocity; the orientation changes with constant angular velocity. Why should the two be locked together, but with differing rates?
The only “pros” I can think of relate only to perfectly circular orbits. For example, we can make a clear analogy between the motion of a moon keeping one face exactly inward and the motion of a MGR horse keeping one side exactly inward (or a ball on a string, or a car driving around circular track). This is “intuitive” to many.
But there is no clear similar analogy that works for elliptical orbits. Which is a definite “con”. Any of the above analogies fail to predict the orientation of a moon on an elliptical orbit.
Readers should note that our slimiest sock puppet is playing dumb once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-788773
What Tim says that for libration applies for Cassini’s laws in general.
Moon Dragon Cranks won’t be able to bootstrap a physical explanation out of their silly semantic games. If they give them a bit of fun, they can still try! There’s no real harm in that.
Willard reveals that he doesn’t have a clue. He first links to something on the moon’s "axial tilt". Then when I ask him what he needs explaining, he responds with something about libration of longitude! He won’t understand why the two are not related (it’s actually libration of latitude that relates to the moon’s "axial tilt"), and will just respond with more links to things he doesn’t understand.
"That’s why this is so much fun", as Clint R would say.
Folkerts is at it again.
To him, reality is a “con”. And he appears still confused about the simple analogies. He wants so much to claim they relate to elliptical orbits. He just can’t face the reality of the simple analogies. Even after it’s being explained to him over and over and over….
He just can’t learn.
Our slimiest sock puppet is still wriggling. The illustration of a major lunar standstill comes from the page about Cassini’s laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
Cassini’s laws can account for standstills.
Where are the Moon Dragon Crank laws?
No, balls on string do not count.
Slimy sock-puppet Willard keeps wriggling. He just can’t ever admit when he makes a mistake.
Dud is just now realizing that’s what this is about?!?!
Cassini “laws” are NOT laws of physics. They are laws from astrology — like “What’s your sign, man?”
What a dud.
“He wants so much to claim they relate to elliptical orbits. “
So by simple logic, if
1) real orbits are elliptical
2) the analogies do not apply to elliptical orbits.
then the analogies do not apply to real orbits.
So why keep brining up these analogies as ‘proof’ of anything? Reality turns your one and only argument into a “con”.
> Cassini “laws” are NOT laws of physics.
Keep wriggling, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
Where are the Moon Dragon Crank generalizations?
How many times have we explained to you that the ball-on-a-string is ONLY to show “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Go back a count all of the times, Folkerts.
Then explain why you can’t learn.
And how many times have I pointed out that a ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.
Yes, you do not seem to understand the concept of an analogy.
As an analogy a ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Or possibly to a rod rotating about one end.
Either way the axis of rotation is internal to the whole, not external to it as you wish to claim. Or is it that the axis is only internal to itself but external to everything else.
RLH agrees that a ball on a string does not rotate about an axis that passes through the body of the ball itself, thus disagreeing with most of the “Spinners”. Well done, RLH.
RLH denies the simple analogy. He denies that many colleges use the simple analogy. He is pretty good at denying reality.
He also is pretty good at making stuff up, like pretending he understands vectors.
Denying reality and making stuff up fits well with his being a braindead cult idiot.
Our slimiest and our lulziest sock puppet soldier on, having no Moon Dragon Crank laws to offer that would replace Cassini’s, and oblivious to the fact the Wiki entry that says:
Will Slimy acknowledge his misreading? Nah. Too busy having a bit of fun.
Cassini “laws” are NOT laws of physics. They come from astrology. They don’t need to be “replaced”. They need to be trashed.
You don’t “replace” garbage, you throw it out.
Slimy sock puppet Willard still refuses to acknowledge his error, of following up a quote mentioning the moon’s “axial tilt” and “precession”, with a comment from Tim on libration of longitude, without understanding that it is libration of latitude that relates to the moon’s “axial tilt”, not libration of longitude.
> Cassini “laws” are NOT laws of physics.
Strong argument you got there, Pup.
Here’s what you’re up against:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22cassini+laws%22&btnG=
Best of luck!
All of the “Laws” follow from the initial assumption that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. For example, the only way that the moon can be rotating on its own axis at the same rate that it “orbits” is if by “orbits” you mean motion like the MOTR.
Can you at least accept that this is true, yet, Willard?
“the initial assumption that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the MOTR” as defined by Newton.
Yet as we see further downthread, you cannot provide any evidence that he said any such thing.
Will our slimiest sock puppet at least concede that he was wrong about his intimation that Cassini’s Laws did not account for libration?
Let’s see him run around Roy’s track!
Cassini’s "Laws" have very little to do with libration. If they have anything to do with it, it would be libration of latitude, not libration of longitude, as I said.
Our slimiest sock puppet keeps wriggling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%27s_laws
…and physical librations are not connected to either libration of longitude or latitude. They are a separate phenomenon altogether. So the question to slimy sock puppet Willard remains, why did you quote Tim on libration of longitude?
Our slimiest sock puppet wriggles, wriggles:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-788773
Tim is of course right:
THE LUNAR LIBRATION: COMPARISONS BETWEEN VARIOUS MODELSA MODEL FITTED TO LLR OBSERVATIONS
https://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2004/pdf/Chapront.pdf
One day our slimiest sock puppet might reveal one Moon Dragon Crank model. Just one. That would be nice.
Heck, I’d settle for him to grasp the difference between model and theory!
I’m not wriggling, slimy sock puppet Willard, I’m just baffled as to what your point is. But since anything and everything I say is taken by you to be some sort of trick or ploy, I will just let you have the last word, as there is no point talking to you.
“Which leads to the conclusion that Moon Dragon cranks indeed rely on observing as if located inside the moon’s orbit, contrary to Slimy’s pestering.”
What you are missing is that motion like our moon’s is identifiable just as easily from outside the orbit as from inside the orbit. It would be like watching a runner on an elliptical track from the seats in the auditorium. You do not need to be located on the inside of the track to be able to judge that the runner always keeps the same side presented to the inside of the track. Even though, from the seats in the auditorium, you see all sides of the runner.
Does the runners ‘outer’ leg travel further than the ‘inner’ one? If the ‘inner’ one remained static would that not mean they turned in a circle?
You have jumped into a discussion again without paying any attention to context. What I said refutes Willard’s point. You now want to take it down a completely different track. You do this a lot.
In response to your point – a change in orientation does not necessarily mean axial rotation. A ball on a string is changing its orientation whilst it swings around the pivot point, but (as you agree) the ball is rotating about the pivot point, and not about an axis going through the body of the ball.
Does a rod rotating about one end rotate about the other end too?
No, but that is as stupid as what the “Spinners” claim with the ball on a string.
RLH, there you go again.
You don’t understand ANYTHING about orbital motion, physics, or vectors. Here, you are trying to mix in kinematics, which doesn’t work with orbital motion.
You have NOTHING.
Does the runners outer leg travel further than the inner one? If the inner one remained static would that not mean they turned in a circle? Yes or no?
In response to your point a change in orientation does not necessarily mean axial rotation. A ball on a string is changing its orientation whilst it swings around the pivot point, but (as you agree) the ball is rotating about the pivot point, and not about an axis going through the body of the ball.
… as observed from the location of the spinner of the ball “inside of it orbit”.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
> from the seats in the auditorium, you see all sides of the runner.
Here’s a seat from which we can see the Moon:
https://youtu.be/XVriF4-z3cE
That would have to be a moving seat, that follows the runner around the track whilst the seat remains oriented like the MOTR (this point will go over Willard’s head).
About a correct latitude weighting of global data (temperature, sea ice etc) wrt Earth’s sphericity (part 1)
Some people think (or even believe) that when generating time series out of flat grid data , accounting for Earth’s sphericity (and hence, for the different sizes of latitude bands from the Tropics to the Poles) can be done by applying a simple cosine weighting over the data collected in the different latitude bands.
A typical example is this statement below, written in the blog’s previous thread by RLH:
” 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. ”
At a first glance, this reaction sounds OK, when we look at a comparison between latitude trends computed for UAH 6.0 LT – in purple without, in red with cosine weighting:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mR1HGqVlm9xv2zNI_hC2SemiowjLWKVx/view
You immediately think: Yes, high latitudes near the Poles are overrepresented compared with the rest!
*
However, introducing such a cosine weighting was exactly the mistake I made 5 years ago, in a very first trial to generate, out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, time series reproducing exactly those published by Roy Spencer in his zonal and regional time series set.
Starting point was of course: to do no latitude weighting at all, because I thought that weighting was already accounted for in the grid data.
But… a look at the comparison between Roy Spencer’s plot and my approach convinced me that the grid data probably had no latitude weighting (all charts go here till 2021):
Fig. 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/104bOIODqDv5XTSgmFmYf2ajLv_gUkC9R/view
Trend 1979-2021: 0.14 C / decade
The first surprise however was, at that time, the very small difference between the two plots.
*
Having heard of the cosine-based latitude weighting, which modifies data in a 2.5 degree grid with a factor from 1.000 for the first Tropics latitude band down to 0.022 for that nearest to the Poles, I naively thought this would give a more correct picture.
But… niente!
Fig. 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZeIwlLeIzqO18tWlAOHO9mVQMOgL1ms/view
Trend 1979-2021: 0.09 (!!!) C / decade
Hmmmh. That raw cosine weighting gave surprisingly a result far worse than having no weighting at all.
*
After a long search I found a document (I lost its source in between) with a more complicated weighting formula, in which a weighted average over several latitude bands was computed as follows:
T([i:j]) = (sum[x=i:j] T(x)*cos(x)) / (sum[x=i:j] cos(x))
with ‘cos(x)’ being here meant as the cosine of the radian of the middle of the x-th latitude band within the [i:j] interval.
And that finally gave a really satisfying result:
Fig. 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_LHRRQ6Zk1Bpo18kglk-gkcXWHJiOvQ/view
Trend 1979-2021: 0.14 C / decade
To make Roy Spencer’s plot visible, I had to display my plot above it in dashed form.
The difference between Roy Spencer’s data and my final layman evaluation was in all months below 0.01 C; the linear trends showed a difference of 0.0008 C / decade.
*
Continued in part 2.
See below.
About a correct latitude weighting of global data (temperature, sea ice etc) wrt Earth’s sphericity (part 2)
One of RLH’s following remarks was:
” 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. ”
*
Aha!
Remember, RLH meant that graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mR1HGqVlm9xv2zNI_hC2SemiowjLWKVx/view
But… here is a simple representation of the 9,504 grid cell trends I computed for UAH 6.0 LT (from December 1978 till December 2020), without any latitude weighting as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZW3mUkzhbe4ap-ur5ldMqQPZz3v0RGa8/view
When we compare this picture above with the trend graph made by UAH for the same period (of course: due to a much higher resolution and isothermal lines, way better elaborated)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2020/december2020/2020_GL_42yr_Trend.PNG
it seems that RLH simply confounds geometric projections with latitude weighting.
That would probably become even more visible when somebody would generate a Mollweide projection out of
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sRX2XJT1n6d_EF8jhDJFysVW1zA_c9_B/view
*
RLH never admits to have been wrong. So it will probably be this time again.
So what!
A little detail: the comparison, in UAH’s 2.5 degree LT grid, of
– the linear trend of the 66 latitude averages of the temperature anomalies of 144 cells each
vs.
– the average of the 66 latitude averages of the linear trends of 144 cells each
for Dec 1978 till Nov 2021, gives
0.138052 C / decade
vs.
0.138026 C / decade
Could be worse.
So do show me where your graph shows the global area that each latitude band actually covers.
This one I mean
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mR1HGqVlm9xv2zNI_hC2SemiowjLWKVx/view
For those who do not know 30N to 30S covers 50% of the Earth’s surface.
As this rendition of Berkley Earth data shows.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
What I was asking for is an equal area treatment of the trends, not the incorrect values you have concocted by (deliberately) misunderstanding what I have said.
Are you thick or what?
Monday Nino update,
The forecast has been dropping considerably as of lately, it is now La Nina forecast continuing as far as the eye can see.
https://i.postimg.cc/ncMnTMJk/9nino34-Mon.gif
willard…”1. The Moon has a 1:1 spin–orbit resonance. This means that the rotation–orbit ratio of the Moon is such that the same side of it always faces the Earth”.
***
There is no spin or resonance involved. Resonance is a harmonic motion between different frequencies that produces a natural amplification. It is very rare in nature and exists in electronic circuits due to amplification by semiconductors.
People who use the term spin resonance are trying incorrectly to relate the lunar orbit to electrons orbiting an atom.
There is no way Cassini would be talking about such matters since he knew nothing about either.
The illusion that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit has led to the myth that it does. Experimentation with models such as two coins proves conclusively that it’s impossible for that to happen.
Even on a linear, horizontal surface, if you try to move a cylinder along the surface while keeping a marked side against the surface, you must slide the cylinder to make that happen. If you roll it at all, to produce rotation in the cylinder, it is not possible to keep the mark pointed at the surface.
Relating that to the Moon, it is impossible for the Moon to keep one face pointed at the Earth while rotating around an internal axis through 360 degrees as required for one rotation per orbit.
You and other spinners are simply too thick to get that. That’s why most of you are climate alarmists as well.
> Even on a linear, horizontal surface
C’mon, Gordo. Assert all you want that it’s impossible for the Moon to spin, it actually does, and so even in 2D:
Modeling the Tidal Locking Mechanism of the Moon in Function of Inverse-Square Law and Hooke’s Law:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9375846
In desperation, Dud has adopted Norman’s tactic of finding things on the Internet he doesn’t understand. This is just another example. Dud has no clue about the relevant science. “Tidal locking” is easily debunked. Gravity cannot create torque on Moon.
Has Pup or his other sock puppets ever offered any argument?
As long as his empty assertions brings him joy, no harm done.
The Pole Dance Experiment would bring him joy too, but he won’t do it – it’s an experiment!
Dud, if I show you the proof “tidal locking” has been debunked will you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
Why not take some time off, learn some science?
That’s not how betting works, Pup –
What are you offering in return, and what kind of “proof” do you have in mind?
The “proof” is basic physics. And there is no betting involved.
If I show you the proof, you will not comment here for 90 days, benefiting the entire blog.
How odd that you give me no odds, Pup. That shows all the confidence there is to know in your proof.
So once more you’re just having a bit of inconsequential fun.
Enjoy!
Wrong Dud. What it shows is you know I have the proof and you can’t handle your addiction to trolling.
Wrongo, Lulzo – what it shows is that you won’t put any skin in the little games you’re playing.
Enjoy!
Clint R,
Your “proof” is full of holes, like a nice swiss cheese.
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
tim…”What are the pros and cons of saying that there is a change in orientation due to orbital motion?
1) One con is that there is no mechanism to explain how the gravitational force that causes orbital motion influences the orientation of a moon or planet during the course of an orbit. Why should the two be locked together within each orbit? What is the mechanism?”
***
The explanation is simple. The Moon has only linear velocity/momentum. It want to move in a straight line that is tangential to the orbital path at all time. The Earth’s gravitational field is strong enough to divert the velocity vector into an ellipse but not strong enough to accelerate the Moon toward the Earth.
No other force is required. The Moon’s linear momentum does the job of keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
It’s no different than the airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet. No adjustments have to be made, barring the vertical effects of thermals, to get the airliner to follow the curvature of the Earth, always keeping its bottom side pointed to the Earth.
“The Moon’s linear momentum does the job of keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.”
The Moon’s linear momentum is at right angles to gravity and does not keep one face pointer towards Earth, it makes the Moon’s center orbit the Earth.
…and by “orbit” you mean motion like the MOTR. What about an orbit causes one side of the object to always remain oriented towards a distant star?
Inertia. See Newton.
No, that is why an object remains oriented as per the MOTL.
No it doesn’t. It keeps one face pointed towards a fixed star.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1119425
Orbiting does not require one face pointing inwards.
Yes, I know you think that. In the linked comment I asked you for evidence that Newton predicted motion like the MOTR for “orbital motion without axial rotation” with his Laws. I asked for your evidence to include:
a) Mention of the orientation of the orbiting, but not “rotating on its own axis” body.
b) An explanation of exactly how the Laws lead to motion with that specific MOTR orientation.
You were not able to provide the requested evidence.
“Orbiting does not require one face pointing inwards.”
But orbiting without axial rotation does.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit”.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
rlh…”And how many times have I pointed out that a ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string”.
***
And once again you reveal your inability to understand the problem. With your one-liner interjections you come across as troll, rather than offering anything constructive. In fact, I have yet to see you add anything scientific to this debate.
Perhaps you could offer a statistical analysis along the lines of Binny’s authority figure, Mayer. He wasn’t even close, so I don’t see any analysis by you doing otherwise.
GR: I prefer to keep my contributions to that necessary to make the point. Unlike you who prefers to use 100’s of words to say nonsense.
Orbits do NOT make things change orientation. They make things follow a path around each other.
Those are 2 separate actions.
And by “follow a path” you of course mean “remain oriented as per the MOTR whilst following a path”.
Indeed. MOTR is what Newton predicted with his 3 Laws.
Please show where Newton predicted motion like the MOTR for “orbital motion without axial rotation” with his Laws. Your link must include:
a) Mention of the orientation of the orbiting, but not “rotating on its own axis” body.
b) An explanation of exactly how the Laws lead to motion with that specific MOTR orientation.
RLH gets caught making stuff up, again!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Inertia. Linear or rotational.
First of all, you need to respond with a link, RLH. Secondly, your link needs to include both a) and b).
“Law of inertia, also called Newtons first law, postulate in physics that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-inertia
“10.7 Newtons Second Law for Rotation”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/10-7-newtons-second-law-for-rotation/
“Newtons second law for rotation, says that the sum of the torques on a rotating system about a fixed axis equals the product of the moment of inertia and the angular acceleration. This is the rotational analog to Newtons second law of linear motion.
OK, you have found some links. Now all you need to do is find some that include a) and b).
Unlike you most people do not suffer from your delusions therefore your request does not find any solutions.
Orbits require 2 or more bodies. Rotating on an axis requires only 1.
So you’ve got nothing.
Please explain how they are not different.
“Orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are different…but stop trying to change the subject.
So you agree that orbiting requires 2 objects but rotating only 1?
Stop trying to change the subject.
Why? If it is 2 bodies or only 1 is quite important.
The "Spinners" view "orbital motion without axial rotation" as translational (by which I mean motion like the MOTR) so there is a sense in which they are denying that there are two bodies involved in "orbiting". Allow me to explain…
Normally, part of the definition of "orbiting" would be the motion of one body around another one. If you view "orbital motion without axial rotation" as rotation about an external axis (by which I mean motion like the MOTL) then you are involving the orbited body by recognizing that it ("orbiting") is a motion about an axis, the axis being located at the barycenter.
With translation, there is nothing to tie the motion itself to the orbited object. Translation is just translation, the motion can occur in a straight line, or in a curve, but there is no relation to an axis. So there is nothing relating it to the orbited body, or barycenter. "Rotation about an external axis" just ties in better with the concept of "orbital motion".
So I don’t know who you think is denying that "orbital motion" involves two or more bodies…but I don’t think it’s the "Non-Spinners".
An orbit around a barycenter does not alter the orientation of the bodies orbiting. Rotation about an axis is independent of if something is orbiting or not.
“Orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” are indeed two separate motions. I have never argued otherwise. You guys just get “orbiting” wrong.
Orbiting requires 2 (or more) objects. Rotating on an axis requires only 1. Therefore orbiting and rotation on an axis are 2 distinct things.
I repeat my previous comment.
An orbit does not make things ‘face inwards.
…and we’re back to where we started.
clint…from quote…”Webb will be the premier observatory of the next decade, serving thousands of astronomers worldwide. It will study every phase in the history of our Universe, ranging from the first luminous glows after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of our own Solar System”.
***
You’re right. Science is deteriorating before our eyes into a consensus-driven pseudo-science. More and more, as years go by, science is being driven by arrogance, ego, and control-freaks.
The Big Bang Theory should never have made it past peer review, if it was ever peer-reviewed. The theory is so lame and based on even less evidence than AGW, that it is useless. Besides, no one has ever observed matter appearing out of nothing and the suggestion that it has occurred is sheer nonsense.
NASA keeps talking about looking into the past, more nonsense. They are regarding time as a real, physical reality whereas it exists only as a mental construct in the human mind. They are falling for the same illusion as the Moon rotating on its axis.
The light they are collecting, allegedly representing the past is being collected now, here on Earth. In no way does it represents the past since electromagnetic energy can only represent the here and now. Whatever went on back then is still unknown because there is no written or visual record of it. The physical reality no longer exists and any light emitted is real and in the here and now.
The theory of evolution is just as bad. There are no peer reviewed papers that scientifically prove there is such a process. Geneticists can trace genes from person to person or from species to species, but not a shred of evidence is there to prove life evolved from anything.
As far the evolution of the solar system, there is nothing a telescope can shed on that mystery. They are obviously talking about the evolution of life, a sci-fi theory. The beginnings of the solar system are unknown and will likely remain unknown.
The theory that a star decays in size, leaving behind particles that magically form into orbiting spheres is also nonsense. The inner 4 planets are solid rock while the next 4 are frozen gases. And, yes, Pluto, the 9th planet is still a planet despite what idiotic theorists claim.
“The theory of evolution is just as bad.”
Now you deny this as well? Well I suppose I am not surprise.
RLH, a “theory” cannot violate the Laws of physics. “Evolution” is a religion. It’s NOT science.
Do so tell me, what about the theory of evolution violates physics.
Let’s see your “theory of evolution”. Then, I’ll show you what is wrong with it. And that will end it. You do not get to find another “theory”, and keep going. You get one chance. Use it well.
“The theory of evolution is a shortened form of the term ‘theory of evolution by natural selection’ which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century.”
You claimed that it was in violation of physics. It isn’t.
You had one chance to state your “theory of evolution”, RLH.
And, you couldn’t do it.
But that’s what you do. You talk big, but then you fall flat.
“Darwin proposed that:
1. individual organisms within a particular species show a wide range of variation for a characteristic
2. individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more likely to survive to breed successfully
3. the characteristics that have enabled these individuals to survive are then passed on to the next generation
This theory is called natural selection.”
Clint R not being able to find the ‘theory of evolution by natural selection’ by Charles Darwin claims that it MUST violate physics. He is an idiot.
RLH
I think Clint R is more a troll than anything else. He is here just to annoy and provoke other posters. He is emotionally immature and finds amusement in annoying people (kind of like a child who does it to seek attention).
He may know actual physics (hard to say with his unscientific posts) but that would not matter. He just looks for things and ideas that annoy posters and goes on and on about stupid things like the definition of a radiating surface. You know he is a troll trying to annoy when you clearly explain it to him but he acts like you did not.
I really attempt to ignore him but he always needs to bait me in unrelated posts in attempts to annoy.
He is a really sad person. Needs some therapy. Unless he is a teenage boy (which I doubt) I think he has stagnated emotionally and is stuck as a 10 year-old boy seeking attention.
Hi Norman. I see you’re still in meltdown. It’s been several months now, huh? It’s going to get worse as reality comes to your cult. Cult meltdowns are not pretty.
Just look at poor RLH. He wanted to see why the “theory” of evolution was wrong, so I asked him for his definition of “theory of evolution”. I told him he only had once chance. He produced a “theory of natural selection”, which only refers to changes within species, such as different colored cats. That’s science. Believing that cats evolved from fish is NOT science.
Norman, I agree.
Reducing what I said to ‘Believing that cats evolved from fish is NOT science’ just shows how dumb Clint R is.
Evolution by natural selection does not claim that.
Clint R
I am not joking when I suggest you seek therapy. There is some wiring gone wrong in your brain that can’t be fixed on a blog.
You derive pleasure from intentionally annoying people, very much as a young person may do to gain attention. It is not rational behavior for an adult to engage in.
I think this blog draws your type. You are not the first and probably will not be the last.
G.e.r.a.n was the first one I encountered. Then J.D.H.u.f.f.m.a.n and now you. All with similar thought process all obsessed with annoying people and gaining pleasure from it. One thought everything was “hilarious” you are amused when someone gets annoyed with your childish behavior.
With previous encounters with mind types like yours it seems only therapy would help. Try to find out why annoying people produces a pleasure sensation in your mind.
tim…”But there is no clear similar analogy that works for elliptical orbits. Which is a definite con. Any of the above analogies fail to predict the orientation of a moon on an elliptical orbit”.
***
If there is any con, it is in your inability to understand the proof based on calculus and trigonomtry. You fail to understand that only two phenomena are involved: the linear velocity/momentum of the Moon and Earth’s gravitational field.
Admittedly, I have an advantage on you there, having studied magnetic fields closely in electric motor theory and transformer theory. I have witnessed directly how moving bodies respond in a magnetic field. I have also witnessed the deflection of an electron beam by electromagnetic fields.
If a stream of electrons are fired out of a cathode in a cathode ray tube, it travels through magnetic field that can deflect it. However, the electrons are accelerated by a strong positive voltage and their momentum is high enough to carry them past any deflection by the magnetic field.
In a similar vein, some scientists have claimed light is bent by the Sun, holding that up as proof of Einstein’s relativity theory. Well, duh!!! The Sun is a boiling cauldrons of electrons and protons that produce immense electromagnetic fields. Light is an electromagnetic entity. Could none of them have guessed it is the EM fields in the Sun bending the light and not some cockamamey theory about space-time effects?
In an oscilloscope, you can force the electron beam to move in a circle on the phosphorus screen, or in varies patterns. The same effect is occurring with the Moon and its momentum moving through the Earth’s gravitational field. The field is not strong enough to affect the lunar momentum drastically, only to deviate the Moon’s momentum from its linear path.
By adjusting the velocity of a spacecraft, you can insert it into various orbits around a planet. That is completely lost on rlh, who thinks some form of magical gain/loss of energy is involved.
So adjusting a velocity can be done without adding energy, either as a gain or a loss So firing a rocket does not do that I suppose.
A bit of a Gish Gallop here. Let’s address just one point.
“… having studied magnetic fields closely in electric motor theory and transformer theory. I have witnessed directly how moving bodies respond in a magnetic field. “
Transformers don’t involve moving bodies.
Electric motors have rigid rotors attached to a constrained axle.
Magnetic fields are not gravitational fields; they behave completely differently.
So none of this is remotely associated with the orbit of the moon.
Well only in r^2 or d^2 anyway.
Don’t shoot me, I am just the messenger…
Isaac Newton on evolution.
“Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them?
Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it?
These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.
We are, therefore, to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy. We must love him, fear him, honour him, trust in him, pray to him, give him thanks, praise him, hallow his name, obey his commandments.”
***
Contradict Isaac at your own peril. There may be someone watching and taking notes.
I like the point he made about how evolution knew there was light. I mean, there had to be something there detecting light and knowing how to form an eye for vision.
> Contradict Isaac at your own peril
Exactamente:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
willard…Isaac was misquoted. Bad translation from his Old English to Old Latin back to new Latin and new English. He obviously means by the first part that the Moon is revolving about the Earth. Hence, he agrees with us non-spinners.
“He obviously means by the first part that the Moon is revolving about the Earth. Hence, he agrees with us non-spinners.”
He does not.
> He obviously means by the first part that the Moon is revolving about the Earth.
C’mon, Gordo – Isaac would not distinguish “arising from its uniform revolution about its axis” and “its periodic revolution in its orb” if your conspiracy theory had any leg to stand on.
Also, it is easy to verify:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/newton-principia-mathematica-latin-ed
Time to dust off your latin, which must be as good as your physics and your geometry and everything else. Is there any domain of knowledge that escapes your mastery?
By far the best translation of the Principia is Cohen and Whitman’s The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520290884/the-principia-the-authoritative-translation-and-guide
” Isaac was misquoted. Bad translation from his Old English to Old Latin back to new Latin and new English. ”
Always, always the same nonsense.
*
Third edition of the Principia Scientifica (1726), Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
In ‘Old Latin’:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39'. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25 1/2 et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'. ”
In ‘Old English’:
” 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'. “
*
And no, no, no, no: not once again the stoopid denier trick with ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
What all astronomers, Newton included, do mean with that, has been explained often enough:
Sun revolves, so to speak, with no respect to the fixed stars, in 27 1/2 days.
Told us Isaac Newton.
Good examples, Bindidon. In that old vernacular they often confused “rotate” with “revolve”, and confused orbiting with rotating, since the “fixed stars” cannot tell the difference.
Orbiting (2 or more bodies) and revolving on an axis (1 body) are 2 separate motions. Idiot.
” Good examples, Bindidon. In that old vernacular they often confused “rotate” with “revolve”, and confused orbiting with rotating… ”
*
Always, always the same nonsense.
One of the greatest physicists, mathematicians and astronomers of all times: Isaac Newton, confusing ‘rotate’ with ‘revolve’, i.e. meaning
– ‘rotating’ for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, the Sun
but suddenly, by accident, meaning
– ‘orbiting’ for the Moon instead?
Are you serious, Clint R?
Do you really think you can not only insult me with ‘brain-dead cult idiot’, but also cast doubts about Newton’s mental abilities?
I’m not casting “doubts about Newton’s mental abilities”, Bindidon. I’m letting you prove, once again, that you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Like many of your cult, you don’t have a clue about the science. So, you find things on the Internet that you believe support your cult nonsense. When proven wrong, you get angry. You reject reality and can’t learn.
Here, you’re taking Newton out of context. He was not even talking about whether Moon was rotating on its axis, or not. He was talking about orbits. The fact is, later on Newton proved Moon is NOT rotating. He had to complete his development of calculus to do it. He proved that an orbiting body, not rotating on its axis, would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit, just as Moon does. That’s why the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string is such a good example, and is used in many colleges and universities.
“He proved that an orbiting body, not rotating on its axis, would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit”
No he didn’t. Find a url to prove otherwise.
Yes he did. Find a url to prove otherwise.
No he didn’t. Read the Principia.
> He was not even talking about whether Moon was rotating on its axis
My latin is a bit rusty, Pup. Please help:
May it bring you fun and joy!
RLH — Your understanding of Principia is as poor as your understanding of vectors. Scary, huh?
Dud — …secundum astra
” Here, youre taking Newton out of context. He was not even talking about whether Moon was rotating on its axis, or not. He was talking about orbits. ”
Thus, Newton was talking e.g. about the orbiting Sun, isn’t it?
Thus, according to your very special interpretation,the Sun orbits in 27.5 days when observing the return of sun spots at their original position (or, more exactly, 25.5 days when taking the position of a star as fixed reference in space).
Right?
And… what does our wonderful Sun orbit within these 27.5 days?
No hit for “secundum astra” in the text, Pup.
Please advise.
This is why this is so much fun. Now we have 3 braindead cult idiots, all pretending they understand science. And, they’re trying to use Newton’s Principia!
Wrong Bindidon. Newton was clearly referring to motion as referenced to the fixed stars. IOW, Sun and Earth were “rotating”, and Moon was “revolving”. The two clarifications you can’t understand are 1) fixed stars, and 2) the times given for each.
Not one of these 3 idiots knows anything about orbital motion. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next….
Well I use vectors on a daily practical basis so I know them and there uses quite well. As to the Principia, I can read that in the original Latin if required.
“But since the moon revolves uniformly around its axis”
RLH has told us several times of his “expertise” with vectors. Here, he pounds his chest even more: “Well I use vectors on a daily practical basis so I know them and there uses quite well.”
The reality is quite different.
RLH couldn’t solve the very simple vector problem. In fact, he couldn’t even understand the solution, when I gave it. He was confused about polar coordinates, which is inexcusable for someone that claims a knowledge of vectors.
RLH has no concern about reality or truth. He just says whatever he needs to say to support his cult.
Our lulziest sock puppet told two porkies in this sub-thread alone.
A true latin lover we got there!
Clint R is an idiot with more and more fancible claims. Because I do not accept his ridiculous claims on vectors then he thinks he knows more than millions of users of them worldwide.
Gravity operates on at least 2 bodies whereas axial rotation operates on only 1. They are 2 quite separate forces.
Gravity operates at an angle to a forward vector to produce an ellipse (or other conical sections) for continuous orbits or one time meetings.
RLH, you have no credibility:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1120351
Clint R, the man with no credibility claims that others have none. Still makes him the idiot though.
Clint R fails to understand that there are 2 different vectors necessary to get orbital motion.
His vector “problem” doesn’t produce orbital motion.
“Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.”
That is the point that has been made here many times, and which has been quoted many times from various astronomical websites.
One rotation of the moon is “equal to the time” of its orbit around the Earth.
The phrase quoted makes it patently obvious that Newton was speaking of the rotation and the orbit of the moon as separate motions that take the same amount of time to complete. That he speaks of the moon’s revolution “about its axis” and then the “revolution in its orbit” should already have made it clear. The adjectival phrase joining the two ideas clinches it.
Newton’s a spinner.
barry, you haven’t been keeping up with this issue very well. That has all been addressed before. The key phrase is “fixed stars”. Taking Newton out of context, plus ignoring the key phrase, means you’ll get it wrong, every time.
Newton’s words are clear. He is talking about the moon rotating “about its axis.” And yes, he is speaking WRT the fixed stars, which is the usual frame of reference when describing the motion of celestial bodies.
You and the non-spinners view it from a geocentric frame of reference. This is how it is, and how it has always been for you lot. It is no more complicated than that.
barry, “wrt the fixed stars”, Mt. Everest appears to be rotating on its own axis, at a rate of once per day. Mt. Everest is not, in fact, rotating on its own axis, at a rate of once per day. It is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth.
And no, it is not that the “Spinners” see it from the inertial reference frame and the “Non-Spinners” see it from the accelerated frame. It is simply that the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right” in the below GIF, and the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the left”. Axial rotation must then be kept separate from each side’s idea of what “orbital motion” is:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
That’s wrong, barry. “As viewed from Earth” is just one clue. The confirmation comes from the fact that Moon’s “front” always faces the direction of its motion. Just as a horse always faces the direction it is moving. Neither is rotating about its axis.
[ASTRONOMERS] Here’s a theory of the motion of the Moon, and numerical models that can predict its libration valid over several centuries with an internal precision better than 5 centimeters.
[MOON DRAGON CRANKS] Here is a horse on a merry-go-round. Checkmate, Science!
barry, here’s something you can opine on: It appears that all Warmers are also Spinners, but not all Skeptics are Non-Spinners?
(Talking about commenters here only.)
barry…”Newtons words are clear. He is talking about the moon rotating about its axis.”
***
Then why did he use the word revolution rather than rotation?
Because that’s how the word was used in olden days, Gordon.
Let me put my English education to good use and help you.
The moon (subject)
revolves (in olden times could mean both rotate and orbit)
about (around)
its (determiner referring to the subject)
axis (line about which a body rotates)
The moon is unable to orbit its own axis, so clearly “revolves” here is referring to rotation.
If you’re in doubt as to whether revolve could mean rotate, I urge you to look it up in several online dictionaries.
Newton is clearly saying that the moon rotates once in the same period that it completes an orbit.
It’s plain as day. Newton is a spinner.
> If you’re in doubt as to whether revolve could mean rotate, I urge you to look it up in several online dictionaries.
Gordo could also get downtown Vancouver and try revolving doors too!
“Non-Spinners see ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ as per the ‘moon on the left’.”
They are wrong.
Regardless of whoever is wrong or right, you should hopefully understand by now why reference frames do not resolve, nor even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
A reference frame (2 of them) are required for Newton’s 3rd Law.
OK, RLH…but reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue, as you should understand by now.
So do you agree that one reference frame can be the Earth, another the Moon and a third the Sun?
I’m not sure you even understand what reference frames are.
Misquoting Newton, or taking Newton out-of-context, has been used before. The source is PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV, from his Principia. The idiots quote Newton exactly, but they always seem to omit the last part “…as M. Cassini has observed.” This is referring to the “Cassini” of the bogus “Cassini laws”, which are NOT laws. A “law” of science is something that is well established, verifiable, testable, and non-controversial. That’s why it’s a “LAW”. The Cassini nonsense fails even the weakest test. But, I digress.
Newton must have remained curious about Moon, because he finished his development of Calculus to ascertain how gravity would affect a body. Newton divided Moon into incremental masses, then considered the gravitational effect by Earth on each. Then, using calculus, he summed all of the incremental effects. He ended up with the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string.
But that simple analogy still confuses people with no physics background. So consider 4 strings, instead of one. Each of the 4 strings is attached to the ball on its limb, spaced 90 degrees apart.
Now, as the ball is swung in a circle, try to imagine how the ball could rotate about its axis, tied with the 4 strings. It can’t! Hence, that is “orbiting without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. That’s the motion we observe with Moon.
“Cassinis laws, three empirical rules that accurately describe the rotation of the Moon, formulated in 1693 by Gian Domenico Cassini. They are:
(1) the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth;
(2) the Moons equator is tilted at a constant angle (about 132′ of arc) to the ecliptic, the plane of Earths orbit around the Sun; and
(3) the ascending node of the lunar orbit (i.e., the point where the lunar orbit passes from south to north on the ecliptic) always coincides with the descending node of the lunar equator (i.e., the point where the lunar equator passes from north to south on the ecliptic)”
“Each of the 4 strings is attached to the ball on its limb, spaced 90 degrees apart”
Attaching things to the surface is not how gravity works.
“Now, as the ball is swung in a circle, try to imagine how the ball could rotate about its axis, tied with the 4 strings. It can’t!”
I imagine Clint’s imaginary ball can’t be swung in a circle either. Back to your imaginary drawing board Clint.
No matter how many strings you attach to the ball, if the strings are rotating, and they are, then the ball on many strings is rotating.
On its own axis.
The ball is not rotating about an axis passing through the center of the ball itself. As RLH and Bindidon agree. Plus Entropic Man should, as he agreed that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis at a rate of once per day, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis instead. Triggering Ball4 in 3…2…1…
An orbit and rotation on an axis are 2 separate motions.
Quite.
For the Coolistas:
” With minus 52.8 degrees, there were record-breaking values in Rabbit Kettle in Canada’s Northwest Territories on Sunday. ”
That extreme cold in Northwest Canada and Alaska was predicted 2 months ago by… NOAA.
You know, the people who perfectly forecast La Nina.
But are always wrong about warming.
How about 3 month of 100% blue Dumbassidon
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-872706
The wind blew off of the mountains filling the air with fine ice crystals. It was too cold to snow. In weather like this wolves came down in the villages. Trees in the heart of the forest exploded when they froze. In weather like this right thinking people were indoors in front of the fire telling stories about heroes.
Troll Bridge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7v_TdLviUE
Thanks, Ken.
You don’t get proper darksome in Climateball anymore.
binny…”You know, the people who perfectly forecast La Nina.
But are always wrong about warming.”
***
For one, the predictions are guesses. For another, the complaint against NOAA re global warming is not their predictions, it is the data they have fudged to aid in the predictions.
When the IPCC declared a 15 year flat trend circa 2013, between 1998 and 2012, NOAA’s data concurred. Then NOAA went back in the record and fudged the sea surface record to show a slight trend.
That was on top of them declaring 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 48% probability.
I guess it must be tough to have such faith in an authority figure when it is blatantly obvious they are deliberately cheating by fudging past data to make it appear we are warming much faster than we are.
Robertson
The fundamental difference between John Christy and you is that while you are an ignorant boaster, he is a real professional.
And thus, instead of endlessly repeating useless polemic like you do, he accurately uses NOAA data when necessary, here USHCN:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
I often disagreed with what John Christy wrote, but I acknowledge his competence in data analysis and processing.
You are unable to analyze, let alone to process anything.
Further to, and regarding my comment regarding reference frames here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg–c/#comment-1118247
The following (old, no-frills) video highlights the very important fact that, “when the motion is simpler from the moving frame, you automatically put yourself in that moving frame.”
https://youtu.be/bJMYoj4hHqU?list=PLPpxywbRVVF3tf1oY0gXAeWt2gtIbtQiX
maguff…”The following (old, no-frills) video highlights the very important fact that, “when the motion is simpler from the moving frame, you automatically put yourself in that moving frame.””
***
There are not frames, they are imaginary. Try to bring yourself into the real world.
We employ the concept of reference frames to aid us in mental analysis. We invented the concept of time for the same reason, and added a coordinate system to space to enable us to keep tract of events. Neither reference frames, time, or coordinate-based space exists even though idiots refers to spcae-time as a reality that can bend and cause time to dilate.
Reference frames are not necessary to survive on the planet or even to get by. The brain learn to adapt to depth perception and to relative motion to a degree.
Ask yourself this. When the human brain views a scene through its eyes, and processes the information after it is converted to biochemical signals, with the image inverted, how does it then project the formed image back out so it sees what is represented by the light gathered from objects?
What you see is not the light gathered, which has no colour, it is an image created by the brain from that light information. But how can the mind create an image with such clarity and depth?
You presume far too much about reference frames, as if they are there and required to function in life or to analyze most problems.
> We employ the concept of reference frames to aid us in mental analysis.
C’mon, Gordo.
How will you be able to do any measurement without a frame of reference?
Think.
willard…”How will you be able to do any measurement without a frame of reference?”
***
Never needed one as defined in physics to do any measurements.
You do understand that Newton’s 3rd Law requires a least 2 different frames of reference don’t you?
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference#Measurement_apparatus
You’re a poseur.
“Reference frames are not necessary to survive on the planet or even to get by.”
They are to an engineer: https://ibb.co/56Qvsqm. But you wouldn’t know anything about that!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
JWST is really slowing now. It’s almost down to 700 mph. I was scribbling some calculations a few days ago, and it looked worrisome. It seemed the spacecraft was not slowing fast enough.
