UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2021: +0.21 deg. C.

January 2nd, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

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


2,686 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for December, 2021: +0.21 deg. C.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Alick says:

    The running average center line, has no scientific relevance. IMHO.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      They should make it a 5 or 10 year running average if the aim is to capture climate.

      • coturnix says:

        !!!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.

        • Bindidon says:

          coturnix

          I agree / Ich bin einverstanden / Je suis d’accord.

        • WizGeek says:

          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.

        • Jay says:

          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

    • RLH says:

      What method would you propose to reduce/remove the yearly signal?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

          • Robert Ingersol says:

            Clearly a warming trend. A little chaotic, but clearly upward as expected with the 0.14C/decade linear trend Roy publishes.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • 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?

          • Bill Hunter says:

            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.

          • Bill Hunter says:

            So it is just completely vacuous to claim its useful without providing a single reason why it might be useful.

            Nate says:

            ??

            ==========
            fking Duh?

        • Nate says:

          Talk about fake endings..

          • RLH says:

            Are you saying that simple data analysis is wrong? Only complex ones that show continuous warming is correct?

          • Nate says:

            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.

    • RLH says:

      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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • 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.

      • michael hart says:

        Amen.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        “The global average temperature has little relevance.”
        ____________________________________________

        You are funny.
        Since we discuss “global” warming, …. global temperature have even extrem relevance.

    • Milton Hathaway says:

      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.

      • Nate says:

        Well put..

      • Bindidon says:

        Indeed: well put.

      • Alick says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

    • Blaz says:

      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.

  2. Bellman says:

    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.

    • Bellman says:

      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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

  3. Jeff R says:

    Using a page out of the media spin playbook, 2021 was the 2nd coolest in the last 7 years.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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

      • angech says:

        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.

        • Bindidon says:

          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.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          Last year’s La Nina was moderate, not weak.

          • Bindidon says:

            I of course agree!

          • Richard M says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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?

          • Richard M says:

            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.

          • Mark B says:

            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

          • Richard M says:

            Mark B, thanks for the more detailed description. My point is still the same. Comparing ENSO years is questionable.

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • barry says:

            “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.

        • PhilJ says:

          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

      • Jeff R says:

        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.

  4. Warm weather trend says:

    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.

    • Bindidon says:

      That should speak for itself, but won’t impress the Coolistas very much.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        So tell us Mr. Science, how does that speak for itself?

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          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.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            OK, how should it speak for itself?

          • Bindidon says:

            Exactement.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >And that is exactly how it has panned out.

            How exactly has it panned out?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            >And that is exactly how it has panned out.

            How exactly has it panned out?

          • Robert Ingersol says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            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

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            And yet warmer than any other year with La Nina bookends.

          • barry says:

            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.

    • Richard M says:

      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

      • Robert Ingersol says:

        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.

        • Richard M says:

          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?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

  5. Roy Landberg says:

    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.

    • m d mill says:

      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.

    • m d mill says:

      And my further evidence is being blocked as usual.

  6. angech says:

    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.

  7. Bellman says:

    I think at 1.63C this is the warmest December for USA48 in UAH history.

    • Bindidon says:

      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

      • Bindidon says:

        Apos, I see you mean the December months.

      • Bellman says:

        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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

        • Antonin Qwerty says:

          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.

          • Bindidon says:

            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?

          • Antonin Qwerty says:

            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.

          • DMacKenzie says:

            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.

      • m d mill says:

        GCMs indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCMs wrong!!??

  8. Bindidon says:

    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/

  9. Rawandi says:

    2021 has had three months with negative anomalies. Will 2022 have more negative anomalies than 2021?

  10. Mark Shapiro says:

    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!

    • Eben says:

      You cannot claim “per century something” unless you have at least 100 years of data,
      All you have is 40 years you duffus

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        So I can’t claim to be driving at a speed of 80km/h until I have driven for an hour – is that right?

        • Swenson says:

          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!

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • James W Buckee says:

            When do we enter the new ice age ?(a la milankovitch)

          • Nate says:

            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.

    • Swenson says:

      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!

      • gbaikie says:

        “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.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

    • RLH says:

      Linear trends are of little use on natural time series data.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Richard M says:

      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

  11. Joe says:

    “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.

  12. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • Ken says:

      Hellas Planitia is desert. Not a drop to drink.

      Our efforts should be aimed at going to other solar systems to find Fiddlers Green.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

        • Ken says:

          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.

          • gbaikie says:

            “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.

          • Ken says:

            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.

          • gbaikie says:

            –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.

        • gbaikie says:

          –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.

          • gbaikie says:

            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].

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

  13. Russ says:

    Should make the Y axis scale -10 to +10 to reflect the utter nonsense of it all too.

  14. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Ezz says:

      Not really. It depends on how large is the area covered by the +5 anomaly.

    • gbaikie says:

      -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.

  15. Robin says:

    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.

  16. Bindidon says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      “Who is that?”

      We the human race collectively. Could you be so dumb?

    • RLH says:

      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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

        • RLH says:

          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.

          • RLH says:

            *both vertically and horizontally over time

          • Entropic man says:

            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?

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            Without meeting the required data sampling required then a suitable uncertainty needs to be added to the measurements. About +/-0.5C would seem appropriate.

          • RLH says:

            Here is an example from a portion of the globe for today.

            https://imgur.com/a/hR2DF7x

          • Willard says:

            > Nyquist says that at least twice the reported frequency in data changes are needed for the very minimum of data analysis.

            Not really:

            It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            https://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf

            “Sampling: What Nyquist Didnt Say, and What to Do About It”

          • Willard says:

            Exactly:

            It is a common misconception that the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem could be used to provide a simple, straight forward way to determine the correct minimum sample rate for a system. While the theorem does establish some bounds, it does not give easy an
            swers. So before you decide the sampling rate for your system, you have to have a good understanding of the implications of the sampling, and of the information you really want to measure.

            So how should we interpret temperatures as continuous-time signals, and what happens if we can’t: does the world explode?

          • RLH says:

            “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.

          • RLH says:

            P.S. Sort out the difference between continuous and discrete time series will you. Otherwise you’ll look like an ass.

  17. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  18. 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

  19. m d mill says:

    GCM’s indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCM’s wrong!!??

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

      • RLH says:

        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.

        • Entropic man says:

          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.

          • RLH says:

            “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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            Estimated not observed.

          • bdgwx says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            “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.

          • RLH says:

            I have not covered measurement uncertainty which also covers the volume that a point sample can fairly represent.

          • bdgwx says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

  20. Clint R says:

    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.?

  21. Willard says:

    > 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:

    In many regions, warming has already surpassed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. More than one-fifth of all humans live in regions that have already seen warming greater than 1.5 degrees Celsius in at least one season. Climate-related risks were found to be generally higher at lower latitudes and for disadvantaged people and communities.

    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.

    • RLH says:

      Only 1.5c since 1750 for >25% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year? Really?

      • RLH says:

        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?

        • Entropic man says:

          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.

      • Willard says:

        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?

        • RLH says:

          As you observed, only parts of it and then only for a part of the year.

        • Ken says:

          “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.

  22. Entropic man says:

    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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Can’t be bothered. Leave me alone. Leave the subject alone.

    • Willard says:

      This might explain why Kiddo pauses his soldiering:

      And Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his “definitions” of orbital motion only involve translation and rotation, which do belong to geometry and that he insists in using axial rotation instead of spin.

      When was the last time Kiddo presented the Moon Dragon crank position while invoking Newton’s Laws and conservation of angular momentum?

      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.

      • Entropic man says:

        Willard

        Leave DREMT be. He’s clearly not in the mood for debate.

        • Willard says:

          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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I already know about the relationship between gyroscopes and inertial frames of reference, troll.

          • RLH says:

            So why is it that a gyroscope will show that a horse on a roundabout rotates wrt the stars?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …because it is rotating…

            …but not on its own axis.

          • RLH says:

            It orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter which only makes sense if it is the center of the whole.

          • RLH says:

            In the case on the Moon that is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

        • Clint R says:

          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.

          • RLH says:

            Clint R: So you want us to believe that a ball-on-a-string does not include the axis it rotates about?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            So are you saying that the axis around which the ball-on-a-string rotates is not part of it?

          • Clint R says:

            No troll, I’m saying you have no appreciation for reality. You live in your own dreamworld.

            That only works until it doesn’t.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      "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.

    • Tim S says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        > 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.