I wonder if all their speed reporting is real time. Based on how much the spacecraft has slowed in two days, I suspect the reported values are just estimates, with periodic corrections.
You realize that the whole thing is a giant hoax, right? Bread and circus smoke and mirrors to keep the masses distracted while medical tyranny is forced on people all over the world.
I’m amazed you don’t see through it. Or are you getting some remuneration for spreading this BS?
“Calculations” – impressive stuff.
barry
here is the ‘giant hoax’:
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
Pseudoskeptics who doubt about everything can’t believe anything they see there.
“Calculations” — impressive stuff.
Actually the calculations are pretty easy, barry.
Deceleration rates in the last 24 hrs:
.000264 m/hr/hr
.00143 m/hr/hr
.000415 m/hr/hr
NASA’s reported values are clearly NOT real-time.
From which site?
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
reports in km/s
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html
reports in miles/s
There are numerous live reporting of the JWST. Which are you using?
binny…”In Old English:
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′. ”
***
Why does Newton compare all revolutions, as he puts it, wrt the stars?
It’s obvious that the near face of the Moon changes orientation wrt the stars in 27+ days and I don’t think that escaped Newton’s mind. The point is, the far face changes identically in the same time, keeping them moving parallel to each other at all times. Under those conditions, it is not physically possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis.
Newton refers to the standard frame of reference when describing the motions of celestial bodies.
WRT the fixed stars is not just standard, it’s the most comprehensive and efficient FoR for calculating such motions.
barry…”Newton refers to the standard frame of reference when describing the motions of celestial bodies”.
***
You have missed the point, Barry. The motion described wrt the stars is not rotation about a local axis. It is the change in orientation of the near face that is typical of a body translating around a curve.
Both the near face and far side are moving in parallel at all times and that is translation. Rotation would require the faces to change position by the halfway point in the orbit.
The near and far face are NOT moving in parallel, they are moving in concentric ellipses equally spaced around the center of mass.
Rotation of the moon is occurring WRT the fixed stars. That is the case for any of the bodies in the solar system.
And yes, Newton specifically said that the moon is “revolving [rotating] about its axis.”
“Rotation of the moon is occurring WRT the fixed stars. That is the case for any of the bodies in the solar system.”
Only if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right” (MOTR) in the below GIF, barry:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right maintains its orientation WRT the viewer. The North Star sees from that angle. The moon does not rotate WRT fixed stars.
You don’t get it, barry. Yes, the MOTR maintains its orientation wrt the viewer. The question is, is that motion “orbital motion without axial rotation”? If so, then the MOTL is rotating on its own axis, because you have to keep axial rotation separate to the orbital motion, and if orbital motion is like the MOTR, and you add axial rotation to that motion, at a rate of once per orbit (in the same direction as the orbital motion) you get motion like the MOTL. No problem…
…but…
…if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is actually like the MOTL, instead…which is a consideration completely separate from worrying about how the object remains oriented, etc…it is just a question of, “what is orbital motion?”…if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is actually like the MOTL, then because you have to keep axial rotation separate to the orbital motion, and if orbital motion is like the MOTL, and you add axial rotation to that motion, at a rate of once per orbit (in the opposite direction to the orbital motion) you get motion like the MOTR.
Nothing to do with frames of reference, you see. Just a question of “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”?
“what is orbital motion without axial rotation?”
The moon on the right displays this. You can even see it. The orientation of the moon is fixed – non-rotating – as it orbits the planet.
I know what you can see, barry…now open your mind as well as your eyes.
Can you “see” that if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per counter-clockwise orbit? Do you understand that this is just to do with keeping the axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, and nothing else?
Do you then get why the moon issue transcends reference frames?
“Can you ‘see’ that if ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is as per the MOTL”
This idea, the ‘Look up at the Moon, its not rotating’ belief, comes from somewhere.
Its a belief that arises purely from using the rotating reference frame, the view of someone on Earth who is slowly turning (rotating once in 27 days wrt to stars), to follow the Moon as it orbits. And then decides that the Moon is obviously NOT rotating.
Everything after that is a post-hoc attempt to rationalize that belief, to revise history to say, now, that it has never been about reference frames, and its only ever been about the AXIS of rotation.
I guess barry is probably asleep. When he wakes up, hopefully he will answer the questions. I’m dying to know if he will be the first “Spinner” to understand why the moon issue transcends reference frames. Come on barry, I know you can do it…
Barry is on tour and hasn’t looked at this page for a while.
“Can you ‘see’ that if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per counter-clockwise orbit?”
If I accept the premise in quotes then I ‘see’ how you see it. In short, I understand what you’re saying.
However, your premise is wrong, therefore what follows is wrong. TMOTL is rotating as it orbits. You can even see it if you focus only on the moon. It is only if you make the Earth central to the issue that you could talk yourself into thinking that TMOTL doesn’t rotate.
Also you are rejecting frames of reference – which are absolutely germane to resolving questions of rotation – because it interferes with your strange view. When talking about changes in orientation – which is what rotation is – the answer can be different depending on your frame of reference.
No, barry, I am not rejecting frames of reference, I am explaining why this issue transcends them. You have failed to understand, so you need to try again. That I am correct that the issue transcends reference frames is absolutely certain. It is not even open for debate.
“It is only if you make the Earth central to the issue that you could talk yourself into thinking that TMOTL doesn’t rotate.”
No, not at all. It is nothing to do with the Earth. It is merely a question of, “is the motion of the MOTL what “orbiting” is? Or is it the motion of the MOTR?” Only one of those two motions truly represents “orbiting” (meaning “orbital motion without axial rotation”). Axial rotation then has to be kept separate from that motion. That is all there is to it.
barry, notice DREMT writes “I am not rejecting frames of reference” then rejects frames of reference writing “the issue transcends reference frames” in the same comment!
I am not rejecting frames of reference as a concept, idiot. They have their uses, to say the least. I understand and respect them, and completely get why it confuses people so much that this issue doesn’t just come down to a difference in reference frame. I am so painfully aware of how simple it must seem to some people. It’s also painfully simple how this issue transcends them. It’s something that’s almost impossible to explain. It would be hard to explain to someone who wanted to understand. It is pretty much impossible to explain to people like Ball4, who have absolutely no interest in understanding.
When the new month comes around, I will give it another go. It’s so, so, so, so, simple. Yet at the same time, if you’re not in the right frame of mind – it can be completely impossible to understand. You just have to open your mind, and as Yoda said – unlearn what you have learned. It’s up to the individual. Mock away. I literally know I’m right. Whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not, is one thing. Whether the issue is resolved by reference frames, is another. The issue is definitely not resolved by reference frames. I can absolutely guarantee you that. Whoever is right, overall, about the moon…that’s an entirely separate thing altogether. The issue is not resolved by reference frames.
barry, once again note DREMT writes the claim to be “not rejecting frames of reference” then in the SAME comment goes on to claim to be rejecting frames of reference “The issue is not resolved by reference frames.”
barry, notice that Ball4 is a troll.
Keeping them moving concentric to each other at all times.
“WRT the fixed stars is not just standard, it’s the most comprehensive and efficient FoR for calculating such motions.”
When you measure Earth’s rotation period wrt the fixed stars you get 23 hours and fifty-six minutes. That’s a sidereal day. 366.25 of those in a year. Yet most people are happy to run their calendars according to synodic days, 24 hours in each, 365.25 days in a year. That’s measuring Earth’s rotation period wrt the accelerated frame.
If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, as the “Spinners” believe, then to keep Earth’s axial rotation separate from that motion, there would be 366.25 axial rotations per orbit of the Sun. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, as the “Non-Spinners” claim, then to keep Earth’s axial rotation separate from that motion, there would be 365.25 axial rotations per orbit of the Sun.
If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, then to keep axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, the moon would be rotating on its own axis once per orbit of the Earth. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then to keep axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, the moon would be rotating on its own axis zero times per orbit of the Earth.
So the consideration here is not “wrt the fixed stars” vs. “wrt the accelerated frame”. The consideration is simply “is orbital motion like the MOTL or the MOTR?”
… which as Clint R points out depends on location of observer being “inside of it orbit” or outside of its orbit. DREMT doesn’t specify location of observer as does Clint R and even Swenson.
Location of observation completely explains earthshine on one face of our moon and sunshine on all faces.
The moon issue remains completely resolved despite DREMT’s forlorn attempts to revive it.
No, Ball4. Whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL or the MOTR does not depend on location of observation.
It does depend on location of observation “inside of it orbit” or outside of its orbit per Clint R and Swenson correct comments so go argue with them.
DREMT is forlorn in attempts to write otherwise & revive the issue.
The moon issue remains completely resolved.
I have no need to argue with those that agree with me, Ball4.
Ok great, then DREMT was forced to change & now DOES agree lunar rotation on its own axis depends on location of observation “inside of it orbit” or outside of its orbit per Clint R and Swenson correct comments so no need to argue with them. Cool.
Whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL or the MOTR does not depend on location of observation.
So now DREMT is back to disagreeing with Clint R who writes location “inside of it orbit” or outside of its orbit does change the observation. DREMT swings back and forth showing DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is talking about.
You linked to Clint R’s comment further upthread, Ball4. In the linked comment he did not state that whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL or the MOTR depends on location of observation. You are simply a troll.
You linked to Clint R’s comment further upthread, Ball4. In the linked comment he did not state that whether "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the MOTL or the MOTR depends on location of observation. You are simply a troll.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
“Whether ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is like the MOTL or the MOTR does not depend on location of observation.”
All motion without axial rotation means that things point towards a fixed star.
Meaning you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
“In the linked comment he did not state that whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR depends on location of observation.”
Clint R wrote in the comment more generally, the lunar rotation observation depends on whether one is located “inside of it orbit” like the spinner of the ball on string, or outside of the object’s orbit & DREMT has not specified location of lunar observation even after DREMT wrote to have agreed with Clint R’s comment.
The moon issue remains completely resolved despite DREMT’s forlorn comments on the issue.
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.”
Clint R is presenting two conditions to his “since it does not spin”:
1) It always keeps the same face toward the inside of its orbit.
2) It presents different faces to the outside of its orbit.
Note that the conditions are for both inside and outside of the orbit, indicating that location of observation does not matter, since either way you can tell if the object is moving like our moon. That is the point, Ball4 – if you are located inside or outside of the orbit, you can still judge if an object is moving like our moon.
Just another forlorn DREMT comment.
As Clint R wrote located to judge our moon motion “inside of it orbit” or located “being outside Moon’s orbit” needs to be known.
The moon issue remains completely resolved despite all of DREMT’s forlorn comments.
Ball4, you can judge whether an object is moving like our moon from both inside and outside of the orbit. Similarly, you can judge whether an object is moving like the MOTR from both inside and outside the orbit. The GIF POV itself is “above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane”. You can quite easily distinguish the two motions from that POV as well. You are just trolling. Please stop.
DREMT judges them not specifying location of observation indicating Clint R pointing out observation location “inside of it orbit” or “being outside Moon’s orbit” needs to be known.
So, follow Clint’s advice DREMT, and observe that earthen object shines on only one MOTL face observed from central point “inside of it orbit” located on the earthen object as Clint R advises DREMT.
Now locate observation to GIF POV itself to “above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane” like Clint’s “being outside Moon’s orbit” and observe the MOTL rotating on its own axis once per orbit like from the sun which is different motion as Clint R points out “being outside Moon’s orbit”.
For practice, try Clint R’s advice on MOTR, specify DREMT’s observation location “inside of it orbit” and then “being outside Moon’s orbit to describe earthshine and sunshine differences.
Or of course do nothing having been shown location of observation needs to be stated by Clint R or continue to make another forlorn comment ignoring Clint R’s advice.
All motion without axial rotation means that things point towards a fixed star. See Newton and his 3 Laws.
Ball4, the "Spinner" position is that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, as observed from inside or outside the orbit (either way, you can still clearly identify the motion of the MOTR). The "Non-Spinner" position is that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL, as observed from inside or outside the orbit (either way, you can still clearly identify the motion of the MOTL).
Just another DREMT forlorn comment disagreeing with Clint R and even Swenson’s advice. DREMT lives up to all my expectations.
Sorry for your argument loss, Ball4.
All motion without axial rotation means that things point as they were, i.e. towards a fixed star. See Newton and his 3 Laws. Why would orbits be any different?
Same response to you as the last twenty times you said the exact same thing.
Your nonsense does not change, so why would my sense either.
Go and butt into somebody else’s discussion, pest.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
“Yet most people are happy to run their calendars according to synodic days, 24 hours in each, 365.25 days in a year. Thats measuring Earths rotation period wrt the accelerated frame.”
It makes intuitive sense when we dwell on the surface of the planet to use our local star as a periodic reference.
What you are defending here is a geocentric frame of reference.
As usual.
No, barry. If only you had continued reading, you would have realized that I was not defending a geocentric frame of reference. The moon issue transcends reference frames, as I have comprehensively explained here and elsewhere. It is simply a matter of “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”?
“what is orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is a Newton defined it to be in his 3 Laws.
Yes, motion like the MOTL.
Newton would not have accepted that.
You can travel without an orbit and have a change in orientation. You can travel without an orbit and have no change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have a change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have no change in orientation.
Sorry, but the motion of the MOTR involves an orientation. That orientation is, "the object keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star". You can’t pretend that the way you see "orbital motion without axial rotation" is somehow distinct from the concept of orientation. It is not.
You can’t pretend that the way you see “orbital motion without axial rotation” located “inside of it orbit” is somehow distinct from the concept of orientation. It is not.
I see that motion as per the MOTL can be recognized and understood from either inside or outside of the orbit, thus location of observation makes no difference to my argument. I see that you’re a troll, who I will ask to please stop trolling after your next response.
Clint R can see that motion as per the MOTL can be recognized and understood from “inside of it orbit” as a non-spinner or outside of the orbit as a spinner, thus location of observation makes a difference to the moon argument.
DREMT should work to understand the moon issue remains completely resolved as Clint R correctly pointed out.
He said no such thing.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
RLH brings up a good point when hw says
‘You can travel without an orbit and have a change in orientation. You can travel without an orbit and have no change in orientation.’
Suppose the Moon was not orbiting but simply flying by the Earth, without rotation. Suppose it took 2 weeks to pass thru our Moon’s orbital diameter.
What would Earthlings see?
As the moon is approaching they would see one side facing them. As the moon receded away they would see the OTHER side facing them.
They could conclude that this moon was ROTATING (on its axis).
Similarly, if this fly-by moon WAS ROTATING (on its axis) at the Moon’s rate, then Earthlings would see the same side on approach as when it recedes.
Note, in between there would be some ‘libration’, but thats just a minor detail.
They could conclude that this moon was NOT ROTATING (on its axis).
Would the non-spinners then redefine ‘flying by without axial rotation’ to mean just that?
It seems they might.
Just a quick reminder that this is the GIF under discussion:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
MOTL means “moon on the left” and MOTR means “moon on the right”.
Note that both are viewed from above and outside the moon’s orbital plane.
MOTL shows orbiting with axial rotation once per orbit. MOTR shows shows orbiting without axial rotation.
If the Moon was just ‘passing by’ the axial rotation would remain at just the same rate as in an orbit.
MOTL shows "orbital motion without axial rotation", therefore in order to keep axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, the MOTR must be orbiting whilst rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion. Note that this is just a question of keeping the axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, and so it has nothing to do with reference frames.
Robertson
” Why does Newton compare all revolutions, as he puts it, wrt the stars? ”
You are so incredibly dumb, ignorant and, above all, stubborn.
Like other Pseudoskeptics, you ask always the same questions, but always discard the answers to your questions, and divert, distort, discredit, denigrate and lie instead of trying to grasp what you ignore.
*
All astronomers compare motion PERIODS of celestial bodies wrt the stars: the period of their orbit as well as those of their rotation.
Simply because the fact that observing celestial bodies from the moving Earth irremediably induces errors when computing their orbit and rotation periods.
Newton was a good teacher, and explained that so pretty good with the rotation period of the Sun, what you since years repeatedly, deliberately ignore.
*
The American astronomer W. Marcowitz invented a dual-rate positioning camera that made it possible to photograph the moon and stars at the same time.
It was used at the Kazan Observatory in Russia from 1953, and was of course a considerably helpful tool.
*
People like you never want to understand, let alone to admit things that do not fit their poor, simple-minded, egomaniac narrative.
willard and barry….
“[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb”.
***
Newton applies a leap in logic here. He declares the lunar day equal to the orbital period then leaps to the conclusion that explains the near face always pointing to the upper focus of the orbit where Earth is located.
If that is what he meant, then he was just plain wrong. It is not possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
I have offered the coin experiment to you spinners and asked you to prove me wrong. Not one of you has taken me up on it. In order for the moving coin to complete a 360 degree rotation about its axis while orbiting the stationary coin, one has to roll it around the stationary coin. The moment the rolling begins, the near face must stop pointing at the stationary coin’s centre.
That is a QED in itself. It’s so obvious that a child could see it yet you spinners are left stammering out inanities like perspective and obfuscations of the meaning of rotation.
In fact, if the circumferences of the coins don’t match, one must both slide and roll the moving coin to complete exactly one rotation per orbit. That’s the case with the Moon, it simply cannot keep the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating on its axis through 360 degrees.
Then I added a near-perfect example, an airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet around the Equator. It must always keep its bottom side facing the Earth, therefore it cannot rotate 360 degrees about any axis as is claimed for the Moon.
We non-spinners have offered the ball on a string, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round, a locomotive constrained to an oval track, a horse on a track, and so on, yet you spinners stubbornly stick to your myth of the Moon’s rotation by obfuscating the meaning of local rotation and the inappropriate use of reference frames.
Unfortunately, we will never know what Newton intended with his statement above. Most likely, he meant the near face was re-orienting to give the appearance of rotation but he likely regarded that as too obvious to bother with detail. It likely never occurred to him that 400+ years later, people would still be hung up on the myth that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
“It is not possible for the Moon to rotate about its axis while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth”
So now you know more than Newton. I suppose your delusion supports such a claim.
“In order for the moving coin to complete a 360 degree rotation about its axis while orbiting the stationary coin, one has to roll it around the stationary coin.”
If the moving coin is not quite touching the stationary coin during its orbit, what makes it turn on its axis as opposed to just travelling around the center?
Gordon does and doesn’t mention or even understand that Gordon is doing so.
Having finally conceded that Newton is a spinner, Gordon now moves on to say that Newton is wrong.
Once he realizes that Cassini is a spinner, Cassini will also be wrong.
Appeals to authority? Nope, references to expertise. But Gordon is more expert than all of them.
Taken from Principia…
“DEFINITION V,
A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or any may tend, towards a point as to a centre.
Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the earth magnetism, by which iron tends to the loudstone; and that force, what ever it is, by which the planets are perpetually drawn aside from the rectilinear motions which otherwise they would pursue, and made to revolve in curvilinear orbits”.
Newton has admitted the rectilinear motion of the Moon is drawn into a curvilinear orbit by a mysterious force which he does not name. Of course, that force is gravity.
In another part of Principia, describing the second law, he begins…
“If any force generates a motion…”
No one is taught that condition when presented with Newton II, it is always presumed that f = ma holds no matter what the conditions. Newton tells us there is a condition…that the force must move the body before Newton II applies.
I claim in the future that anyone teaching Newton II should begin…if a force moves a body, then f = ma.
Back to the first point…about the mysterious force. I said it is obviously gravity and that’s because it does not have to accelerate the Moon as some claim but merely to hold it in orbit while continually changing its rectilinear translation to one of curvilinear translation.
Since Newton knew that gravity changed the Moon’s path from rectilinear to curvilinear motion, he must have known that the requirement that the near face always facing the Earth, in curvilinear motion, also means the Moon cannot rotate around a local orbit.
ps. it does not necessarily hold that f = ma if the force is just barely able to move a body. I can envision a body moving from rest with a velocity without an acceleration being involved.
So Newton got things wrong did he? You are an idiot.
Velocity is distance over time. If it moves. i.e. travels some distance, then it takes some time to do it and thus has some acceleration from zero.
” I can envision a body moving from rest with a velocity without an acceleration being involved.”
Then you must be hallucinating.
Acceleration is the change in velocity in a time interval, divided by the time interval. If a body goes from being at rest (velocity=0), to moving (velocity>0), then an acceleration is involved.
Tyson, that calculus is above Gordon’s pay grade according to what Gordon wrote.
What Gordon really should write to be correct is “also means the Moon cannot rotate around a local orbit as observed “inside of it orbit” as Clint R pointed out along with Swenson.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121523
You can travel without an orbit and have a change in orientation. You can travel without an orbit and have no change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have a change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have no change in orientation.
Sorry, but the MOTR contains an orientation. That orientation is, "the object keeps one face always oriented towards a distant star". You can’t pretend that the way you see "orbital motion without axial rotation" is somehow distinct from the concept of orientation. It is not.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1123536
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Since Newton knew that gravity changed the Moons path from rectilinear to curvilinear motion, he must have known that the requirement that the near face always facing the Earth, in curvilinear motion, also means the Moon cannot rotate around a local orbit.”
What does this even mean?
“rotate around a local orbit”
Nonsense thinking begets nonsense phrases.
OK, I am done talking about the moon, for this month. Anything on the thread above this point I will continue to comment on, but anything that comes below this comment I am done with. There is just no point continuing to discuss it, it’s a complete waste of time. Anyone that calls me out on the moon issue in a sub-thread below this one will just get a link back up to this comment. PSTs will of course continue as necessary.
Cool 9:41 am comment.
DREMT will give up DREMT’s incorrect forlorn comments on the completely resolved moon issue for 20 more days. Nice. Now let’s see that link or PST…
Yeah DREMT, it gets tiring.
But we’ve learned some important things. There are people, so obsessed with their false beliefs, that will say ANYTHING to reject reality. Time after time, we have seen the cult idiots completely ignore/reject reality, even to the point of fabricating falsehoods.
For me, this has been very educational and explains a lot of the problems in the world.
You are the one rejecting reality, not others.
Yes, Clint very educational that there are commenters such as DREMT continuously disagreeing with your comment on the reality of observing our moon rotation while located “inside of it orbit” like the holder of the the ball’s string or outside of lunar orbit since DREMT never states location of observation. But now even DREMT has changed position and agrees with Clint. So, the moon rotation on its own axis issue remains completely resolved.
It is a relief readers here won’t have to deal with more incorrect DREMT comments on that moon issue for another 20 days.
“Time after time, we have seen the cult idiots completely ignore/reject reality, even to the point of fabricating falsehoods.”
Yes Clint, it’s a shame but great entertainment reading the 3 ring circus inaccurate comments.
You mean cultists/people/idiots like Clint R, DREMT and GR?
Yes the 3 amigos. Plus a couple of other same type of circus acts that enter the rings once in a while.
Yes we have seen the cult idiots define the motion of the Moon as non-rotating to advance their agenda.
No science just their agenda.
But linear motion in a straight line obeys Newton’s 3 Laws, Just, apparently, orbits are different, without any reason why.
Ball4, RLH, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
[OUR SLIMIEST SOCK PUPPET] I am done talking about the moon, for this month.
[ALSO OUR SLIMIEST SOCK PUPPET] Anything on the thread above this point I will continue to comment on
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
Our slimiest sock puppets lies once again.
“PSTs will of course continue as necessary.”
“Anything on the thread above this point I will continue to comment on“
Have to draw the line somewhere.
Either one stops commenting, or one continues commenting.
Can’t do both.
It’s pretty much dried up above the line I drew, as I knew it would, because people automatically move on down the comment chain as more comments get added to the bottom of the thread. So that’s why I did what I did. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I did.
Our slimiest sock puppet still denies that “I am done talking about the moon, for this month” conflicts with “anything on the thread above this point I will continue to comment on.”
He’s at the very least deceiving himself. Everyone else should know by now not to put any trust in what he’s saying.
No honor. The slimiest of all.
You’re so overly critical of everything I do and say that’s it’s comical. I’d had enough of commenting on the moon, but planned to withdraw from the debate in a controlled way, to ensure that the usual suspects didn’t take advantage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I did.
2022-01-11, 9:41 –
2022-01-15, 11:20 –
There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I did.
Our slimiest sock puppet found a new hobby:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/unreliable-and-harmful-claims-this-website-has-been-demonetized-by-google/#comment-1127262
Who would have guessed that he’d be trying to quarrel over yet another a fairly well understood concept?
The point I was making completely flew over the little failure’s head.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his ridiculous point (he might as well argue that everything yellow is a banana) deflects from mine, which he has yet to concede – he used multiple alternative identities over the years to comment at Roy’s, which means he’s not sticking to one persistent identity wherever he plays Climateball.
Par for the slimiest course!
See? He didn’t get my point. Let’s try to explain it at a level that someone like Willard can understand…
Take Swenson. Willard is always, and I mean always banging on about how Swenson is a "sock puppet", and used to comment as Mike Flynn. The negative connotation with "sock puppet" is that there is some attempt to deceive. It’s surely not simply a problem for someone to just change their pseudonym, right!?
What Willard is attempting to do, is to get readers to dismiss anything Swenson says, on the grounds that he has some intent to deceive, and he does that by repeatedly drawing attention to this idea that Swenson is a "sock puppet", with its associated negative connotation of deception.
Yet what evidence does he have that Swenson is actually out to deceive others? None. He just relies on the "sock puppet" slur to do this dirty work for him.
Simply put, it’s irrelevant what screen name people comment under, what should matter is the content of their comments.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, failing once again to acknowledge that he used multiple alternative identities over the years to comment at Roy’s, which means he’s not sticking to one persistent identity wherever he plays Climateball.
That Mike Flynn has been using sock puppets has been established beyond any doubt, and that he keeps denying it shows everyone how Dragon Cranks operate. Nevertheless, this is an independent point from the following one – sock puppets are the lowest of the lowest of trolls. They have no honor.
And among them there the slimiest of all is Kiddo.
Willard proves my point. It’s all about discrediting his opponents…that’s it. Playing the man, not the ball. The fact is, it just isn’t relevant if people changed their pseudonym, the content of their comments should be what matters. It would be a different matter if people were actually using multiple false accounts at the same time, in individual discussions, trying to play the part of different people interacting with one another (you know, actual sock-puppetry, not just changing your pseudonym). But Willard sees something he can exploit, and being the slimy little sock puppet that he is, he runs with it…
Our slimiest sock puppet still fails to acknowledge that he has been using alternative identities over the years to comment at Roy’s, let alone declare the list of them.
Not only he’s not sticking to one persistent identity wherever he plays Climateball, but he keeps squirming, oblivious to the silliness of his latest deflection. People can indeed change their names – an identity isn’t a mere name, for David Wiggins’ sake!
Soldier on, sad sock puppet! Soldier on!
Let’s show our slimy sock puppet how this works:
I, Willard, am the one who wrote the previous comment.
See?
Simples.
Why is that so hard to get?
Simplest explanation was a spectrum thing.
Now it’s this – our sock puppet is just a little slimy man.
But Willard sees something he can exploit, and being the slimy little sock puppet that he is, he runs with it…
Our slimiest sock puppet is giving a simple way out of his rotten Hell. Yet he soldiers on.
Ever tried. Ever failed. Fail again. Fail better.
> Our slimiest sock puppet is giving
given, that is.
A simple acknowledgement would have done.
Now I get outright lies.
Going all in on this is just too prfct.
Kinda shows the kind of trolling he savors.
Slimy.
Complete gibberish from the biggest troll I’ve ever encountered.
After the lies, gaslighting was to be expected.
Here’s the thread where our slimiest troll tried his new sock:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-308291
Seems that his impersonation has not been well received.
Mike Flynn had no sock at the time.
Not sure about Pup.
What lies? What gaslighting? You have serious communication problems. If I can’t understand what you are trying to say, have you considered that maybe you are not expressing yourself very clearly? You talk about some “rotten Hell” or something? What on Earth are you talking about?
And so our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on…
But alright.
Let’s try one last time.
All our slimest sock puppet needs to do, to stop being a sock puppet, is to acknowledge that has been using other identities when commenting here. He could list them all. A few would work. The most recent ones, say.
Ideally, our slimiest sock puppet would need to take back the first identity he took when commenting on climate blogs. I know that ID. It was a fine one. There’s no reason for him to pretend being the moderator of anything. It’s not funny. It annoys people.
Once everyone is clear on the many “facets” of his personality, Kiddo would stop being a sock puppet. Considering his over-the-top reaction (lying about me being one, pretending that I deceive people about who I am, being almost poetical about it), he clearly did not like being called a sock puppet.
It’s quite simple, really. That’s all there is to it. Basic etiquette based on honor, older than the Internet.
Otherwise I’m afraid our slimiest sock puppet is here to stay.
You can call me what you like. If you are simply too childish to call me “DREMT”, then it just reflects badly on you. I don’t answer to you. I have nothing to explain to you. I have nothing to justify. I am a decent, honest human being, who just happens to disagree with you on some trivial matters. Screw you if you think otherwise.
“Lying about me being one, pretending that I deceive people about who I am, being almost poetical about it”
No, you completely missed the point on that. Even after I tried to explain it to you here. There is just no getting through to you. No point talking to you. You are simply ineducable.
And so our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, switching from gaslighting to pleading in the span of a few minutes.
Let’s show him how speech acts work:
That’s it. I won’t be responding to this sleazy, manipulative, little prick for the remainder of the month. No if, no but.
No gaslighting, no pleading, no manipulation. I am a decent, honest human being who just happens to disagree with you on some trivial matters. Screw you if you think otherwise.
pups may somehow think that: “I am a decent, honest human being who just happens to disagree with you…”, but pups has been a liar since day one when pups used DRsEMT as a name. pups has admitted that this is false, yet has continued to repeat the lie with every post for months to assert some sort of fictitious control. What was it pups wrote? G-F-Y.
What are you trying to say, Swanson? That I’m a liar just because I called myself "Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team" when I’m not a real moderator? Even though it should be obvious that I’m not a real moderator from the tongue-in-cheek use of the word "Emergency"? I know you guys are desperate to discredit your opponents, but that is just ridiculous.
Yes, pups, that’s it. Science is dedicated to ascertaining truth and you are lying. Get it?
No, Swanson, I’m not lying. I have proved that you are a liar though, in a previous discussion. You lied your way out of a situation rather than just admitting that you disagreed with bobdroege on reference frames. You people lie to protect each other’s arguments. You will literally do anything to avoid arguing with each other, when you’re on the same "side". Do you call that science, Swanson?
pups, I don’t recall said lying, could you provide a link?
But, that has nothing to do with your lies regarding your posts or your distortions of the facts of the physics of the Moon’s orbit/rotation. You are still a slimy sock puppet troll, the lowest scum inhabitant on this web site.
I will provide you with a link, Swanson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1000132
Though I will not be discussing it with you, because it relates to the moon issue, and as I said I will not be discussing that further this month. Suffice to say that it proves your dishonesty, if you follow the conversation and links properly.
So you are in no position to be falsely accusing others of dishonesty.
pups the slimy troll continues to call me a liar while ignoring physics again.
pups, you still don’t understand inertial reference frames. A true inertial reference frame is one which does not accelerate or rotate wrt the stars. That said, for considering rotations alone, an accelerating reference frame with axes fixed wrt the stars, such as one fixed at the Moon’s CoM, would suffice for determining whether or not the Moon is rotating. That’s because measuring rotation around a free body’s CoM using any reference frame with axes fixed wrt the stars would produce an angular momentum vector with the same magnitude and direction.
BTW, Mt. Everest is not the CoM of the Earth…
I told you Swanson, I am not discussing the moon. So do not even bother trying to bait me.
The link proves you are a liar. What you are saying now, pretending that I do not understand this or that, further displays your dishonesty.
You are, quite frankly, a lying piece of shit. So gfy.
phps, thank you for confirming that you are a useless slimy troll who refuses to discuss anything that challenges your limited intelligence.
No, you stupid troll:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
Why do you never pay any attention to the thread you are butting in on?
Quit lying, and gfy.
pups, I was simply agreeing with Willard that you are a slimy sock puppet who has wasted untold months of other people’s time replying to your posting of completely false crap on this web site. You are so stupid that you can’t understand that what I wrote was not a lie, but the truth. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
I am both more intelligent than you, and a better person than you.
“I am a decent, honest human being who just happens to ” have a highly inflated sense of self righteousness, and I need to troll all who question my beliefs.
A candid admission by my stalker. Though I wouldn’t call him decent or honest.
pups, the facts suggest otherwise. I made it past a MS degree in Engineering in 3 quarters and won a student design contest along the way. Have you received a university degree in the sciences?
Yes. Let me know when you are done beating your chest. You people complain non-stop about me commenting on the moon, then when I try to bow out of the discussion you will not stop talking to me!
So, pups, are wee now in agreement that the Moon rotates once an orbit?
God, you are thick.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
“I am both more intelligent than you, and a better person than you.”
“Let me know when you are done beating your chest.”
What do you call it when you do a thing, then complain that others are doing this thing?
Being an asshole? a narcissist? a hypocrite?
All 3?
It’s funny. Swanson and co. come along, saying things like:
"you are a slimy sock puppet"
and
"you are so stupid"
etc, etc. Now, what they are clearly saying, reading between the lines, is that they think they are a better person than me, and that they think they are more intelligent than me. But, when I say that back to them, in a direct, clear, more straightforward fashion:
"I am both more intelligent than you, and a better person than you."
Simply mirroring their behavior, to show them how deeply unpleasant they’re being…others fail to understand what’s happening, and think that I really am that conceited!
No, sorry, I don’t actually think I’m better than anyone else. I leave that sort of thinking to Swanson and co. I’m just trying to stop talking about the moon issue for the rest of the month, but the people who complain most about the moon discussions, can’t seem to take the hint. They just can’t stop responding to me!
No matter what I say or do, someone will have a problem with it. Bet you anything you like, this message will trigger some sort of further response.
“and think that I really am that conceited!”
Perhaps you are not.
But you have invited that sort of thinking by many many posts.
Falsely claiming debate victories, congratulating yourself on such victories, baiting people with such things, and generally rubbing it in people’s faces.
You get what you sew.
See? What did I tell you…
☺️
pups wrote:
pups, you first presented your delusional physics many months ago. AS the saying goes, “YOU OWN IT NOW”. You can’t just slither away and refuse to comment while dumping repeated insults on the blog. The only way to stop others from objecting to your absurdities is to either admit that you are wrong or to simply stop posting and disappear. The facts prove that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
It’s only until the end of the month, Swanson. Don’t worry about it. You can endlessly discuss the subject that you hate and vehemently object to discussing once we’re into the new month.
Now let’s look at what I have received (just in this sub-thread alone), which prompted some of the comments of mine you listed:
"DREMT’s incorrect forlorn comments"
"It is a relief readers here won’t have to deal with more incorrect DREMT comments"
"the 3 ring circus"
"the cult idiots"
"No science just their agenda"
"Our slimiest sock puppet lies once again"
"Everyone else should know by now not to put any trust in what he’s saying."
"No honor. The slimiest of all."
"his ridiculous point"
"Par for the slimiest course!"
"sock puppets are the lowest of the lowest of trolls. They have no honor. And among them there the slimiest of all is Kiddo."
"sad sock puppet"
"Simplest explanation was a spectrum thing. Now it’s this – our sock puppet is just a little slimy man."
"Now I get outright lies. Going all in on this is just too prfct. Kinda shows the kind of trolling he savors. Slimy."
"this sleazy, manipulative, little prick"
"pups has been a liar since day one"
"G-F-Y."
"Science is dedicated to ascertaining truth and you are lying. Get it?"
"your lies regarding your posts or your distortions of the facts"
"You are still a slimy sock puppet troll, the lowest scum inhabitant on this web site."
"pups the slimy troll"
"pups, you still don’t understand"
"useless slimy troll"
"your limited intelligence"
"you are a slimy sock puppet"
"posting of completely false crap"
"You are so stupid that you can’t understand"
"have a highly inflated sense of self righteousness"
"need to troll all"
"an asshole? a narcissist? a hypocrite? All 3?"
Some of these are just insults. No worse than what we get from your allies.
But others are quite accurate.
“outright lies”
Often. If you deny this than kinda makes the case.
“Being an asshole? a narcissist? a hypocrite?”
Yep all 3 at various times.
“Science is dedicated to ascertaining truth and you are lying.”
Constantly, IMO.
“your lies regarding your posts or your distortions of the facts”
All the time!
“have a highly inflated sense of self righteousness”
This very thread makes that case!
They’re still responding! Probably trying to justify their cyber-bullying, I guess. I don’t know, I haven’t even bothered to read the latest, it’s getting so boring.
A Post arrives with assertions…then comes a Response.
And somehow, the poster bears no responsibility..
Self righteousness and narcissism exemplified!
…it’s getting so boring.
And pups, it’s all your fault for ignoring the facts. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
What’s my fault? Lol…
pups, it’s your fault for introducing the silly notion that the Moon rotates around an external axis fixed at the Earth/Moon barycenter. The Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
Yes E. Swanson, our Moon is a free body moving in Earth’s gravity field and inertially rotates once an orbit on its own axis. An inertial frame is just beyond DREMT’s ability to understand demonstrated for the last few years and forever. Even Clint R correctly tried & failed to explain our Moon’s motion to DREMT.
Ball4 lies again, as he gets paid to.
For the vaccine addicts:
It only took 21 months. But the C-D-C has FINALLY admitted the single most significant fact of the pandemic. Yesterday, often terrified C-D-C Director Rochelle Walensky, blinking like a surprised owl on methamphetamines, told Good Morning America that “the overwhelming number of deaths — over 75% — occurred in people who had at least four co-morbidities. So really these are people who were unwell to begin with.”
He mentions the roofer struck by lightning:
But the first 40! I spent WEEKS, maybe months, throughout the summer, going case by case, explaining in C&C just how sick almost every single Covid fatality was — how sick they were BEFORE they got Covid. My favorite example was the roofer who, according to the ME’s notes, was struck by lightning, fell three stories, crushed his vertebrae, cracked his skull, and was taken to the hospital where he died in a coma, never having woken up. But FOR SOME REASON the hospital stopped trying to save his life just long enough to swab him for Covid, thank goodness, and he was included in the first 40 reported Covid deaths in Florida.
The odd case here and there does not mean that Covid does not exists or kill people.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
“Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate
Weekly 640
Total 174,233”
174233/population UK is?
Total deaths from Covid to date.
Just about anything can be made to sound alarming if the context is left out. It’s almost like Clint’s source intentionally tried to mislead people.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-deaths-4-comorbidities/
75% of those sick AND vaccinated died. That means 25% of the healthy AND vaccinated also died.
Does the vaccine help or harm?
“75% of those sick AND vaccinated died. “
Wrong. 75% of those who died and were vaccinated were sick.
Wrong again. This group had 4 or more risk factors. 75% of those who died and were vaccinated were VERY sick (or more specifically, had 4+ risk factors).
“That means 25% of the healthy AND vaccinated also died.”
Wrong again. Besides Clint having the conditions in the wrong order again, the report clearly states “All persons with severe outcomes had at least one of these risk factors”.
0% of otherwise healthy AND vaccinated people had severe outcomes. let alone dying.
Read the study. Don’t rely on Clint’s interpretation of a news organization’s interpretation of the C*D*C Director’s interpretation of a study!
1,228,664 million vaccinated people were studied.
2,246 (0.18%) developed COVID
189 (0.015%) developed severe outcomes (all of who had at least one risk factor)
36 (0.003%) died (28 of whom (77.8%) had at least 4 risk factors)
https://www.c*d*c.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm
(remove asterisks)
So for all the hoopla, the vaccines don’t help much at all, even if you believe their statistics.
The figures mentioned were only regarding vaccinated people.
Compare that with outcomes for unvaccinated people, or for all COVID cases.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1122160
Which I know you read because you replied to it.
So your comment above, which you made after, is pure trolling.
No. If you believe the data then vaccines do help considerably. Only willful misreading of the report could allow a conclusion like “vaccines dont help much at all”.
barry, you shouldn’t insult someone just because they don’t share your beliefs. That just makes you look immature and desperate.
I was referring to the cruise ship “Diamond Princess”. It was described as the “perfect lab” for studying Covid. Almost 4000 people confined to a cramped ship for over a month. Only about 800 even contracted Covid. Only about 10 died, and they were all with co-morbidities.
None had the vaccinations, but the results were as good, if not better, than those now getting vaccinated.
“I was referring to the cruise ship ‘Diamond Princess’.”
No you weren’t.
You were replying to Tim’s comment on the study of over a million vaccinated Americans.
“So for all the hoopla, the vaccines don’t help much at all, even if you believe their statistics.”
There were no COVID-vaccinated people on the Diamond Princess in March 2020, of course.
Furthermore, you were quite happy to “believe their statistics” when it suited you on the comorbidities.
Enough, troll.
Sorry barry, but I explained my comment was about the “Diamond Princess”: “So for all the hoopla, the vaccines don’t help much at all, even if you believe their statistics.”
The DP unvaccinated results were as good as the vaccinated results later. Sorry if reality bothers you.
But I’m enjoying your meltdown.
Ignoring your mendacity…
Diamond Princess CFR = 1.26% (based on YOUR figures)
Vaccinated CFR = 0.003%
Passengers on the Diamond Princess were 420 times more likely to die from COVID than the vaccinated.
Whatever you’re smoking, be sure to share it with the local crackheads.