        • Tim S says:

          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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Tim S says:

            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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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

        • Willard says:

          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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          I guess Tim S gets it. It’s not difficult to understand, after all.

          • Tim S says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "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.

          • RLH says:

            “The MOTL is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.”

            WRONG. The MOTL is orbiting AND rotating on its own axis once per orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That could only be true if “orbital motion without axial rotation” was as per the MOTR, RLH. It isn’t.

          • Tim S says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            I guess Kiddo does not get it. It’s not difficult to understand, however.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More nonsense from Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, cranking up his gaslighting.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What gaslighting!?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Laughably wrong.

        • Willard says:

          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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m not arguing against the tidal locking mechanism. Some "Non-Spinners" do. I don’t, personally.

          • Clint R says:

            Physics argues against the “tidal locking” nonsense.

            I go with physics….

          • Willard says:

            > Physics argues

            You’re not physics, Pup!

            You’re not really arguing, but at least you try!

            Swoon.

          • Nate says:

            Clint: ‘I go with physics’

            Well theres a first time for everything!

            But, which physicists are not arguing against tidal locking?

      • Bindidon says:

        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'. “

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            You’re not general enough, Pup.

            X does not imply Y… unless X implies Y!

            Next time, keep the chin on.

        • Swenson says:

          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.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            > From the fixed stars, apparent rotation.

            Mike Flynn’s a funny guy!

            Tell us more about Fourier, Mike!

            *The crowd roars.*

          • Nate says:

            “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.

      • bobdroege says:

        What about the old boomerang?

      • Nate says:

        “Rotation of an unrestrained object is ALWAYS about the center of mass. ”

        Yep. Please explain that to DREMT.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      …and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.

      • Willard says:

        [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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.

          • Willard says:

            Once again, Kiddo blames others for his own comments.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            So once again Kiddo cannot leave the subject alone.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Apparently, you cannot leave me alone.

          • RLH says:

            No one will leave you alone whilst you continue to spout nonsense.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The baiting and goading continues…

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See what I mean?

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

  23. Eben says:

    Data slicers have their swords out

  24. angech says:

    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.

  25. Bindidon says:

    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”.

  26. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    "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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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?

      • Clint R says:

        binny, you STILL don’t understand anything about orbital motion. LRO is “seeing” Moon’s orbital motion.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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

        • Willard says:

          And so Kiddo soldiers on, again with the question-begging construction.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            More nonsensical commentary from Willard.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Kids at home can read what I wrote, and see how it differs completely from your desperate misrepresentation.

          • Willard says:

            Kids at home should not read:

            [Kiddo] says:
            January 3, 2022 at 9:51 PM

            Tim continues arguing with himself, whilst my new stalker sucks his c*ck, as usual.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1110474

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Quick, change the subject…

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo quickly cries “misrepresentation” after having sniggered “gibberish”!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            the ‘Non-Spinner’ position is foolish in the extreme. No-one sensible could ‘understand it’. It is quite simply wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Incorrect.

          • Willard says:

            And so Kiddo reveals that he had never shown any integrity. He’s only in it for the lulz, except when he tilts.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Wrong, boring, and relentless.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo finally found a mirror!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Another 18 hours of this? Really?

  27. Willard says:

    With emphasis:

    The animation depicts LRO’s ground track over a period of 27.3 days (348 orbits) or one sidereal month, the amount of time it takes the Moon to turn once on its axis, relative to the stars.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious as to how scientific arguments work.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          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.

          • Ball4 says:

            … as observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R explained.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “My new resolution is to never address him again.”

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to what “to address” means.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            And so Kiddo soldiers on with his manipulative crap.

          • Swenson says:

            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]

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why are you bringing me into this, again?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo still plays dumb.

            Perhaps he should go to sleep now that he spent all his night trolling Roy’s.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            My 11:25 PM comment is correct.

          • RLH says:

            You are wrong regardless of what time it is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That comment is not wrong, regardless of what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo backtracks from “correct” to “not wrong.”

            Progress!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Desperate and pathetic BS from Willard.

          • Willard says:

            My 8:58 AM comment is correct.

    • Clint R says:

      Dud falls into the same trap: “…relative to the stars.”

      It’s called “braindead”.