Not sure how you got those figures barry.
Maybe it has something to do with your meltdown?
0.003% CFR among vaccinated from the exact same source as your 75% with comorbidities – she says it in the same interview.
1.25% CFR from the figures YOU gave for Diamond Princess.
YOU referenced these things, Clint.
Check your figures barry, then check this:
https://www.khou.com/article/money/consumer/cruise-ship-couple-quarantined/285-7f94456c-e912-4900-bcc9-670753ef8525
No, YOU check the figures and don’t change the subject.
YOU provided the references and now you reject them when I simply point out the figures YOUR references give us.
Take some responsibility, stop passing the buck, stop changing the subject when your argument sours.
CFR for the vaccinated is 0.003%
That figure comes direct from the same spokesperson who a few sentences later spoke of the comorbidities.
CFR for the whole country is 1.4%
You’re 400 times more likely to die from COVID if you are unvaccinated (that’s the average across age groups – worse odds if you are older).
Do they group all vaccines together?
barry…”Youre 400 times more likely to die from COVID if you are unvaccinated…”
***
bs. No one has ever done a study to confirm that. All you have are pro-vaxxers making excuses for the thousands of fully vaccinated people who are now testing positive, becoming infected, hospitalized, and even dying of covid.
Here in the province of BC, Canada, for the week of Dec 11 – 19th, 2021, 70% of people testing positive were fully vaccinated.
Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA technique used in the vaccines, which he rightly calls gene therapy agents, points out that the vaccines cannot kill off a virus. Therefore, fully vaccinated people can be carrying a virus as easily as unvaccinated people.
The criterion should be symptoms like a fever, a cough, and lung discomfort/pain. With this pandemic of hysteria, idiots are making wild guesses and trying to make the unvaccinated scapegoats.
“No one has ever done a study to confirm that.”
Pfffft. If a study confirmed that you would automatically deny it without even reading it. Please.
The statistics are readily available and the percentage calculation may be within even your grasp.
It may be news to you that there are breakthrough cases. It may surprise you to learn that the latest COVID variant more successfully evades the vaccines designed for previous variants.
But the rest of us who ignore the pap from blogs and news media and go to original sources (medical literature) for information are not surprised, and we don’t have to create wacko conspiracy theories to prop up wacko views.
barry…”It may be news to you that there are breakthrough cases. It may surprise you to learn that the latest COVID variant more successfully evades the vaccines designed for previous variants”.
***
Barry, I have a slightly used bridge spanning the harbour here in Vancouver, Canada, I can let you have for a really good deal. Great view from both sides and you could toll the bridge and make a heap of cash.
You really shouldn’t rely on blogs and news media for financial advice either.
barryIt may be news to you that there are breakthrough cases”.
***
Not news to me, I have been following the ever-deepening propaganda as pro-vaxxers try to do damage control. Pfizer guaranteed a 95% efficiency for the vaccines at preventing covid. They lied. Nothing new, they have been fined 5 billion dollars for lying about their products.
The current favourite excuse offered is that no vaccine is 100% effective. When anti-vaxxers argue this point they are accused of creating conspiracy theories.
The next lame excuse is that those vaccinated don’t get as sick. It’s lame because most people testing positive, vaccinated or unvaccinated report only mild symptoms. The number of deaths reported world-wide is a tiny fraction of 1% for most countries.
The word coined for this scam, ‘breakthrough’ says it all.
That’s right, no vaccine is 100% effective. The problem with anti-vaxxers is not that they acknowledge this fact, but that they use it to argue that vaccines are therefore useless. Clearly, they are not.
Pfizer didn’t “guarantee” 95% efficacy, that was the result of early testing and it was promoted as such. Pfizer also funded studies that showed waning efficacy of the vaccine. They’ve been up front about it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pfizers-ceo-says-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-to-84percent-after-six-months.html
But in the corner of the web you get information from, they won’t tell you that the CEO of Pfizer announced waning effectiveness half way through 2021.
The “lame excuse” that vaccinated people are much less likely to suffer severe symptoms and death comes from hospitals and medical research around the world. The sample size is massive (hundreds of millions of people).
Your wacko conspiracy theories are still wacko.
Looks like the statistics have changed since Dec 6…
“From Nov. 30 to Dec. 6, people not fully vaccinated accounted for 59.0% of cases.
From Nov. 23 to Dec. 6, they accounted for 67.5% of hospitalizations.”
Directly from the BC gov website.
Now, in a population with 50% of people vaccinated, this would be strong evidence that vaccines prevent cases and hospitalisations.
But by that week in BC, 88% of the population over 12 years old had been double vaxed.
So that 12% of the population made up 59% of new cases, and 67% of hospitalisations. Vaccines are looking like a better proposition.
barry…”Looks like the statistics have changed since Dec 6″
***
Definitely. During the week Dec 11 – 19, in BC, a full 70% of those testing positive were fully vaccinated.
An update…it’s getting worse…
“From Dec. 28 to Jan. 3, people fully vaccinated accounted for 83.8% of COVID19 cases, while those who are unvaccinated or only hold one dose of the vaccine accounted for 16.2% of cases”.
https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/news/news/COVID_19/Over_80_of_COVID_19_cases_in_BC_in_the_past_week_were_fully_vaccinated/
As I pointed out in another post, I know two people currently trapped in the US till they test negative and show no symptoms. Both are fully vaccinated with booster shots.
Thanks for the link. Let’s read it:
“From Dec. 28 to Jan. 3, people fully vaccinated accounted for 83.8% of COVID19 cases, while those who are unvaccinated or only hold one dose of the vaccine accounted for 16.2% of cases. With nearly 90% of people 12 and older in the province now fully vaccinated, these splits are not unexpected.”
And now the “lame excuse” data.
Hospitalisations over the past two weeks (Dec. 21 to Jan. 3).
Not vaccinated: 84 (48.6%)
Partially vaccinated: 5 (2.8%)
Fully vaccinated: 84 (48.6%)
While 10% of people over 12 are unvaccinated in BC, they make up half the hospitalisations.
Still think the vaccines don’t reduce the risk of severe symptoms?
Now, we’re talking about 173 people hospitalised in BC. What are the odds that most of these are elderly and/or with comorbidities?
Hospitalisations are now what they were in May – with 3 times the number of daily cases compared to May.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-update-b-c-hospitalizations-increase-to-eight-month-high-of-469-1.5736333
So having the vaccine on a naive reckoning makes it 3 times less likely you will end up in hospital.
ICU is half what it was in May, with 3 times the daily cases.
Not bad with vaccines that were not designed for the current variant.
New paper incorporating ocean heat content measurements through 2021:
Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions
I did a top down calculation about 5 years ago and got an annual warming of 3ZJ.
That is right on the lower error bar of the 2021 figures.
Accelerating warming. ) o :
Seeing the names of the authors, and the first sentence, we know this ain’t science.
“The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content.”
clint…from cited quote…”“The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content.”
***
Yep…Trenberth, Mann, et all, a load of losers with regard to science.
It is not possible to trap heat unless you trap the atoms/molecules representing heat. This article and every other article claiming that does not explain how GHGs can trap atoms/molecules.
One cannot claim the infrared energy absorbed by GHGs is heat since heat was lost at the surface when the IR was created. It can be said that GHGs trap a certain amount of surface radiation but it’s not heat being trapped. Furthermore, GHGs only trap about 5% of surface radiation.
The glass in a greenhouse can trap heat because the glass and framework actually trap the atoms/molecules representing heat. As Joe Postma said, ‘we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do’.
The Earth’s gravity traps the molecules just like the panes of glass in a greenhouse.
Sometimes you need Mr. Obvious and a two by four.
Gordon, Joe Postma used to post comments on this blog but got banned for writing inaccurate atm. science sophistry such as your laughingly funny quote attributed to Joe which is inaccurate as bob points out.
Lower than last year or not?
Probably higher. Ocean heat content reflects the underlying warming trend, and is less sensitive to short term variation. 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of ocean has a lot of thermal inertia.
If you compare my 3ZJ from 2015 with the 14ZJ +/-11 from the paper, my value is right on the lower confidence limit. There is only a 5% chance that the ocean heat content has remained unchanged.
Missed a 0.
5% should be 50%.
Which is actually quite good for a five year gap. Usually climate data takes at least two decades to show statistically significant trends.
Sure.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-1.jpeg
Linear trends are almost useless in natural, sinusoidal driven, data.
“natural, sinusoidal driven, data. ”
You’ve made two assumptions there.
1) That the OHC change is natural, rather than artificial.
2) That the driver is sinusiodally cyclic.
Could you please explain what brought you to those conclusions.
Please do tell me how daily and yearly temperature data is not cyclic.
Yearly example
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
Daily example
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne.jpeg
That’s annual and diurnal cycles on which we agree.
You are claiming that the observed long term warming trend is actually the rising phase of longer cycles, something for which you do not have evidence.
You challenged cyclic but now you agree that it actually does exist in 2 different cycles, so you change the subject.
What statistics do you think are appropriate for cyclic and quasi-cyclic waveforms and why.
Now Roy has brought the full published data up to date
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
Northern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
Northern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
Southern Polar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Trends
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-1.jpeg
Month on Month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Lower Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_lt.jpg
Mid Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_mt.jpg
Tropopause
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_tp.jpg
Lower Stratosphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah_ls.jpg
It’s the sun stupid
https://youtu.be/i5kX4XeTmsA
Over a very long time.
So I did a thing:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/01/12/matt-and-chris-gurumeter/
tim…” If you believe the data then vaccines do help considerably. Only willful misreading of the report could allow a conclusion like vaccines dont help much at all.”
***
I now two fully vaccinate people both with booster shot, currently trapped in the US till they both test negative. Both have been quite ill.
The truth is, the vaccines are ineffective wrt the claim they can prevent covid. That’s what Pfizer claimed initially that they are 95% effective at preventing covid. Pfizer has been fined 5 billion dollars over the years for lying about their products and they were granted immunity from prosecution if anything goes wrong.
The FDA is currently pussy-footing around the reports Pfizer is supposed to supply regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. The FDA has already sent one report back, claiming it was inadequate. However, the FDA now want a 55 year moratorium on reporting the results which pretty well tells you the news is bad.
What is it with you guys who support climate alarm, experimental vaccines, and the Moon rotating on its axis? Much of your arguments are based on an appeal to authority. Have none of you the objectivity to take a look at what is really going on?
typo…”I now two fully vaccinate people …” is obviously, “I know two fully vaccinate people…”.
“The truth is, the vaccines are ineffective wrt the claim they can prevent covid”
The truth is the opposite.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-19-vaccines-still-effective-against-delta-variant-concern-says-oxford-led-study-covid
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf
“Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalisation and death. There is some evidence of waning of protection against infection and symptomatic disease over time, though protection against severe disease remains high in most groups at least 5 months after the second dose.”
rlh on how to abuse statistics…
“Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant…”
***
Between 65% and 95% effective????
And, how does one go about proving the vaccines prevent symptomatic disease?
Well believing the majority medical opinion would do as a start for those who are not trained in medical matters.
“Large clinical trials have been undertaken for each of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK which found that they are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic disease in the populations that were studied. The clinical trials have been designed to be able to assess the efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory confirmed symptomatic disease with a relatively short follow up period so that effective vaccines can be introduced as rapidly as possible.
Nevertheless, understanding the effectiveness against different outcomes (such as severe disease and onwards transmission), effectiveness in different subgroups of the population and
understanding the duration of protection are equally important in decision making around which vaccines should be implemented as the programme evolves, who they should be offered to and whether booster doses are required. Vaccine effectiveness is estimated by comparing rates of disease in vaccinated individuals to rates in unvaccinated individuals. Below we outline the latest real-world evidence on vaccine effectiveness from studies in UK populations. We focus on data related to the Delta variant which is currently dominant in the UK.”
rlh…”The odd case here and there does not mean that Covid does not exists or kill people”.
***
Before you set out to reply with a brain-dead one-liner, I am writing this for anyone reading your original comment who might want a deeper explanation from experts.
I am not debating whether covid exists or not but you’d have a hard time proving it has been physically isolated. The original claim for covid from Wuhan researchers in Jan 2020 did not claim to have physically isolated covid, they only claimed to have ‘associated’ gunk retrieved from the lungs of infected people with a virus.
The German scientist, Christian Drosten, rushed out the RNA-PCR test for covid based solely on the information supplied by the Wuhan report and he has admitted he did not physically isolate the virus. The World Health Organization accepted the test without peer review. Peer-review after the fact has revealed serious flaws in the test.
The RNA-PCR test was developed initially for HIV because no one could see HIV on an electron microscope as required. Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, has admitted he did not discover a virus but inferred one. He tried the standard method at the time, which required viewing the virus on an EM, but when he tried, he saw no virus.
I would think most scientists, upon seeing no virus, might assume there was no virus. However, Montagnier’s background was in retroviral theory and the field was only ten years old at the time. So, he applied an unproved theory to discovering a virus and ended up ‘inferring’ that certain strands of RNA were from HIV.
That is the same method used today to claim covid. Meantime, the other method developed by the Louis Pasteur Institute in the 1970s is still there. Why is it not being used? It is based on Koch’s Postulate, the previous test for a virus before the advent of the electron microscope. Why is it all of a sudden of no use while an inferred method is preferred?
If it was possible to physically isolate covid then why is a test based on an indirect method used? Why not take the sample which has been verified on an EM and use that as proof of a viral infection?
The argument against Montagnier’s RNA strand inference was presented by an early pioneer in the field of retrovirology when it began in the early 1970s. He claimed the marker, reverse transcriptase, was unreliable as a marker of a reverse (RNA) virus because RT is a common element in other bodily processes. The same is being claimed for the RNA proposed by Montagnier as being from a virus, it is common in many other bodily processes related to disease, being rundown, or even the common flu.
Dead cells can produce it and another expert, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who has worked for Pfizer, has pointed out that RNA from old infections can become embedded in the nasal and throat tissues and show up as a positive when people have no other symptoms.
Why did the Wuhan researchers not physically isolate covid and why did the German researcher not do the same when he developed the test?
Is it not obvious? No one has seen covid or any of the so-called variants. Two out of three papers on the 1st variant came from a computer modeler. Dr. Stefan Lanka, an expert in viral theory, has claimed the genomes for covid and the variants are created on computer models.
No-one has seen that you have a brain either. But there are those who claim you have.
You go against the majority of medical opinion. That is a fact.
“Court spokesman Matthias Geiser said the judges disagreed after hearing more than three hours of arguments and expert testimony.
The court had no doubt about the existence of the measles virus, it said in a statement”
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/psychiatrist-who-calmly-denies-reality
I would suggest the pertinent discussion should be about the ethics of coercing people into taking an unwanted vaccine.
Nuremberg Code states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential’
Canada Criminal Code says 265 -1- A person commits an assault when -b- he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose -3- For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of -d- the exercise of authority.
Coercion by threatening to fire someone, take away their ability to buy groceries etc is forcing someone to act against their will and is a basic crime against humanity.
What would you call forcing someone else to get a disease that you have? An assault?
Yeah, colds flus plague. Its my fault that you got sick? Try again; maybe the punishment can be burning someone at the stake.
If you take the life of a friend/relation does that make it OK for me to take your life?
You are trying to conflate homicide with virus?
Absurd and no less ignorant than those who would burn witches as a remedy for plague.
Viruses have always been there to cull the weak and the halt. Its meant to make the herd stronger. Interference with nature, such as with vaccines that don’t work, always brings a bad end.
Omicron and Delta variants are escape variants from vaccinated people.
If you deliberately spread a disease are you not committing a crime?
I am aware that there are laws criminalizing the reckless spread of STDs and HIV.
A quick internet search yields: Some states already have communicable (contagious) disease statutes on the books. A majority of states passed these laws in the early years of the HIV epidemic. Communicable disease laws typically require that defendants:
-have knowledge that they have a disease
-specifically intend (consciously desire) to transmit the disease, and
-engage in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission of the disease.
The penalties for violating communicable disease laws vary significantly from state to state. Most states categorize the crime as a misdemeanor.
Too, you have a responsibility to maintain your own health. Wash your hands, exercise, take dietary supplements, etc, not engage in reckless behavior (such as unprotected sex with multiple partners).
Unvaccinated does not mean sick with COVID.
Vaccinated does not mean not sick with COVID.
My opinion is that trying to charge someone with a communicable disease crime on the basis of vaccine status isn’t likely to succeed.
Strawman. The request is that you take measures that prevent you passing on a disease to others. Regardless if you are vaccinated or not.
“Coercion by threatening to fire someone, take away their ability to buy groceries etc is forcing someone to act against their will and is a basic crime against humanity.”
So all the childhood vaccinations we had to get, just to be allowed into school, must have been a ‘crime against humanity’ as well.
All the vaccinations we are required to get to travel to certain countries, must have been a ‘crime against humanity’ as well.
In all these cases, people have a choice. Choose a different job, home school, or don’t travel abroad.
You guys are working yourselves up into an extreme hyperbolic lather.
Just stop, take a deep breath, and keep things in perspective.
All the school vaccinations we had to get require parental consent.
The vaccinations we require to travel to certain countries are very limited. I am aware only of Yellow Fever vaccines. Vaccines are mostly recommended, and not required, for travel to places where the risk of disease is possible. I’ve never yet been required to show proof of vaccination to enter a country. The caveat is that I haven’t been to any country requiring Yellow Fever vaccine.
Most people don’t have the choice of a different job. People have to eat so closing off a grocery store is really a limit on ability to survive. Home school is already the norm here in Canuckstan with schools closed for most of the past two years. Travel abroad is not possible; there is a requirement to be vaccinated to board a train or plane in Canuckstan. There is not even a provision for compassionate travel; there are no exceptions.
I would move to another country but the madness is pervasive everywhere. I am considering to go anyhow because the madness is worse here in Canada than other places. The madness isn’t about the disease; its about authoritarian control. The trigger point for leaving is going to be when the vaccines become mandated.
You can’t force people to serve you either. Comply with their requests or shop/drink/have fun elsewhere.
Here is really good discussion about the ‘statistics’ of COVID vaccinations. There certainly is no way to compare risk benefit of vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
https://theconversation.com/covid-death-data-can-be-shared-to-make-it-look-like-vaccines-dont-work-or-worse-but-thats-not-the-whole-picture-172411
You cant force people to serve you either. Comply with their requests or shop/drink/have fun elsewhere.
barry…”What does this even mean?
rotate around a local orbit”
***
Sorry, Barry, should be “rotate around a local axis.
rlh…[GR]”In order for the moving coin to complete a 360 degree rotation about its axis while orbiting the stationary coin, one has to roll it around the stationary coin.
If the moving coin is not quite touching the stationary coin during its orbit, what makes it turn on its axis as opposed to just travelling around the center?”
***
I want to say first that this is not common knowledge, even in the scientific community. Most physicists and engineers deal with issues on the surface where motion like the Moon in its orbit is totally atypical. It just so happened that we touched on this briefly when I was doing engineering problem sets.
I was amazed to learn this in the first place but I did not have the time to go into it. I have learned much more since engaging in this thread by trying to understand the whys and wheretofores.
It is incredibly interesting for me to read how Newton came upon his analysis.
As Newton explained, the Moon is moving with rectilinear translation and ‘something’ bends that rectilinear vector into an elliptical orbit with curvilinear translation (I think h called it motion…same thing). It’s the Earth’s full gravitational field bending the Moon’s linear velocity vector bit by bit till it forms an ellipse.
I also pointed out a problem with the way we are taught Newton II, f = ma. Newton clarified that in Principia by adding…’If a force can move an object’…then f = ma. If that condition is not clearly understood then f = ma can be applied incorrectly. I have seen it applied incorrectly by people claiming a change in direction, without a change in the scalar quantity of a velocity vector, as acceleration.
Obviously, the gravitational field is able to re-direct the Moon’s rectilinear velocity vector but it lacks the strength to move the Moon out of its orbit by causing it to accelerate toward the Earth.
As you move the coin around the stationary coin, you have to somehow replicate those conditions (rectilinear to curvilinear translation). That is, you must keep a mark on the moving coin pointed at the Earth’s centre, or near to it in the case of its real elliptical orbit, while ‘adjusting’ the coin as it would be adjusted by gravity.
It might help to attach a straight piece as a tangent line where the mark is on the moving coin. That tangent line must follow the orbit at right angles to a radial line to the curve at that point. The adjustment is not cheating, you are simply replication at a macro level the actual adjustments by the gravitational field at a micro level.
Obviously the real orbit is represented by a continuous function but any adjustments you make will be jerky. The difference is that your jerky movements represent far more than the real instantaneous adjustments made by the gravitational field.
I wish you could see this because it is absolutely amazing wrt to what we expect re motion on the surface.
re-reading this post, I may not have addressed your question fully. You are claiming the Moon turns on its axis rather than simply traveling around the centre.
It is simply traveling around the centre without rotating around its axis. If you took the moving coin and simply rotated the mark on it through 360 degrees that would represent a full rotation on its axis. But the mark would no longer point at the centre of the other coin.
There is no such rotation. Make another mark opposite the mark that always points to the centre of the stationary coin. Now move the coin (adjusting as required to meet the conditions) so the original mark always always points to the centre of the stationary coin. Note that the two marks form concentric circles during an orbit.
Join the two marks with a line and draw another line perpendicular to it through the centre. Now you have three points on the coin forming three concentric circles. As long as those three points are moving in concentric circles the coin cannot rotate about its centre. There are an infinite number of such points along the line joining the original point representing the near side and the other representing the far side.
That’s the curvilinear translation to which Newton referred and that’s why I don’t think he could have missed the fact that local rotation is not possible with a curvilinear translation in which one side always faces inward.
simpler method. Presuming a circular orbit, and the lunar orbit is very close to circular, draw a radial line from Earth’s centre right through the Moon. Focus only on the portion of the radial line within the Moon.
Let the radial line rotate with the Moon. Do you see any rotation of the radial line within the bounds created by the Moon’s circumference? If there was rotation about the Moon’s centre, the portion of the radial line within the Moon would have to break free and rotate through 360 degrees.
You could time the rotation of the portion within the Moon’s circumference to turn exactly once per orbit and that is what is being inferred.
That would be called curvilinear translation with rotation. Since it does not break free and rotate, the condition is pure curvilinear rotation without rotation.
There are 2 motions. An orbit and a change in orientation. They are different.
You can travel without an orbit and have a change in orientation. You can travel without an orbit and have no change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have a change in orientation.
You can travel in an orbit and have no change in orientation.
Well put!
rlh…”There are 2 motions. An orbit and a change in orientation. They are different”.
***
An orbit is not a motion, it is a path traced out by an object. The orbit is caused, as Newton pointed out, by a body moving with rectilinear motion under the influence of a centripetal force.
********************
“curvilinear translation is actually just another set of words for orbit in this case”.
***
Curvilinear translation is related to the moving body, not the orbit it traces out. In fact, the orbit does not exist, all you have in the case of the Moon is a rigid body moving through empty space. No orbit is apparent until we humans track the motion instant by instant and plot it on a coordinate system. An orbit is simply a path described by moving body, in the case of the Moon or a planet.
Curvilinear translation describes a body moving along a curve with the stipulation, as with rectilinear translation, that all points on the body are moving in parallel at the same speed.
With rectilinear translation, the constant speed is a given since all motion is in a straight line with all particles moving in parallel. With a body moving on a curve, the constant speed is the angular speed of a radial line tracking the moving body.
For example, if the lunar orbit was circular and you drew or imagined a radial line from Earth’s centre extending through the centre of the Moon, and tracking the Moon’s motion, that radial line would turn at constant speed, as determined by dividing the length of the orbital path by the time it takes to complete one orbit.
If you visualize that radial line through the Moon, all particles in the Moon are moving in a direction perpendicular to the line since it has been stipulated that the nearest of those points must always face the Earth. That also means that every point on the Moon along that portion of the radial line are moving in parallel and at the same ‘angular speed’.
Many have argued that the points along the line move at different velocities, which is true, however, that is a result of them being required to complete one orbit in exactly the same time. Part of a rigid body are not free to move independently, their instantaneous velocities are determined by the rigid body.
An orbit can happen with or without a rotation about an axis. The axis of rotation may or may not be aligned with the plane of the orbit.
Ellipses that use the same focal points can be of various sizes.
“curvilinear translation” does not mean the object is subject to rotation about an axis such as is required for one face to always point inwards.
“curvilinear translation” is actually just another set of words for orbit in this case.
Gordon,
“Do you see any rotation of the radial line within the bounds created by the Moons circumference? ”
You know, you could set up your coordinate system and find the equation for the radial line within the bounds of the Moon’s circumference.
Then do the following test
If the slope of the line does not change, then the Moon is not rotating.
But, if the slope of the line does change, then the Moon is rotating.
So do the Math, find the answer.
Don’t be the Guru on the mountaintop with the mumbo jumbo.
bob d…”You know, you could set up your coordinate system and find the equation for the radial line within the bounds of the Moons circumference.
Then do the following test
If the slope of the line does not change, then the Moon is not rotating.”
***
The equation of the radial line within the Moon is the same equation as the radial line. Since the radial line is rotating through 360 degrees, it’s slope will change as will its x,y coordinates, instant by instant. However, at any instant, the equation of the line at that instant is the same equation as the portion inside the Moon.
I am asking the question, does that portion within the Moon rotate on its own within the complete radial line? It can’t Bob, because a tangent line drawn perpendicular to the radial line at the near side, the centre, and the far side must always move in parallel to ensure the near side always faces the Earth.
If there was rotation about the centre, the entire radial portion within the Moon would rotate inside the complete radial line. That would mean the near side had to rotate through 360 degrees and at one point, change places with the far side.
bob…I need to amend this…
“However, at any instant, the equation of the line at that instant is the same equation as the portion inside the Moon”.
I need to add, “unless the portion within the Moon is rotating”. If that was the case, it’s slop and x,y coordinates would be different than the rest of the line.
It is obvious that cannot be the case since the near side of the radial line within the overall radial line must always point toward the Earth.
Put an arrow on the portion within the Moon and point it at the Earth. It has to always point down the radial line at the Earth (circular orbit).
That changes slightly in an elliptical orbit but not much in the lunar orbit since the eccentricity is very close to circular. When the Moon is at either end of the major axis, it will be the same as on a circle. Either side of the axis, the portion of the line within the Moon will point slightly away from the Earth’s centre.
If you are looking along the radial line, you will now be able to see a bit more around the edge of the moon and that is longitudinal libration. That’s because the near face is pointed slightly away from the Earth, exposing more area (about 5%) around the edge.
“It has to always point down the radial line at the Earth (circular orbit)”
There are no such things in reality as circular orbits. They are all ellipses of one degree or another.
Orbiting requires at least 2 objects. Turing on an axis requires only 1.
Gordon,
If the radial line is rotating, then the part that goes through the Moon is also rotating.
Furthermore if the face of the Moon points slightly away from the center of the Earth, and then back to the center of the Earth, then slightly away in the other direction, then back to the center of the Earth.
What is it doing?
Rotating a little one way, then rotating back the other way, then rotating a little one way, and on and on?
Gordon,
This does have application, since if you do the same with Earth/Sun you achieve rotation. With Moon/Earth the lines remain together and not rotation.
I would point out that the argument from some is you need to take the line from respect to a fixed star, but even if you took it from the Sun the moon would show rotation. It no longer becomes a question of if the moon rotates but from what perspective. For everyone living on the Earth, the moon does not rotate as you have stated.
I will also add, that if the moon was rotating with an axis 90 degrees to Earth surface, it could still revolve around the earth and your line would not be broken. So that would be an exception to your method. In other words, the moon is rotating, just at a 90 degree angle to the Earth. You would still see the same side, just that side would be rotating, the man would be turning around.
Enjoy.
“As you move the coin around the stationary coin, you have to somehow replicate those conditions (rectilinear to curvilinear translation). That is, you must keep a mark on the moving coin pointed at the Earths centre”
This is where you go wrong. Gravity provides no torque to ‘keep a mark pointed at the earth’. The appropriate analogy would be to mount the coin on a frictionless axle. *That* is the condition you must replicate.
Imagine a coin on frictionless axle in rectilinear motion and not rotating. If one marked side of the coin is initially facing north, it will keep facing *north* it will keep facing north. I can stop translating the axle; start translating the axle; translate left of right or forward or back. The coin will not start rotating.
Even if the coin is now made to ‘orbit’ by pulling the axle in a circle, the marked side will keep facing *north*, NOT facing the center of the orbit.
I am fairly new to this discussion Tim, so bear with me. I was led to believe the moon was slowed due to tidal locking until it stopped rotating. This implies gravity does supply a torque. However, I can see how it may take a long time to achieve this and the force is not strong enough to prevent libration of the moon in an elliptical orbit. Thus the moon wobbles suggesting slight rotation back and forth as it completes a revolution around the earth.
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
Billy Bob, it seems you already understand better than many people in this discussion.
” I was led to believe the moon was slowed due to tidal locking until it stopped rotating.”
More specifically, until it rotates with the same period that it orbits.
“This implies gravity does supply a torque. However, I can see how it may take a long time to achieve this and the force is not strong enough to prevent libration “
Yes, gravity does supply small torques because moons are not perfectly spherical. And yes, this takes a LONG time. The article you linked seems to explain it pretty well (at a non-technical level).
“Thus the moon wobbles suggesting slight rotation back and forth as it completes a revolution around the earth.”
This is actually a bit backwards. The axial rotation is steady; it is the revolution around earth that is varying slightly.
For the moon to *actually* rotate back and forth would require a HUGE torque, both forward and backward within each orbit. The small tidal torque is no where near sufficient.
I appreciate the answer Tim. On libration I should have said rotation in respect to Gordons line that he described. That would go back and forth slightly based on location of the moon in its elliptical orbit. That allows us view of more than 50% of the moon surface.
If I can get your understanding on one more thing, I will probably leave this moon discussion satisfied.
If a space station is in an equatorial orbit with its axis parallel to north/south earth pole and rotates to create a false gravity on board, we can all see it rotating from Earth. If the crew stops the rotation to have a zero G environment, does it show only one side in a complete orbit? OR do satellites have to use thrusters to maintain orientation to the surface?
Thanks
Satellites have do indeed use methods, not only thrusters, to maintain orientation to the surface.
“If the crew stops the rotation to have a zero G environment, does it show only one side in a complete orbit? OR do satellites have to use thrusters to maintain orientation to the surface?”
These seem like two independent questions.
1) The centripetal acceleration is a = v^2 / r = r (omega)^2.
If the station keeps one side toward the earth, it is rotating about once every 90 min (in low earth orbit) = 0.0111 RPM. To truly have a centripetal acceleration of 0, the station would have to be non-rotating with respect to the stars — and of course then if would have opposite sides to the earth.
To give numbers, a station with r = 100 m would have to spin ~ 3 RPM to create an artificial 9.8 m/s^2. If it was spinning at 0.0111 RPM, the artificial gravity would be only about 0.00014 m/s^2. Practically zero, but not exactly.
2) Whatever rotation was established by the crew would be maintained — barring some torque. So if they set it at 0 RPM or 0.0111 RPM or 3 RPM, that would be maintained.
As RLH said, there are various ways to adjust the rotation rate. There are ways using tidal forces or gyroscopes or thrusters to maintain a desired orientation.
Folkerts and RLH continue to attempt to pervert physics. Here’s reality:
* Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string verifies “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
* Gravity does NOT induce torque on Moon. “Tidal locking” is nonsense. Such nonsense has been easily debunked.
Thanks Tim, I think I understand the arguments on both side now.
Clint, the ball on the string should probably be more like a ball on an elastic band. Earths gravity has a hold on the moon, but it shows a bit more than 50 percent since the orbit is elliptical. The line that Gordon describe does not rotate 360 degrees but because of the moons orbit it does rotate a few degrees to give us that additional view.
Concerning your comment on tidal locking, based on Tims comment and other discussions I have read, satellites can be designed to always face the earth surface. What comes to mind are communication satellites that are weighted to provide extra mass towards the surface. Similarly, the moon or least the theory of its development, suggest that the gravitation influence from Earth caused it to elongate from tidal forces. Eventually settling into its current shape allow the Earth gravity to hold one side towards the surface.
This actually supports the ball on the elastic band analogy as it relates to Gordons discussion. The bisecting line does not rotate. However the momentum of the moon prevents this lock to hold the view constant, the string is elastice. Thus the Gordons line does rotate a few degrees back and forth as view from Earth.
I see not reason for me to get into this. I am satisfied. But feel free to carry on the debate. Thanks again.
Billy Bob, the simple analogy of the ball-on-a-string has confused all of the braindead cult idiots.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a model, or analogy, to Moon. We have stated that numerous times, and the idiots STILL try to mess up the simple analogy. It is NOT about Moon.
The simple analogy shows “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The ball is orbiting, but NOT rotating on its axis. It is a ball on a sting, NOT Moon. The simple analogy is about a ball on a string, NOT Moon. The simple analogy simply shows that something orbiting, but NOT rotating, would have one side facing the inside of its orbit. Just as Moon does.
People that can’t understand the above are braindead cult idiots.
Now, as to the “tidal locking” nonsense, anyone with a basic understanding of physics should be able to understand this:
“Tidal Locking” Debunked
Galileo is credited with the first experiments verifying that gravity affects all objects equally, regardless of their mass. Two objects of unequal mass would fall at the same rate, even if one of the objects were 100 times the mass of the other.
Centuries later, astronauts performed the same experiment on Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8
A hammer and feather fall at the same rate, due to gravity. If the hammer were secured on one end of a long bar, and the feather secured on the other end of the bar, the assembly would fall without any induced torque, or rotation.
That’s established science, aka “reality”.
The false idea that Moon rotates about its axis started in astrology. It was never corrected, because the false belief has no effect on anything. Since it is not happening, it has no effect.
But, it has become part of the cult beliefs, and has been supported by the “tidal locking” nonsense. The problem is, gravity does not induce a torque on a sphere. It the sphere were originally not rotating, it would still not be rotating, in a gravity field. If the sphere were originally rotating, gravity could not stop the rotation.
People that understand the physics involved probably already see why “tidal locking” is debunked. But, here’s an example for others that may still be confused:
Take our moon and slice it down the middle, like cutting an orange in half. Now, hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers. Let’s guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.
Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?
Of course not, gravity cannot create a torque on a moon. But idiots have no understanding of the science, so they only believe what their cult teaches:
Whats more, this gravitational tugging would have influenced the moon’s rotation rate. If it was spinning more than once per orbit, Earth would pull at a slight angle against the moon’s direction of rotation, slowing its spin. If the moon was spinning less than once per orbit, Earth would have pulled the other way, speeding its rotation.”
There are 3 sentences in that quote, all 3 completely FALSE. Yet idiots willingly suck up and swallow such nonsense and regurgitate it constantly.
Just as the simple analogies debunk Moon rotation, the simple hammer/feather experiment debunks the “tidal locking” nonsense.
People that reject, twist, distort, pervert reality are idiots. Reality wins every time.
And you can’t trust anything idiots say. Tim and RLH have been caught numerous times attempting to pervert physics and distort reality.
So where does the energy for the land and ocean tides come from? Do they create any friction in the medium they are in?
RLH, why do you troll here all the time?
Why do you never have anything of value to add?
Why do you claim to understand vectors, but can’t solve the easy problems?
Why are you so braindead?
Lots of unanswered questions, huh?
“Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?”
Yes. The modified moon would rotationally speed up from no rotation on its own axis when placed back in position when earthshine would be incident on all faces per orbit to eventually one rotation on its own axis per orbit with the hammer side facing Earth with earthshine incident on only that face.
The modified moon would be speeding up in its curvilinear translation orbital path hence increasing its orbital distance from Earth due to interaction with Earth. All this as Clint R writes when moon observed from: “inside of it orbit”.
This is way, way above Clint R’s understanding of orbital mechanics so Clint will continue to provide good entertainment goofing around.
A non-rotating hammer and feather on Clint’s bar fall at the same rate; not so for a spinning hammer and feather on a bar falling in a gravity field. This is also way beyond Clint’s ability to understand.
Billy Bob says: “satellites can be designed to always face the earth surface. “
Yep. there are many approaches. Here is a quick summary.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/orientation-of-satellites.420947/
“This actually supports the ball on the elastic band analogy “
The problem with this analogy for tidal locking is that the tidal locking torque is tiny, taking millenia to have much effect at all. A string — or an elastic band — provides a strong torque that basically prevents a ball from ever rotating more than a quarter turn away from the string.
A yo-yo would be a MUCH better analogy. The body of the yoyo *can* spin, but a torque is applied that eventually makes the yoyo axle be stationary relative to the string.
Clint correctly surmises that a uniform sphere in a uniform gravitational field experiences no torque.
Clint fails to recognize two important facts.
1) the moon is not a uniform sphere (it is distorted by gravity)
2) gravity is not uniform (decreasing as 1/r^2).
A non-uniform object in a non-uniform field can indeed experience a torque. A torque that can and does change rotations. For example, the slowing of the earth’s rotation due to torque from the moon is well-established.
Clint R: Where does the energy for the land and ocean tides come from?
Tim is back perverting reality, again!
“A non-uniform object in a non-uniform field can indeed experience a torque. A torque that can and does change rotations. For example, the slowing of the earth’s rotation due to torque from the moon is well-established.”
The discussion is about MOON, not some imaginary “non-uniform object in a non-uniform field”. This is how Folkerts always tries to folk reality, but twisting and distorting.
And “the slowing of Earth’s rotation due to torque from the moon” is NOT well-established. Folkerts likes to choose “beliefs” over reality.
I guess I will have to find his 10 distortions of reality….
The discussion is about MOON
Yep!
not some imaginary “non-uniform object…
The moon is real and is non-uniform. Distorted by tidal stresses.
… in a non-uniform field”.
Gravity is non-uniform. It decreases as 1/r^2. Earth’s gravitational field is about 2% stronger at the near side of the moon than the far side.
And “the slowing of Earths rotation due to torque from the moon” is NOT well-established.
Yes, it really is. Two simple examples:
* Records of eclipses 1000’s of years ago only work out accurately if days were shorter then.
* The moon is measured to be moving away from the earth, gaining angular momentum as the earth loses angular momentum.
There are many other bits of evidence supporting this idea.
Sorry Tim buy beliefs, distortions, and purveying cult nonsense is NOT science.
Gravity can NOT induce torque on Moon. “Tidal locking” is nonsense.
Sorry.
“Gravity can NOT induce torque on Moon. Tidal locking is nonsense”
Liar.
The opinions, beliefs, and insults from the braindead cult idiots provide validation for the science and reality I present.
Thanks Ball4, TF, and RLH!
You provide neither science nor reality.
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*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/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..TsatRot/day
Mercury..440 K.364 K…340 K0,00568
Moon.270 K.224 K…220 K.0,0339
Earth255 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 K110 K.0,1398
Notice:
The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere”
None of the Planets or Moons are in a ‘parallel fluid flow’ They are in a vacuum.
“The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin…Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ”
Christos, the lunar equatorial avg. T cannot be smaller than the overall lunar global avg. T. Your work is flawed as RLH confirms.
Please also read the Table carefully.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
Short answer: because radiation is proportional to T^4.
Longer answer. The effective temperature is the temperature of a black body with a uniform temperature everywhere. But if the temperature is NOT uniform, the *average* temperature will be lower than the effective temperature. An effective temperature of 270 K could mean …
* the whole moon at 270 K (270 K average)
* 1/2 moon at 321 K, 1/2 at 3 K (162 K average)
* 1/4 moon at 381 K, 3/4 at 3 K (95 K average)
None of these are accurate for the moon, but they show that the average temperature can be WAY below the effective temperature when there are large variations in temperature. And the moon has large variations. Hence it is mathematically REQUIRED that the moon have an average temperature well below 270 K.
> I was not defending a geocentric frame of reference. The moon issue transcends reference frames, as I have comprehensively explained here and elsewhere.
Our slimiest sock puppet lies again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
[OUR SLIMIEST SOCK PUPPET] The moon issue transcends reference frames, as I have comprehensively explained here and elsewhere.
[ALSO OUR SLIMIEST SOCK PUPPET] That would have to be a moving seat, that follows the runner around the track whilst the seat remains oriented
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121428
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111601
Slimy sock puppet Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+3 DREMT please stop trolling.
#5
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+4 DREMT please stop trolling.
#6
RLH, please stop trolling.
@Entropic man
In fact, now that I think of it… if one looks at the graphs that dr. spencer presents to us every month, one’d notice that at least from the eye-balling perspective, the graph looks like a rather smooth curve overlain with a high-frequency ‘jitter’ that seem to be separated from the lo-pass signal both in frequency and in amplitude domain. The typical value of this jitter is around +-0.1*C … 0.15*C, which is conspicuously close to the typical accuracey of an individual meteorology-grade thermometer. Hmmm…
Now, I know that dr. spencers data are from the satellites which use very different method of measuring temperature, that also suffers less from ‘aliasing; but at the same time, requires alot more assumptions and some extra parameters to be taken into account for the temperature to be calculated. I don’t know what the accuracy of that instrument is, but, and this is a hypothesis, the actual accuracy of the instrument is not very different from the accuracy of the land-based thermometers?
Should that be so, that high-frequency month to month variability of temperatures as seen in the graphs, may not be an actual variability but rather be due to the inaccuracy of the instruments. Now, that would not mean that the high frequency variability doesn’t exisit, just that we can’t tell it from the noise and therefore can’t know whether it exists.
Now, this is a hypothesis, which need to be check which i’m not sure if i even want or can. If only there was another comparable measurement to verify UAH temperatures against, then we’d be able to reason about the accuracy of those measurement withot having to study the apparatus itself… except that there is one. The RSS does afaik approximately the same thing, measuring earthly temperatures from space with microwave radiometers (or do they? i don’t even know for sure). Assuming that the atmospheric layers they scan are the same, one only needs to compare their ‘wiggles’ one against the other. If the wiggles match, and to whatever extent they do, that is the real signal. If the wiggles don’t match well or at all, then at least one of them, and likely both uah and rss, are pulling their ‘data’ out of their as… noises. In which case it would be pretty clear that the accuracy of their measurement, the real one would be around 0.1-0.2K or more, to whatever extent the two datasets don’t match.
coturnix
Here is a comparison, within the satellite era, of the average of about 15,000 thermometers worldwide, located in about 2,000 grid cells, with the average of about 9,500 UAH lower troposphere grid cells, all cells 2.5 degree:
https://i.postimg.cc/dQmXjM2T/Globe-GHCN-daily-vs-UAH-1979-2021.png
Of course: the comparison invloves only UAH cells over land.
coturnix…”In fact, now that I think of it if one looks at the graphs that dr. spencer presents to us every month, oned notice that at least from the eye-balling perspective, the graph looks like a rather smooth curve overlain with a high-frequency jitter…”
***
The jitter as you call it is the actual data points. The red curve is an average of those points over 13 months.
It sometimes surprizes me how little you understand even when you (pretend to?) try. Basically ur reading comprehension is like zero.
Here is Climate Change survey conducted by Canada government. Please participate.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
ken…thanks for survey.
“a rather smooth curve overlain with a high-frequency jitter that seem to be separated from the lo-pass signal both in frequency and in amplitude domain. The typical value of this jitter is around +-0.1*C 0.15*C, which is conspicuously close to the typical accuracey of an individual meteorology-grade thermometer. Hmmm”
Most temperature datasets look like that. A long term climatic warming trend overlaid by a lot of short term noise due to weather.
The surface datasets based on station and buoy data have confidence limits of around +/-0.05C. Since they all use the same measurement data collated by NOAA, this is not surprising.
The satellite data for both UAH and RSS is based on microwave emission measurements from sensors on the same satellites and is less reliable. Both satellite datasets have confidence limits closer to +/-0.1C and tend to show larger variation than the surface sets in response to ENSO.
UAH and RSS both use complicated algorithms to convert the microwave data into temperatures. They differ in a number of ways. UAH tends to give lower temperatures than the surface sets. RSS is usually similar.
For a comparison of the different monthly datasets adjusted to a common baseline to go the Latest Ice and Temperature Data page at Nick Stokes’ Moyhu website.
Apologies for the lack of a link. For some reason this site rejects it.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Entropic man
This paper written by Richard E. Swanson might interest you as well:
A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/34/1/jtech-d-16-0121.1.xml
> Joe Postma used to post comments on this blog but got banned for writing inaccurate atm. science sophistry such as your laughingly funny quote attributed to Joe which is inaccurate as bob points out.
In fairness, Joe isn’t a Moon Dragon Crank.
Well, Joe is. Joe’s screenname was banned, not the dragon crank.
willard…from quote…”> Joe Postma used to post comments on this blog but got banned for writing inaccurate atm. science sophistry such as your laughingly funny quote attributed to Joe which is inaccurate as bob points out”.
***
Roy has never banned anyone for having a contrary opinion, as far as I know, he bans people for taking shots at him and I think that is fair. People using Roy’s blog should respect his professional standing and be respectful.
Philip Latour wrote a very scientific rebuttal of Roy’s views on certain matter but it was respectful. I don’t think Philip Latour is banned.
Joe and Roy had an interchange of opinions and Joe allowed his emotions to go beyond the exchange. Same with D*C. He actually had some decent ideas on physics but he could not police himself when it came to rants and name-calling directed at Roy.
C’mon, Gordo. Read again:
“Joe isn’t a Moon Dragon Crank.”
That’s the point of the comment.
Why do you keep deflecting like that?
People, People, Have some perspective here..
the average temperature of Earth is still around 15 C – This equates to a rather benign climate for most of the world, compared with Earth’s history. So much debating, so much emphasis on how “warm” or “hot” it is, or some even say it’s “cold”, etc. What we’re living through today is nothing, in terms of extremes.
rlh…”You go against the majority of medical opinion. That is a fact”.
***
How did you ever get yourself in such a dilemma, where majority of opinion represents scientific fact?
When Einstein was once advised the same thing by a journal editor, essentially that the majority of opinion opposed an idea of his, Einstein replied, ‘It only takes one of them to prove me wrong’.
I find it unsettling that someone like you with a Masters Degree is so hung up on majority opinion.
It was not that long ago that Australian researcher Barry Marshall, claimed that duodenal stomach ulcers were causes by a bacteria, H. Pylori, that could survive in stomach acid. He was laughed out of town. His paper was rejected and the journal editor claimed his paper was one of the ten worst he had ever read.
It was not till Marshall drank a concoction containing h. pylori and became severely ill with all the symptoms of duodenal ulcers, then cured himself with antibiotics, that anyone took notice. He went on to win a Nobel prize for his work.
Why do you fail to grasp that the majority, as you put it, are nothing more than a load of laughing hyenas who go along to get a long.
It does prevent you following the lunacies of things such as struck off doctors have presented in the past.
Viruses exist and some kill people, despite your claims to the contrary.
rlh…”If you deliberately spread a disease are you not committing a crime?”
***
I would think so. That’s why most nation signed the Nuremberg Code which is aimed at preventing such crimes. However, The Code also specifies that no one should be forced to receive an experimental procedure, and no one should be coerced into receiving one, particularly when they are not informed as to the after-effects of such a serum.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006
The code goes into exceptions and I am sure that’s what politicians today are leaning on. However, they are offering experimental gene therapy developed over a few months where the testing should have taken 6 years.
Dr. Robert Malone, who devised the mRNA technique used in the current gene therapy has expressed alarm at the lack of objective studies into the effects of the gene therapy. He claims no one knows where the serum goes in the body or what it is doing. He adds further that the US FDA is remiss in not requiring more stringent reporting of adverse effects from companies like Pfizer.
Dr. Michael Yeadon an expert on immunology, has expressed concern as well. He claims that viruses like covid or the flu infect cells in nasal passages and in the bronchial tract and into the lungs. That’s where the immune system attacks them and the result is the typical symptoms of congestion, sore throats, etc.
Yeadon wonders what effect a vaccine jabbed into the arm will do when the immune system is not used to finding such viruses there.
Sure the arm is not just part of the body connected by the same blood system as every other part of it. And injections in arm muscles haven’t been used for as long as there have been vaccinations. Idiot.
RLH, if you’re such a vaccine addict, go get another booster. If your vaccines are so effective, why are you so afraid? No one is preventing you from getting all the jabs you want.
My vaccination status is fully up to date thank you.
Now why don’t you sit at home, unvaccinated, so that you don’t accidentally infect others?
You assume I can “infect” others. I don’t sit at home, and I haven’t infected anyone.
You sit at home infecting others with your paranoia and anti-science.
Which is better for a healthy planet?
Ken:
“C D C recommends that children get four doses of polio vaccine. They should get one dose at each of the following ages:
2 months old
4 months old
6 through 18 months old
4 through 6 years old”
“You assume I can ‘infect’ others. I dont sit at home, and I havent infected anyone”
How do you know?
“I would think so”
What is the best way to spread a virus?
One way would be to vaccinate completely healthy individuals, so when they do get infected, they are asymptomatic and go out and spread it to others. It also helps in raising the probability of variants as the vaccine is very specific, but a natural immune response would be more broad based a lower the chance of a variant. So this way we can get more cases and more variants.
Given there are more cases now with most of the population vaccinated this year compared to the first year when no one was vaccinated, I would say the policy was quite successful. Ah, while we are at it, how about we over-prescribe antibiotics so super bugs can develop. Oops already did that.
Will humans ever learn?
Vaccines prevent infection, not promote it.
Actually, vaccines are designed to create an immune response. It originates from Cow Pox, which was a surrogate virus that was survivable. I believe Vaccine is a Latin derivative of cow. Those infected created the t-cells that would also fight small pox. For most, Cow Pox (the Vaccine) was more survivable than Small Pox.
The problem with the Covid19 vaccines is that for completely healthy people Covid19 was quite survivable. Many had flu like symptoms and would stay home. With the vaccine, many have mild to no symptoms and go out and spread the virus. That is what you asked.
Immune responses prevent infection, not promote it.
“The problem with the Covid19 vaccines is that for completely healthy people Covid19 was quite survivable.”
There are many otherwise healthy people who had died from Covid.
No vaccine spreads better:
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection
There are many otherwise healthy people who had died from Covid.RLH
5% deaths with people with no known comorbidity by my last count in the USA. The key is the phase no known, they did not have a medical condition they were aware of. A better policy would have been to study the deaths of this set to see if other patterns existed, such as low vitamin D or other genetic factors. Again, the desire would to have good policy to limit hospitalizations and deaths. Blanket vaccination is as good as over prescribing pain meds or antibiotics. The results are not good.
There are also many deaths listed in VAERS database related to Covid19 vaccines. They are anecdotal but not insignificant. I assumed at least half were just coincidental. Given my track record, there is more risk to the vaccine than the virus. But they are both extremely low.
“there is more risk to the vaccine than the virus”
The numbers say otherwise.
RLH says “Vaccines prevent infection, not promote it.”
Vaccines are supposed to prevent infection and there is good evidence to support the COVID vaccines. However there are a lot of valid concerns about efficacy and safety of COVID Vaccines.
But. The majority of people who are at risk of dying of COVID are averaging 85 years old. There is almost zero risk of dying of COVID for anyone under 50 years old. The statistics are quite garbled but the signal seems to indicate there are more deaths attributed to COVID Vaccines in under 50 population than deaths from COVID.
Too, the Omicron and Delta variants are said to be vaccine escape variants. That is people who are vaccinated are getting sick with COVID and are generating mutations. Arguably COVID would be over without the vaccines but instead we are suffering waves of Delta and now Omicron. Lets hope it doesn’t mutate again into something as virulent as Omicron and as pathogenic as Delta.
In light of the information it makes sense to prioritize vaccination of people at risk; that would be people over 65 years. It makes no sense to vaccinate people under 20. Anyone else that wants the vaccine should be able to obtain it. The caveat is that of ‘voluntary consent’ which implies people are informed of the risks versus the benefits. No one should be forced to take a vaccine.
The numbers say otherwise.RHL
Not sure how you would know that, you are not privy to our family medical history. My numbers show more risk to me from the vaccine than covid19. You would have to be naive to think everyone is the same. As I said, for many the vaccine makes sense, for others it does not. Not sure why that is such a hard concept to understand.
Given that there are more infections now with the vaccine than when no vaccine was available, I would have to conclude the vaccines have had little affect on the spread. Again, that was your question.
Here is Pfizer CEO saying two doses offer very limited protection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evP8OgHU6hk
“However there are a lot of valid concerns about efficacy and safety of COVID Vaccines.”
No there aren’t. There are just those who wish to create stories hat say otherwise.
“I would have to conclude the vaccines have had little affect on the spread”
You would be wrong.
You may be right RLH. The increase in spread may in fact be due to the over use of the vaccines.
All the recognized medical evidence says otherwise.
“All the recognized medical evidence says otherwise.”
The root of the problem. All the recognized medical evidence pertains to other vaccines.
What other vaccine requires two doses and booster doses every few weeks for ever after? What other vaccine has caused a third of all averse vaccine reactions ever recorded? What other vaccine has ever been rolled out in less than 5 years of stringent testing? There are all sorts of valid arguments to suggest you’re better off without this vaccine.
rlh…”Immune responses prevent infection, not promote it”.
According to Dr. Robert Malone, an expert on mRNA, the current vaccine does not suppress the virus. Therefore, fully vaccinated people can spread it, even though they are theoretically immune. The data is showing that is not the case as thousands of people who are fully vaccinated are becoming infected.
I am the only one in my circle of family and friends who is not vaccinated. I remain healthy while several of the fully vaccinated have been ill and tested positive.
Immune responses reduce infections, not prevent them.
GR: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covid-psychosis-theory-joe-rogan-b1989552.html
“Dr Malone’s Twitter account has also been removed following the claims about ‘mass formation psychosis’.”
Lets start a rumour.
Omicron either began as mouse soup at a wet market in Pretoria or it escaped from the Virology Lab in Pretoria where COVID was being studied using mice.
Lets start another rumor. Ken is an idiot.
Stipulated.
Insults are the last resort of people who have no facts to defend their point of view.
You were the one wanting to start rumors, not me.
ken…”Omicron either began as mouse soup at a wet market in Pretoria or it escaped from the Virology Lab in Pretoria where COVID was being studied using mice”.
***
Neither, according to Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean. He claims the covid genome and the variants are created on computer models. He points out as well that scientists have argued over the shape of the measles virus for 50 years.
Consider that the first two papers on variants came from a computer modeler, Dr. Neil Ferguson, of the Royal College.
You should read Lanka on the history of the virus dating back to the 19th century in particular. A scientist lamented circa 1935 that no virus could meet the requirements of Koch’s Postulate, a set of rules laid down by Koch to identify an infectious agent.
By the 1950s, there was still no positive way to isolate a virus and that persisted till the 1970s when the Louis Pasteur Institute laid down a protocol for identifying a virus. It included an important requirement, that the virus be clearly visible on an electron microscope.
When Dr. Luc Montagnier used the method, since a member of his team, Dr. Barre Sinoussi, had helped write the protocol, he could not find HIV on an EM. He admitted that in an hour long interview. He claims only to have inferred HIV based on strands of RNA he believed were from HIV.
Montagnier invented a new method based on those strands of RNA and that is the method used today. It seems no one has ever isolated HIV physically which might explain why there is no vaccination for it some 40 years later, yet we found one for covid in 3 months based on the same Montagnier methodology.
If it interests you, take a look at these articles by Lanka. You need to find the English versions part way down the page
I fear we are being royally scammed re viruses.
https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
ken…sorry Ken, I missed the fact that you were creating a rumour. Still, try to read the Lanka papers.
Can we start another one? The flu is not caused by a virus. It has something to do with cycles humans go through which allows bile from their brains to seep into their nasal and throat passages, infecting them.
Similar to what old Brits called ‘the vapours’.
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°C 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
“Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴” is gobbledygook on my computer. What did you actually mean?
rlh…”Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ is gobbledygook on my computer. What did you actually mean?”
***
Brer Richard…I use the straight Firefox browser and get the same gobbeldygook. If I fire up the free Tor browser, which is actually Firefox, I get the original text from Christos.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
is seen as
Tmean = [ Phi (1-a) S (Beta*N*cp)^1/4 /4sigma ]^1/4
Seems the real version of Firefox is blocking something.
Interesting…if I copy the correct equation from Tor, this blog posts the correct equation.
Tor is worth getting if you don’t want people tracking you around the Net.
On second viewing, the 1/4 exponents are messed up. The 1 is missing.
On second viewing, the exponents are messed up. The 1 is missing. It’s there on Tor.
Gobbledygook can turn into something interesting for a while on all browsers I think. I have never sorted out why.
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
can sort them out (if you can be bothered).
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.”
“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.”
Please, anyone, where in the definition of the blackbody is said that blackbody is warmed by the “incident electromagnetic radiation”?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
“absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
It is said in the definition for the necessary reason to underline the notion that blackbody’s emission is purely the blackbody’s surface state temperature function, and should not be confused with any other source’s incident radiation reflection.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Peak Oil then:
Peak Oil Now:
RLH says:
January 13, 2022 at 4:35 AM
Orbiting requires at least 2 objects. Turing on an axis requires only 1.
This is not q
RLH says:
January 13, 2022 at 4:35 AM
Orbiting requires at least 2 objects. Turing on an axis requires only 1.
This is not quite true.
With one object there is no reference frame to assert movement
Both orbiting and turning on an axis are impossible to prove.
With two objects there is still no true reference frame so the same statement is semi correct.
When the two objects are composed of 1 object and two objects joined together then a deviation in shape of the dual object allows a difference in appearance of the second object.
In this case one or the other is orbiting or rotating but there is no way of proving either statement other than a change in orientation of one to the other is occurring.
“With one object there is no reference frame to assert movement”
Centrifugal/centripetal motion says otherwise.
angech
” Both orbiting and turning on an axis are impossible to prove. ”
Sorry, this is merely a simple guess, ignoring both science and history of science.
*
I recommend you to read the introduction of Lagrange’s
Théorie de la libration de la Lune
Theory of the libration of the Moon
https://tinyurl.com/ye5ay9hm
Lagrange presented his theory at the French Academy of Sciences, which asked for the best explanation of Moon’s libration in longitude, and won the first price.
The rest of Lagrange’s work you should read only if you have enough mathematics knowledge to understand how second order spatial differential equations of motion are set up, and how Lagrange managed to reduce them into first order differentials.
*
Later on, Laplace did even a more complex work, by solving the problem without the simplification needed by Lagrange.
Laplace’s solution of the equations achieved such a level of precision that he was able to determine tiniest irregularities within Moon’s rotation – wobblings called lunar physical librations, to be opposed to Moon’s apparent, optical librations.
These physical librations (due in part to gravitational effects emanating from the Sun and Earth) were first observed and recalculated in the 20th century.
*
I sincerely hope that upon having read and digested at least Lagarange’s introductory stuff, you will agree that your guess above was incorrect.
{ Please try to avoid Robertson’s incredibly dumb reaction to this document (” … the document you show has only to do with libration, and not with rotation”). }
binny…oh, great, you post an article in which Lagrange tells you what he is planning to do but never gets there. No equations …nothing. And you, like a great lump, present that garbage as proof of lunar rotation.
I think Lagrange, Cassini, Mayer, et al are full of hot air. The fact that they completely missed the obvious, that the Moon constrained to keep the same face pointed at the Earth means it is performing curvilinear translation without local rotation and cannot possibly rotate about a local axis.
Newton got it right, claiming the Moon’s rectilinear translation was converted to curvilinear translation by ‘some force’ but even he seems to have missed the fact that the only force available is gravity.
I don’t know if you missed my post on that but Newton clarified Newton II by prefacing it with the words, ‘If a force can move a body…’. Gravity is not strong enough to move the Moon as in f = ma = mg, but it has the strength to divert the Moon from its rectilinear path into a curvilinear path.
The curvilinear path explains it all, why the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth. It’s so simple as to be stupid simple and all the great minds like Lagrange, Laplace, Cassini and Meyer missed it because they committed the fatal error of reading far too much into the problem.
Lagrange and Cassini were looking right at the solution when they studied libration and they both missed it. They were too busy trying to employ complex math and completely missed the obvious and very simple solution, which Tesla saw clearly.
“I think Lagrange, Cassini, Mayer, et al are full of hot air”
I think that YOU are full of hot air and science appears to back me.
f = ma is not strong enough to move the Moon but is also able to deflect it into an orbit!
Movements of large objects do not require any acceleration!
Do you ever stop to think what you write?
Nothing new to see here, Robertson keeps stubborn, dumb, ignorant and arrogant.
Flatearthism at its best.
I just want to add one more proof of Robertson’s absolute stupidity.
” … oh, great, you post an article in which Lagrange tells you what he is planning to do but never gets there. No equations… nothing. And you, like a great lump, present that garbage as proof of lunar rotation. ”
In the text I posted you see at the very beginning:
” This is a translation of the introductory text; the five mathematical sections begin in the French text
at the position:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2292245/f15.item ”
The math starts at page 16.
Robertson is simply too dumb to access a link.
rlh…”Sure the arm is not just part of the body connected by the same blood system as every other part of it. And injections in arm muscles havent been used for as long as there have been vaccinations. Idiot”.
***
I don’t know when Richard was vaccinated but I have noticed an aggression and incompetence seeping into his replies. Seems the vaccines are affecting him adversely in that he is no longer able to think objectively, let alone respond objectively.
GR is just an idiot. Nothing changes there.
Ken:
C D C recommends that children get four doses of polio vaccine. They should get one dose at each of the following ages:
2 months old
4 months old
6 through 18 months old
4 through 6 years old
rlh…”C D C recommends that children get four doses of polio vaccine. They should get one dose at each of the following ages:”
***
And some of the poor little souls get autism from the vaccinations and the CD-C goes into denial. I wish they would go into de Nile and let the hippos get at them.
The Polio vaccine has eliminated Polio wherever it is used and no proof of any link to Autism has ever been established. Indeed many proofs have been shown the other way.
https://ftp.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/do-vaccines-cause-autism
“Dr. Richard Horton of the Lancet wrote that Wakefield should have revealed to the journal that he had been paid by attorneys seeking to file lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. In television interviews, Horton claimed that Wakefields research was ‘fatally flawed.’ Most of the co-authors of the study retracted the interpretation in the paper, and in 2010, The Lancet formally retracted the paper itself.”
“Most scientific and medical experts are satisfied that no connection exists between vaccines and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Still, critics continue to question the issue. Not only do they question the relationship between MMR and thimerosal and autism, they bring up further culprits they believe might play a role in development of autism. Researchers continue to examine these questions, but there is no evidence that these factors play a role in autism development. Most autism researchers hold that the causes of autism are many and include genetic and environmental factors, but do not involve vaccines.”
Care International report highlights “deep injustice” neglected by world’s media. About 235 million people worldwide needed assistance in 2021. But while some crises received global attention, others are lesser known. The 10 countries that had the least attention in online articles in five languages around the world in 2021:
Zambia First on the list, Zambia has 1.2 million malnourished people and about 60% of the 18.4 million population living below the international poverty line of $1.90 (1.40) a day.
Ukraine Currently in the news amid renewed tension between Russia and the west, in Ukraine, 3.4 million people were in need of assistance in 2021, after years of conflict.
Malawi Malawi is facing a food insecurity crisis, with 17% of the population severely malnourished.
Central African Republic (CAR) Half of the population face food insecurity. A ceasefire agreement struck in October 2021 is fragile and more than 700,000 people have been internally displaced – more than half children. Ranked second to last globally on the Human Development Index. About 30% of children are in work.
Guatemala Two-thirds of the population live on less than $2 a day and 38% of the population face food insecurity. Considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries, with 3,500 murders in 2020 alone.
Colombia Nearly 5 million people live under the control of armed groups, and 6.7 million people are dependent on humanitarian aid. Food insecurity has been blamed on an economic recession caused by the pandemic. It has particularly affected indigenous communities.
Burundi In 2021 2.3 million of the 12.6 million population were in need of humanitarian assistance. In a country where 90% of people rely on small-scale agriculture, only a third of land is suitable for cultivation, due to drought, floods and landslides.
Niger Nearly 3 million people rely on humanitarian aid. About 1.8 million children need food assistance and almost half of all children under five are malnourished.
Zimbabwe 6.6 million people need humanitarian aid. More than a third of the population (5.7 million) lack sufficient food.
Honduras About 70% of the population live in poverty, according to a 2020 study.
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.
We are dealing with the long ago established blackbody EM ENERGY emission THEORY by applying it to the real rotating planets surfaces with the use of our very precise and very accurate approach.
Heres 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.
“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.
Please, anyone, where in the definition of the blackbody is said that blackbody is warmed by the “incident electromagnetic radiation”?
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
“absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
It is said so in the definition for the necessary reason to underline the notion that blackbody’s emission is purely the blackbody’s surface state temperature function, and should not be confused with any other source’s incident radiation reflection.
…………………………..
In real objects, when deriving the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law J=σT^4, the incident from surrounding environment the low temperature radiation falling upon the surface of hot filaments’, which filaments were used in experiments for blackbody emission measurements, this environment originated low temperature incident radiation was simply omitted as negligible…
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.
…………………
But to come to terms with this very important notion the real radiating bodies’ radiative balance (energy in =energy out) should be very much correctly estimated. Thus we come again to the Φ -factor and to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you can drop your fudge factor phi and add to your 1LOT eqn. the measured earthen atm. opacity to compute Tse = 288K (see a text book) with real physics instead of your artificial curve fitting.
Also, the ideal blackbody is NOT a thermodynamic limiting case as real objects can be measured with emissivities greater than 1.0.
Like Clint R et. al. 3 ring circus entertainers, Christos simply needs to catch up reading the experimental work of others in the field starting with those used by M. Planck around 1900.
“real objects can be measured with emissivities greater than 1.0.”
Yes, I know that. Do you have any objects-examples in mind too?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you know emissivities can be measured greater than 1.0, why did Christos write with bold font selection: “The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case…”?
I also did write “…against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 11:06 AM
You plagiarized my comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1089521
How pathetic!
P.s.: It’s OK for you to appeal to my authority.
Ball4, do you agree with the following assertion?
“Radiation that is incident on an object is partially absorbed and partially reflected. At thermodynamic equilibrium, the rate at which an object absorbs radiation is the same as the rate at which it emits it. Therefore, a good absorber of radiation (any object that absorbs radiation) is also a good emitter. A perfect absorber absorbs all electromagnetic radiation incident on it; such an object is called a blackbody.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not in that shortened form, Christos. What is meant by object is undefined and the criteria for good is not supplied in your clip. Possibly those were already given by your source. An object can also transmit radiation and no perfect absorbers have been found to date.
Ok!
christos…”Heres the Wikipedia definition of a black body A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation…”
***
So, the Sun, a near-blackbody, absorbs all incident radiation???? Contradicts the 2nd law and quantum theory according to Bohr, Schrodinger et al.
Blackbody theory was developed initially by Kircheoff for bodies in thermal equilibrium. It never has applied to bodies of different temperatures.
The original S-B equation came from Stefan, the simple one that goes like I = sigma.T^4. I is the intensity of EM radiation given off by a body of temperature T.
He derived it from data collected by Tyndall who heated a platinum filament electrically and observed different colours at different temperatures as the electrical current was increased. Another scientist converted the colours to colour temperatures and that confirmed what Stefan had hypothesized regarding the T^4 relationship.
At no time did Stefan propose that the equation contradicted the 2nd law by allowed the heated filament wire to absorb EM from cooler sources. In fact, Boltzmann respected the 2nd law and tried to explain it statistically. He failed.
Yes, and now the blackbody term is applied to every possible case, and it is applied to the irradiated surfaces too, which is not correct. Surface does not absorb EM energy in total, surface interacts with EM energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”Surface does not absorb EM energy in total, surface interacts with EM energy”.
***
EM is produced by electrons in atoms and can only be absorbed by electrons in atoms. In order to be absorbed, the EM must have the intensity and frequency (e = hf) to raise an electron one or more energy levels. If it lacks that energy and frequency it is ignored.
Solar EM should be absorbed by all electrons in the surface because it has the intensity and range of frequencies to stimulate all electrons in a much cooler surface. The same should be true for atmospheric gases like nitrogen and oxygen, they should be warmed by solar EM to a degree.
It is not true that GHGs in a cooler atmosphere can radiate energy that is absorbed by the surface. The intensity and frequency of such radiation is not enough to affect surface atom electrons.
coturnix….”It sometimes surprizes me how little you understand even when you (pretend to?) try. Basically ur reading comprehension is like zero”.
***
Let’s test your hypothesis that my reading comprehension is zero. Here’s your first paragraph, disjointed as it is.
“In fact, now that I think of it if one looks at the graphs that dr. spencer presents to us every month, oned notice that at least from the eye-balling perspective, the graph looks like a rather smooth curve overlain with a high-frequency jitter that seem to be separated from the lo-pass signal both in frequency and in amplitude domain. The typical value of this jitter is around +-0.1*C 0.15*C, which is conspicuously close to the typical accuracey of an individual meteorology-grade thermometer. Hmmm”
***
What the heck are you talking about. You claim to be eyeballing the graph that Dr. Spencer produces each month.
The graph is the so-called high-frequency component that you call jitter. If you zoom in using a viewer, there are 12 little circles between each set of vertical sections marked year by year. Each circle obviously represents the global temperature for one month.
Roy has joined each monthly data point with straight lines. Take the lines away and you have 12 data points per month.
That is the graph!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No noise, no jitter, just monthly data year after year.
On top of that data, Roy has supplied the red curve which is a 13 month running average. All he has done is smooth out the 12 data points per year. Those have nothing to do with high frequency/low frequency.
You are viewing the red curve as the graph and regarding the actual data points as a noise, or jitter, around the red curve. They are two separate graphs superimposed on each other.
Then you go on to question the accuracy.
“Now, this is a hypothesis, which need to be check which im not sure if i even want or can. If only there was another comparable measurement to verify UAH temperatures against, then wed be able to reason about the accuracy of those measurement withot having to study the apparatus itself except that there is one. The RSS does afaik approximately the same thing, measuring earthly temperatures from space with microwave radiometers (or do they? i dont even know for sure). Assuming that the atmospheric layers they scan are the same, one only needs to compare their wiggles one against the other. If the wiggles match, and to whatever extent they do, that is the real signal”.
***
RSS uses exactly the same satellite telemetry as UAH. It is also based on the NOAA satellites using the AMSU telemetry. UAH does depend on a correlation between altitude and temperature since the microwave emissions from the oxygen molecules received y the sat telemetry need to be correlated with O2 at a certain altitude. That accuracy has been confirmed by radiosonde data (balloons) to confirm the correlation with the UAh readings against the radiosonde readings for a certain altitude.
RSS is no longer reliable since they are now strongly connected with NOAA, the Mother of all Temperature Fudgers.
There are no wiggles, jitter or noise on the graph. The one data point per month is a global average representing an average of all the global readings done by the sats. That’s why many of us claim it means nothing, it’s just a number.
The JWST proves AGW is nonsense.
JWST proves an atmosphere cools rather than warms.
JWST proves a surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons.
Thank you NASA engineering!
Clint R
Your post is false. Not based upon reality. It is your made up version of science.
Your statements are not true at all.
1) No JWST does not prove AGW is nonsense at all.
2) No the atmosphere does not cool the surface, it keeps it warmer than it would be. Just a blatant false statement made by you.
3) No it does not prove a surface has to be cold to absorb low energy photons. The JWST is cooled so that photons from itself will not interfere with what is being observed.
I can clearly call you an idiot based upon this post. You are a clueless troll who has no working knowledge of science.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/observatory/sunshield.html
The reality you are not able to accept.
“The James Webb Space Telescope will observe primarily the infrared light from faint and very distant objects. In order to be able to detect those faint heat signals, the telescope itself must be kept extremely cold. To protect the telescope from external sources of light and heat (like the Sun, Earth, and Moon) as well as from heat emitted by the observatory itself, Webb has a 5-layer, tennis court-sized sunshield that acts like a parasol providing shade. [Actual dimensions: 21.197 m x 14.162 m (69.5 ft x 46.5 ft)]”
It is NOT about not being able to absorb photons, it is about interference from other sources. Please at least try to get your information correct before making up stupid ideas that are not true.
Norman, your lack of knowledge and lame attacks always prove me right. Good job, again.
Also, thanks for providing the evidence that you don’t understand any of this: “The James Webb Space Telescope will observe primarily the infrared light from faint and very distant objects. In order to be able to detect those faint heat signals, the telescope itself must be kept extremely cold.”
Not because a “surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons” as Clint R mistakenly writes since all objects at all temperatures absorb all frequencies of light all the time but because the sensitivity of the ‘scope is improved in order to detect low intensity star, planet, moon, and CMB light signals out of the noise of the intense solar light.
It’s hard to be more ignorant than Norman, but Ball4 succeeds. He believes everything is a black body!
“…since all objects at all temperatures absorb all frequencies of light all the time”
No object is a black body silly Clint; all objects also reflect light and some even transmit light! Ruling out light diffraction of course.
Clint R
You are an ignoramous. Even when proven wrong you persist in your false teachings.
Yes you stupid person it needs to be cold to detect very faint signals or else the surrounding “noise” of any other heat will overwhelm it. How stupid are you in reality? It is not possible you are so unthinking you cannot understand the quote you printed.
It is like light telescopes. If they are looking at very faint sources of light any interfering light can swamp the weak signal. You are sure a dumb person with no logic and a load of arrogance to keep you deluded in your false beliefs. Wow! Amazing how stupid people really are they can’t understand even basic ideas. Amazing!
Norman, notice Ball4 backtracked from his own words. He got caught, but pulled his head out of his ass.
You should consider doing the same as your cult hero.
And where’s your “real 255K surface”?
No bactracking at all Clint R, just like Norman and others write, Clint R is still just being silly:
Not because a “surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons” as Clint R mistakenly writes since all objects at all temperatures absorb all frequencies of light all the time but because the sensitivity of the ‘scope is improved in order to detect low intensity star, planet, moon, and CMB light signals out of the noise of the intense solar light.
Now Ball4 re-inserts his head — claiming again that everything is a black body.
That’s this is so much fun. These are the idiots that claim there is a “real 255K surface”, but they don’t know where it is!
I made no claim of nonexistent blackbody with emissivity of 1.0 at all Clint R., all existing objects, e.g. the JWST, have measured emissivities less than 1.0 while as I wrote ruling out diffraction.
All this time and Clint R still has not found the earthen real 255K surface as such a lazy science commenter. But Clint R demonstrates a great career as a hard working entertainer in the local 3 ring circus.
None of Clint’s statements will be proven true when JWST does reach its predicted operating temperatures.
What comes next to erode your rights? Please fill out the survey on net zero for details: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
We depend on oil and gas drilling not just for fueling our cars and heating our homes – but also for a myriad of products and materials that are the foundation of life in the technological world.
Tricky part will be to back off burning stuff which contributes to climate change, while maintaining, or perhaps finding replacements for all the stuff that is made from petroleum besides fuel.
What if the products we rely on just disappeared?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40XRuhEip38
P.s.: Classical Gas https://youtu.be/V4Ga67EDrKI
maguff…”Tricky part will be to back off burning stuff which contributes to climate change….”
***
1)Prove it.
2)What is climate change?
Personally, I like driving on paved roads. Concrete requires lots of heat. Asphalt uses a lot of residual petroleum sludge.
Over 500,000 products are derived from oil & gas; substitution will be “tricky.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical
Climate shysterin – hottest-ever by erasing the history
https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/14/magical-seven-year-record-wins-the-hottest-ever-bingo-of-2021/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah.jpeg and at the tope of the page.
Also
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2015/plot/gistemp/from:2015/plot/rss/from:2015/plot/uah6/from:2015/plot/best/from:2015
About the solar cycle predictions and progression.
With the current ramping up of the cycle 25 and possible terminator event occurrence there is a lot of buzzing and claims that the cycle 25 is significantly stronger than the predictions of low cycle similar to 24. These claims are made by both amateur enthusiasts but surprisingly by prominent professionals as well.
they are accompanied by charts like this as the evidence.
https://i.postimg.cc/Fszh0KWq/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
This is not only wrong but just plain stupid. The predictions in these charts are just a general depiction of the C25 duration and the maximum peak reduced to a simple smooth hump like curve. It should be totally obvious the curve itself is not to be followed as an exact prediction as no cycle actually even looks like this.
If you want to see how the progression and the ramp up rate really stands you have to stack up the actual cycles against it, like this.
https://i.postimg.cc/k539rvJ3/solar-cycle-comparison.jpg
There you can see the C25 is clearly following C24 so far, even though that is no prove of where it is going to end up in it’s peak.
Oil and Human Welfare
The great events of human progress -those that have changed the way men live- are hard to find in the history books. Historians emphasize political changes, changes in the mastery of men over other men. Such changes are not basic; they are limited in time and scope. They affect a nation, a culture, a civilization; they last for a decade or a century or perhaps a millennium.
They do not affect all men for all time to come. The basic changes come from man’s mastery over nature. They change the way men live forever after. They are not wrought by conquerors or rulers or even by statesmen.
We owe the way we live to the discoverers and inventors: our unknown ancestors who learned to use fire; the prehistoric men who first grew crops; the nameless geniuses who developed the wheel; the men who harnessed steam and tamed electricity; the men who drilled the first modern oil well. To such men we should raise our monuments. Such an event -events that change man’s way of life- took place on a little stream called Oil Creek, in northern Pennsylvania. A man named Drake drilled a well. On an August day in 1859 he struck oil. That event started life as we know it. Let’s place that event in time if we can.
Austria and France were fighting over Italian freedom; the North and South were about to fight over secession. The great names of the day were Cavour and Garibaldi, Napoleon III, Victoria. Bismarck was coming to the fore. Lincoln was an ex-Congressman from Illinois.
Drake and his backers were unknown men; their adventure was scarcely noticed. Only a few hundred people knew about it; none of them dreamed what it would do for mankind. An obscure event in an obscure place, brought about by obscure people. Yet that obscure event has made more difference in how more people live than all the conquests of history.
That obscure discovery has multiplied man’s productivity, his hours of ease, his freedom and range of movement. It has given him a third dimension. It has brought the earth to his door and given him the sky.
Because of that discovery, one American in every four owns an automobile, an average of one in every family. Because of that discovery, millions of Americans no longer cut wood or shovel coal; when cold weather comes they turn a valve. Because of that discovery, a father in Stockholm flies to see his son in Detroit in a day, a mother flies home from Calcutta to New York in less than two.
No government drilled the Drake well. No public man would have dared take such a risk with public funds. No statesman would have risked his reputation for good judgment. No ruler told them where or how to drill. No conqueror supplied the vision or courage.
Because of them we live in a new world: a world in which brains has superseded brawn; a world in which we own the sky, as well as land and sea; a world in which we live better than men have ever lived before. We live in a new world, because a little group of men were spurred by hope of profit; because they risked their money and their standing; because they drilled a well on a little stream called Oil Creek.
THE MINES MAGAZINE. January 1950
maguff…”Oil and Human Welfare”
***
Why are you posting this drivel? What’s your point?
I see no reason for any alarmism in any direction concerning the new solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard has always stated that SC25 would not be weaker than SC24 (what had been ‘predicted’ by alarmists in the Coolista corner, especially at WUWT).
And so does the comparison look like:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Not more, not less.
ken…”What comes next to erode your rights?”
***
The latest Nazi scuttlebutt is taxing the unvaccinated. They are now comparing us to cigarette smokers, drug abusers, and alcoholic who require medical attention due to their lifestyles.
The real problem is they have been advising us to get vaccinated and now there are a high percentage of fully vaccinated people testing positive and becoming infected. The egg on face syndrome…find a scapegoat.
rlh…”Most scientific and medical experts are satisfied that no connection exists between vaccines and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders”.
***
Not interested in appeals to mindless authority. Try some science based on the scientific method.
Not interested in your inanities. The authorities I point to are based on medial science. Yours are not.
rlh…”The authorities I point to are based on medial science. Yours are not”.
***
What is medical science?
How would you know if mine are experts, you only read enough to give yourself ammunition for an ad hom attack?
Sure. The Lancet is not an expert source. Idiot.
https://ftp.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/do-vaccines-cause-autism
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline/all
“The story of vaccines did not begin with the first vaccineEdward Jenners use of material from cowpox pustules to provide protection against smallpox. Rather, it begins with the long history of infectious disease in humans, and in particular, with early uses of smallpox material to provide immunity to that disease.
Evidence exists that the Chinese employed smallpox inoculation (or variolation, as such use of smallpox material was called) as early as 1000 CE. It was practiced in Africa and Turkey as well, before it spread to Europe and the Americas.
Edward Jenners innovations, begun with his successful 1796 use of cowpox material to create immunity to smallpox, quickly made the practice widespread. His method underwent medical and technological changes over the next 200 years, and eventually resulted in the eradication of smallpox”
rlh…”Dr Malones Twitter account has also been removed following the claims about mass formation psychosis.
***
And that proves what???? That you are competent with ad homs??? That Nazi-like censorship is now common in former democratic countries???
Our Canadian PM, Trudeau, just went on an emotional rant on a French-speaking station in Quebec, calling the unvaccinated misogynists, racists, and scientifically uneducated. There are several million unvaccinated in Canada and all of them, according to Trudeau, are misogynists, racists, and scientifically uneducated.
One of our government leader in the province of BC, Canada and the mayor of Vancouver went on similar rants. We have medical people making stupid statements that cannot be scientifically corroborated and they beseech us to trust them.
There is a mass form of psychosis going on. It’s not simply neurosis, which tends to be transient and intermixed with sane behavior. For two years now we have been governed by people who are emotionally out of control. The hysteria and paranoia is more a sign of psychosis than the neurosis which afflicts most people, especially politicians.
Twitter is leading the way with the mass hysteria prevalent in the believers.
That it has been decided that Dr Malones is am idiot. Much the same as you are apparently.
rlh…”Movements of large objects do not require any acceleration!”
***
Richard has just ruled out Newton II. Ever thought of studying physics before shooting off your mouth?
If a body is at rest, or at constant velocity, any change in its velocity is acceleration. A body at rest has velocity = 0, therefore acceleration = 0. The moment you apply a force that can move the mass, it’s velocity changes. That change of velocity is acceleration.
This is a Homer Simpson, “Doh!!!” moment. You might add a Duh!!!.
Have you not noticed how you don’t merely offer a stupid opinion on physics, you phrase it as an assertion?
GR: You were the one claiming no acceleration required when large objects experienced a force, not me.
So now you are refuting yourself!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1121094
“I can envision a body moving from rest with a velocity without an acceleration being involved.” GR.
P.S. Not big on sarcasm are you?