      • Willard says:

        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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          No, Swenson actually explains once again why reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are making it up, though. You are twisting my words, as usual.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mike Flynn, everyone!

            *The audience bursts into a frenzy.*

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, this time “forgetting” to say when we would able to *see* a celestial body spin.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            [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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Exactly. No contradiction, because reference frames are clearly not going to resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the issue.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yet making it up is what you are doing.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo should stop trolling and get to sleep.

            Good night.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

      • Swenson says:

        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!

        • Willard says:

          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.

        • Swenson says:

          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.

          • Willard says:

            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”:

            Mike Flynn | July 11, 2015 at 2:21 am |

            Poor poor darlings! Depressed about the prospect of having to get a real job?

            Noticing a decrease in adulation recently? Collection plate a bit empty, is it?

            Heres a suggestion or three

            If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
            Threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.
            Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.

            Theres always psychiatric help available, although you might want to use a trained psychologist in the first instance. Some of them have odd ideas though. It might be worth while avoiding those who inhabit a fantasy world themselves, and believe in conspiracies of Big Anything, Skeptics, or people trying to steal their Nobel Prizes!

            You can stop sobbing now. Mother Nature will make it better, diddums. Bye bye!

            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!

          • Swenson says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Multiplying Farces.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            Which Mike Flynn is that?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            This one:

            Mike Flynn says:
            June 15, 2017 at 9:02 PM

            Norman,

            How does the transmittance of the atmosphere create the GHE? It doesnt, of course.

            I dont believe that unicorns exist, either. I dont need a scientific study to back up my disbelief. Do you?

            You cant even describe the so-called GHE, in anything remotely resembling a scientific fashion, can you? Just more Cargo Cult Scientism claims that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, somehow.

            Fantasy being presented as fact.

            Still no GHE. None. CO2 heats nothing.

            Cheers.

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mike Flynn:

            Mike Flynn says:
            January 31, 2019 at 10:27 PM

            B,

            From the BOM –

            “2018 was Australia’s third-warmest year on record (the national temperature dataset commences in 1910). . . .

            . . . Temperature measurement from before approximately 1910 used a wide variety of non-standard configurations and are therefore not directly comparable to modern measurements.”

            Go ahead. Rank away with figures not included in the national temperature dataset. Who cares? You are confusing weather with climate, surely. Try taking refuge in the magic of the average, if you think it would help.

            Do you really think that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?

            […]

            Cheers.

            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.

        • Swenson says:

          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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        > 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.

        • Swenson says:

          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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Pay attention:

            The Moon moves around the Earth in an approximately circular orbit, going once around us in approximately 27.3 days, or one sidereal period of revolution. As it does this its position changes, relative to the stars.

            https://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Do your bit about Feynman.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          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.

          • Willard says:

            > 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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Our moon can only be spinning at the same rate it orbits if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo keeps soldiering, once again with his proof by assertion.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together. It should not be difficult.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            My 12:54 AM comment is correct.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            My 1:05 AM comment is also correct.

          • Swenson says:

            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?

          • RLH says:

            You are wrong no matter what time it is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Those comments are not wrong, no matter what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The comments are correct.

          • Willard says:

            [KIDDO] One single motion, through 360 degrees.

            [ALSO KIDDO] All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The comments are correct, waffler.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            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

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Keep on waffling. The comments are correct.

          • Willard says:

            Here’s one tiny bit of knowledge that Kiddo needs to reach the Moon Dragon crank conclusion:

            An orbit is not “simply a path”. The orientation of the moon [sic] is included.

            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:

            In celestial mechanics, an orbit is the curved trajectory of an object such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are still waffling on, arguing against things I am not even discussing in this particular sub-thread. Meanwhile, the two comments remain correct.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, gaslighting once again.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No gaslighting here.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Whatever you say, Willard. I’m sure you’re right.

          • Willard says:

            WIN! WIN! WIN!

  28. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    No, as observed from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane, Ball4. Same POV as in the GIF I linked to earlier.

  29. Clint R says:

    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….

  30. Curioso says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      Dr Spencer doesn’t believe in error bars.

      • coturnix says:

        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.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          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.

          • coturnix says:

            “less than 1500” does fall withing the indicated range of “hundreds to thousands”, dont it?

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • coturnix says:

            @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?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Where would I find those tolerances?