“f = ma is not strong enough to move the Moon but is also able to deflect it into an orbit!
Movements of large objects do not require any acceleration!
Do you ever stop to think what you write?”
Everybody else will have noticed that I was in fact quoting or paraphrasing you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1127839
“I can envision a body moving from rest with a velocity without an acceleration being involved.” GR.
***
I said ‘envision’. I am talking theoretically, ‘in the limit’, where the change in velocity is so slow that it ***might*** be hard to classify it as acceleration. Then again, by the true definition of acceleration = dv/dt, it is an infinitesimal quantity, therefore, by definition, any change in velocity, no matter how small, should be called acceleration.
What I was thinking about at the time was trying to push a heavy car. If you get behind it and heave, it might start moving very slowly with a velocity that remains constant. Then again, by definition, moving it from rest is a change in velocity and must be technically called acceleration.
That applies to the effect of gravity on the Moon. If gravity, acting vertically on the Moon, could move it to accelerate it, then the Moon must lose orbital altitude. It doesn’t therefore the effect of gravity on the Moon is not to accelerate it in any way. It can, however, divert the Moon’s natural rectilinear velocity into an ellipse.
The Moon produces the motion in its orbit via its linear momentum. Gravity serves only to hold it in the orbit.
Something physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, said about momentum struck home with me. He was talking about the definition of a photon, namely that it has no mass but momentum, which makes no sense since momentum, p, is defined as p = mv. If m = 0, then p has to be 0.
As Bohren pointed out, momentum is not a human definition, it is a phenomenon that no one understands, just like inertia. He concluded therefore that it was OK to claim a photon is mass-less but has momentum.
I extended that to acceleration, which is also a phenomenon and not a human definition. You can actually see acceleration when looking at a vehicle like a dragster. Some of them can accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 3 seconds. You can actually see the change in velocity.
When I studied engineering, I was introduced to ‘jerk’ (hold the jokes, please), which is defined as a change of acceleration. I have also experienced that in a fast, powerful car. I could feel the acceleration from a dead start then, when the driver booted it, the acceleration changed, through us back against the seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)
Therefore, technically, a change in motion from a dead stop must be defined as acceleration, however, based on the phenomenon itself, is there always acceleration taking place.
I really don’t know…in the limit. I do know that gravitational force is not strong enough to accelerate the Moon.
“I said ‘envision’. I am talking theoretically, ‘in the limit’, where the change in velocity is so slow that it ***might*** be hard to classify it as acceleration”
As you so adequately argued ANY velocity above zero means that an acceleration from zero has taken place.
Wriggle all you like, you just refute yourself and thus prove beyond doubt that you are indeed an idiot.
“I do know that gravitational force is not strong enough to accelerate the Moon”
But it it strong enough to apply a force to bend it into an orbit around the Earth! Idiot again.
Gordo’s delusional physics appears again, as he repeats complete stupidity:
“linear momentum”, i.e., the Moon’s instantaneous velocity times mass at any point in the orbit, is a vector quantity and the Moon would continue in a straight line, except for the force of gravity, which accelerates the velocity in a constantly changing inward direction. Since the orbit is an ellipse, there is a tangential component of the gravitational force, which slows the magnitude of the velocity from perigee to apogee, then accelerates it from apogee to perigee. Basic orbital mechanics that Gordo apparently can’t or refuses to understand.
According to Gordon, orbits are circles not ellipses. Otherwise a ball-on-a-string would not apply.
The JWST continues to slow as it approaches L2. It’s speed is almost down to 600 mph, this morning, with about 90,000 miles left to travel. The engineering is such that it will come to a stop before L2, and will have to do a final series of rocket burns for final positioning. If it has too much speed, it would pass L2, endangering the mission.
The JWST engineering debunks much of the false religion of the braindead cult idiots.
1) JWST verifies that an atmosphere cools, it does not warm.
2) JWST verifies that a cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons.
3) JWST verifies that a body that is orbiting, but not rotating, will have one side facing the inside of its orbit.
“1) JWST verifies that an atmosphere cools, it does not warm.”
JWST verifies that an ‘atmosphere’ with multiple layers that are highly reflective cools surfaces on the far side of that ‘atmosphere’. Since this is nothing like earth’s atmosphere, it tells us nothing about what earth’s atmosphere does.
“2) JWST verifies that a cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons.”
JWST verifies that warm surfaces emit vast numbers of low energy photons. The detector and surroundings must be cold so they don’t creating ‘blinding’ IR signals in the detector.
1) Your first sentence is correct, TF. But in your second sentence, JWST tells us that Earth’s atmosphere cools, but it doesn’t warm. That’s why Earth doesn’t experience temperatures above the boiling point of water, as Moon does.
2) That’s just all extraneous distraction, TF. A detector “absorbs”. It must be cold to absorb low energy photons.
How cold must your cell phone be to absorb the even lower energy microwave photons that are used to send data to your phone?
Cell phones have antennas, TF. The energy transfer is completely different.
“a cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons.”
Microwaves are very low energy photons. And yet you claim they can be absorbed by very warm surfaces. You can’t have it both ways.
TF, you don’t understand any of this. And, I bet you can’t learn either.
Photon absorp.tion is all about wavelength compatibility. If the wavelength is compatible with the absorber, the photon is absorbed. If not, it is reflected.
An antenna is cut for a specific wavelength. That ensures compatibility for all photons with that wavelength. Temperatures are not a factor with an antenna.
“Photon absorp.tion is all about wavelength compatibility. If the wavelength is compatible with the absorber, the photon is absorbed. If not, it is reflected.”
This much is (almost) correct (the photons can also be transmitted through the material). But the ‘compatibility’ of the absorber is based on the material and/or the dimensions. Not the temperature. For example, soot is an excellent absorber of IR across a wide range of wavelengths. This is true whether the soot is warm or cold.
See TF, I win the bet. You can’t learn.
Heat your soot to a higher temperature and see what happens.
You’re not still believing you can boil water with ice cubes, are you?
“Temperatures are not a factor with an antenna”
So a hot or a cold antenna can accept photons of the correct length. Why would molecules be any different?
Climate change – A complex and wicked problem.
Scott Tinker’s Paradigm
“Climate issues are too important to be left to the climate scientists. Broad engagement is needed including an informed public. Emerging economies emit more CO2 than developed economies, but this is in part because manufacturing is moving to emerging economies. Poor nations can’t afford to invest in the environment.”
Very important! What shall we do about it?
We are able to produce hydrogen, we cannot store hydrogen – we cannot technically produce liquid hydrogen…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
One little link about thousands shown by Google
https://demaco-cryogenics.com/blog/all-about-liquid-hydrogen/
It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than can be obtained by consuming hydrogen. Hydrogen economy is a non-sequitur.
Besides which water vapor that results from consuming hydrogen is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Damn the torpedoes, the multi-colors of hydrogen are coming, ready or not. For decades hydrogen has been perennially touted as the fuel of the future – a future that never comes. But it finally seems to be happening. There are many projects of different colors in the works. And government is all over hydrogen. The already enacted bipartisan infrastructure bill includes $8 billion to build four “regional clean hydrogen hubs,” with at least one powered by renewables, one by nuclear, and one by fossil fuels. Does all this mean that the hydrogen economy finally makes economic sense? Unfortunately, no. The economics of hydrogen production still has a long way to go. It’s really expensive to make green hydrogen with electrolysis, and the same is true for capturing and sequestering CO2 from blue hydrogen (made from natural gas). Nevertheless, investors are pouring money into projects to manufacture hydrogen. Many of these projects are driven by rational bets, either in (a) niche markets for very small volumes of green, liquid hydrogen (forklifts, fleet vehicles); (b) unique technologies (Monolith carbon black); (c) projects that exploit government subsidies; (d) stake-in-the-ground investments from major players in the business (like industrial gas companies); or (e) some combination of the above. So for lots of reasons, hydrogen project development is happening. And who knows, perhaps technological advancements will really make the economics work at scale this time. But it’s no sure thing.
Ken must not be an engineer. We don’t “make” energy, we convert it from one form to a more useful form. Each product has less energy available than was in the original source, though this is not obvious. For example, it takes energy to drill, transport and refine oil into gasoline or diesel fuel delivered to your tank. As a result, there’s less total energy in the final product than in the oil pumped out of the ground. Then too, burning gasoline or diesel for motive power is not very efficient, compared with electric propulsion powered by a battery or fuel cell.
To properly consider the problem, one must include the entire energy system from source to final use. Only then can a proper comparison be arrived at.
It is well-known that hydrogen is just a carrier of energy, produced by some other source. But it has the highest energy storage density. And converting it to electricity is very efficient with fuel-cells.
And for electric cars batteries have many issues, cost, rare-materials, lifetime, recycling.
But as we learned with Betamax vs VHS, the best technology doesnt always win.
maguff…”Climate change A complex and wicked problem.”
***
Where’s the evidence that 1C warming in 170 years can produce climate change?
“Where’s the evidence that 1C warming in 170 years can produce climate change?”
A 1 C warming in the climate is — by definition — climate change!
“A 1 C warming in the climate is by definition climate change!”
Cause and Effect are getting convoluted.
tim…”A 1 C warming in the climate is — by definition — climate change!”
***
Where are the changing climates that are so drastic we need to run for cover? Besides, the 1C warming represents re-warming from the Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850.
That date, 1850, is the date used by the IPCC as the beginning of their sci-fi AGW. Are they that stupid or just that dishonest.
C’mon, Gordo. You don’t need to run, you’re already undercover!
rlh…”But it it strong enough to apply a force to bend it into an orbit around the Earth! Idiot again”.
***
You are blustering about something you don’t understand because you have no background in physics. The idiot allegation suggests your emotions have the best of you, that you are flustered, and that you lack the class to debate scientifically. As I claimed earlier, you are an intelligent imbecile, not worthy of the rank idiot.
Your past statement about orbits, that a body must change energy levels to go into orbit proves you know nothing about the basic physics of orbits. And now you are questioning how the Moon lacks the gravitational force to accelerate the Moon toward it, but can bend the linear velocity vector into an orbit.
If you have scientific proof my statement above is wrong, let’s hear it. I won’t hold me breath, I expect more of your childish rants.
So a retrograde thrust does not alter the energy in an object?
rlh..yes, a retrograde thrust will change the kinetic energy downward. Any time you change velocity you change kinetic energy, as in KE = 1/2mv^2. However, that makes no difference to an object going into orbit. It will have an energy = 1/2mv^2 but it is its linear momentum = mv, wil be constant, and that is the deciding factor as to whether it will enter orbit at a certain altitude.
If you had an object of different mass than the Moon, but with the same velocity, it would not go into orbit at the same altitude. I am trying to emphasize that the Moon’s mass and velocity are critical to its orbit at its current altitude.
It is the velocity/momentum of the object that is the governing factor, both for entry to an orbit and maintaining the orbit.
If you want to see it in terms of energy, you will miss the factors that really affect the orbit. When Newton described the motion of the Moon in Principia, he did not refer to it in terms of energy, he referred to the Moon’s rectilinear motion. He said, ‘something’ changed that rectilinear motion into curvilinear motion.
I don’t know why he said ‘something’, it’s obvious there is nothing else acting on the Moon other than gravitational force. Over 400 years later we have the benefit of observing the effect of magnetic fields on objects moving through them. We can now see electrons moving through them and observe how they act, using an oscilloscope. Maybe that was not so apparent to Newton at the time.
If you could have observed the Moon at its moment of capture, presuming no local rotation about its axis, moving perpendicular to a radial line representing the instantaneous gravitation force, it’s side that now faces Earth all the time would be right along that radial line. If gravity now holds the Moon at that altitude, the path changes from rectilinear to curvilinear and the same face always points inward.
That’s what happens with an airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet. Nothing needs to be done inside the aircraft to get it to maintain a constant altitude along the Earth’s curved surface. Gravity simply holds it at that altitude provided the correct linear velocity is maintained.
What you have is a mass moving at constant velocity in a direction perpendicular to gravitation lines of force. The plane’s attitude dynamics maintains its altitude, along with the thrust of its motors, and gravity bends its rectilinear motion naturally into curvilinear motion.
If you increase the aircraft’s velocity while maintaining the same wing attitude. To change direction or move up/down, you must change controls inside the aircraft. If you don’t touch any controls, and raise the propeller speed, the aircraft automatically increases its altitude.
I just checked this with a pilot and he confirmed it. So, the Moon, with its constant rectilinear velocity can maintain orbit with nothing more than its momentum while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.
tim…”This much is (almost) correct (the photons can also be transmitted through the material). But the compatibility of the absorber is based on the material and/or the dimensions. Not the temperature. For example, soot is an excellent absorber of IR across a wide range of wavelengths. This is true whether the soot is warm or cold”.
***
bs. Soot at 20C will absorb no radiation from ice at 0C. Your understanding of quantum theory or the 2nd law need an immediate upgrade.
Dr. Spencer already showed Gordon is wrong by simple experiment even Gordon can do wherein ambient surface water in the Alabama summertime can overnight show a higher thermometer temperature by absorbing added radiation from icy cirrus clouds.
Gordon, your understanding of quantum theory and the 2nd law need an immediate upgrade. Yes, I do know for Gordon that undertaking is rather hopeless.
Perfect! Here comes Braindead4 trying to pervert physics, again. That’s all he can do. Either he keeps making things up, or he goes into months of meltdown, like his trainee, Norman.
And he’s never found his made-up “real 255K surface” either.
That’s why this is so much fun.
For simplicity, lets make the assumption ice and soot are blackbodies. (A pretty good assumption, since both have emissivities over 0.9. Plus this will only change he numbers a bit, not change the general conclusions.)
Soot @ 293 K emits 418 W/m^2. Period.
If that soot is surrounded by deep space @ 2.7 K, the soot surface will have a net loss of 418 W/m^2
Ice @ 273 K emits 315 W/m^2. Period.
If the soot is surrounded by ice, the soot emits 418 W/m^2 and absorbs 315 W/m^2. The net lose is 103 W/m^2. The difference between the scenarios is the photons from the ice that are absorbed.
To Folkerts everything is a black body.
This issue of photon absorp.tion is interesting because it shows again how little understanding of science there is within the AGW cult.
The AGW cult believe that all photons are absorbed, always. They have to believe that in order to believe that the sky can warm the surface. Essentially they must believe that ice cubes can boil water. Folkerts even made up a formula to support that nonsense.
“To Folkerts everything is a black body.”
Seriously? *That* is what you got out of my comment?
“The AGW cult believe that all photons are absorbed, always.”
Another strawman.
“Essentially they must believe that ice cubes can boil water.”
Yet another strawman.
Why do you insist on strawman arguments that have been debunked over and over?
*****************************************
Rather than strawmen, lets address your specific comment. “a cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons.”
OK. How cold must a surface be to absorb a 15 um (20 GHz, 1.33E-20 J) IR photon. Give us the cut-off number — the specific temperature in K.
Folkerts, the reality is you try to make everything a black body. That’s so you can pervert reality. There is no such thing as a black body.
My examples of your perversions of physics are NOT strawmen. You made up the bogus equation that leads to ice cubes being able to boil water. Why do you deny your perversions. Aren’t you proud of them?
I’ll [easily] answer your “gotcha” question if you’ll agree to go 90 days without commenting here — and that includes all of your sock puppet aliases also.
“Why do you deny your perversions. Aren’t you proud of them?”
Once again, you are attacking strawmen. I have no reason to be proud of your misunderstandings of the things I have said.
I tell you what — I *will* ‘go away for 90 days’ if you can find any post from me where I actually:
1) ‘try to make everything a blackbody’
2) ‘make up a bogus equation’
3) ‘claim ice cubes can boil water’
********************************
Meanwhile, you seem afraid to defend a clear, simple direct quote. you made: “a cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons”.
What is the equation that relates surface temperature to the wavelengths of photons they can absorb?
Here’s what I’m talking about, Folkerts. Now, you can twist and distort definitions and meanings all you want:
1) — Just above you tried to make ice and soot into blackbodies.
2) and 3) — Here you make up the bogus equation:
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he [sic] final temperature would still be 325 K.”
You claim two fluxes (each 315W/m^2), will add to a final temperature of 325 K. You do that with this made-up equation:
For flux = (315^4 + 315^4)^0.25 = 375W/m^2
For temperature = (273^4 + 273^4)^0.25 = 325K
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534856
See you in 90 days.
Clint, you really need to work on reading skills!
“1) — Just above you tried to make ice and soot into blackbodies.”
No, I specifically said they are NOT blackbodies. I did show a few simplified calculations to show the basic ideas, stating that more complete calculations would show the same overall results. If you have ever taken a physics course, you know it is standard practice to start with simplified conditions to solve problems (frictionless surfaces; massless ropes; resistanceless wires; blackbody surfaces; etc), before moving on to more accurate and nuanced situations.
“For flux = (315^4 + 315^4)^0.25 = 375W/m^2”
Nope. For flux 315 W/m^2 + 315 W/m^2 = 630 W/m^2. If two separate fluxes arrive at a surface, the total flux arriving is the sum of the two.
“For temperature = (273^4 + 273^4)^0.25 = 325K”
Nope again. There is no equation even vaguely like that in the entire thread you link to.
**********************************
So every attempt to defend your previous strawmen is simple more strawmen.
Folkerts you don’t understand any of this. You make stuff up and then you deny your own droppings.
I can understand that you want to run from your comments, but you’re too late. Once your incompetence is so well documented any denial just makes you look pathetic.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re in violation of your 90-days suspension.
pups fails to understand that a coating of carbon black (soot) exhibits a nearly black body emissivity. The emissivity of a body is the result of it’s surface treatment. For example, coating a highly reflective surface, such as polished aluminum, with carbon black will produce a very high emissivity. A coating of a flat black paint would produce a similar result.
“You make stuff up … “
Clint, you literally just made up two equations that I have never used.
And now you switch from Strawman to Ad Hom. Come back when you want to discuss science.
Folkerts, show your calculation for two 315 W/m^2 fluxes “adding” to a temperature of 325K.
“And since this might still not be clear enough, I could add the sunlight first and then the ice, and he [sic] final temperature would still be 325 K.”
Here’s how you did it:
For temperature = (273^4 + 273^4)^0.25 = 325K
As I said, I can understand why your want to deny that nonsense. But, the reality is you got caught perverting physics, again.
“show your calculation …
Here’s how you did it:
For temperature = (273^4 + 273^4)^0.25 = 325K”
Nope. That is NOT what I did. Temperatures don’t add like that. You can repeat this strawman as often as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. You won’t find me writing anything remotely like that.
“show your calculation for two 315 W/m^2 fluxes “adding” to a temperature of 325K.”
Take an object and apply a flux so that the object absorbs 315 W/m^2 on all the sides. We could, for example, use a spotlights or a low-power lasers. If this is the entire flux, then in steady-state, the object will also be emitting 315 W/m^2. We can calculate the temperature easily from the emitted power using P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)(T^4). If the surface is a blackbody, the object will be
T = (P/A / (sigma*epsilon))^0.25
= (315 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 273 K
(If the object is not a BB the temperature is simply a little higher)
Now, apply a second flux of 315 W/m^2. Perhaps another set of spotlights or lasers. The light is brighter and the surface will get hotter. There is now a flux of 315 + 315 = 630 W/m^2 being absorbed. The same equation above now gives
T = (630 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 325 K.
No where does anything remotely like “(273^4 + 273^4)^0.25 = 325K” show up.
“You do that with this made-up equation:”
Indeed it is an equation that Clint just made-up, while shamelessly lying that Tim made it up!
What a scumbag-troll he is.
He is incapable of honest debate.
Wrong Folkerts. That is how you did it. The math result is the same. You just went in circles trying to hide your perversion of physics. You’re still adding fluxes. That’s your perversion. With that nonsense, you could boil water by adding more ice cubes.
You admitted that “Temperatures don’t add like that”. And radiative fluxes don’t add like that either. But, that’s what you’re doing.
“And radiative fluxes don’t add like that either. “
So, turning on two lightbulbs doesn’t make the room brighter? Turning on two heat lamps won’t make you warmer? If we can supply two separate fluxes, they can and do add.
“With that nonsense, you could boil water by adding more ice cubes.”
And back to the strawman arguments. Nothing in anything I wrote leads to this conclusion. Ice — by itself, no matter how much we have or how we arrange it — cannot boil water. This is completely consistent with everything I have written.
Folkerts, you don’t understand any of this. That’s why you keep running to examples that just reveal how ignorant you are. Lasers, cellphones, and lightbulbs don’t help you. They just reveal how little you know.
A lightbulb with a filament max temp of “T” cannot radiatively warm anything above T. Two identical such lightbulbs cannot radiatively warm anything above T. A glass of water at 70F cannot warm anything above 70F. Two glasses of water at 70F cannot warm anything above 70F. Temperatures don’t add. Radiative fluxes don’t add.
Your “math” would have ice cubes boiling water. You believe two ice cubes result in 630 W/m^2. That would mean 4 ice cubes result in 1260 W/m^2. 1260 W/m^2 has an S/B temperature well over the boiling point of water.
(And since you’re in trouble here, I see other cult idiots have joined to lend their support. Both troll Nate and Willard Jr. are known perverters of reality. That’s why this is so much fun.)
“A lightbulb with a filament max temp of “T” cannot radiatively warm anything above T. ”
Yes. Good work! That is a good understanding of ‘correct physics.’
“You believe two ice cubes result in 630 W/m^2. ”
No. Your understanding of ‘correct physics’ was short lived.
What I “believe” is that …
a) two tiny light bulb filaments @ 3000 K that each supply 315 W/m^2 to a surface will result in a total of 630 W/m^2 at the surface.
b) two larger IR heaters @ 1000 K that each supply 315 W/m^2 to a surface will result in a total of 630 W/m^2 at the surface.
c) two walls @ 325 K that each supply 315 W/m^2 to a surface will result in a total of 630 W/m^2 at the surface.
But that is where it stops. The two walls at 325 K would have each cover 50% of the solid angle above the surface to provide 315 W. Together they would cover 100% of the solid angle above the surface, in order to provide 630 W/m^2. We can’t ‘cover the whole surface twice’ with ice and get 2x 315 W/m^2
What we CAN do is cover 99.99% of the solid angle with ice to provide 315 W/m^2, and cover 0.01% of the solid angle with a filament at 2730K, which ALSO provides 315 W/m^2. Either ice or filament by itself would warm the surface to 273 K. Both together would definitely provide 315 + 315 = 630 W/m^2 and would definitely warm the surface to 325 K.
Not ICE + ICE. But ICE + FILAMENT.
Folkerts, you don’t understand any of this. That’s why you keep running to examples that just reveal how ignorant you are. Lasers, cellphones, and lightbulbs don’t help you. And now you’re
trying “solid angles”. All of your diversions just reveal how little you know.
You accepted one sentence of valid physics — A lightbulb with a filament max temp of “T” cannot radiatively warm anything above “T”. But you ignored the next sentence — Two identical such lightbulbs cannot radiatively warm anything above “T”.
So you accept what you want, but ignore the rest. That ain’t science. It’s perverting physics.
No matter how you try to twist, distort, pervert the situation, your physics is WRONG. 315 W/m^2 does NOT add to 315W/m^2 to result in 325 K. You’re trying to add flux. You’re trying to boil water with ice cubes, even though you can’t understand what you’re doing.
“So you accept what you want, but ignore the rest.”
No. I just don’t feel the need to tell you whether you are right or wrong for each and every sentence you write.
“Youre trying to add flux. Youre trying to boil water with ice cubes”
Yes. No.
Folkerts, you’re a perfect example of a “braindead cult idiot”.
You keep claiming fluxes add, which means you could boil water with ice cubes, but you deny your confused belief means you can boil water with ice cubes!
Here’s how you “add” fluxes, by your own words:
(An ice cube emits 315 W/m^2)
“Adding” 315 W/m^2 to 315 W/m^2 —
315 + 315 = 630
The S/B eq. temp for 630 W/m^2 is then 325K
So by your own inaccurate method, add two more ice cubes:
315 + 315 + 315 + 315 = 1260
The S/B eq. temp for 1260 W/m^2 is 386 K, 113 C, 235 F
Your inaccurate, invalid method means you could boil water with ice cubes! You’re perverting physics.
“You keep claiming fluxes add … ”
When two light bulbs are on, they provide more light than a single bulb. The fluxes delivered to a surface like my desktop do indeed add. If the light from one bulb could warm a surface to 273 K by itself, the light from two could warm the surface to 325 K. The light from 4 could boil water. These fluxes do indeed add.
There is nothing surprising or controversial here.
“… which means you could boil water with ice cubes”
Nope. That is not what it means at all. An object in deep space will be 3K. If you put a little ice @ 273 K near it, it might warm to 100 K. If you put some more ice nearby and add some more flux, you might get to 150 K. As you add more ice, you add more flux. There is, of course a limit that you either don’t understand or choose to ignore. Once the object is 100% surrounded by 273 K ice, the object will warm up to 273 K as well. But no more — never above 273 K because you can’t add “more than 100%” ice around the object.
You are the only one who seem to be confused by this simple idea. You are the only one who can’t seem to grasp the fundamental different between 315 W/m^2 of LWIR from ice and 315 W/m^2 of visible and SWIR from a light bulb.
In a tiny garret in Winter Clint R has a three bar heater. He’s freezing, shivering, near death, with just one bar of the three switched on. His hands are blue.
He won’t switch on the other 2 bars on the heater, because fizics tells him fluxes don’t add. He believes can’t possibly get any warmer with more elements radiating heat at the same rate as the first.
The autopsy revealed something extraordinary. The first organ to go was his brain.
swannie…”linear momentum, i.e., the Moons instantaneous velocity times mass at any point in the orbit, is a vector quantity and the Moon would continue in a straight line, except for the force of gravity, which accelerates the velocity in a constantly changing inward direction”.
***
Don’t be silly, Swannie. Acceleration requires movement and any inner motion would force a change in orbit of the Moon. In other words, it would lose orbit.
Newton stated it correctly. The Moon has a rectilinear motion and ‘something’ redirects it into a curvilinear motion. There is no other force than gravity therefore it has to be the gravitational field changing the Moon rectilinear translation into curvilinear translation.
Any change in the Moon’s motion involving acceleration would require a change in it linear velocity and momentum. There is no force acting in the right direction to do that. Therefore all we have is curvilinear translation, which explains perfectly why the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.
“curvilinear translation”, aka an orbit, does not include a change in orientation.
rlh…”curvilinear translation, aka an orbit, does not include a change in orientation”.
***
It has to. Any body moving along a curved path is always changing its orientation.
Set yourself up in the middle of an oval watching a race car. With you facing north, the race car passes you CCW going west. If you follow it by rotating your body till facing west, you’ll soon see it transitioning from west to south. You turn again to face south and it will pass you heading east. Turn till your facing east ans it will pass you heading north.
The race car is performing curvilinear translation, re-orienting in all directions of the compass while keeping the same side pointed to you at the centre of the oval.
Remember, curvilinear translation describes the motion of a body between points along a curve, not the curve itself.
On your race car, does the outer wheel travel further than the inner one? If so, then if the inner wheel traveled zero miles, the outer wheel would mean that the car turned in a circle around it.
You need to think about the differences between the center and the surface(s). An orbit requires that the center moves in a curve. Specifically an ellipse with 2 defined poles. Nothin about an orbit requires the surface to move in anything other than the same curve.
Having a change in orientation of the surface would require it to have a different curve to the center.
RLH, thus observe Gordon’s term for one rotation on an object’s (race car’s) own axis per orbit is “re-orienting in all directions of the compass” per orbit just like our moon so Gordon has been a spinner all along.
Gordo still fails to understand the difference between a circular orbit and an elliptical one. the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse and the radial line between the first focus and the Moon is perpendicular to the tangent to the path only at perigee and apogee. As a result, there is a component of the gravitational force which can cause acceleration along the tangential direction, thus changing the magnitude of the velocity.
swannie…”…there is a component of the gravitational force which can cause acceleration along the tangential direction, thus changing the magnitude of the velocity”.
***
That’s a neat trick, Swannie. Problem is, when you connect the centre of the Earth at the principal focal point to the centre of the Moon, wherever the Moon is in its orbit, that is the gravity vector. The tangential vector is perpendicular to it on a circular orbit and there is no component of the gravity vector.
On an ellipse, there are two components, one acting along a radial line from the Moon’s centre through the near face, and the other acting in the opposite direction to the Moon’s motion. Therefore that component cannot accelerate the Moon since it’s in the opposite direction. Even at that, the Moon simply lacks the force to move the Moon, it can only hold it from escaping by diverting it continually along an orbital path.
You have to understand that the angle between the gravity vector and the major component is tiny, therefore that component points almost at the Earth’s centre, enabling libration. That’s the component that acts on the near face. The other one could be safely ignored since it is very small.
Gordo is almost there, writing:
No Gordo, There’s only one gravitational vector and is along the radial line between the first focus at the barycenter and the Moon’s CoM. That vector is only perpendicular to the orbit at perigee and apogee. As I pointed out before, as the Moon orbits from perigee to apogee, there’s a component of the gravity vector which slows the Moon’s velocity, while the opposite occurs between apogee to perigee. The fact is, the Moon’s orbital velocity at perigee is 1.082 km/s and at apogee it’s 0.970 km/s.
Gordo doesn’t do ellipses as they destroy a lot of his arguments.
Dave Borlace, of Just Have a Think, says:
https://youtu.be/49NPdyUEos8
Papers have shown that East Antarctica is melting from land heat sources under the ice. Not from ocean flows.
Okay. What do your “Papers” show about West Antarctica?
Well this site shows that Antarctica on the whole has not changed that much since 1979.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-south-pole.jpeg
P.S. I meant WEST Antarctica where Thwaites Glacier is.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
“Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
“High geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica inferred from aeromagnetic data”
Article on recent research conducted for Thwaites glacier.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-02-16/thwaites-glacier-melting-icefin-revolution-sea-level-rise/101970762
Any ice sitting below sea level is not of concern; its already displacing sea water and melting won’t change sea levels.
Meanwhile mid summer Antarctic is below freezing everywhere; its not melting.
Big nothing burger intended to stoke fear driven grant money.
Citations for the research supporting your “findings” would be useful. Or, are these just opinions?
Regarding funding:
Standard temperature is defined as zero degrees Celsius (0 0C), which translates to 32 degrees Fahrenheit (32 0F) or 273.15 degrees kelvin (273.15 0K). This is essentially the freezing point of pure water at sea level, in air at standard pressure.
See Earth NullSchool for temperature at any point earth.
Nowhere in Antarctic are there temperatures at or even near freezing point.
My conclusion is ice is not melting. Its not rocket science.
Ok. Your opinion is duly noted.
Ken
” My conclusion is ice is not melting. Its not rocket science. ”
Then you must think this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
or if you prefer, in absolute form
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BY_ACQnX5hfQbvPAih6YTzsYEISTatTO/view
is either faked data or a faked graph or both, isn’t it?
It’s not rocket science, isn’t it?
*
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
It gets above freezing even in East Antarctica every now and then.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/scientists-record-east-antarcticas-first-heatwave/
maguff…”The largest Earth science funding agencies in the United Kingdom and the United States are collaborating to investigate one of the most unstable glaciers in Antarctica”.
***
An unstable glacier??? Now we know the fix is in. The money is going toward furthering climate change propaganda.
What fix? It’s not the first time in recent history that glaciers have become less stable.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/LarsenB
You’ll need to read more than just the first 2 sentences to understand the point.
The research on the Thwaites Glacier is interesting. Here’s an article for context.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-02-16/thwaites-glacier-melting-icefin-revolution-sea-level-rise/101970762
maguff…”East Antarctica is a mile thick ice sheet on top of solid bedrock. But the ice on West Antarctica sits precariously above and below the sea line on a series of islands. The country sized glaciers on its outer edges, that keep the ice flow at bay…”
***
Where do you find this sci-fi? Glaciers keep the ice flow at bay??? Duh!!!
The glaciers are the ice flow. Wherever you have mountains abutting an ocean, ice will flow down the mountains and along the water until they calve, that is break off due to the force of gravity and water action.
Looks like the La Nina may have an early exit.
Subsurface heat continues to move into the Eastern Pacific
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Subsurface heat anomaly approaching 0.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Still more westerly wind bursts.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
https://imgur.com/a/pS1ruac
SST outlook 19th Jan 2021
Sorry – finger trouble
SST outlook 10th Jan 2021
Are you now posting the last year forecast ? like Bindiclowndong
If you had followed the link you would see that my finger trouble included the year as well.
SST outlook 10th Jan 2022
Anybody’s guess as to why 12 month old forecasts are being posted.
Monday Enso update
The latest model runs are now extended to october and it’s La Nina as far as the eye can see
https://i.postimg.cc/d3DyLDTM/18nino34-Mon.gif
These guys seem to have a better handle on it.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20220115//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
You want to compete with Bindiclown for the worst forecast
Not me, BOM. This year they have done better than the others.
The subsurface heat anomaly just reached 0.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
It won’t be long now before the surface temps follow suit.
You post you own it, don’t you know that dumb ass ???
You would be owning your trolling then, by posting an ENSO prediction from 12 months ago and claiming it represents a current prediction.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1131807
Who, like Bindiclowndong, wants to have a deeper look at how NOAA NCEP processes ENSO signals, prefers this:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
There is a bit more to see than in the simple-minded graph proudly show by Ebengenius.
I forgot the hint on
https://i.postimg.cc/ZnHjPnwG/Screenshot-2022-01-18-at-12-09-22-Power-Point-Presentation-enso-evolution-status-fcsts-web-pdf.png
Hmmmh.
Bindiclown been studying hard since his epic forecast failures
now an ENSO expert
https://i.postimg.cc/6qBCrZs4/5t6blu.jpg
The differences between you and me:
– I admit my mistakes, you don’t
– I learn from them, you never learn anything.
Binny, I don’t keep track of all your mistakes, but you haven’t been able to learn any physics. Unless you learned that momentum can represent force by doing the hammer/hand experiment. If so you didn’t admit your mistake.
“that momentum can represent force”
Why does Clint keep inviting ridicule with ridiculous posts?
I guess thats just part of a troll’s job description.
Troll Nate, did you do the hammer/hand experiment yet? How about running in front of a speeding 18-wheeler? Either experiment will teach you how momentum can represent a force.
More fizuks yuks from our resident fizikist.
The demise of La Nina has been greatly exaggerated.
https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/la-nina-will-likely-continue-through-early-2022?cmpid=hp1r_foxweather_obtest&dicbo=v1-445ca43d2c6b43deb90a1af608474f24-00e17b74303517cbe6bf08cea931e9f870-hbswiodbgnstqljthezgmljuhe3ggllbmjrwcljtmyzwgmbthe3gcmdemu
rlh…”Gordo doesnt do ellipses as they destroy a lot of his arguments”.
***
Negatory. I did the ellipse in detail but it seems to have either escaped you or confounded you. At one time, I included an explanation of how to find the tangent line and radial line at any point on any continuous curve. A circle is a special example of one such curve.
At a specific point on any curve, there is a circle of radius, R, whose circumference will coincide with the curve at that point. If the curve is a circle, as we know, the radius of that circle is the circle, and if the circle is an orbit, the radial line will always points to the centre of the circle.
The point is that with an elliptical orbit, gravity acts along that radial line. Since we can never see more than about 5 degrees around the edge of the Moon at any time, it means that radial line never varies more than about 5 degrees from that of a circular orbit.
With an ellipse, depending on its eccentricity, that radial line will point away from the centre of the Earth, which is located at the principal focal point. There are two points on an ellipse, however, where the radial line points directly at Earth’s centre, at perigee and apogee.
At any other point on the orbital path, that radial line points a few degrees either side of the centre of the Earth at the principle focal point. Essentially, we are dealing with a near-circular orbit and the orbital issues won’t be much different than a circular orbit.
I also described a method peculiar to ellipses that allow us to identify the radial line and tangent line at any point on any ellipse. A line is drawn from each focal point to the Moon in any position and the angle formed is bisected. The bisector is the radial line and a line perpendicular to it at the point where the line meets the orbital path is the tangent line.
That tangent line is the direction of the instantaneous velocity of the Moon at that point. You can clearly see that the tangent line changes its orientation each instant, and since it represents the path of the near-face, that explains the curvilinear translation responsible for that condition.
> A circle is a special example of one such curve.
Indeed it is, Gordo.
A circle is the only case where you can speak of a rotation. All the other cases involve some stretching of Pup’s string. Stretching implies that isometry fails. No isometry, no rotation.
Try your hand at physics instead.
willard…”A circle is the only case where you can speak of a rotation”.
***
Thanks for corroborating my point that the Moon’s motion in its elliptical orbit has no rotation, only curvilinear translation.
C’mon, Gordo. That’s just a silly equivocation. You haven’t disproved that the Moon spins, you’re only rediscovering why astronomers speak of spin and not of rotation. But this has nothing to do with what you call a curvilinear translation – that’s the orbit.
Spin. Orbit. Be gone with the long!
As for your demonstration, all it shows is that one can find a midpoint in any ellipse from which you can draw a line to some tangent. But your wording obfuscates the fact that an ellipse has two nonidentical focii. A circle has identical focii: they’re both at the center. But your demonstration does not work for circles, because no translation is required for them. In that case the motion preserves isometry, and is therefore a rotation.
Once you realize that, your verbal trick disappears. It’s the same trick as Flop’s, BTW. If you did not know that, congratulations! That’s the best that black hat could do.
willard…”youre only rediscovering why astronomers speak of spin and not of rotation”.
***
Took a year of astrophysics at the uni as an elective and not once was the word spin used in reference to a planet’s rotation.
In fact, the word comes from a misuse of the word spin in quantum theory. The electron is given a pseudo-spin of +/- 1/2, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to explain atoms with more electrons than one.
When you start comparing the fictitious spin of electrons with planets, you have serious problems with the abuse of theory.
C’mon, Gordo. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Where did you take your courses, at UBC? Here:
https://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/gladman/a101/Lect22rot.pdf
Search for “Terrestrial planet spin properties.”
Besides, how many courses have you taken? I lost count after a few dozens. Would you like me to pay due diligence to back the number of times you bragged about your studies?
Dud, “tidal locking” has been debunked:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1126306
You’re debunking has already been debunked:
https://climateball.net/but-galileo/
Search for “Viktor.”
Basic physics debunks “tidal locking” nonsense.
No one expects braindead cult idiots to understand physics. That’s why this is so much fun.
(And this will end it for me. Dud will troll here all day. Someone has to be the adult.)
“Basic physics debunks ‘tidal locking’ nonsense”
Just because you deny it, doesn’t make it untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth. Except for libration, this results in the Moon keeping the same face turned toward Earth, as seen in the left figure. (The Moon is shown in polar view, and is not drawn to scale.) If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
swannie…Theres only one gravitational vector and is along the radial line between the first focus at the barycenter and the Moons CoM”.
***
The so-called barycentre between Earth and Moon is located within the Earth. I think it is bs, Moon’s gravity is not able to move the Earth other than components on Earth, like water. It might, however, be causing tidal motion in your brain, since you seem to have problems with basic physics.
With regard to your vector analysis, it’s as bad as your understanding of the 2nd law. With a circular orbit, gravity is always acting at right angles to the object’s motion. With an elliptical orbit, the gravitational vector must be broken into components since the gravity vector is acting at various angles to the object’s motion.
It’s the same as a cylinder rolling down an incline. You cannot claim gravity is acting on the object with full force, the force acting on the cylinder is a cos/sin component of the gravity force vector.
“The so-called barycentre between Earth and Moon is located within the Earth.”
The position of the barycenter is down to distance and ratios between the various object. The solar system barycenter is often not within the Sun.
“I think it is bs, Moons gravity is not able to move the Earth other than components on Earth, like water.”
So the Earth tides, that are indeed measurable, are fiction too now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide
“Body tides in planets and moons, as well as in binary stars and binary asteroids, play a key role in long-term dynamics of planetary systems. For example, it is due to body tides in the Moon that it is captured into the 1:1 spin-orbit resonance and is always showing us one side. Owing to the body tides in it, Mercury is trapped in the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance with the Sun.”
rlh…”rlh
On your race car, does the outer wheel travel further than the inner one? If so, then if the inner wheel traveled zero miles, the outer wheel would mean that the car turned in a circle around it”.
***
The individual velocities to which you refer are not applicable since we are dealing with a rigid body. All parts of the body must orbit the oval in the same time. Ergo, each part cannot act independently.
With the race car on an oval, you are witnessing pure curvilinear translation without local rotation about the COG. Even though the steering mechanism can rotate back and forth as part of the rigid body, and the wheels can rotate, the rigid body as a whole has no rotation about its COG. Yet, it keeps the same face pointed to the interior of the oval.
You entirely miss the point. The orbit of the center and the orbit of the 2 faces (near and far) are about different ellipse focus points, not the center pair which are purely for the center. It you were to tie strings between those points and their respective foci then the orbiting object would indeed always face a fixed star.
That would indeed show that an orbiting object does not alter its orientation wrt the fixed stars.
I t will be interesting to have a look next month at UAH’s lower stratosphere grid data for January.
Maybe we can spot an anomaly (the word is exceptionally used here in its original meaning) in the grid cell encompassing the eruption (20.5S, 175.4W).
For those having an open mind, and hence are able to enjoy such papers:
S. T. Habibullin
The Motion of the Momentary Poles of the Moon
Acta Astronomica, Vol. 18, p.207 (1968)
https://tinyurl.com/27hwuske
Wonderful work.
{ It seems however that Habibullin had no access to laplace’s work; otherwise he would have known that as opposed to Lagrange, Laplace solved the lunar differential equations of motion in the much more complex nonlinear form. }
Its amazing how a cult can fool so many, huh Bindidon?
One theory is that the members are such losers they will latch on to almost anything, trying to find some meanng for their pathetic lives.
Clint R: You are the ones in a pitiful tiny, tiny, flat earth equivalent, cult that spews nonsense, not others.
Do you feel better now, RLH?
Does trolling add meaning to your pathetic life?
binny…”The Motion of the Momentary Poles of the Moon”
***
The entire premise to this paper is that Cassini’s first law, that the Moon has a 1:1 spin resonance is correct. I went through several papers trying to uphold Cassini and they all proceed from the same assumption, that the Moon is rotating locally on an axis.
NOT ONE OF THEM HAS PROVED IT!!!
In fact, Cassini is full of crap since he failed to prove it either. If he had basic scientific sense, he would have observed the problem and he should have noticed that it is not possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed at the Earth and to rotate through 360 degrees at the same time.
What does it take to get that simple fact through the minds of you spinners?
Try it on a horizontal surface. Take an object with a cylindrical shape, mark it where it touches the horizontal surface, then try to move it a distance while keeping that mark against the table.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE IT BETWEEN A AND B, KEEPING THAT POINT AGAINST THE SURFACE, AND HAVING THE OBJECT ROLL THROUGH 360 DEGREES.
The moment you try to rotate it at all the mark moves away from the surface, because you must roll it.
Imagine a simple proof like that making Cassini, Lagrange, Laplace, and Meyer wrong!!!
Gordon 2:20pm, your cylinder orbits no more. It has ceased to orbit. Bereft of orbit, it rests in peace on your table mark. Your cylinder is just an ex-moon sitting there pining for an object to orbit.
Robertson
” Imagine a simple proof like that making Cassini, Lagrange, Laplace, and Meyer wrong!!! ”
You are dumb, stubborn, ignorant and arrogant; and there is no hope for you to change anything in that.
Not only Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, but thousands of others – of course: including the Russian astronomer and mathematician Habibullin mentioned above – would have been wrong.
Thousands!
And that despite they computed, over centuries, the same results out of completely different observation tools and completely different observation data processing.
*
You are completely dense – like your friends-in-denial Clint R, Swenson and a few of your gullible followers.
Even people like Eben understand you are wrong: that should be a good hint for you…
Bindidon, rejecting reality will allow you to hold to your false beliefs. Ignore facts, avoid logic, and attack truth. You should be able to hold out for years, locked away in a cloud of denial.
But, reality always wins. It’s just a matter of time….
Robertson
” I went through several papers trying to uphold Cassini and they all proceed from the same assumption, that the Moon is rotating locally on an axis.
NOT ONE OF THEM HAS PROVED IT!!! ”
You are not only dumb, stubborn, ignorant and arrogant.
You are also a person who diverts, distorts, discredits, denigrates and lies.
Firstly, you went through NOT EVEN ONE paper: you are unable to understand what these people wrote.
Secondly, Mayer has proven in his treatise – through own observations and computations, with zero reference to Cassini – all what you never would be able to contradict, because you not only lack
– any scientific education to do that
– but above all the will to achieve a result over years of hard work.
You, Robertson, are just a superficial quick squirt.
Binny, you can’t “observe” something that is not happening. You’re confusing “observe” with “imagine”.
Mark B
If you had some idle time and interest, I would really enjoy your generation of a picture out of UAH’s linear trend data (for the period Dec 1978 – Dec 2021), like those you produced for some months out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sRX2XJT1n6d_EF8jhDJFysVW1zA_c9_B/view
It has exactly the same format as a monthly grid evaluation: 66 latitude bands (82.5S-82.5N) of 144 cells each.
That would be great!
The goal here is to compare your much more elaborated graphics with this simple output of a spreadsheet calculator
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
in relation to
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
uahTltTrendDec78Dec21.png
Mark B was the one that shared the funny, incompetent effort to scare the sheep, upthread:
“The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 +/- 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 10^21 J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 +/- 10 ZJ using NCEI/NOAA dataset.”
What’s funny is not one of the braindead cult idiots questioned any part of it. And it’s all nonsense.
“Ever recorded by humans”? Who else is recording temperatures?
We don’t know what energy the oceans contain (OHC), so we don’t know if it’s increasing or decreasing. It’s all beliefs. It ain’t science.
Here’s some science: Polar ice caps emit well over 130 ZJ annually. And the cult leaders scare the sheep with a pathetic 16 ZJ?
clint…re quote from elsewhere…”The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans…”
***
Just read that La Nina is determined by a 0.5C drop in ocean water temperature off the coast of SA. El Nina is determined by a similar rise above average. So, we have a 1C variance in ocean temperature attributed to natural causes yet the alarmists are raving about records that are likely measured in 1/100ths of a degree.
Besides, how do you measure the average temperature of the ocean?
A: With profiling standard Argo floats.
At what horizontal intervals and what expected profiles across the currents that hold the floats?
The Argo profiling floats drift for 8-9 days at their parking depth of 1000m so the horizontal intervals of the profiles are highly variable. See a recent (Dec. 2020) paper covering the waterfront of Argo research lead author is Karina Von Schuckman et. al.
An example of ocean distribution 60-60 is approximately 135,000 surface location fixes from 9,898 floats deployed between 1998 and early 2017.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JC013750
Do you have a travel log for the various individual floats? They all float along together at whatever the 1000m depth currents are. So the individual 8-9 day readings are not random or fixed but of the same water parcels. No 2 floats are close enough together to decide if the current they float in is 10m or 1000m wide.
And why is this data not useful?
The data needs to be set in correctly in context. The floats represent a ‘local’ parcel of water, not the volumes in between and around them. To fail to recognize that is a fatal flaw.
All thermometers are local parcel measurements. These devices are useful for continuously and meaningfully monitoring earthen global thermodynamic internal energy (air & 60-60 ocean) at the 95% significance level.
“The floats represent a ‘local’ parcel of water, not the volumes in between and around them.”
You expect the volumes in between to differ systematically from the measured points?
This is a large and sophisticated collaborative project. I would expect that their analysis of uncertainty on the measurements would be quite thorough.
“You expect the volumes in between to differ systematically from the measured points?”
Why would you expect that water ‘in’ the current is the same as that ‘outside’ the current?
Experience shows that this is never the case.
“All thermometers are local parcel measurements”
Of course. The assumption is that water ‘in’ a current is the same as that ‘outside’ that same current. To within 1/100 of a degree.
“The assumption is that water ‘in’ a current is the same as that ‘outside’ that same current.”
There is no such assumption RLH. Show a reference where such assumption is made; you can use the two Argo links I gave you or any other reliable published Argo paper to support your contention.
You contend, against all physical evidence, that the distance between the floats contains exactly the same (or interpolated) temperatures to within 1/100th of a degree?
You have never been at sea have you? I have had occasions where distances of a few hundred yards have shown DEGREES of difference. And that is horizontally. Distances of a few meters can make for degrees vertically.
AFAIK only RLH contends such & RLH has zero support for that contention. I don’t find it in any Argo paper or point it out.
So you assume, RLH, that when they report error, that they’ve gotten it wrong? Have you even read their papers?
” And that is horizontally. Distances of a few meters can make for degrees vertically.”
Another red herring. The measurements are taken as a function of depth. Obviously you havent read the papers.
You obviously know nothing about ocean currents either then.
“Have you even read their papers?”
Yes I have. What do you consider the uncertainty that should exists in measurements that are taken approximately 10 days and at wide distances (compared to land based measurements) apart. The same as land based or worse?
Oceans dont experience weather at depth, like land. 10 days sounds adequate for studying change over years.
Are you claiming the analyzers of this data dont know how to handle thesr issues and dont know how to calculate uncertainty correctly?
TM, are you braindead because you thrive on nonsense like this, or do you thrive on nonsense like this because you’re braindead?
pups, watch and weep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnp5tjKU-9k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22V83YIhVVc
Now Willard Jr. doubles down on being braindead. He’s proud to be a cult idiot.
(That’s why this is so much fun.)
When Pup dominates a thread, that’s because someone has to be an adult. When Pup flees away, that’s because someone has to be an adult. If Pup uses double binds, no doubt it’s because someone has to be an adult.
W’s pride knoweth no limits.
Oh, Pozzo. You’re too kind.
E. Swanson
Hold on there with the videos.
Kenya is a region very prone to droughts that have little to do with a warming globe. The videos are very poorly done science. They are what I dislike about the current trend in Climate Science. Attribute every bad thing to climate change regardless if it has any validity. It is awful journalism and total manipulation. Bad to do and also gives rise to a fringe right wing in US that does not trust anything said by the media. When they do manipulation stories like these it is the reason why people no longer trust the media as a source of truth. I detest this type of reporting, it creates a false narrative and is pure manipulation with zero historical context.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/4ve9h7w9
and here
https://tinyurl.com/ra8ndxjh
maguff…”Global warming is smashing temperature records all over the world”
***
Prove, scientifically, how a warming that has produced no more than a 1C AVERAGE rise in temperature since 1850 (~170 years) can cause temperatures to suddenly rise 10C or more over a short period.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
I am not sure I see much difference in many years of July temperatures in Kuwait. One day could easily have reached a global record since it is a very hot place but it is not a continuous thing.
Here is a link to see for yourself. I read these claims with much skepticism. Mostly there is zero historical context. You look at the record and you see there are a few humid days among the very warm ones. Not sure the humid July was anything unusual. Memory of weather events is short, one needs to look at a long term trend of available data.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/kw/airport/OKBK/date/2021-7
“Memory of weather events is short, one needs to look at a long term trend of available data.”
I don’t know when you last visited that part of the world; it’s been a little over 10 years for me and I remember having to go out before dawn just to get a short run in, and days when heavy equipment trucks had to travel at night so as not to warp the asphalt. But I digress.
Here’s another look at data: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/kuwait
The following quote from the Kuwait National Adaptation Plan 2019-2030 is in line with the data; “The overall temperature trend during the study period exhibited an observable rise in the temperature estimated to be 1.6 degree C.”
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Thanks for the reply. I do not think having an open mind or skeptical matters so much. I like evidence based reality when dealing with science issues. An idea may seem strange but if the evidence supports it who would I be to reject it.
Your initial posts sounded like the typical propaganda from the extreme fringe of the Climate Change debate. Yours dealt with emotional appeal for the poor animals dying from the heat. I do agrees that the globe is warming. I do not think one or two days that reach 54 C means disaster It routinely gets over 120 F in Kuwait in July. If some conditions favor it you can get a really hot day. And animals will die in the heat, they have probably had the same conditions when it reached 124 F and high humidity (as can be seen in the record).
I have never been to Kuwait but that does not mean I can’t look at historical temperature records.
In the US recent temperatures were 20 F below the normal. No one raised an issue with this. It is what weather does, it is very variable.
First you said: “I read these claims with much skepticism.”
Now you say: ” I do not think having an open mind or skeptical matters so much.”
So, are you a skeptic or not?
You also say: ” I like evidence based reality when dealing with science issues.”
I gave you data for the years 1864-2020, as well as mention of the Kuwait National Adaptation Plan 2019-2030. If as you say “I do not think one or two days that reach 54 C means disaster” then, why do you think a National Adaptation Plan is necessary? I asked if you’d ever been there because it is easy to pass judgement from your comfortable home about peoples and places you’ve never even visited. The word prejudice comes to mind.
P.s.: You’ll never read “the typical propaganda from the extreme fringe of the Climate Change debate” in one of my posts. The stakes are high and I follow the evidence.
1985? A third of a century ago, and the planet is still here. The sheep are scared, so I guess the fear-mongering works. Doom and gloom, we’re all going to die, the sky is falling — it just keeps coming.
Scott Adams has a funny response to such nonsense today:
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-01-19
maguff…”Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change…”
***
Sagan was an idiot who thrived on being rude to contemporaries. His claim to fame was theorizing that the environment of Venus is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect. However, Sagan did not present it as a theory. When he spoke of the Big Bang, for example, he would say, “When the Big Bang happened…”. If you can imagine Elmer Fudd saying that you have Sagan.
The greenhouse crap was passed on to James Hansen, who made his work at NASA GISS a political crusade.
Beim Vergleich von
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v51OHRkdl7AAwSLWhm1R6OyNEl9msYdR/view
mit
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/202112_Map.png
in den Breitengraden 60S-82.5S bzw. 60N-82.5N…
… müsste doch selbst dem dümmsten Ingeniör allmählich ein kleines Licht aufgehen, nicht wahr?
One is area weighted and the other is not?
Manche sind entweder unwillens oder nicht einmal in der Lage, einfachste Dinge zu sehen, und stellen daher überflüssige Fragen.
Others are just idiots who fail to recognize correct observations.
Now Binditler wants everybody to speak German
Google translate makes that simple.
Thanks for your disgusting insult, Eben.
RLH
” Others are just idiots who fail to recognize correct observations. ”
Oh, really? Thanks for insulting a la Clint R.
Contradiction would be better, wouldn’t it?
*
Did you really, really not see how good my evaluations fit the UAH graphs for both trends and anomalies above 60N and below 60S, despite the latter were made out of data with much higher resolution?
Really?
If UAH’s anomaly graph for Dec 2021 is ‘area weighted’, whereas mine definitely is not: why then do we see, in my graph and in UAH’s
– the same anomaly range: +3.5 C <= v = v > -2.5 C, near (80S, 90W-150W) ?
If UAH’s trend graph for Dec 1978 – Dec 2021 is ‘area weighted’, whereas mine definitely is not: why then do we see, in my graph,
– the same trend range: +0.35 C <= v < +0.45 C, over nearly the entire band 80N-82.5N (apart from a few spots above +0.45C, and one below 0.35C)
and
– the same trend range: +0.25 C <= v < +0.35 C, near (80S, 30E-60E) ?
*
Either you are unable to see the similarity, or you are dishonest.
Now let us come back to your interesting appreciation
" 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. "
Here is the 2.5 degree latitude cosine sequence from 80-82.5S to 80-82.5N:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QGivhHKL3Cl6jPOdDORQD-Sxd5hd0KYv/view
As every knowledgeable engineer should be aware of, simple cosine weighting is nearly identical to obtain spherical areas out of a rectangular grid (for Earth's surface, we obtain 516,000,000 km^2, i.e. about 1 % too much).
*
And now let us compare, in two subcomments below, for trends and anomalies
– UAH's graphs
– my graphs without latitude / area weighting
– my graphs with a cosine-based latitude / area weighting.
*
If you can't challenge me by making graphs that contradict the ones I made, why don’t you ask Roy Spencer’s opinion on my graphs in a mail to him?
That would be quite simple, wouldn’t it?
A. Trends for 1978-2021
UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
Bin, without weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
Bin, with cosine weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrPMzDj49kjoHRif6a2DbmVM0mbPqZpC/view
Now try equal area.
B. Anomalies for December 2021
UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/202112_Map.png
Bin, without weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v51OHRkdl7AAwSLWhm1R6OyNEl9msYdR/view
Bin, with cosine weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtukJTA-WbUYikD3xhaz-SImXMII-bzy/view
Now try equal area which is what Roy does..
” Roy and I agree that Mollweide allows for an equal area representation of his 2.5 degree grid. ”
Why do you still confound
– the geometric transformation of a rectangular grid into a flat ellipsoid, by using trigonometry, giving only an optical area weighting
and
– the arithmetic transformation of the grid’s cell contents, which is the real data weighting that matters?
Why does UAH’s Mollweide representation have the same data as I have, despite my ‘Mercator’ representation?
Clint R has his ball-on-a-string. You have your own too.
Send a mail to Roy Spencer. He will explain.
Roy doesn’t need a email to explain equal areas and why it is important. You however are as thick as 2 short planks. The data is the same as everyone can tell you but the visual area representation is correct in Mollweide but distorted towards the poles in Mercator.
You obviously don’t understand what others get instantly but like Clint R you continue on with your private world.
Why do you think that Mollweide came about and why do you think that Mercator is so depreciated in science?
“Contradiction would be better, wouldn’t it?”
So which is better and why?
1. Mercator.
2. Mollweide.
Which is equal area? i.e. area weighted.
RLH
Unlike Mark B, who uses a complex graphics library, I have no interest at all in doing any work needing graphics, e.g. for presenting a Mollweide picture of my data.
*
Why do you still confound
– the geometric transformation of a rectangular grid into a flat ellipsoid, by using trigonometry, giving only an optical area weighting
and
– the arithmetic transformation of the grid’s cell contents, which is the real data weighting that matters.
*
Why don’t you understand that if Roy Spencer’s team wouldn’t have chosen the Mollweide representation but rather a rectangular grid instead, that would change the shape, but not any value they display?
*
Apart from the highly different resolutions (2.5 degree in my graph, probably 1 degree in UAH’s, how else would they be able to draw tiniest isothermal splines): where do you see any value difference between them?
*
Why do you discredit what you can’t contradict by own work?
Why don’t you send a mail to Roy Spencer about this? His address you see at the bottom of the page.
So why do you think it is that Ropy uses Mollweide for his graph? Do you think it is anything to do with equal area? Which means that it contains, inherently, cosine weighting. Mercator with its equal distance (such as you use) distorts things towards the Poles making them appear much more important than they really are.
*Roy
P.S. Roy and I agree that Mollweide allows for an equal area representation of his 2.5 degree grid.
Mark B agrees also. Why don’t you ask him about equal area and why it is used by both Roy and him?
” Mark B agrees also. ”
Oh! Did you ask him? Really?
I don’t need to explain why equal area treatment is correct. Except to you.
Why don’t you ask Mark B on this blog directly and see what he answers?
” Roy and I agree that Mollweide allows for an equal area representation of his 2.5 degree grid. ”
But… that is not what matters, RLH.
What matters is not how the grid areas look like, but the value of the grid cells they represent.
The grid cells of 2.5 degrees on a globe are smaller and smaller in area as they reach towards the Poles just as those on Mollweide are. That is why Roy and Mark and I use them. Equal area representation you know. The values themselves are unchanged but the area they represent are correct in that area even on the flat piece of paper.
So what area does the top left hand pixel cover on the globe?
What area on the globe does the center pixel cover?
Why do you show these 2 disparate pixels as being the same visual weight?
P.P.S. It is quite possible to do contour plots of 2.5 degree grids to give what Roy shows. Don’t do much graphics do you?
“the geometric transformation of a rectangular grid into a flat ellipsoid, by using trigonometry”
It is impossible to simply transform a globe into a flat map as has been decided long ago. That is unless you are prepared to accept some distortion to do so. Mollweide which does indeed transform things from globe to a flat plane ellipse distorts only edges but keep areas constant.
So please do tell me what area does the top left pixel cover? And the area under the center pixel?
Bindidon” The only person left in the world who thinks that Greenland and Africa are of the same size/importance globally speaking.
https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/maps-that-show-why-some-countries-are-not-as-big-as-they-look/
You still didn’t manage to understand what my simple, rectangular grids were about:
1) – to show what you deliberately ignore, namely that they represent the same data as that displayed within UAH’s Mollweide presentation of trends and anomalies;
and
2) – to show that your statement
” 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. ”
of course is valid in the geographical sense.
No, RLH: I am NOT one of those ‘who think that Greenland and Africa are of equal size/importance globally’;this false claim is dictated by your own addiction to discredit others, and to dissimulate your own failures.
*
And, above all, your statement becomes utterly wrong when it comes to a real latitude weighting in the data when based on latitude cosines – regardless whether you use an ellipsoid, a sphere, an icosahedron or even a simple rectangle to present that data.
And that use of cosines to perform latitude weighting is wrong everywhere (globally, in the Arctic, in the Antarctic, …), with one exception, however: in the 16 2.5 degree latitude bands of the Tropics (in UAH: 20S-20N); because there, the cosine is… near 1.0, as you can see:
0.946930
0.960050
0.971342
0.980785
0.988362
0.994056
0.997859
0.999762
0.999762
0.997859
0.994056
0.988362
0.980785
0.971342
0.960050
0.946930
*
Here are some graphs which show how you run into a blind-alley when you try to perform, for the UAH anomalies, the same kind of latitude weighting as is done for Mollweide projections.
Look how the cosine-based plots differ from the original UAH plots, with, as said above, one exception, eh.
– Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZeIwlLeIzqO18tWlAOHO9mVQMOgL1ms/view
– Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qzNy2VQkDHWu41w5YlI10b6fMmxgeZi0/view
– Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pErGXMpGLkKNH_m8IYYUlDxc9LNsmUbr/view
and…
– Tropics!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/143oWGayVbsCXGEug0nqXpSZdruM8JjpA/view
*
Your tedious, useless insistence on Mollweide is really cute!
It’s your ball-on-a-string, RLH…
You are as idiotic as Clint R. Equal area allows each area of the globe to be set in equal importance. You do really think that Greenland is as important as Africa, even though they are actually 14 times different in geographical area.
You don’t need to alter the actual readings of each cell with cosine ratings, only the area you use of the piece of paper to represent them.
Why do YOU think Mollweide is used?
Why do you believe when averaging a function over a spheroid that there is a difference between considering regions of equal area and considering regions of unequal area and weighting them accordingly in the averaging process? The average works out to be the same.
Why do you think that Mollweide rather than Mercator is considered to be ‘more accurate’ as a method of representation of area?
Consider 2/4 things.
1. The surface area of a globe.
2. The correct surface area to represent it on a piece of paper.
Then consider which is more accurate.
1. An ellipse.
2. A rectangle.
RLH
” You do really think that Greenland is as important as Africa, even though they are actually 14 times different in geographical area. ”
Here you show that you are not only as incompetent as Robertson, Clint R or Swenson and similar people.
You show that you are an absolute liar.
Are you saying that Africa is NOT 14 times the surface area of Greenland?
https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/data-visualisation-animated-map-mercater-projection-true-size-countries
“One of the best known and commonly used world maps, the Mercator Projection, depicts Greenland and Africa as being roughly the same size. In reality, Africa is 14 times larger”
https://www.natureindex.com/file/countries-map-projection-new
RLH
As long as you continue lying, I will repeat that you are an absolute liar.
Upthread, I unequivocally wrote:
” No, RLH: I am NOT one of those ‘who think that Greenland and Africa are of equal size/importance globally’;this false claim is dictated by your own addiction to discredit others, and to dissimulate your own failures. ”
You intentionally ignored that statement, by cowardly writing
” Are you saying that Africa is NOT 14 times the surface area of Greenland? ”
You perfectly know that I never said or wrote that, RLH.
You are a liar, just like Robe5rtson, Clint R and some others.
Now, I’ll stop answering to your ridiculous lies.
So Africa IS 14 times the surface area of Greenland but I am a liar for pointing that out.
You, sir, are an idiot of the highest order.
Your Mercator projection is a distortion of what is actually relevant to equal area representation.
“I am NOT one of those ‘who think that Greenland and Africa are of equal size/importance globally”
But ‘I’ will use areas on the page that make it appear that Greenland is of the same importance as Africa even though they are 14 times different in area.
You DO realize that the data themselves do not change but when you represent them on a flat plane you need to take account of the difference in area don’t you?
I won’t be looking back through 2000+ comments to see what has been written about the Tongan eruption, so apologies if this has already been said.
Preliminary measurements indicate the the eruption emitted only about 2% of the SO2 emitted by Pinatubo. If so, it will not be causing any noticeable global climate effects.
Thanks for this, I thought it would be worse due to the plume’s elevation (30 km). 2% really aren’t that much.
As I wrote above, we will see in February how UAH’s LS grid data behaved during January in the cells around the eruption.
30 km is slightly higher than the most explosive of the 1982 El Chichon blasts at 27 km which cooled the planet by 0.3C.
But El Chichon emitted about 7.5 Mt of SO2 compared to preliminary measurements of 0.4 Mt of SO2 for this eruption.
Of course there could be further eruptions which might change the picture somewhat.
It’s difficult not to be amused at how “skeptics” wonder out loud how 30 Gt of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year could possibly have an effect on climate, but have no problems accepting that one-off injections of 7.5 Mt (or 20 Mt in the case of Pinatubo) of SO2 can affect climate in the opposite direction.
Thanks again for the numbers.
CO2 does not compare with volcano eruptions. Volcanoes spew SO2 and ash. Both are block solar. So large spews actually block high energy (visible wavelengths) photons from Sun. The terrestrial-wavelength photons that impact CO2 have such low energy they could not warm Earth’s surface. A 15μ has less energy than the WDL photon from ice.
Don’t expect Warmists, i.e. “braindead cult idiots”, to understand any of this.
Your calculation please.
What calculation are you referring to? Do you not know WDL?
I’m looking for an energy calculation involving energy per photon multiplied by number of photons per unit area, or equivalent. Because it appears you are working on a principle akin to “one kg of feathers is lighter than one kg of lead”.
antonin…”Your calculation please”.
***
You don’t need calculations for this, you can do it by inspection of a solar energy curve with the terrestrial IR radiation beside it. You can see the surface IR curve intensity is a small fraction of solar input.
Also, according to R.W.Wood, an expert on such matters, the losses of surface radiation are dramatic due to the inverse square law. He claimed, by the time the radiation goes a few feet above the surface it is so weak as to be useless for absorp-tion by GHGs.
Finally, only 5% of surface radiation can be collected by GHGs.
No point invoking equations when the basic physics is not clearly understood.
AQ — Visible band is about 400-700 nanometers. A midrange 550 nanomenter photon has energy of 2255 meV. A CO2 15μ has energy of 83 meV. Notice the difference.
Now you can play around with surface areas all you like, but you can’t change the fact that Earth’s surface does NOT emit more energy that it receives from Sun. If you are in the cult, you can use the bogus “energy balance” nonsense to “prove” differently, but then you have to believe fluxes add. And that brings you to the subsequent nonsense that ice cubes can boil water.
Nowhere did I say anything “akin to one kg of feathers is lighter than one kg of lead”. There’s no excuse for you being that irresponsible, unless you have an agenda to pervert reality.
Would you please link me to this claim by Mr Wood, because I can’t seem to find it. He had better attribute this to the inverse square law as you claim.
That was for Gordon
Clint R
YOU: “Now you can play around with surface areas all you like, but you cant change the fact that Earths surface does NOT emit more energy that it receives from Sun.”
Wrong! The Earth’s surface, in the real reality and not your twisted dishonest version of it, does emit more than it receives from the Sun. This fact is verified by measured values. I have already given then to you more than once. You can’t understand the data and you are most dishonest because you have been given the correct information and you still peddle your lies. Not only are you a troll you are a lying clown, an idiot.
Lying is probably worse than your illogical thought process and extreme arrogance and confidence in your false beliefs. Keep on lying it is what trolls like you need to do. The Truth is too painful because it shows you how stupid you are.
Clint R
One more time showing you are a dishonest arrogant idiot that is a true denier in the real sense.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61eb8d63283d8.png
I have already done the calculations for you. Now do it yourself your ignorant lying troll.
Calculate the total energy emitted by the surface in a 24 hour period and then calculate the incoming solar energy for that same period. When you do this we might be able to talk. Your idiot troll diversions and empty blather might appeal to other idiots on this blog but they are quit meaningless.
I have little hope you are intelligent enough to calculate the values from the graph. Similar to how you pretend to know vector math when you just found some example on the internet that someone solved (not by you) and you post it as if you are intelligent (which you are not).
Hi Norman,
I see you’re still in meltdown. Life is tough when your cult starts to collapse, and reality sets in. I feel your pain….
Someday, if you ever recover, I’ll explain that surfrad link you can’t understand. Science can be so confusing, huh?
Keep in touch.
“Science can be so confusing, huh?”
As you know NOTHING about science how would you know?
RLH, can you explain why Norman is wrong?
No you can’t. You’ve got NOTHING.
You’re all smoke but no fire.
You, however, are an idiot.
Clint R
The more correct reality is science is too confusing for you. Since you can’t understand energy transfer or how the Moon could rotate once per orbit (a concept beyond your level) you post stupid things on a continuous basis. You can be given real data, real facts but you can’t grasp what is said.
With the energy graph I linked you to. Those are just basic measured values. The solar input is what is absorbed by the surface (the part not reflected away which is also measured).
You do not understand that the Earth’s surface does indeed emit more energy than it receives from the Sun, but it also receives energy from the atmosphere so the NET energy loss (emitted surface energy minus what is absorbed from the atmosphere) is now less than what the solar input is. It is clearly seen in graphs. I wish you had the intellect to understand what is real, you don’t however.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61ec1e2f99c81.png
If you add the energy the surface gains from the atmosphere (downwelling IR again measured values) the solar input exceeds the NET surface energy loss.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61ec1e928c7f4.png
Reality is not your friend. You like your created little opinions (not really yours but your good friend Jos Postma) but you will not accept reality and facts. You are a true denier of evidence. You just ignore what does not fit your created reality based only upon your opinions and false beliefs. Science is evidence, not your opinion.
As I stated, Norman, if you ever recover from your meltdown, I’ll explain that surfrad link you can’t understand. In your current condition, I’d just be wasting my time.
Stay in touch.
Clint R
You already know you are lying when you make the false claim “Ill explain that surfrad link you cant understand.”
You will never do this. You are too stupid to understand it in the first place and you pretend like you know things when you don’t.
Anyway you will never explain anything because you don’t know anything. You are an idiot and it seems you will maintain that status on this blog.
Norman, I don’t attempt to teach physics to braindead cult idiots, especially braindead cult idiots that are in a meltdown.
But, I will make a rare exception. If you agree to not comment here for 90 days, I will explain why you’re wrong about the surfrad link. Specifically, I will explain why the link does NOT prove Earth’s surface is emitting more energy than it receives from Sun.
Do you agree to not comment here for 90 days?
“does NOT prove Earths surface is emitting more energy than it receives from Sun”
So you are saying that other sources of energy, other than the Sun, do not exist? How hot is the center of the Earth and how fast is it leaking away to space?
As you may be new here, please be aware that pups doesn’t “do math”…
swannie…”As you may be new here, please be aware that pups doesnt do math”
***
You seem to have a fetish for baby dogs since you are always talking about them. Of course they don’t do math, but the rest of us here do math a lot better than the alarmists and spinners.
We also do physics a lot better too. We understand the 2nd law, that heat can only be transferred by its own means from cold to hot, and that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
If you said that the NET flow of heat was from ‘hot’ to ‘cold’ you would be more correct.
As to the Moon you are completely wrong.
Gordo repeats his cult’s delusional claims yet again. The Moon rotates around it’s CoM onec an orbit.
Gordo, do pay attention. “pups” is shorthand for “sock puppets” DRsEMT, Clint R and perhaps others in the “no spin” cult.
I see Swanson is out trolling again. He copies Willard because he has NOTHING of his own. He couldn’t answer the two simple physics problems, because he’s a braindead cult idiot.
At least he knows how to use a keyboard….
I see Clint R is being an idiot as usual.
… and we can add that ‘braindead cult idiot’ is a fully generic qualification which fits numerous domains with very high R², like e.g.
– Warmists
together with all these strange people who understand
– that Moon rotates about its polar axis
– the rules of species evolution
– that James Webb, looking very far out in the Universe, also sees very early in its time
– that vaccination is useful
et cetera et cetera et cetera.
We further can detect that the GCD of all that is ‘agenda’.
Binny, you forgot the strange people that also believe ice cubes can boil water, that there is a “real 255K surface”, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Water boils quite well in a vacuum. Regardless of what ‘heats’ it.
Thanks for proving me right, RLH. You can’t understand any of this.
It’s almost as if you live in a vacuum, huh?
rlh…”Water boils quite well in a vacuum”.
***
How does water boil in a vacuum if a vacuum is defined, essentially, as being void of matter? Maybe you could offer your definition of vacuum first, then explain how you rig it so water can boil in it.
If you place water in a closed vessel with an air gap, and pump out as much air as you can, the water will boil until evaporation and condensation rates equlibriate.
Am I teaching you something new, or did you know exactly what he meant?
If the vacuum is big enough the water will boil away completely. Even if it turns to ice first.
A vacuum is the absence of matter (or very nearly so) i.e. the space between planets if nothing else will do (we can ignore the ‘wind’ from the Sun in this case).
Hey Stupid! (yes that is you Clint R)
Does the Sun have a surface? Yes or No?
Here dumb one (the Sun is a plasma gaseous object but they consider it has a surface)
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-regions#:~:text=The%20boundary%20between%20the%20Sun's,%22surface%22%20of%20the%20Sun.
You are too stupid to grasp the concept of a radiating surface and that such a surface does not have a specific location where radiation comes from but the boundary is considered the surface.
Also who has claimed ice will boil water? Why are you so stupid? No one ones.
Hi again, Norman.
Sun is NOT Earth. Simple facts like this are hard for you to understand. Sun’s radiating surface is considered to be its photosphere, at an effective temperature of about 5800K.
Here’s some reality for you: Earth’s real surface has an average temperature of 288K, NOT 255K. The “255K” is the calculated temperature for the surface of an imaginary sphere.
If Earth had a “real 255K surface”, you could identify it. If you believe it is in the atmosphere, you could identify its altitude. But, you can’t. Earth doesn’t have a “real 255K surface”. You’ve been misled by your cult, again.
And, it’s your own cult that claims ice cubes can boil water. I’ll let you search upthread for the latest disclosures. It’ll be some good therapy for you. Never let a good meltdown go to waste.
Stay in touch.
Clint R
Rather than babble on why not engage some thinking ability. Your stupid posts just don’t do it.
What part of “radiating” surface is so hard for you to understand? There is NOT a specific altitude for a radiating surface. How hard is this for you to “get”?
The Earth’s liquid and solid surface has an average temperature of 288 K. The radiating surface, the boundary of where radiant energy of the Earth is found, has a brightness temperature of 255 K. The average energy emitted by the Earth to space is measured at 239 W/m^2. It emits more from warm regions less from cooler regions. The overall energy emitted by the Earth can be calculated by adding all the energy emitted by the regions. The average would be that total energy divided by the total area to give you the value of 239 W/m^2.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/best-of-ceres/lw_jja_180.png
Sorry Norman but that IR image is from a computer model. You don’t understand your own links.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. If it did, you would have identified it by now, rather than your usual incompetent floundering.
I always enjoy your meltdowns, however.
The “255K” is the calculated temperature for the surface of only Clint’s imaginary sphere; in reality the actual earthen 255K is measured using observations of the real Earth system.
Clint R continues to comment only from a dream world that doesn’t exist in reality; it is fun to watch Clint & the other 3 ring circus members continuously entertain more informed blog readers with Clint R’s unsound science.
Clint R doesn’t do science.
Clint R
YOU: “Sorry Norman but that IR image is from a computer model. You don’t understand your own link”
What? Where do you come up with the idea that the image is a computer model? It is an image derived from measured values from satellites.
Why do you think blabbing your ignorant opinion on everything is valuable.
Read, maybe a light will click on in that dark mind of yours.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/resources/images/
“These plots are climatological annual and seasonal means of data obtained from the NASA Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) scanner instruments onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites during July 2005 through June 2015.”
Norman, they take “snapshots”, then feed those data into a computer program to produce the images. There is no meaningful measurement of flux emitted from atmosphere. There are only samples, which can then be processed to give any results needed.
Infrared does not have color. That would be a clue to you, if you understood any of this.
Clint R
I believe the CERES data is continuous collection of outgoing longwave IR from the Earth system. Similar to the SURFRAD data, a continuous collection of data.
The color representation are only for human evaluation. You can ignore the color and focus on the numerical representation of the colors. The image is not modeled it is actual measured values. The representation is just so it is easy to see the values rather than a contour map of different radiant energies.
There are models of outgoing longwave IR but this image is not one of them. It is a compilation and averaging of data collected over a few years. Actual measurements.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD012758
This paper discusses model and measured values of outgoing longwave radiation.
Norman, to get a colorized image on a “flat earth”, the data MUST be processed. You believe the images are not computer models but your link confirms the images are computer models!
You have no clue about any of this.
Let’s see if you can understand a VERY simple example:
Flux X = 1000 W/m^2
Flux Y = 1200 W/m^2
What is the average energy emitted?
What areas are the fluxes from? Are they different or at different times?
Clint R
Do you have to be so dumb? The image is not modeled, yes it is processed but it is processed on measured information. That is not modeled. A model would be having just equations of energy transfer and getting results. Processing measured data is NOT a model. You need to grow up.
Also your simple points are stupid as they really do not provide information enough to figure out what you are requesting.
What are the fluxes? You do not have any explanation (horrible example of anything). Are they two fluxes hitting some uniform surface? The emitted flux would depend upon many factors that you do not include so I could only make some assumption.
If you have a blackbody sphere with a one meter square surface area receiving a total of 2200 Watts of energy (joules per second) it will warm to a point were it will emit 2200 Watts of energy at steady state. But you do not state any of this. If you start with a cold object that receives 2200 Watts of energy it will at first emit very little. If the object is not a blackbody it could reflect any percent of this energy away and would not emit much. If you had better examples I would give you an answer. It is so poorly worded and presented that it just makes you look stupid. Grow up and quit being so stupid all the time.
Norman, the subject is “satellite measurements”. In this example, a satellite records two fluxes. You were asked for the average energy from:
Flux X = 1000 W/m^2
Flux Y = 1200 W/m^2
You claim to be an expert on satellite measurements, but you can’t deal with the VERY simple example. The purpose of the example was to teach you something about converting satellite measurments to colorized images, and how that requires modeling/programming. Your comment at 3:16 pm was incorrect, but at least it contained no insults or false accusations. I thought maybe you had settled down and would appreciate learning some science.
I was wrong. So I’ll just continue to enjoy your meltdown.
Keep in touch.
If x = 2y the answer is different to 2x = y.
Areas of that is.
Clint R
YOU: “Let’s see if you can understand a VERY simple example:
Flux X = 1000 W/m^2
Flux Y = 1200 W/m^2
What is the average energy emitted?”
That was your initial comment. If does not contain much information to determine what you are asking for.
Later you say: “Norman, the subject is “satellite measurements”. In this example, a satellite records two fluxes. You were asked for the average energy from:
Flux X = 1000 W/m^2
Flux Y = 1200 W/m^2”
Now you are adding some more detail making it possible to answer.
First what two fluxes is it measuring? If it is measuring two different fluxes from different sources you would not average the two. If you are measuring a changing flux from one source you can average that just as you can with a changing temperature.
Why you should provide more information is so that the example can make some sense. If you had one lake at 40 F and another lake at 70 F it would not make sense to average the two to get an average temperature of two lakes. However if you measured different parts of one lake and had different temperatures it would make sense to average those to get an average lake temperature. You still do not provide enough detail on what you are wanting.
If you have two fluxes they will add and the receiving surface will gain 2200 Watts of energy for ever exposed square meter of surface. It it is one flux but the satellite is very poorly calibrated so you get a difference of 200 Watts between the two sensors you could average this to 1100 W/m^2.
So far I cannot guess at what you are requesting with your extremely limited data.
That’s correct, Norman. You don’t understand any of this.
Keep in touch.
Clint R
The problem of understanding is not on my end. Your problem just sucks. It is poorly written with little information.
You need to learn better communication skills if you want to present problems.
So what is X to the nth power?
Oh I guess you just must be stupid if you can’t figure that easy problem out.
Or if Bill is running 10 miles/hour what is he eating?
You can’t figure that out? I guess that just means you can’t understand anything if you can’t come up with answers for these very easy problems. Not sure you can grasp any of this.
You put out a very vague point and think it should be easy to solve. Add more information if you want answers.
That’s correct, Norman. You’re uneducated, opinionated, and braindead.
Don’t forget to write.
You’re the braindead, cult, idiot Clint R.
Clint R
I reread your stupid example and the more I think about it the dumber it gets.
You have two fluxes, which might be from some emitted source. Why they are different you do not elaborate then you want to average energy based upon flux.
Stupid example since Watts are energy per time unit so to convert that to energy you have to have a time frame, which you did NOT provide However, I did provide a time frame in the graphs of desert fluxes. You can convert a flux to a total energy if you have a known area and time. Without that information any attempt to find an energy from a flux does not work, you can’t convert the flux into energy without it.
If you provide a time and area the flux can be converted to a total energy but then you would not average that it would just be a quantity of energy.
I am more convinced, with each of your posts, you are a simpleton. Give more information and then see if someone can answer your posts.
Very good, Norman. You’re making progress. You’re learning why the satellite data are so modeled as to be worthless.
Keep reporting your progress.
To convert sat flux data to energy, you need the exact area the flux is emitted from. You need the distance to that area. You need the time involved. Since all of that data are not available, it must be modeled.
UAH converts somewhat directly to temperature, avoiding all the possible error sources. We get good temperature data from space, but the energy data is seriously flawed. We don’t know how much energy leaves the planet. The figures are all based on guesses, assumptions, opinions, estimates, which are programmed into the models.
Clint R: So now you add to your original question 3 new things of area, distance and time. Do you think that is enough?
JWST is only a couple of days from L2. I think the insertion burn may even occur tomorrow?
It seems the spacecraft is going too fast, now about 480 mph, for final insertion. But, the updates are not real-time, so it’s hard to know for sure. And, there may be some way they can “reverse thrust” if need be, that is not mentioned on the website.
Anyway, it appears the engineering has been superb, so far. And interestingly, we have learned that an “atmosphere” cools, it does NOT warm, a surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons, and a non-rotating object keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit.