        • Willard says:

          UAH walks into an error bar:

          The two MSU lowermost troposphere products are distinct from the surface record (showing notably more warming in the 1998, 2010 El Niño years – though it wasn’t as clear in 2016), but with similar trends. The biggest outlier is (as usual) the UAH record, indicating that the structural uncertainty in the MSU TLT trends remains significant.

          https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/one-more-data-point/

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Do your bit about the chemical properties of CO2.

            Please.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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?

        • Swenson says:

          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.

        • Entropic man says:

          “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.

          • Mark B says:

            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

          • Curioso says:

            Entropic man, re: the 95% confidence limits on UAH you mention, please have a look at my response to Gordon Robertson.

          • Curioso says:

            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?

          • RLH says:

            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

          • Curioso says:

            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.

          • Mark B says:

            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?

          • Curioso says:

            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

          • Mark B says:

            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.

          • Curioso says:

            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.

          • Mark B says:

            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.

          • Curioso says:

            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.

          • Mark B says:

            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

      • Curioso says:

        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.

        • RLH says:

          “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’.

          • Curioso says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            ‘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?

        • Curioso says:

          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.

        • Curioso says:

          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.

  31. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      > 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:

      A satellite’s ground track shows the path of its orbit on the surface of the parent body. 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.

      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?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      “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.

      • RLH says:

        There is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit. See newton.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Incorrect.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT: Are you saying that Newton was incorrect?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am saying that you are incorrect.

          • RLH says:

            But you agree that Newton would say that nothing makes an orientation depend on an orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Would I? Oh.

          • RLH says:

            So you disagree with Newton then?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why don’t you explain exactly why you believe “there is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit”?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader pups asked:

            Why don’t you explain exactly why you believe “there is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit”?

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …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?

          • Willard says:

            Quick quick, Kiddo changes the subject

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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!

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I misread nothing. Smug grin.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK…and your point is?

          • RLH says:

            That you are an idiot.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ah, so you have realized that your logic is circular. Good.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader pups is still confused:

            obviously wrong, because the moon does proceed through its orbit at varying rates.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh look, a troll has appeared.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yeah readers can see the DREMT troll has appeared on their own; nice to see DREMT actually confirm being a troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            See how it operates?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader pups wrote

            ..the moon does proceed through its orbit at varying rates.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I repeat my previous comment to you, Swanson.

        • Clint R says:

          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

          • RLH says:

            A ball-on-a-string does not model gravity. It also includes the axis that it rotates about.

          • RLH says:

            “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?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            In contrast to Kiddo, Pup, and Mike Flynn, at least Gordo tries.

          • RLH says:

            Your ‘truth and reality’ is a distortion of what real science is about.

          • RLH says:

            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.

  32. PCman999 says:

    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?

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  34. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • Ken says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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.

  36. Bindidon says:

    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.

    • Bindidon says:

      Once more, a link problem, here is its tinyURL:

      https://tinyurl.com/msdm3bs8

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          You demonstrate you do not understand, but claim you do. Got it.

          • Bindidon says:

            What about YOU explaining WHAT I don’t understand?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            So Kiddo soldiers on, once again dismissing what others tell him by whining about how misunderstood he is.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Butt out, Buttinski.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” 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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Bindidon.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT: Please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT: Please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            RLH, please stop trolling.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT: #n Please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            #2

            RLH, please stop trolling.

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

        • RLH says:

          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?

        • E. Swanson says:

          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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Have we ever saw Kiddo trying to solve a problem? How about Mike Flynn? At least Gordo tries.

            Pup mostly plays Sphynx.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            By any chance, could you please try to become utterly obsessed with somebody else, Willard?

          • Willard says:

            Vintage 2018-12:

            Those who insist our moon has two motions (the Spinners) actually think that the moon TRANSLATES about the Earth-Moon center of mass, and ROTATES on its own axis. That is your argument. There, now you should understand it. Youre welcome.

            Obviously, if you believed that our moon both rotated about the Earth-Moon center of mass AND rotated about its polar axis, then you would believe that we can see all sides of the moon from Earth.