“a surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons”
Wrong. A ‘surface’ must be cold to distinguish external photons from internal noise.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
150 Pages of “fun facts” on Space Mirror Tech and related JWST cool stuff: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190002647
Tyson, those facts are only going to further confuse Clint R who writes the opaque JWST sun shield layers are as transparent to sunshine & JWST shine as a planetary atm. thus making a mistake writing that “an atmosphere cools” a planet’s L&O surface.
Fun to watch Clint R just make up science stuff.
Clint R doesnt do science.
Given that there is a paper trail on this project that extends about thirty years, the science is, as they say, settled.
Thirty years total, 15 years late, and $10 billion for nothing but nonsense.
But at least the engineering debunked the AGW and Moon rotation nonsense.
NASA engineering debunks NASA agenda.
That’s why this is so much fun.
NASA does things that Clint R doesn’t understand. This is why this is so much fun.
One of the things learned from all the Moon discussion is that NONE of the braindead cult idiots has even a basic understanding of physics. NONE of them was able to solve the simple problems. They talk big, but they know NOTHING.
So when simple physics is presented that debunks their nonsense, they go into meltdown. Whenever I make a comment, it produces a “Gathering of Idiots”. (See examples above.) Sometimes, just mentioning “ice cubes” will do it. Or, “reflected photons”.
“Ice cubes” refers to the fact that their AGW nonsense, if true, would make it possible to boil water with ice cubes. The “reflected photons” refers to the fact that photons are reflected from a surface too hot to absorb them, indicating sky can NOT warm the surface.
Now, for the “Gathering of Idiots”….
Clint R
Another illogical and stupid post. You come up with a very stupid idea of ice cubes boiling water is why AGW is nonsense. The only nonsense is your inability to logically think and use correct science. If you could you would understand why your points are very poor. Not the product of a rational thinking person. Give it up already you just continue proving how stupid you are. Nothing more. You are not changing any laws of physics nor are you able to sway people to your stupid opinions.
Stupid and illogical is what Clint R does.
The idiots gather.
I would have bet RLH would be first, but Norman beat him to it.
No betting on if Clint R is an idiot.
It is a very mistaken notion – the statement “Earth without-atmosphere would be a snowball.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Earth without-atmosphere would be a snowball. ”
*
You are – not for the first time – misrepresenting the original statement:
” Earth’s atmosphere without water vapor and other trace gases would make the planet looking like a snowball. ”
This is what happens when one or more Milankovitch cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession) reach their least solar irradiance points.
Then Earth gets so cold that all the water vapor precipitates down to snow and then to ice; surprisingly, even the CO2 concentration decreases, as if it would need water vapor to subsist in the atmosphere.
Earth’s albedo then is that of ice, by accident the same as right now (0.3).
Nearly all IR absorbed by the surface is directly radiated back to space.
*
What you mean – like Volokin & Rellez (he he) – is something quite different: an Earth without oceans, like our Moon and Mars.
” Earth’s atmosphere without water vapor and other trace gases would make the planet looking like a snowball. ”
It is a very mistaken notion.
Earth is always have water vapor, because Earth has vast ocean.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your are so busy with your own egocentric ideas that you can’t even manage to read.
Thus, again and again:
” This is what happens when one or more Milankovitch cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession) reach their least solar irradiance points.
Then Earth gets so cold that all the water vapor precipitates down to snow and then to ice; surprisingly, even the CO2 concentration decreases, as if it would need water vapor to subsist in the atmosphere. ”
Is that so difficult for you to understand?
You: ” Earth’s atmosphere without water vapor and other trace gases would make the planet looking like a snowball. ”
Would you like we discuss Milankovitch cycles?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How it started:
How it’s going:
Monday ENSO Update
Bindiclown&Nate edition – La Nina gone by April for sure
https://i.postimg.cc/rs9gsGZG/nb23nino34-Mon.gif
It will be interesting to see if a 12 month La Nina does indeed happen.
What dumbass Eben of course all the time tries to dissimulate is the Eben-Genius La Nina editions we now only can see old versions of, e.g.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211214004257/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
compared with the present
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Do you see the difference for Jan 2022?
Maybe I should show even an older one?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210908213337/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
*
Give it up, Eben.
You make yourself more and more ridiculous, especially when you move below the belt with your stoopid, insane ‘Binditler’ insults.
Forecasts are forecasts and no more, even when nthey perfectly fit your Coolista narrative.
*
And here is something maybe you’ll enjoy to laugh about in a few months – or not:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
“Do you see the difference for Jan 2022?”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
says a 12 month La Nina this year.
Bindiclown’s prediction of La Nina fizzling out by April posted right here in this page has been noted and properly archived , why the tantrum I don’t know.
Some are really not able to understand simplest things.
Forecast in September for November: -1.5
Reality: a tick above -1
Forecast in December for January: -1.5
Reality: a tick below -1
Forecast in January for April: -1
Reality?
Bindicreep is now trying to spin the subject into arguing that the forecast was not exact to a tenth of a degree while he completely missed his own by arguing there was not gonna be any La Nina at all.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719083
Eben,
As you can see by the older ones, the NCEP forecasts of even 3 months ahead have been pretty bad this year. Not sure why you would be counting on their 9 month forecast to be better!
Do you agree with their current forecasts of a 12 month La Nina?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Do agree with BOMs forecast?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20220115//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png
All I know is that given the current subsurface warming trend, we know historically, that the surface temperatures will follow. That appears to be the short term development, over the next one to three months.
After that, who knows..
Well this shows that La Nina is certainly present now.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
And this shows the current subsurface animation.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
Strange how they differ at the surface.
NOAA-NCEP was an outlier in predicting a moderately strong La Nina developing last Fall.
Here are all the model predictions for coming June.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20220118.nino_summary_6.png
NOAA-NCEP is an extreme outlier in predicting La Nina.
We will see who is correct later this year then.
test test
rlh…”a surface must be cold to absorb low energy photons
Wrong. A surface must be cold to distinguish external photons from internal noise”.
***
Tell me, what you mean by internal noise? We call it shot-noise in electronics, meaning the noise of electron collisions. The collisions produce tiny impulses of electrical energy that appear as unwanted noise in an electrical signal passing through a conductor.
Certainly, if a body is colder, the shot noise will be reduced, but what does that have to do with photons?
Photon absor-p-tion is a surface phenomenon, meaning photons are only ever absorbed by a few atomic layers at the surface of a body. If a photon is absorbed by an electron in one of those atomic layers, the electron is excited and briefly jumps to a higher orbital energy level.
En Masse, with all electrons in the body surface layer rising to higher orbital energy levels, that creates a rise in temperature of the surface, and the heat generated will travel to other parts of the body. Therefore, the instrument in question is measuring a rise in temperature due to absor-p-tion of photons.
Those photons will only be absorbed if the temperature of the receiving body is low enough to allow excitation of the surface electrons by the photons (2nd Law). Although shot noise is always a consideration, it applies only when an electrical current is occurring. No electrical current will be generated if the photons are not absorbed.
E = hf where E = E2 – E1, where E2 represents a higher energy orbital electron for an electron and E1 is the lower level from which it must jump or to which it must fall.
If the electron is falling, E = hf represents the intensity and frequency of the emitted photon. The f is a measure of the electrons angular frequency at the energy level from which it dropped when the photon was emitted. If a photon is to reverse that process it must have the desired E and f to affect the electron.
They don’t tell you what it is they are trying to measure. What was the source? Also, it is still not known what the relationship is between photons and the wave-like nature of an emission. Obviously, if EM was radiated from a star with a high temperature somewhere in the universe, its radiation, spreading in a sphere would be subject to the inverse square law. Therefore it’s initial intensity per square metre would diminish with the distance from the source.
It stands to reason that such radiation, received over the area of the receiver’s receiving element, would lack the energy to heat a receiver’s receiving element unless that element was cooled to a temperature that could allow absor-p-tion of that energy. Again, 2nd law.
Actually, there is a clue in a recent post by maguff as to what they are trying to measure.
“A cooled telescope optimized for the wavelengths 1 5 micron, with 4m or larger aperture, is the key tool for studying the very high redshift universe”.
They are measuring Doppler shifting???? Are these people lunatics? That can be measured using radio-telescopes, why waste such vasts amount of money launching an optical telescope to do the same thing?
This nonsense about the Big Bang theory, which is what the Doppler shifting is about, is pseudo-science for the braindead. Very expensive pseudo-ccience.
Gordon Robrtson at 2:48 PM once again caught lying when he said: “Took a year of astrophysics at the uni” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1132933
Had you even audited an elementary course you’d be less confused by all this; since the current understanding of the early universe dates back 1965 with the discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation background.
Unless you took the class before 1965.
“Certainly, if a body is colder, the shot noise will be reduced, but what does that have to do with photons?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
“Shot noise or Poisson noise is a type of noise which can be modeled by a Poisson process. In electronics shot noise originates from the discrete nature of electric charge. Shot noise also occurs in photon counting in optical devices, where shot noise is associated with the particle nature of light.”
rlh…”Shot noise or Poisson noise is a type of noise which can be modeled by a Poisson process. In electronics shot noise originates from the discrete nature of electric charge. Shot noise also occurs in photon counting in optical devices, where shot noise is associated with the particle nature of light.”
***
Richard, I don’t argue with you in your field of expertise. like statistics. In fact, I have supported you at times when idiots like Binny tried to argue about the types of averages.
Here, you are quoting idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, which is often the case on wiki. Your wiki article claims shot noise is associated with charges, which is about the dumbest thing I have ever read. It is electrons that carry the charges and although charge can move electron to electron at near the speed of light, no one has any idea how that works.
The wiki article is obviously confusing charges with the electrons that carry them.
The idiots at wiki, where Binny is likely an editor, claim that ‘light particle nature of light’ can produce shot noise. Richard, how can a quantum of light, which has no mass, produce a ***shot*** noise??? There is a load of absolute rubbish spreading around the Net.
We already know about the interference produced by EM, it is called EMI…electromagnetic interference. EM is comprised of an electric field moving perpendicular to a magnetic field. Note the word ‘field’. It has nothing to do with shot noise.
If you have fluorescent lighting in an office, the ballasts driving the lamps can add electrical transients to the line voltage and they often show up as an undesirable noise on top of the line voltage. That is EMI. At one time, we got rid of it by connecting 0.01 microfarad capacitors from each side of an electrical cord to ground.
There is also a form of EMI that can be transmitted through air and it is added to incoming radio signals, etc.
Here is a far better explanation…
https://pages.vassar.edu/magnes/2018/12/17/5793/
“Noise can be observed when an electric current is generated from random independently generated electrons. Shot noise exists in certain macroscopic electric currents and can only be observed when the electric current is amplified thereby amplifying the noise. Shot noise is a result of the discreteness of electrons…”.
I am not debating the frequency distribution of the noise, it may be Poisson or whatever. Don’t care.
“how can a quantum of light, which has no mass, produce a ***shot*** noise???”
When a photon arrives at a body it can be abso_r_bed or not. That action (or not) causes ‘shot noise’ in the instrument, photon by photon. Are you as idiotic as you suggest?
P.S. According to theory a photon can be treated as both a particle and a wavelength. It also carries energy. E=mc^2 means that it also, therefore, has effective mass. Or are you going to deny that also?
RLH, it would be more correct to say that the upper limit of the photon mass keeps decreasing, its value being about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron last ref. I have.
The photon does carry momentum though for “shot noise”.
Each photon, one by one, carries a ‘shot’ of energy. This will result in a change in energy in the receiving circuitry. It just becomes much easier to detect this change if the circuitry is kept cold.
The very best in this blog is that ignoramuses a la Robertson, who in recent years often enough told us that photons cannot exist at all, suddenly feel the ability to teach us about what photons do or do not.
Robertson is kinda human tangible proof of the true existence of… pseudoscience.
binny…”The very best in this blog is that ignoramuses a la Robertson, who in recent years often enough told us that photons cannot exist at all, suddenly feel the ability to teach us about what photons do or do not”.
***
Binny seems to lack the ability to address anyone who disagrees with him in a civil tone. I call you an idiot for several reasons but one of them is due to your inability to understand what I write, only to come back at me with utter nonsense about what he thinks he heard.
I have only claimed there is no proof that photons exist. I am certainly not enamoured with the definition of a particle of EM that has momentum but no mass.
I will use the word to save the peace, especially when replying to someone who uses the word.
It was not me who claimed that energy quanta, that some insist on calling photons, even though particles can have no frequency, are absorbed and emitted by electrons, it was Neils Bohr, a celebrated physicist. His theory is the basis of quantum mechanics and that’s all I have tried to pass onto this blog.
If you are too stupid to understand the theory, what’s the point in taking shots at the messenger?
You, Robertson, speak about ‘civil tone’ ?
You, the most insulting person on this blog, who named a while ago the translator of Isaac Newton’s Principia a cheating SOB ?
You, the most ignorant idiot of this blog, discrediting and denigrating Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and thousands of others, just because you are unable to understand anything of what they wrote?
YOU dare to speak about ‘civil tone’ ?
binny…you have no sense of humour or irony. I actually admire Lagrange and Laplace for their contributions to mathematics. Not my fault they are lousy at physics.
I even admire Meyer for his exhaustive work on the Moon but again, a lousy physicist.
Newton is about as close to a legend/hero as I get. My favourite scientist of all time and I vigorously defend him against the nonsense that his science has been replaced by Einstein’s pseudo-science regarding space/time nonsense.
You appear to consider all scientists with newer ideas as being wrong. Others may just consider you foolish. I do.
“I am certainly not enamoured with the definition of a particle of EM that has momentum but no mass”
So you are not ‘enamoured’ of E=mc^2 either then? Here we have energy related to mass.
And the particle/wave duality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
“Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrdinger and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles exhibit a wave nature and vice versa. This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules”
Quite a list of scientists to refute in one comment on a blog.
rlh…”So you are not ‘enamoured’ of E=mc^2 either then? Here we have energy related to mass”.
***
No, I am not. The E in E = m.c^2 is not specified.
No one has ever seen energy converted to mass, or vice-versa. It was a notion of Einstein that EM absorbed by a body increased its mass. I am still trying to figure out what Albert was taking when he made that statement.
We have certainly seen the enormous amount of ‘inter-actomic’ energy released by an atomic bomb but the energy was mainly heat, light, and sound. E = m.c^2 suggests we can capture all that energy and convert it back to mass, which contradicts the theory of entropy as defined by Clausius.
Besides, only certain elements like uranium and plutonium can release atomic energy like that. E = m.c^2 is not about atomic energy, which has no relation to the speed of light, but applies only to light itself, as EM.
Einstein had a fetish for the speed of light but we now know what light is basically and how it is generated. When Einstein stole that equation, he was not privy to quantum theory nor did he take much interest in it.
When his good friend, David Bohm, took a theory to him that involved quantum theory (Bohr was an expert in the field), Albert dismissed it as ‘action at a distance’, a theory he claimed defied real physics. Then he turned around and came out with an equally lame theory that time can dilate.
Bohm also made an interesting comment re equations like e = m.c^2. He claimed that any equation lacking a physical explanation is garbage. I would say that nicely sums up E = m/c^2.
“The E in E = m.c^2 is not specified”
Energy, as in E, has an equivalence in Mass, as in m.
If something carries energy then it also has a mass equivalence. That is what E = m.c^2 says.
Mind you it is possible that you are better than Einstein but somehow I think not.
“E = m/c^2”
It is E = mc^2.
rlh…”Quite a list of scientists to refute in one comment on a blog”.
***
The quintessential rlh appeal to authority.
I warned you about relying on wiki articles as being factual. The statement is a lie. The closest it comes to truth is mentioning the name of de Broglie, who initiated the idea of wave-particle duality circa 1924. His theory is known today as the de Broglie ‘hypothesis’.
Bohr made no such comment related to his early work in quantum theory but he got stupid later on (post Copenhagen Convention) and became fanciful to the point of sci-fi. That’s when Einstein and Schrodinger distanced themselves from Bohr. Schroddy wanted nothing to do with theories that were not physically based in science and Einstein expressed much the same sentiments.
Near the end of his life, Einstein claimed that some people think there is a wave-particle duality but they are wrong. He did not claim there was or there was not, only that no one knows.
Schrodinger’s wave equation had nothing to do with wave-particle duality. It was an application of the Newtonian wave equation to Bohr’s primitive quantum theory. His wave equation is a differential equation based on real parameters like the mass of the electron, its charge, it’s distance from the nucleus, etc. There are many solutions to the DE and they describe orbital energy levels.
Some have claimed the electron ‘exhibits’ wave-particle duality, but the evidence is scant and way out there. Those types claim that electrons fired in a stream through a single slit produce the same kind of light interference particles on a target screen as EM through 2 slits.
An electron carries a negative charge (electric field) which produces a magnetic field as it moves. Those combine as radiated electromagnetic energy and the EM produced better explains the diffraction patterns than the electron behaving as both a particle and a wave.
David Bohm, a world renowned expert in quantum theory, claimed their ‘might’ be a quantum potential acting in the slit but he could not explain such a quantum potential. In other words, there are theoretical interactions between the electrons and the electrons in atoms making up the slit.
In other words, not one of the scientists you have listed has come anywhere near to proving a wave-particle duality and a hundred years later we are no closer at explaining such a theory.
Gordon, no law requires physical reality to be described by a single EMR language – wave or particle. Both languages are physically acceptable as demonstrated by countless “illuminating” experiments.
We may hope for such a single language, but Nature often is indifferent to our hopes. Moreover, I bet Gordon will accept without protest or hand-wringing the duality of sound. Gordon must recognize sound waves in air being continuous while at the same time recognizing that air, and hence sound, is composed of discrete particles (molecules) in motion.
GR: I look forward to your disputing of each and every scientists mentioned.
And to being able to prove that particles are not waves and vice versa. Actual proof that is, not handwaving as you normally do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
“It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.”
Tonga Shmonga , I bet you had no idea what caused it, The climate Change , I was waiting for it
https://youtu.be/98iCqj5XeXI
JWST is moving at 450 mph! At that speed, it’s only about 4 hours from L2. (That’s if their website data are correct and real time.)
Hope they have a way to slow it down….
It’s called an L2 Insertion Burn.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html?units=metric
The JWST was specifically designed to have slightly less speed than needed to reach L2. The plan was to add extra speed along the way. Both previous burns added speed in the direction of travel. That plan was a precaution against the spacecraft having too much speed, causing it to move past L2.
At L2, it will be necessary to change the direction of the spacecraft, rather than increasing its speed. Likely that can be done with directional burns. The calculations involve “vectors” — a subject not understood by braindead cult idiots.
Don’t be an idiot and just look at the link RLH gave you.
TM, I don’t know which I like better — your incompetence or your meltdown.
They go together so well.
From a link that gives more details:
“…a relatively small, 65-minute burn after launch that added approximately 45 mph (20 meters/sec) to the observatory’s speed. A second correction maneuver occurred on Dec. 27, adding around 6.3 mph (2.8 meters/sec) to the speed.”
Well we can be certain that the velocity vector away from the Earth of the JWST has been reduced to zero whilst still maintaining enough ‘forward thrust’ to create an ellipse around L2.
If you work out the addition of vectors required to complete such a maneuver then a 45 degree thrust to the outbound Earth vector is required so, as usual, the press do not quite get it correct.
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/images/orbit/trajectoryMapping2.41-NoText-1000px.jpg
“The JWST was specifically designed to have slightly less speed than needed to reach L2. The plan was to add extra speed along the way.”
As usual you are completely wrong. The burns and their need to correct or slow things down were planned all along. Check the link if you doubt me.
To insert things into an orbit requires a retrograde burn. That is on in the opposite direction to the direction of travel.
RLH, we already know you don’t understand vectors. You just BELIEVE you do. But your history here tells a much different story.
rlh…”To insert things into an orbit requires a retrograde burn. That is on in the opposite direction to the direction of travel”.
***
Might require a forward thrust if the velocity is lower than the velocity required for that orbit.
GR: That is true. In most cases (such as insertion into Moon orbit of the Apollo series) it was retrograde. It the case of JWST it appears that it is a combination of thrusts that turns an outward journey into an elliptical one.
Clint R: I know about vectors a lot more than you do. Practical, everyday, use that you would find incredibly difficult it seems.
GR: See
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/images/orbit/trajectoryMapping2.41-NoText-1000px.jpg
GR: See
https://webb.n_a_s_a.gov/content/webbLaunch/assets/images/orbit/trajectoryMapping2.41-NoText-1000px.jpg
NASA confirmation …
“Were one step closer to uncovering the mysteries of the universe”.
***
An idiotic statement if I ever heard one. They are one step closer to adding to the pseudo-science they have generated to this point.
Duly noted; along with:
”Gordon Robertson:” “BTW…who is James Webb?” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1097656
And:
”Gordon Robertson:” “Took a year of astrophysics at the uni” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1132933
True to form.
JWST engineering does a lot to crush the nonsense touted by some commenters here.
* An atmosphere cools, it doesn’t warm.
* A cold surface is needed to absorb low energy photons.
* The JWST will be orbiting, but NOT rotating, just as Moon does.
* Vectors work.
But the braindead cult idiots won’t understand or learn.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R writes the JWST sunshield is transparent like an atm.
I’ll be the 1st to break the news to Clint who won’t understand it: All of the JWST sunshields are NOT transparent like an atm. And starlight will be absorbed & reflected but not transmitted by the cooler ‘scope.
Ball4, I never wrote any such thing. When all you can do is blatantly misrepresent me, they you’ve got NOTHING.
Still can’t find your “real 255K surface”, can you?
At least you’ve got poor Norman fooled.
Clint did write JWST engineering designed the heat shields as transparent as an atm. comparison: “JWST engineering does a lot to crush the nonsense touted by some commenters here. * An atmosphere cools, it doesn’t warm.”
So Clint R did write such a thing & I already predicted Clint wouldn’t understand.
I never wrote any such thing, Ball4. When all you can do is blatantly misrepresent me, then you’ve got NOTHING. You’re sooooo desperate.
Still can’t find your “real 255K surface”, can you? You were caught in another one.
You’ve got poor Norman fooled. But that’s not too hard to do….
Clint R 6:11 am admits doesn’t understand what Clint R wrote that opaque JWST sunshield layers are really a semitransparent atm. so that “atmosphere cools, it doesn’t warm.”
Fun to read the sophomoric antics of a 3-ring circus entertainer such as Clint. And long running blog laughing stock Clint R also admits to STILL be looking for the measured earthen 255K despite all the clues provided. What a piece of work.
Clint R is just a fool who says foolish things.
JWST will be orbiting the Sun.
JWST will rotate as it orbits to get a 360 degree view of the sky.
https://youtu.be/y0bOi3kVIBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0bOi3kVIBs
“Webb’s Field of Regard”
rlh…”Each photon, one by one, carries a shot of energy. This will result in a change in energy in the receiving circuitry. It just becomes much easier to detect this change if the circuitry is kept cold”.
***
A photon does not ‘carry’ a shot of energy, it is defined as a quantum of EM. EM is real, the photon is an attempt to particalize EM into discrete units. EM in communications is referred to as a wave and has a frequency, wavelength, etc. I am still trying to figure out how a particle, as the photon is defined, can have a frequency and wavelength.
Electronic devices are not designed in such a case to gather energy shot by shot. There are devices such as particle counters but they are based on different technology.
The purpose here with the cooled detector surface is to detect heating in the sensor. That means received EM must affect the electrons in the atoms making up the detector. Essentially, each quantum of energy absorbed by an electron must excite it to jump to a higher orbital energy level. En masse, that rise in electron energy level translates to a rise in heat, measurable as a temperature change.
Provided, that is, the incoming EM has the intensity and frequency to excite the electrons in the receiving device. The 2nd law still applies and the device cannot absorb EM generated by a cooler source than its temperature.
… which shows Gordon fails to understand how Dr. Spencer’s experiment could have possibly worked to demonstrate ambient surface water in Alabama in the summertime overnight can absorb EM generated by a cooler source (atm. icy cirrus) than the water’s thermometer temperature. Experimental results perfectly in accord with 2LOT as universe entropy increased in the process.
GR: You do not agree that particles are waves and vice versa. You disagree with a whole load of scientists in that behavior.
You agreed previously that antenna temperature does not matter. But in the case of atoms apparently it does. Make your mind up.
rlh…”You agreed previously that antenna temperature does not matter. But in the case of atoms apparently it does. Make your mind up”.
***
It’s interesting that you’d bring this stuff up and I hope you pursue the theory. It’s very interesting stuff.
EM does not operate on an antenna in the same manner as EM absorbed by electrons in atoms at much higher frequencies. With an antenna, the EM interacts with electrons in such a manner as to cause the electrons to form high frequency currents in the antenna.
Do you see the difference? Transition occur within an atom and the electric currents in antennas involve free electrons that are not bound to any atoms. It is the free electrons in the valence bands that are influenced by the EM signals.
If you read communication theory wrt antennas, they talk in waves, not photons. For example, an NTSC Television colour sub-carrier frequency is sent at 3.58 MHz, modulated on a much higher frequency carrier wave. You will never see natural light modulated like that nor will you see reference to photons in communication theory.
Electron transitions are not involved, the electric and magnetic fields in the EM wave causes the electrons to move up and down the antenna at the same frequency as the wave form.
The closest you can come to the visible light and IR frequencies at which transitions take place is in a microwave receiver. At such higher frequencies, the standard antenna is no longer useful. Instead, they use wave guides and ‘horns’ that are designed to interface the wave guide impedance to air.
A prof I had in engineering described wave guides, in jest, as soup cans joined together into a long pipe. An exaggeration of course, but wave guides tend to be rectangular tubing that literally guide EM waves inside them.
Fibre optic cable is similar for visible light frequencies. Glass is employed with a ‘cladding’ layer that causes the light to bounce down the inside of the fibre strand through the glass.
You cannot send high frequencies like microwave, along a copper conductor. As frequencies increase, the electric current tends toward the outside of the copper conductor, a phenomenon called ‘skin effect’. At some point, the frequencies gets so high that the electrons are traveling along an increasingly thinner part of the copper, producing considerable losses. Therefore they go to wave guides and fibre optics in lieu of copper conductors.
All EM of all wavelengths are identical in their actions. If it holds for long wavelengths then it holds for shorter wavelengths too. That means that light, IR and radio are all the same.
Antenna for all wavelengths operate in the same way. And temperature does not affect any of them.
RLH, you’re lack of knowledge about these subjects is most entertaining.
“your”
Clint R: You being an idiot does not impress anyone.
Clint R: Here is the yearly orbit of the JWST which shows you do not understand anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0bOi3kVIBs
Wrong RLH, it shows you don’t understand any of this.
JWST rotates about one axis, but it always keeps the sunshield facing Sun. And, that rotation was caused by the positioning rocket burns. Objects do not rotate without a starting torque.
Keep wasting your time here. At least you’re not harming yourself or others….
(And no, I won’t respond to any more of your nonsense about this.)
Clint R: You did not follow the link then as JWST rotates about all 3 axis in the year, keeping the sunshield between it and the Sun. So not like the Moon at all (it is actually in the animation).
Particle counters ARE electronic devices. Unless magic is involved somehow I suppose.
recent stats for the province of BC, Canada re covid…
“Between Jan. 7-20, of the 1,256 people admitted to hospital suffering from COVID-19 26 per cent were unvaccinated and 70 per cent were fully vaccinated”.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/covid-19-update-for-jan-24-24-deaths-4997-cases-reported-in-past-three-days-covid-contributes-to-record-annual-decline-in-life-expectancy-statcan-canadians-mental-health-deteriorating-poll/ar-AAT5KRM?ocid=mailsignout&li=AAggNb9
As nearly 79% of Canadians are fully vaccinated that shows that vaccinations work as 79% is greater than 70%.
As usual, the blog’s dumbest ignoaramus tried to manipulate us, by intentionally omitting what matters:
” This does not mean that the chance of getting hospitalized while fully vaccinated is higher, because there are almost ten times as many people vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. “
The sample size might be a little small for exact interpretations, but I recall 1000 is a number that is used in areas of medical testing.
So, if we trust the sample size, it appears the vaccines are not very effective.
The sample size on hospitalizations is 100%.
It may be correct to conclude the the vaccines are not as good as they should be. I am wondering if the mRNA vaccine should be the future of vaccinations. The older versions used either an inactive or greatly weakened version of the more dangerous version. So many of these virus particles were injected into a person and it seemed far more effective at disease reduction. Just isolating and training the immune system to just one part of a virus may not be an effective means. Maybe the immune system, when fighting an active virus, will attack more than one part of it and be able to use more methods of destroying an invading virus. I think these vaccines are good enough to train the immune system so that the extreme sickness is avoided and it does greatly reduce the chance of dying from Covid but I hope future vaccines go back to the old style that not only minimized death but also minimized illness. The immune system was so prepared a vaccinated person never even got sick. I think it is good to question a vaccine where so many still get enough virus to have symptoms. My co-worker was double vaccinated and booster shot and he is currently out with Covid infection. I am sure he will not get so sick as to be hospitalized but a really good vaccine would prevent people from even getting sick at all. The immune system would eliminate the virus before it spread enough to cause illness. I think the Medical Community should consider better vaccines in the future. I am not sold that mRNA are good. I would give them a moderate to poor rating at most. Even without any vaccines most people would recover but you should not get sick if double vaccinated and boostered if the vaccine was good.
Who are you, Norman? A duplicate of Robertson?
” The older versions used either an inactive or greatly weakened version of the more dangerous version. ”
What’s that?
Are the totally inefficient vaccines AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sputnik, Sinovac and others suddenly all mRNA based?
*
” The immune system was so prepared a vaccinated person never even got sick. ”
Oh oh oh! Hear hear!
Norman seems to have a decade long experience in vaccination!
We were vaccinated during yea5rs and years against Influenza, and nevertheless got sick every second year.
*
” Even without any vaccines most people would recover… ”
From what? From SARS-COV-2? Are you joking? Which people do you know who did?
Thank you, Robertson Two…
Bindidon, I hope Norman enjoyed your vindictive rant as much as I did. No wonder people compare you to the “goose-steppers”.
When you finish your meltdown, you might look up the Dutch word “prikspijt”.
Bindidon
Because Influenza vaccines do not work well I would not use that as a comparison of the effectiveness of Covid vaccines. Older vaccines did a much better job.
J&J
https://tinyurl.com/44uj9r5u
Similar to the others but uses DNA instead of RNA. It still just builds the spike protein to prime the immune system.
I am not anti-vax. But I can see that this technology is far from great. It will keep one from dying, which is good but a lot of people will still get sick even vaccinated and boosted. That does not make the vaccines really good. You don’t need to be blind to this fact. Smallpox vaccine eradicated the symptoms, children did not even get sick. Big difference.
Bindidon
I for one had Covid and recovered.
359,166,915 cases of Covid recorded so far
5,634,058 deaths from Covid
284,573,451 people recovered from Covid
The reality is most people do recover. It is also more dangerous than many diseases. I am not anti-vas and have had two doses of Moderna vaccine.
” The reality is most people do recover. ”
You really don’t know what you are talking about.
Alone here in Germany and in France, the amount of people who allegedly “recovered” from COVID19 but are unable to resume working due to mental diseases like loss of memory etc, bypasses what you imagine.
And I here can’t imagine the situation being different anywhere else.
Please stop your statistical ‘recovery’ nonsense, you distort the reality at the cost of so many.
Bindidon
Long Covid
https://health.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/news/headlines/studies-show-long-haul-covid-19-afflicts-1-in-4-covid-19-patients-regardless-of-severity/2021/03
But vaccinated people still develop long covid with breakthrough cases.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03495-2
Once again, if you would listen, I am not against vaccination but I am stating a clear fact you are not willing to accept. The Covid vaccines are not great vaccines. They may limit the severe effects of the disease, death, but they are not nearly as effective as a good vaccine would be.
I think facts bear this out. Start some research on your own.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange
Today is the birthday of mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange, who was born in Turin, Italy, in 1736. By age 18, Lagrange had published his first mathematical paper; by age 19, he was professor of mathematics at the Royal Artillery School in Turin.
Because of his significant contributions in such areas as the calculus of variations, celestial mechanics (including the three-body problem), and the propagation of sound, Lagrange soon established a reputation as one of the greatest mathematicians in Europe.
In 1766 Lagrange succeeded his academic adviser, Leonhard Euler, as director of mathematics at the Berlin Academy, where he would stay for the next two decades. In 1787 Lagrange moved from Berlin to Paris, where he became a member the French Academy of Sciences. The next year, he published one of his most important texts, Mecanique analytique, a groundbreaking synthesis of the 100 years of research in mechanics since Newton. In 1808, Napoleon named Lagrange to the Legion of Honor and made him a count of the empire.
Today physics students learning mechanics are taught the Lagrangian, which describes the state of a dynamic physical system. Some space probes, including the James Webb Space Telescope, are parked at Lagrangian points, where three bodies can orbit each other yet stay in the same relative positions.
test
Covid
rlh…”As nearly 79% of Canadians are fully vaccinated that shows that vaccinations work as 79% is greater than 70%”.
***
Richard cannot see the forest, there are trees in the way. His democratic freedoms have been removed, based on lies, yet he continues to blindly support the authority figures who are lying to him.
We were lied to about vaccines offering a 95% effectiveness at preventing covid, yet here we have, out of 1200+ people being admitted to hospital locally, 70% of those cases are fully vaccinated people.
Here’s the problem with your analysis…
“Between Jan. 7-20, of the 1,256 people admitted to hospital suffering from COVID-19 26 per cent were unvaccinated and 70 per cent were fully vaccinated”.
Out of a BC population of nearly 5 million, where nearly 80% are fully vaccinated, a sample of 1,256 people reveal that 70% of the sample are fully vaccinated and are so ill with covid they need to be hospitalized. Meantime, close to 1 million who are not vaccinated make up only 26% of the cases.
Come on, Richard, do the math, based on the following parameters.
1)There are not supposed to be more than 5% fully vaccinated infected, never mind in hospital. That means out of a population of 5 million, 250,000 were expected to be infected. I call that unacceptable.
2)In a blatant lie, they told us a few weeks ago that the current covid cases were due to unvaccinated people alone. Yet out of a sample of 1,256 people, only 24% were unvaccinated.
The statement offered by the BC government re there being more vaccinated than unvaccinated, therefore more were expected in hospital, it not only a blatant lie, it’s the worst case of moving the goalposts I have yet encountered.
We can expect the same lies from the global warming/climate change alarmists and we are getting them already.
I might add, that the testing figures are still returning results that no more than 3.5% of 50 million+ Canadians have tested positive. All this blarney (where is entropic???) about vaccinate/unvaccinated. infection, and hospitalization has been about 3.5% of the Canadian population.
This covid nonsense has been an exercise in hysteria where the media is the virus.
GR as usual disputes what those in the know say. I rarely tell my doctors how to treat any illness I have. GR will tell them that vit C cures all ills. Even broken bones probably.
rlh…”GR as usual disputes what those in the know say”.
***
Who are these people you claim are in the know? And what is it they know?
As usual, your appeal to authority is just that. You supply no evidence to support your claim that certain people are in the know.
As for vitamin C, I make no claims about it that have not been supported by extensive evidence ‘in the field’. It’s not a magical elixir, yet without it, every human would die a slow painful death.
Vitamin C’s main function in the body is the production of collagen, which sticks all the cells together. Without C, collagen production breaks down and the body literally falls apart.
C is also a powerful water-soluble antioxidant. It is a known immune system booster and it has a definite effect on viral reproduction. If you want to go with the clowns who disagree, that’s your loss.
Linus Pauling, an expert in chemistry, and likely the most important chemist of the 20th century, saw merit in vitamin C against the common cold by reviewing studies from Switzerland. He thought the studies showed a significant benefit against the common cold. He certainly had the background in lab studies to make such an analysis.
Subsequent studies have focused on disproving his claims, mainly via chicanery. Some medical professionals are seriously envious of Pauling, that he would have the ability to talk on level with them in the medical field. Some idiots have referred to him as a quack, yet they speak from ignorance. Pauling was asked by the US government to investigate certain issues in the medical field and he spent 10 years doing such research.
Pauling was involved in the identification of the cause of sickle cell anemia and studied hemoglobin at a molecular level.
Pauling never raved about vitamin C. He was totally objective, something you’d know if you read any of his papers and books on the subject.
“How Linus Pauling duped America into believing vitamin C cures colds”
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7547741/vitamin-c-myth-pauling
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
Gordo, I’ve been meaning to ask you a question for quite a while and your post is cause for my query. Are you or are you related to Arthur B. Robinson of OISM fame??
norman…” Just isolating and training the immune system to just one part of a virus may not be an effective means. Maybe the immune system, when fighting an active virus, will attack more than one part of it and be able to use more methods of destroying an invading virus”.
***
That’s a valid argument but there are problems with it and I know you disagree with me on this.
The vaccines are based on the alleged spike protein, the spike alleged to stick out from the virusn body and used to attach itself to cells. I say alleged, because no one has ever seen a spike. The only way to view such an appendage is on an electron microscope and that is not possible since only a very thin slice of an alleged virus, about 100 nanometres thick, can be used with the EM. Anything thicker will block the electrons from reaching the image screen and the slice is not thick enough to show definite spikes.
Why are the vaccines not based on the actual RNA claimed to be inside the virus? Why mess with a tiny appendage when you could have a payload of RNA from inside the virus itself?
Is it not obvious to you, that they don’t have the physical virus? So, why should they have the spike?
They have neither, they are guessing at this. They likely guessed the protein makeup of the alleged spike through having viewed cells and figured out what it would take to stick to a cell membrane. They have not explained how the virus then delivers its RNA payload into the cell and how that RNA behaves in the cell.
As Dr. Stefan Lanka has claimed, there is no scientific proof that any such thing as an infectious virus exists. He is not saying viruses don’t exist, he is simply challenging the evidence of RNA and spike proteins claimed to be from a virus.
We are being lied to right and left by charlatans who lack the scientific proof to back up their claims. In lieu of that, they create theoretical models of virus genomes on computer models then argue over them till a consensus is reached.
The current data, where fully vaccinated people are now out-numbering the unvaccinated in hospitals, is proof that the current spike-protein theory is sci-fi.
Maybe one day we’ll get it all straight. Meantime, I sincerely hope that no one is damaged by this gene therapy theory.
Gordon Robertson
I am not sure what foundation you stand on to make your assertions on what an electron microscope can view.
I do disagree with you on your understanding of viruses and I totally disagree with Lanka. I have discussed this person before. You seem to think he can do no wrong. I think he is probably a conman making money of alternate medicine. He can sucker people like you into his little world of false ideas. He knows enough real material to fool people like you. I think he is phony and dishonest. I have no use for him at all. If you use him as an appeal to authority you forget it.
Anyway you keep saying they can’t image viruses. I think you are completely wrong on this. I do not know why you have such strong opinions on this without any consideration that the liars are the ones who you trust.
Here watch this with an open mind and consider your current sources are con-artists and liars with a financial gain selling alternative medicine to gullible people. A modern version of “snake-oil salesmen”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=421fmflQX0E
Watch this with an open mind. Your heroes are liars and cons. Quit falling for this. You sometimes sound like the lunatic Q-Anon people who blindly accept any stupid ideas posted by somebody on the Internet. You need to be Skeptical of people like Lanka.
norman…”You seem to think he can do no wrong. I think he is probably a conman making money of alternate medicine. He can sucker people like you into his little world of false ideas”.
***
Lanka cannot sucker a German high court into believing bs. And he certainly cannot sucker the court appointed expert. Both agreed with him that no scientific evidence exists to prove there is a measles virus.
Lanka has put his money where his mouth is. He has offered a 100,000 Euro award to anyone who can provide scientific papers that can prove the measles virus has been isolated. Having read this guy extensively I can see why he is so confident. He KNOWS there is no such paper because he as reviewed all the papers as an expert in virology.
Most viral researchers today have no idea what he has discovered about viruses and we are the worse for their ignorance.
You are slinging mud at an expert without having the slightest idea what he is about.
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/fbchecks/no-german-supreme-court-didnt-rule-measles-doesnt-exist
Lanka did NOT win the case in the German high court.
“No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist'”
“Measles sceptic ordered to pay doctor €100,000”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/13/measles-sceptic-must-pay-doctor-100000
Gordon Robertson
One reason I disagree with most of your posts is you have a Conspiratorial Mind set. In your latest you assert: “Most viral researchers today have no idea what he has discovered about viruses and we are the worse for their ignorance.”
You think 99% of experts in the field are idiots or liars and you think one contrarian is the only one to trust. I think the other possibility is far more likely. The one is the dishonest liar over the rest of the experts.
You even lie in your own post. I have looked into the Lanka case and posted what actually was ruled but you ignore it. The court NEVER agreed that there was NO SCIENTIFIC evidence of measles. They ruled that since he set up the wager he was the one who could determine the conditions of proof. That is all, the rest you say are intentional lies to protect a conman you like.
Maybe you should open your mind and get skeptical of your heroes. This is a good article that dismantles their claims. I am certain evidence will not change your mindset but it would help you if you were as critical of your handful of contrarians as you are of experts in the field.
https://www.integralworld.net/visser172.html
“No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist'”
Gordon has been informed on this fact several times.
What can we do with someone like Gordon, who just ignores facts and keeps inventing his own?
binny…”Alone here in Germany and in France, the amount of people who allegedly recovered from COVID19 but are unable to resume working due to mental diseases like loss of memory etc, bypasses what you imagine”.
***
How can an infection of the lungs, namely pneumonia, and minor infections of the nose and throat lead to widespread ‘mental diseases’ that affect things like memory loss? Sounds more like the afflicted people have suffered from strokes.
Of course, the covid shysters won’t call it a stroke, they will call it long-covid.
You live in a country that leads the way with such pseudo-science. German lawyer, Reiner Fuellmich, has done considerable research into this nonsense by interviewing 100s of experts. He infers that his own German government is corrupt with regard to covid.
Fuellmich, a native German who speaks English fluently, is no lightweight. He is licensed to practice in both Germany and the US, and he has beaten Volkswagen and the Deutsche in court. You have some really smart and courageous people in Germany, unfortunately the idiots are running the covid fiasco.
Robertson
You are an ignorant and arrogant person who endlessly tries to post ridiculous contrarian stuff about everything.
Vous ne savez strictement, absolument rien de l’Allemagne, Robertson.
Rien du tout.
Is that another hard to translate Nazi punch line
eben…”Is that another hard to translate Nazi punch line”
***
For some reason, Binny claims to be German yet he always speaks French. He’s telling me in French that I know absolutely nothing about Germany….go figure.
Even more amazing, I just told him about a good German, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, who disagrees with idiots like Binny.
https://medika.life/reiner-fuellmich-fact-checked-and-exposed-as-a-covid-conspiracy-con/
Reiner Fuellmich is a conspiracy nut.
binny…”Robertson
You are an ignorant and arrogant person who endlessly tries to post ridiculous contrarian stuff about everything”.
***
As I said, in Germany, the idiots are running the covid hysteria. In your case, the idiots are running the asylum.
GR: In this case you are the idiot.
Tonga Shmonga , Cooling or not ?
https://youtu.be/UpcTz1_HWhQ
Jan 26, 2022
Mysterious object unlike anything astronomers have seen before
(Nanowerk News) A team mapping radio waves in the Universe has discovered something unusual that releases a giant burst of energy three times an hour, and it’s unlike anything astronomers have seen before (Nature, “A radio transient with unusually slow periodic emission”).
The team who discovered it think it could be a neutron star or a white dwarf-collapsed cores of stars-with an ultra-powerful magnetic field.
Spinning around in space, the strange object sends out a beam of radiation that crosses our line of sight, and for a minute in every twenty, is one of the brightest radio sources in the sky.
https://www.nanowerk.com/news2/space/newsid=59635.php
Tonga’s SO2 output is currently estimated at 0.4 Mt.
El Chichon: 7.5 Mt.
Pinatubo: 18 Mt.
The ratio between ocean and atmosphere has yet to be determined given that Tonga is at least a partially underwater emission.
Is Bindiclown predicting something or is he just reposting one number he saw somewhere but has no idea the meaning off it
Eben
” or is he just reposting one number he saw somewhere but has no idea the meaning off it ”
In that job you bypass me by dimensions.
Due to the undersea eruption’s unusually shallow depth (< 200 m)
https://tinyurl.com/2keka83a
the probability of any sea influence weakening the eruption's power and hence the SO2 output reaching the LS, probably won't be very great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fivCstgXlDo
Tidal locking is real. It just takes a LONG time.
“Tidal locking” has been debunked. So yes, “it ain’t gonna happen” is a very LONG time.
(And videos made by 14-year-olds, for 14-year-olds, ain’t science.)
Tidal locking has NOT been debunked. Real scientists are quite clear on this.
The Science Asylum
494K subscribers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-is-tidal-locking/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cFLhim9ej0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDNDz_VP3PE
https://nineplanets.org/questions/what-is-tidal-locking/
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/tides/tidal-movements/weird-science-tidal-locking-why-man-moon-can-always-see-you
Maybe you are trying too hard
Giving 1000 refs would be too hard.
The “tidal locking” nonsense is easily debunked. But, RLH can’t grasp the basic physics. Instead, he finds more links he can’t understand. (Who does that sound like?)
1000 braindead cult idiots can’t prove “tidal locking”, but one example from physics can disprove it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“The ‘tidal locking’ nonsense is easily debunked”
No it isn’t.
rlh…”“Measles scep-tic ordered to pay doctor €100,000”
nate…“No, German ‘supreme court’ didn’t rule that ‘measles doesn’t exist’”
***
Just to show how ignorant both of you are collectively, look at the date of your references. The ref from rlh is 2015. Dr. Lanka appealed to a higher court and won in 2016 and that was confirmed by an even higher court in 2017.. The plaintiff was required to pay court costs.
A one minute search revealed this….
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf
Gordon Robertson
Again use logic on the Measles Virus. Lanka is an idiot not someone to praise and follow.
I have asked you this before but you just ignore the question. I guess it is time to ask again so you can ignore it again and give false praise to Lanka. I actually think he is evil in intent since if he could get more people to believe his idiot ideas we would return to measles, and smallpox epidemics that would kill and maim lots of people. His agenda is a sick one. I am glad only really gullible illogical people like you consider him valid.
Here is the question. If measles is not a real virus, than how did a weakened version of this imaginary virus eradicate the symptoms of this disease? That is the reality, Lanka is an idiot.
Also if measles is not a real virus but the vaccine is based upon this virus than how did they get a weakened form of it if they could not isolate it. I think if you had me in the German Court I would have Lanka pay out. He is a terrible human in many ways with his Snake-Oil sales pitch. Bad apple, throw it out it is rotten to the core.
Gordon Robertson
You praise the Devil the liar and deceiver.
Here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Measles_US_1938-2019.png/1920px-Measles_US_1938-2019.png
You can see the numbers of measles cases in the US was in the hundreds of thousands every year from the beginning of the graph in 1938 to 1968, once people became vaccinated the numbers of cases dropped into the hundreds.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Measles_virus.JPG/290px-Measles_virus.JPG
For the idiot Lanka, this is an Electron Micrograph of Measles Virus. He really needs to pay up and shut up.
norman…”Again use logic on the Measles Virus. Lanka is an idiot not someone to praise and follow”.
***
A lot smarter people than you in two German courts agree with him. You are the outlier here and you are blind to it.
Gordon Robertson
NO I do not think those people on the German Courts are smarter than me. I would consider them to be about as stupid as a box of rocks. Not smart at all.
norman…”If measles is not a real virus, than how did a weakened version of this imaginary virus eradicate the symptoms of this disease? That is the reality, Lanka is an idiot”.
***
Norman, you are so caught up in your venom you cannot read correctly. At no time has Lanka claimed there is no virus causing measles, or that measles does not exist, he is claiming only that no scientific proof is there to prove the existence of this virus.
He simply doubts that the underlying viral theory is correct. In fact, he now claims the lab work done to claim any virus is flawed since no control studies have ever been done to prove there are viruses killing cells in labs.
Calling him names is not going to change the truth. Viral theory has been deeply flawed since HIV. Montagnier could not see HIV on an electron microscope and rather than admit there was no virus there, he invented a method based on inference that is being used to this day.
Why can they not see these viruses on an EM then extract the RNA directly from the virus? Simple, they have no viruses, they are creations in computer models.
Lanka is a charlatan. Plain and simple.
Gordon Robertson
Again you will not answer the simple questions. Why do you ignore them?
If measles virus does not exist and cause the illness attributed to it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/RougeoleDP.jpg/300px-RougeoleDP.jpg
How did the vaccine created with the measles virus eliminate the disease? Also if the scientists could not isolate the correct virus to use in the vaccine how do these vaccines work?
I guess you will never answer these logical questions. You can’t answer them so you ignore them. Praise the devil, embrace the liars, give credence to evil people. See what that gets our species in the long run. Death and disease.
If the viral theory is not correct than how does a vaccine made from this theory work?
Why is it so hard for you to answer these questions?
I would think Stephen Lanka might be a somewhat evil. When you consider what measles did just in the US before vaccines became available and he would return the World to experience these and other diseases. Only a sick individual would embark on a crusade that will lead to the death and illness of many. Not a good person, one wonders why Gordon Robertson praises this person.
Here is reality:
https://www.idsociety.org/public-health/measles/myths-and-facts/
500 dead children every year. 48,000 hospitalizations other negative health affects.
Most people do not believe these individuals with their lies and deceptions. But gullible people like Gordon Robertson exist and are prey to these types. You have parents not vaccinating their children because they trust these liars.
“Germany does not have a ‘federal supreme court’. The country’s highest court of civil and criminal law is the Federal Court of Justice or Bundesgerichtshof.
In 2017 the federal court of justice decided against reevaluating the existence of measles and simply dismissed the appeal to the judgement of the Stuttgart higher regional court.
There was no mention of other measles research or the impact of the judgement on the findings of other measles virologists. – Naphtali Khumalo (22/05/19)”
Of course: I could translate a lot of the contents of the pages below, all written in German.
But… I don’t want to lose my time with arrogant, ignorant liars like Robertson.
https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/medizin-und-gesundheit/2019/11/25/nein-dieses-gerichtsurteil-beweist-nicht-dass-das-masern-virus-nicht-existiert/
https://www.mimikama.at/aktuelles/falschmeldung-masern-viren-existieren-nicht/
https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Wirtschaft/Evidenz-die-schoenste-Nebensache-der-Welt-238234.html
https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Wirtschaft/Schlappe-fuer-Impfgegner-235053.html
Google’s translator will help you.
But it won’t help you out of the major problem: that people like Robertson NEVER ADMIT their failures, and after one week, one month or one year gain will write EXACTLY THE SAME LIES.
But… Robertson is on this blog not the only guy who never admits his failures.
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket stage will slam into the moon on March 4
Satellite trackers have determined that the upper stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket that launched in February 2015 will slam into the moon on March 4…
[…]
The rocket in question launched the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), a joint effort of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. DSCOVR studies our planet and the space weather environment from the Earth-sun Lagrange Point 1 (L1), a gravitationally stable spot about 930,000 miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth in the sunward direction. (NASA’s $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope just arrived at L2, which is 930,000 miles from Earth in the other direction, toward the orbit of Mars.)
[…]
The upper stage was so high after sending DSCOVR on its way, however, that it didn’t have enough fuel to return to its home planet, Berger wrote. So it’s been cruising through the Earth-moon system on a long and looping orbit for nearly seven years.
[…]
Because it will occur on the moon’s farside, the impact won’t be visible from Earth. But nailing down its time and location is still important, potentially allowing moon-orbiting spacecraft such as NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and India’s Chandrayaan 2 to study the resulting crater – “and, if we’re lucky, maybe image the impact,” …
https://www.space.com/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-hit-moon-march-2022
TM, were you able to catch the blatant error in your copy/paste?
Too often braindead cult idiots believe everything they find on the Internet is absolutely factual.
Remembering NASA astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White II and Roger Chaffee on the anniversary of the Apollo 1 tragedy
“If we die, we want people to accept it. We’re in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life.” – Gus Grissom
Yes.
Let’s by the way also have a thought for a woman who unluckily was there at the wrong time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa_McAuliffe
And the deep anger at those in charge, who coldly ignored an engineer’s desperate plea for a take-off delay (because of some seals that – due to the harsh early morning cold – would irremediably have to fail … and indeed did fail), is far, far from gone!
From my linked video:
Thanks for this information.
norman…”NO I do not think those people on the German Courts are smarter than me. I would consider them to be about as stupid as a box of rocks. Not smart at all”.
***
That about sums up your arrogance and stupidity. The courts heard all the evidence and you have heard none, mainly because you are too obtuse to read any of it. Even if you did read it, you are too stupid to understand it, just as you can read a text book on EM absorp-tion/emission and get it totally wrong.
Gordon Robertson
It is not arrogance or stupidity on my part. It is called logic and rational thinking. Something you do not seem to have.
I think I will quit talking to you about this issue as you are too stupid to answer my questions, which I have asked several times but you ignore 100% of the time.
So quit posting about the evil idiot Lanka if you won’t answer the logic questions I post.
If Measles virus does not exist (and cause the illness) then how come a vaccine based upon a weakened version of it eliminated the disease? Scientists must have been able to isolate the measles virus to create a weakened version to use in the vaccine.
Binny…it doesn’t matter how many links you provide, unless you can overturn the decision of the German court in 2016, and upheld by a higher court in 2017, that upholds Lanka’s claim that no scientific proof exists to verify that the measles virus exists, you have nothing.
I am surprised you have not linked to Cassini et al to support your demented fact checks.
Advice to anyone who will listen. Whenever you see something claimed as a ‘fact check’, ignore it. All you will get is some whiner opining on a subject he/she knows nothing about. It is sure to be based on an appeal to authority, a red-herring argument, and be liberally laden with ad homs and insults.
rlh…”Lanka is a charlatan. Plain and simple”.
***
And anyone holding a masters degree who makes such an unfounded statement should hand in his degree.
Two German courts heard his evidence and the court appointed expert agreed with Lanka. Furthermore, Lanka submitted evidence from an independent laboratory to prove that the cells claimed to have been killed by a virus would have died on their own due to their preparation in the lab.
At least Lanka performed a control study and the German expert appointed by the court agreed that no control studies were done for the measles virus. In other words, no one checked to see if the cells they claimed were killed by the alleged virus would have died on their own.
Lanka has found this omission, which is essential to objectivity in lab research in every case of claimed modern viruses he has checked, including HIV.
I guess your forte is statistics because you are too obtuse to thrive in real science, which requires objective evidence.
If you have evidence that Lanka is a charlatan, let’s hear it. I presume the German courts were unable to determine that for themselves.
rlh…”In 2017 the federal court of justice decided against reevaluating the existence of measles and simply dismissed the appeal to the judgement of the Stuttgart higher regional court.
There was no mention of other measles research or the impact of the judgement on the findings of other measles virologists. Naphtali Khumalo (22/05/19)”
***
Focus!!! Focus!!! Focus!!!
Lanka offered a 100,000 Euro prize to anyone who could present scientific ‘PAPERS’ to prove the measles virus had been physically isolated. Bardens claimed the prize and produced 6 papers which a lower court dealt with erroneously. A higher court allowed all evidence and Lanka convinced them that none of the papers held evidence that the measles virus had been isolated.
To Norman…Lanka has never claimed there is no measles virus or that measles does not exist.
Khumalo, an obvious idiot, missed the point entirely. For one, there is no such thing as a ‘measles’ virologist. For another, he has presumed that a so-called measles expert would have found evidence in the papers submitted.
Lanka has that expertise, he discovered the first virus in the ocean. The court appointed an expert. Lanka has researched the history of the virus going well back. Furthermore, he has the courage to stand up and say what he has found.
You on the other hand, a butt-kisser to authority, dismiss a bona fide viral researcher based on a statistical analysis, which is founded on the premise that truth has a confidence level.
Robertson
You become dumber and dumber.
YOU are the one here who is a butt-kisser to [un]authority, regardless what you write about, and are not even able to discover that.
You are the greatest butt-kisser to Contrarian pseudoknowledge I ever heard about.
Bindidon, you need to go back and count how many centuries-old astrologers you’ve mentioned, trying to claim something that is not rotating is really rotating.
You always seem to forget how incompetent you are.
Knowledgeable astronomers, mathematicians and physicists from past and present on the one hand, and inexperienced, ignorant, stubborn pseudo-astrologers like Clint R, Robertson etc on the other.
The choice is made quickly, isn’t it?
Bindidon could not answer the easy questions. He knows nothing about physics. He supports his erroneous opinions with ad-homs and appeals to authority figures he can’t understand.
He rejects reality and refuses to learn, just like a braindead cult idiot.
binny…”regardless what you write about…”
I posted a link to the facts of the Lanka trial which completely contradicted rlh, Nate, and your bs. Your only comeback was an ad hom attack and insults.
The sign of a true idiot.
Time to start placing your bets on the new monthly data point
Hint, wait which direction Bindiclown predicts and then go with the opposite , you will have much better chance
Thanks for the ‘clever’ hint, much appreciated.
I never predict the ‘new monthly data point’.
I prefer to analyze existing data.
Because it contains more about the future than your stoopid monthly predictions.
Yes we know
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.
But let’s not forget, Your backwards La Nina predictions still take the cake
Like Robertson and Clint R, you are merely able to discredit and denigrate others and what they do.
All what you do, Eben, is to endlessly replicate NOAA links and Cooling blah blah.
I’m happy to do a bit more.
The James Webb Space Telescope’s first target, a star named HD 84406.
maguff…”But for now, it is the perfect target to begin our search for photons, a search that will lead us to the distant universe,”
***
Are these people blithering idiots? In their deluded minds, they think they are looking into the past. Any so-called photons are striking the receiver of the space station RIGHT NOW. And any so-called photons on the way are where they are RIGHT NOW.
It’s all the same space with no dimension of time.
This James Webb nonsense is based on pseudo-science of the highest order. The fact that many scientists cannot figure out the obvious, that time has no existence, and the universe is a huge place with no time, is indicative of the idiotic views of many modern scientists.
Here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1132933 you said that you “Took a year of astrophysics at the uni as an elective”
So, this image taken by Spitzer telescope in 2006 should be self-explanatory: https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165396main_spitzer-firststars-20061218.jpg, but I’ll describe it anyway…
I have no idea why you believe that “time has no existence.” Whether your theory of the origin of the universe is the book of Genesis or the Big Bang, they all agree that time is a property of the universe.
P.s.: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you go out this evening and look at the sunset you will be seeing the sun as it looked about 8 minutes earlier. That’s how long it takes those “so-called photons” to reach you. Think about that!
maguff…”you will be seeing the sun as it looked about 8 minutes earlier. That’s how long it takes those “so-called photons” to reach you. Think about that!”
***
If you think about it you’ll never get the reality. Your conditioned mind will mess it up.
When those so-called photons activate receptors in your eyes, they are doing so right now, in the here and now. At any point along the path they will always be in the same space, the here and now.
Light from the Sun does not move through time, it moves through physical space. Time is not involved.
If a so-called photon leaves the Sun, that’s its here and now. At that time, you are in the same here and now and at any point along the way both of you are always in the same here and now.
The here and now has no time related to it. It’s a vast space in which nothing changes wrt time. The only changes are physical, like life and death, erosion, etc.
So, in your parochial view of the universe, entropy never changes, then.
So is this how you see the universe, as a static object with time as just another dimension?
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/
(One spatial dimension removed for simplicity)
This is work-in-progress, but Dr Roy Spencer’s website has offered a treasure trove of observational data. The following laws are, as far as economic laws are concerned, no less rigorously obtained than Adam Smith’s three laws.
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
Law #1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The First Basic Law in itself precludes attributing a specific numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population: any numerical estimate would turn out to be an underestimate.
Law #2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
The Second Basic Law scientifically expresses the fact that stupidity is an indiscriminate privilege of all human groups and is uniformly distributed according to a constant proportion.
Law #3: A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
If we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness, and good health because of the improbable action of someone who has nothing to gain, there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.
Law #4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people infallibly turns out to be a costly mistake.
Through centuries and millennia, in public as in private life, countless individuals have failed to take account of the Fourth Basic Law, and the failure has caused mankind incalculable losses.
Law #5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
Stupid people cause losses to other people with no counterpart of gains on their own account. Thus the society as a whole is impoverished.
maguff…”The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”
***
The truly stupid read such drivel and see some sense it it.
Fauci admits the covid vaccine does not work. Duh!!! I’ve been trying to tell that to anyone who would listen.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/dr-fauci-admits-vaccines-not-work-advertised-vaccinated-great-danger-today/
That is exactly what dumb, ignorant people like Robertson are gullible followers of.
maguff…”I have no idea why you believe that “time has no existence”.
^^^
Simple. Time has always been defined based on the rotation of the Earth. Early Egyptians used a sun dial that tracks the position of the Sun in the sky. That reflects the rotation of the Earth. Modern time is still based on the rotation of the Earth.
Humans have learned to store time in memory as a past and a future. If they are not aware of that condition, they will regard time as a reality.
You mention Creation. Go back in your mind to the time of Jesus, about 2000 years ago. What has changed since then? People have been born and people had died. Land has eroded and building have been erected and destroyed.
All change has been physical, there has been no change in the mysterious parameter of time because it exists only as an idea in human minds.
maguff…”you will be seeing the sun as it looked about 8 minutes earlier. Thats how long it takes those so-called photons to reach you. Think about that!”
***
If you think about it you’ll never get the reality. Your conditioned mind will mess it up.
When those so-called photons activate recep-tors in your eyes, they are doing so right now, in the here and now. At any point along the path they will always be in the same space, the here and now.
Light from the Sun does not move through time, it moves through physical space. Time is not involved.
If a so-called photon leaves the Sun, that’s its here and now. At that time, you are in the same here and now and at any point along the way both of you are always in the same here and now.
The here and now has no time related to it. It’s a vast space in which nothing changes wrt time. The only changes are physical, like life and death, erosion, etc.
The entire universe is here and now and is always here and now. Any movement related to time is imaginary and used only by humans to measure distances or rates.
It appears that Gordo’s old brain has drifted back to the ’70’s New Age thinking of Ram Dass (Be Here Now). Or maybe he’s just entered a phase in life where he’s started experimenting with psychedelics trying to fit in with some old hippies still living around Cave Junction. Perhaps that explains his lunatic physics delusions.
swannie…”It appears that Gordos old brain has drifted back to the 70s New Age thinking of Ram Dass…”
***
No philosophy here, Swannie, just hard reality and physics. There is no dimension of time.
norman..”If Measles virus does not exist (and cause the illness) then how come a vaccine based upon a weakened version of it eliminated the disease? Scientists must have been able to isolate the measles virus to create a weakened version to use in the vaccine”.
***
This is an interesting question. I feel strongly that a scientific mind must be open to all possibilities. Did the vaccines cure the disease or was the disease transient and the vaccines simply coincided with the disappearance of the disease?
I watched a video the other night in which a researcher made some valid points. Scurvy was initially considered a disease related to infection but it turned out to be diet related. Same with pellagra and beri-beri. In fact, with a pellagra outbreak circa 1915 in the US, researchers searched for a viral and bacterial cause for some 30 years before it was discovered that pellagra is caused by a B-vitamin deficiency. The irony was that the original diagnosis, that it was diet-related was correct and ignored.
As I have pointed out in other posts, polio had peaked and waned for decades before the vaccine was introduced in the 1950s. During its peaking/waning from 1910 onward, in which it was at its worst by far (1910), there were two major World Wars.
Lanka’s point is valid, that no infectious virus has ever been physically isolated. It has been presumed that covid is caused by a virus but there is no proof since the virus has never been physically isolated.
There is a mystery here, Norman, and we won’t get it solved by presuming we have the cure when we have no physical virus to prove it. Neither the tests nor the vaccines are based on an isolated virus but on RNA ‘believed to be’ from a virus.
That may be good enough for you but it’s not for me. We have a tried and true method for isolating a virus and it is not being used. We can take the suspected infectious agent, immerse it in a sugar solution with a density gradient and centrifuge it. Then we can extract material at a specific density level where viral particles are known to exist. Then we can remove the material, prepare it, and view it with an electron microscope.
There is a proviso here. The specimen to be viewed on the EM must be coated with metals to prevent it being destroyed by the electron bombardment. That means the image created is distorted as the specimen crumbles and pieces of the protectant break of and become part of the image.
I have hypothesized, based on my considerable experience with electrons, that the electric and magnetic fields produced by a highly accelerated electron stream are producing artefacts that are being mistaken for coronas. etc. Broken of pieces of material are being confused with spikes that are alleged to attack the virus package to a cell.
If there is a virus present it will be easily viewed on the EM. Lanka has confirmed that with his studies of non-infectious viruses found in the sea. Montagnier tried the method with HIV and saw no virus on the EM. Why did he not stop there? Instead, he fabricated a new method which does not physically isolate a virus, and that method has been used since 1983 as proof of isolation.
It’s a lie. Why is this lie being perpetuated and accepted to the point of depriving people of their democratic rights?
Gordon Robertson
The lie being perpetuated comes from people like Lanka (who I consider an evil person with twisted agenda).
Read this, Lanka is lying to you. Don’t be so gullible. See him for what he is, an evil human.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jvi.3.2.187-197.1969
Also I do not think your initial point is rational based upon the evidence.
YOUR attempt: “This is an interesting question. I feel strongly that a scientific mind must be open to all possibilities. Did the vaccines cure the disease or was the disease transient and the vaccines simply coincided with the disappearance of the disease?”
The logical conclusion from the evidence is that the vaccine worked and eliminated the disease. In this graph the disease was highly infectious for multiple years and went away AFTER the vaccine. Logic would point to the vaccine as curing the disease. Your idea is not supported by the data and you have zero hypothesis on what caused it and what made it go away other than measles virus. You throw in a handful of cases where scientists got things wrong but eventually it was corrected. The true cause of the illness was found and the action was taken to correct the situation. Those cases are not similar to measles. You are gullible, I know this. I wish you would not think highly of evil men like Lanka that would lead to a resurgence of a dreaded disease. I am sad he can sucker gullible types like you. Too many of you unscientific conspiracy minded people are out their to fall prey to his siren song of death and disease. He is evil Gordon, open your mind and see.
The following is a very good summary of Lanka’s work refuting modern virology. The blonds woman in the video is Ekaterina Sugak and it is not her voice you hear on the video. Ekaterina understand the science very well. The voice of Heather Bruno is heard since she translated Sugak’s voice, which was in another language. That’s why the video sounds less than professional.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eQn2vrIuNWuW/
Only students of science will understand what is being said. The rest will likely be the believers who accept any old theory based on an appeal to authority.
The following article on integrity in science applies equally to climate science. It reveals the cheating, arrogance, and stupidity of scientists, the corruption in peer review, and sheer idiocy of a submitted paper being rejected by referees for the most inane reasons.
https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/96ce/5_Hillman.pdf
It also reveals the inherent weakness in sciences like virology. The author was strongly resisted when he tried to implement control studies aimed at eliminating bias and faulty observation/conclusion.
Yes, Gordo, the scientific pursuit of truth is enclosed in the larger world of publish-or-perish reality where one’s job typically depends on university support determined by non-scientists. The players are those we think of as “Really Smart People” who carefully cultivate status and name recognition based on their CV. They also tend to assume that their smarts allow them to pontificate on subjects beyond their field(s) of knowledge.
You could be one example of such thinking, your errors in lunar physics being obvious, errors which you refuse to acknowledge.
swannie…”You could be one example of such thinking, your errors in lunar physics being obvious, errors which you refuse to acknowledge”.
***
At east we agree on the corruption available in science. With regard ot my claims, I have presented scientific evidence which you have failed to refute.
Gordo, Of course, I’ve not “refuted” all or your rants. As a member of AAAS for 45 years, I know that there are many scientific subjects about which I know little, so I don’t comment on those.
The fact remains that as recently as 17 January, you continued to demonstrate a failure to understand the Moon’s orbital dynamics. And you still refuse to admit that IR radiation heat shields work to warm a heated body in space, compared to a similar body without heat shield(s). We mechanical engineers would describe this as the Green Plate Effect and is what I demonstrated via experiment.
Definition of Time
Time is a dimension similar to the 3 dimensions of space with a very important difference; we can stand still in space but we cannot stand still in time.
Time is a necessary condition of any theory that correctly describes the observable world.
maguff…”Time is a dimension similar to the 3 dimensions of space with a very important difference; we can stand still in space but we cannot stand still in time”.
***
You lack the awareness, hence the intelligence, to see time for what it is. No point discussing real science with someone like you.
Ergo, your definition notes that one can stand still in space but not in time. They claim that time is a dimension similar to space.
Do you seriously not get the nonsense in such statements?
Try getting comfortable, closing your eyes, and try to visual the difference between the year 1 AD and right now. Dismiss any conditioned thoughts, hence definitions. See it for yourself. Try to find a dimension of time between those ranges and you won’t find it. There isn’t even a physical dimension that can describe that range.
The only dimension of time is a linear dimension created in your mind as past and future. It is imaginary. Any other dimension related to time does not exist.
If you bring that linear dimension to the present, the here and now, both past and future must disappear. That’s because in the here and now awareness, the thought processes by which you visualize the time line cannot exist in the fully aware state.
Time is an illusion, just like the apparent motion of the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West.
Is this how you see the universe?
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/
A static structure in four dimensions. You can move about freely in three spatial dimensions, but only from left to right in the time dimension.
Ad hominems notwithstanding, I will give a short reply being mindful of my Law #4 here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1150370
According to your hypothesis entropy never changes.
In my conception of the universe I can take any isolated system and measure its entropy S at two instants t1 and t2 and, if I want to know whether t1 is earlier or later than t2 I can use a rule provided by the second law of thermodynamics which tells me that the instant which corresponds to the greater entropy, is the later. In Mathematical form:
dS/dt is always positive.
maguff…”dS/dt is always positive”.
What good does it do to measure entropy at two different points? Since S = integral dq/T, according to how Clausius defined it, you are comparing two processes where heat transfer has been measured locally.
You seem to think S is a continuous function that changes wrt time. You cannot apply entropy like that, in fact, you are better sticking to heat transfer, which entropy indicates a +ve value for irreversible processes.
“You seem to think S is a continuous function that changes wrt time.”
No, not me, Clausius.
From THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT. By R. Clausius (John Von Voorst translation), 1867. P(365), para 2.
It’s amazing to see that people, while having just enough brain to endlessly type in some nonsense on their keyboard about Moon’s spin, viruses, time, nonetheless lack the understanding of basic things every 10 year old child understands.
For example that, if a new telescope is say 10 times more powerful than its predecessor, it will see things the latter couldn’t manage to.
Simply because these things are say 10 times farer away, and the light source is say 10 times weaker.
But when something is farer away, then… even the light it emits needs more time to reach the telescope.
Thus, the farer you look, the ‘older’ is what you looked at.
How is it possible to be so dumb?
maguff…”in your parochial view of the universe, entropy never changes, then”.
***
Clausius invented and defined the concept of entropy based on heat transfer. In his definition, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat in a process. If the process is reversible, entropy is zero and if the process is reversible, entropy is positive.
Entropy is an integral, as defined. Any change in the integral is related only to the process in which it is the sum of heat changes. Heat transfer changes are the issue, not entropy.
Clausius did mention that reversible processes lead to disintegration and those who have misunderstood his definition have confused entropy with increasing chaotic behavior in the universe. Clausius was not describing the general breakdown in matter as entropy and the perception of entropy as such is wrong.
The universe is a humungous space where actions take place simultaneously. There is no dimension of time involved unless humans impose one to help them measure relative events. That dimension is the same imaginary dimension all of us have in our minds.
If any EM was released in a primeval universe, it is long gone. The source of EM being measured today and claimed by astronomers as being from a primeval universe is sheer speculation.
The problem is that scientists looking for this EM are seriously lacking in awareness. They are driven by conditioned thought processes that have lead them to believe incorrect theories.
From THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT. By R. Clausius (John Von Voorst translation), 1867. P(365), para 2.
Monday La Nina update – Gone by April sez Bindiclown , OK I mark ma calendar
https://i.postimg.cc/tJzZWhFG/31nino34-Mon.gif
How “slow” is light?
A light-year is the distance light travels in one year. At a speed of 186,000 miles/sec (300,000km/sec), light travels 5.88 trillion miles (9.46 trillion km).
The term light-year was created to measure astronomical distances beyond the confines of the Earth. And in the vastness of space, light photons, which can go around the Earth 7.5 times in just one second, seem slow.
The animation in this video helps put the speed of light into a broader perspective while highlighting the vast distances between celestial bodies.
https://youtu.be/HV7q9VrDgBo
The Moon is 239,000 miles (384,400 km) away from Earth. A light photon emitted from Earth would get to the Moon in a mere 1.25 seconds. The same photon of light would take three long minutes to reach Mars and just over eight minutes to reach the Sun.
When we look at the Sun, we see it as it was eight minutes ago, and if it were to disappear suddenly, we wouldn’t realize it for eight whole minutes.
Therefore, how “fast” or “slow” light is depends on your perspective. To us Earth-dwelling humans, it feels instantaneous. But the vastness of the universe makes even light seem slow.
It is never bad to have a look back at previous forecasts:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210908213337if_/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
We see that in comparison with today’s reality, NOAA NCEP’s forecast of September 8, 2021 for November till January was way deeper.
As usual: a forecast is… a forecast, not more, not less.
We will see at the end of February what the MEI index tells us:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
We will see what ? are you predicting something or just blowing hot gas again , why don’t you look back at your own forecast when you predicted El Nino instead of La Nina
As usual, Eben: you always put your clumsy fingers at other people’s mistakes, but never admit your own ones.
I admit: you are not the only one here who never admits to have been wrong, by no means!
You keep saying I never admits to have been wrong, What are the things I was wrong about ? , why is that part always missing you creep ?
If you are not able to look at the heavy difference between Sep 21 and Jan 22, and can’t keep away from stoopid insults: that’s your problem.
And by the way, Eben: look back at all your ridiculous Solar Minimum forecasts!
I’m not aware of any “ridiculous Solar Minimum forecasts” where are they ? show me
Try harder, use JWST, it sure will help.
All you do is make up zshit lies and accusations you can’t back up with anyhting
Don’t tell us here you really have ‘forgotten’ all your nonsense about SC25, about Zharkova’s GSM etc etc.
Don’t tell us that!
And no: it’s not my job to help you going back to your statements.
Oh look at our poor old Sunny Boy, so desperately weak!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mg6vIMd4IoJaP-AAP-77LIf5hDrhi2_/view
Grrrrand Solar Mynimum aheadddd!
maguff…”dS/dt is always positive”.
What good does it do to measure entropy at two different points? Since S = integral dq/T, according to how Clausius defined it, you are comparing two processes where heat transfer has been measured locally.
You seem to think S is a continuous function that changes wrt time. You cannot apply entropy like that, in fact, you are better sticking to heat transfer, which entropy indicates a +ve value for irreversible processes.
“What good does it do to measure entropy at two different points? Since S = integral dq/T, according to how Clausius defined it,”
1) Put a kettle of cold water on the stove and heat it.
2) Solve the integral:
delta S= (Q/T-cold)-(Q/T-hot)
because T-hot > T-cold => delta S>0, which is consistent with Clausius’ statement that entropy always increases.
In this experiment, time and entropy changed in the same direction.
binny…”But when something is farer away, then even the light it emits needs more time to reach the telescope.
Thus, the farer you look, the older is what you looked at.
How is it possible to be so dumb?”
***
That’s what I am wondering about you, how can anyone be so stupid that he cannot see the flaw in his argument?
The light you are seeing with an optical telescope is at the telescope, not back somewhere in an imaginary past. The human mind adds the dimension of past, a concept which has no reality in the universe.
entropic…”Is this how you see the universe?
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/
A static structure in four dimensions. You can move about freely in three spatial dimensions, but only from left to right in the time dimension”.
***
Take away the imaginary NASA timeline and you get a more realistic view. No one has a clue how the universe looks and NASA adding a timeline reveals an ignorance that parallels there claim that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
The problem about the perception of time is one of awareness. When the mind becomes fully aware, time ceases to exist. That’s because awareness can only exist in the here and now, a timeless state.
I’d venture to say that most people operate out of a conditioned mind much of the time. They only experience awareness when something drastic happens, like striking one’s thumb with a hammer while driving a nail. During a brief period, the mind is so focused on the pain as to be wholly aware. A few seconds later, the conditioned, analytical mind kicks back in an lays blame on the ‘stupid’ hammer.
Being in the state of awareness is not something a person comes by naturally. At least, if they encounter it, they dismiss it immediately as an outlier. Nor is it something to crow about if one encounters it. It’s not like you own it or you have done something great by discovering it. Yet, it’s there all the time, just waiting to be experienced, if you can get your conditioning out of the way. That can happen in a second, if you allow it.
For me, it came at a time of deep grief and guilt following the loss of a loved one and I was lucky enough and vulnerable enough to encounter the works of Jiddu Krishnamurti at that time. His book I discovered is about awareness.
At another time, I would likely have dismissed his work as interesting but as having no particular application to my life. At that time, however, for some reason, I was totally open to the awareness involved and awareness is like riding a bike, once you get a glimpse, you never forget it. It becomes part of your experience.
I just happened to pick up his book, The Awakening of Intelligence, and it’s about exactly what the title implies, allowing intelligence to awaken. Of course, the aware mind and the intelligent mind are one and the same. I was thumbing through it when I stopped for an unknown reason on a chapter titled ‘loneliness’.
BTW, in no way do I consider myself to be fully aware. I still have seriously stupid moments, the difference being I quickly become aware of my stupidity. I am sure there a posters just waiting to get a hold of that admission. Don’t care, humour goes with awareness, if you have an ego to defend, you are not aware.
Krishnamurti pointed out that we are all alone in our unique biospheres but we have the illusion that we are somehow connected spiritually. There is no such connection. If we focus on the aloneness, we begin to analyze it causing a separation between the central ‘me’ (aka self) and the loneliness, turning the sensation of aloneness into something negative, or ‘not me’.
We separate the sensation from ourselves and try to change it. So, aloneness, a natural feeling, becomes loneliness, an embellished and contrived feeling. Naturally, the more we try to change loneliness or distance ourselves from it mentally, the stronger and more persistent it gets.
There is an obvious solution, become choicelessly aware that the feeling we call loneliness is us. It is not separate. When it is separate, there is the observer and the observed. When we own it, and see that it is simply a feeling representing our current state, the observer becomes the observed, there is no separation.
It is amazing how simply owning a feeling and acknowledging it as ‘me’ causes the feeling to dissipate on its own. There is a reason for that. Negative feelings are produced by conflict between a reality and our desire to separate ourselves from that reality. When we take care of the conflict, the negative feeling disappears.
With the conditioned mind, there is a centre…the ‘me’. Everything becomes relative to me and my thoughts. In fact, the ‘me’ is nothing more than a collection of conditioned thoughts. That sets up the observer and the observed, with me as the observer. So, everything observed becomes tainted and distorted by the conditioned thoughts of the observer.
With awareness, the centre is gone. Without the centre of conditioned thought, the observer is able to see the observed directly. We live in between those states, drifting from the conditioned state to a state of pure awareness.
When the centre is gone, there is no more time. Time is fully dependent on conditioned thought. As Krishnamurti puts it: time is thought, and thought is time.
You think that’s crazy? Physicist David Bohm, an expert on quantum theory, agreed fully with K. on that statement.
Some people cannot handle pure awareness. If their minds become quiet, they freak out and rush to fill the quietness with noise, and that noise is conditioned thought which runs in circles.
Dr. Barbara Brown, a psychologist, invented the name ‘rumination’ for this condition. She likened this kind of circular thought to a cow chewing its cud and continually regurgitating it. Dr. Brown, claimed that circular thought tires the body and can lead to stress and anxiety.
We see above the best possible example of ‘rumination’.
The longer Robertson’s comments are, the less they contain, and the closest they resemble food chewed up to the point of vomiting.
Life is short. You got infinity to be aware.
This is not intended to disparage your article of “faith” but merely to note the impossibility of verifying its correctness because mystical insights are strictly personal. There is nothing wrong with personal insight as a starting point, but such insights do not become objective until they are externally validated.
Since the discussion was about your statement that time has no existence, external validation is exactly what’s required. It is clear that your conclusion is based on a personal insight that precludes external validation.
Post counts (20+ posts) for December thread as of 7 Feb 11:30 EST:
Total Posts: 2674
RLH : 505
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 400
Willard : 227
Clint R : 206
Gordon Robertson : 167
Bindidon : 135
Ball4 : 131
Entropic man : 110
Nate : 94
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 79
Swenson : 68
Christos Vournas : 51
Tim Folkerts : 46
E. Swanson : 46
bobdroege : 43
Norman : 41
Eben : 41
Ken : 36
gbaikie : 33
barry : 26
Antonin Qwerty : 25
Billy Bob : 24
There were three other articles this month. When you add together the comments from the other articles, it’s:
Willard: 227 + 432 + 59 + 22 = 740.
RLH: 505 + 9 + 26 + 26 = 566.
DREMT: 400 + 117 + 0 + 0 = 517.
Swenson: 68 + 355 + 65 + 24 = 512.
at the top…
So the only reason the deniers are not ahead is because they play tag and split the “vote”.
You are providing essential knowledge. It is very helpful and factual information for us and everyone to increase knowledge. Continue sharing your data. Thank you. farmtrac tractor 60 price
essential knowledge. It is very helpful and factual ankara escort turan gneş bulvar escort
trbanlı escort
I am a paramedic student this site is really helpful for me.
Nice info for more info check https://indian-travel-guide99.blogspot.com/2022/05/best-luxury-train-tour-packages-in-india.html
You are one of the best at your job
Weather forecast suitable for playing pg slot Another factor is the weather. Today, let’s take a check at the weather prediction for our pg slot, which will help you to focus on playing more or minimize the younger as needed. It might also be linked to your horoscope. Let’s look at the pg slot
Really Instructive Post, Keep Sharing
𝓛𝓮𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓐𝓷𝓭 𝓖𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓼 ✨
𝒄𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒏 𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆💕
⚡✨𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒖𝒑 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆 ✨⚡
𝒌𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅
𝑫𝑴 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓/𝒊𝒏𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒚
ᴊᴀᴢᴢ ᴄᴀꜱʜ/ ᴇᴀꜱʏᴘᴀɪꜱᴀ /ᴄᴏᴅ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ
https://www.instagram.com/letters.n.glitters/
Hey there, I think your website might be having browser
compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Chrome,
it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it
has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick
heads up! Other then that, fantastic blog!