            The simplest way to describe the moons motion is as ONE rotation about the Earth-Moon center of mass. If you define that off-center rotation as translational motion, as Tesla does (with full explanation as to why in the third paper), then axial rotation of the body is separate and independent of that motion.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333249

            Look who’s obsessed!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Digging up and quoting my old comments just makes you seem even more obsessed with me.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yeah, you still seem pretty obsessed with me.

          • Willard says:

            And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the point that has just been made.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            Sure. You are an idiot.

          • Willard says:

            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.:

            Check out two posters, [Pup] an [another sock] convinced the Moon does not rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            That’s the spirit.

          • Willard says:

            Vintage 2018-03:

            Gordon Robertson

            Mike Flynn has been supplied this information numerous times by numerous posters.

            His favorite tactic is to describe a molten surface that cooled as proof no GHE exists. He believes the surface continues to cool. I have explained to him many times this is faulty logic. I explained you still have molten rock on Hawaii. It cools to ambient temperature but when the Sun shines it during the day it warms up and does not continue to cool. It reaches an average temperature between a night and day cycle. He also can’t grasp averages even when explained to him hundreds of times.

            […]

            Here is a simple and very clear demonstration that the Moon must rotate on its axis. I am hoping you are not as devoid of thought process as [Pup’s].

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Sure, "Dark Triad". That sounds sinister. No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds good.

          • Willard says:

            Moon Dragon Cranks Just Want to Have Fun:

            Online trolling is the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            What about characters such as yourself, and RLH, for instance? How will this online community defend itself from the likes of you two?

          • Willard says:

            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:

            > you and [kiddo] may not be the same person.

            They’re not. Check the timestamps.

            Also, check how one obdurately repeats the same things, while the other is merely shadowboxing without seldom saying anything.

            Roy’s has three main Sky Dragon trolls. Each voices an aspect of the Dark Triad. Mike is the abusive bully. Kiddo is the manipulative weasel. Pup is the Big Ego.

            Each has their manners to channel and project their violence.

            For thereon, dads need to do better.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are a troll, Willard.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he’s being slayed.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, you’re just trolling.

          • RLH says:

            Said the troll.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, RLH. You think I am a troll. Presumably though, you also think Willard is a troll, yes?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Maybe we should all just post continuously about who is the biggest troll.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

            ☺️

          • Willard says:

            And so Kiddo soldiers on, with a bright 2:26 AM spirit!

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • RLH says:

            DREMTA: I KNOW you are a troll. You have even said so yourself.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on:

            I’m just having a bit of fun.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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…

          • Willard says:

            Trolls just want to have fun. Kiddo just wants to have fun.

            But Kiddo never ever ever trolls.

            Ever.

            And so Kiddo soldiers on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Take that sentence out of context all you want, it does not mean what you want it to mean. Yap away.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            I’m starting to find it funny now

            all is well.

            Fun! Fun! Fun!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yap away.

          • Willard says:

            Fun! Fun! Fun!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Still yapping, I see.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’m touched that you hang on my every word, but no…I was just being facetious.

    • Swenson says:

      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?

  37. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    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:

    In this Event, natural gas pipelines were only minimally affected by power outages (because most have backup power) and were largely able to meet their firm transportation commitments. This was not an event that tested the capacity of the natural gas transportation system, as the 2011 event did, because the natural gas pipeline transportation system’s inputs (production and processing) and the demand (natural gas-fired generating units) experienced massive losses.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        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:

        Overall, the interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines surveyed by the Team performed as expected and were largely able to fulfill their firm transportation obligations. They were not significantly affected by the cold weather and freezing conditions. They were only minimally affected by power outages because most have gas-fired compressors, redundant compression, and backup power.
        FERC, NERC and Regional Entity Staff Report -The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages in Texas and the South Central United States. November 2021

        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.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        As usual, Americanos know everything better, sometimes even about the entire Globe.

        No problem for me.

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          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).

          • Willard says:

            > 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:

            I don’t really think there’s any one thing you can point your finger at. When ERCOT does planning for winter, they only really count on 10 percent of wind turbine capacity being available. We’re already not relying on it very heavily to be there. While there have been times where wind has produced as much as ERCOT is relying on it, there have been times where they haven’t produced as much as they’re relied on. But at the same time, we’re also short about one third of our thermal power plants, our natural gas, coal, and nuclear. [Wind turbines are expected to supply about 25 percent of the states electricity in the winter, and are currently producing about half of that. Coal- and gas-fired plants are expected to make up 60 percent of the states energy production this time of year. ERCOT said Wednesday thermal energy was responsible for 60 percent of the energy loss and 40 percent came from wind and solar.]

            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 😉

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Fair. You’re also right about scapegoating – it won’t bring us any soul back.

  38. Clint R says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      And the surface that points towards the Sun constantly is at what temperature?

    • bobdroege says:

      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?

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong again, braindead bob. You’re probably thinking of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. But, as usual, you can’t understand it.

        • RLH says:

          “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”

          • Ball4 says:

            “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?

          • RLH says:

            “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?

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            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”.

          • Ball4 says:

            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).

          • bobdroege says:

            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

        • bobdroege says:

          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.

          • Swenson says:

            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?

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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

          • Willard says:

            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?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            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?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          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.

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  39. Swenson says:

    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.

  40. Bindidon says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      ” 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?

      • Bindidon says:

        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

        • RLH says:

          So a fact is cherry picking is it? Let’s just ignore all facts then.

          • Entropic man says:

            The fact isn’t a problem. Your subtext is.

          • RLH says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            “It does set it in context perhaps”

            Very good, next time context would be helpful.

  41. gbaikie says:

    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.”

    • Swenson says:

      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.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

    • gbaikie says:

      “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

  42. Tim S says:

    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.”

    • Clint R says:

      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?

    • Tim S says:

      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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Tim S says:

      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.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “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.

        • Tim S says:

          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.

    • Eben says:

      This looks like the green plate blue plate scenario to me

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    test one

  44. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • E. Swanson says:

      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.

    • RLH says:

      “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.

  46. Ken Gregory says:

    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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

        • Bindidon says:

          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.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You’re welcome.

            Carry on. Or not, as you wish.

          • Eben says:

            Binditler would give his nuts to became a moderator on this board and get his finger on the delete button

          • Bindidon says:

            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.

          • Eben says:

            He is the worst repulsive creep in here since Dave Appel

        • Eben says:

          He wish he knew the real posters names so he could go after them personally

          • Bindidon says:

            Eben

            There are intelligent liars. You don’t belong to them.

            You are simply a stoopid guy, whether you lie or not.

  47. Don says:

    Background noise is all it is.

  48. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “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/

    • Bindidon says:

      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…

  49. gbaikie says:

    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?

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/juno-jupiter-auroral-heating

        Recently an international team assembled observations from a trio of observatories — NASA’s Juno spacecraft, the Hisaki satellite from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Keck Observatory on Maunakea in Hawai’i. — to discover the likely source of Jupiter’s thermal boost.

        “We found that Jupiter’s intense aurora, the most powerful in the solar system, is responsible for heating the entire planet’s upper atmosphere to surprisingly high temperatures,” said James O’Donoghue of the JAXA Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Sagamihara, Japan. O’Donoghue began the research while at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and is lead author of a paper about this research appearing in Nature August 4.

  50. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    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).

    […]

    …if the United States wants to be a leader in addressing climate change, the country needs a ramped LNG program. “LNG exports have the potential to be the biggest green initiative on the planet, and it’s not even close” […]”Ramping LNG in a manner that specifically targets the replacement of foreign coal, particularly in China, represents the largest, fastest and most proven opportunity for the United States to address global climate change. That’s the prize- reducing emission levels at a pace we’ve never seen, while simultaneously providing the world with cheap, reliable and clean energy.”
    […]
    “The emissions reduction from coal to gas switching seen in the United States between 2005 and 2019 is the equivalent of actually electrifying approximately 190 million cars, or roughly 70% of the total number of cars in the United States. We are currently projected to have global sales of 31.1 million electric vehicles in 2030.”

    • E. Swanson says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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 .

        • Willard says:

          Pup, you can’t even do the Poll Dance Experiment.

          What a sad sock puppet you are.

        • Entropic man says:

          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?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        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.”

        • E. Swanson says:

          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)

          • E. Swanson says:

            (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%.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            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.

  51. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    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

    Protesters stormed public buildings in Kazakhstan’s biggest city on Wednesday as security forces struggled to impose control after the government resigned in response to popular anger over a fuel price increase.
    […]
    Kazakhstan is a tightly controlled former Soviet republic which cultivates an image of political stability, helping it attract hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign investment in its oil and metals industries.
    […]
    The protests began after the government lifted price controls on liquefied petroleum gas at the start of the year. Many Kazakhs have converted their cars to run on LPG because of its low cost.
    The government said the regulated price was causing losses for producers and needed to be liberalized. The president said it had botched the move.
    […]
    The protests began in the oil-producing western province of Mangistau on Sunday, after LPG prices more than doubled following the lifting of caps.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        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

        …One of the problems in Britain is that the loss of faith in the country is now so pervasive that it is hard to know whether it can be rebuilt. The union is not only being questioned by Welsh, Irish, and Scottish nationalists, but also, now, by the once-unionist middle classes in England for whom Brexit has broken a bit of the faith they had in Britain. Some simply no longer believe it’s worth saving- that like Butlin’s, it is somehow shameful or anachronistic. They actively prefer the thought of being a less powerful but more settled European country: a greater Holland rather than a mini United States.

        • Entropic man says:

          “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.

          • Willard says:

            This is a good way to live in general:

            There’s an unwritten law in Danish culture called Janteloven or “Jante’s law,” based on a popular satirical novel from the 1930s. The spirit of Janteloven is “don’t act like you’re better, smarter or richer than anyone else.”

            Although Janteloven has lost some of its grip in cosmopolitan Copenhagen, Russell says, it’s still very much lived by average Danes (you might even argue that being “average” is the goal).

            “Don’t show off. No one is better than anyone else. Everyone is equal,” says Russell, adding that you don’t see even wealthy Danes driving fancy cars or living in ostentatious houses. “People also dress quite informal; I haven’t seen a tie in years.”

            https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/cultural-traditions/reasons-why-danes-are-happy.htm

            The Queen is truly dead.

  52. Nate says:

    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?

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

    • Eben says:

      What do people think?

      You have it exactly backwards

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

    • Nate says:

      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.

    • Nate says:

      “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.

      • RLH says:

        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:[email protected]/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.

      • Nate says:

        “Are you saying that …”

        In general, RLH, what I am saying is what I’ve just said, and no more.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

        • RLH says:

          Do you agree that global temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age and descended before that to there?

        • RLH says:

          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.

        • Nate says:

          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.

          • RLH says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

        • Nate says:

          “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.

          • RLH says:

            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).

          • RLH says:

            “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.

          • RLH says:

            *short measuring time period

          • Nate says:

            “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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

  53. Entropic man says:

    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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      …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…

      • bobdroege says:

        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

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          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%.”

          • bobdroege says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.”

          • Entropic man says:

            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”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.”

          • Entropic man says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.”

          • E. Swanson says:

            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:

            We were warned against combining the NTC and the thermopile circuit to compensate for variation in device temperature. It is much better to make separate circuits for the thermopile and then do the temperature correction in the computing procedure.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, Swanson.

          • e. Swanson says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, please stop trolling.

        • Willard says:

          The null result of this experiment seems reasonable, but it says nothing about the Greenhouse effect.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            https://tinyurl.com/2p89jhjp

          • Willard says:

            Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen?

            Yes, and moreover very easily. Back radiation cannot explain the greenhouse effect because as the whole atmosphere warms, lapse rate remains constant. Hence in any slab of atmosphere, the bottom of the slab radiating heat upwards into the slab warms (increases in temperature) by the same number of degrees as the top of the slab radiating heat downwards.

            But because the bottom is warmer than the top, an increase of one degree throughout the slab must radiate more heat up from the bottom than down from the top. This follows from the fourth-degree dependence of radiation on temperature, though it would still be true if the dependence were cubic or even quadratic (but not linear, for then the two directions would cancel exactly).

            Hence in any slab of atmosphere, increasing temperature in the slab can only increase net radiation upwards, never downwards.

            A natural question then would be, how come the IPCC attributes the greenhouse effect to back radiation when it can be debunked so easily with theory, and with somewhat more effort experimentally as done by Seim and Olsen?

            The answer is that nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.

            Gosh, well how could the IPCC account for the greenhouse effect if not with back radiation?

            Great question. The glossary at the back of WG1 of AR5 defines the greenhouse effect as follows.

            “Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.”

            That is, with more CO2 Earth must radiate its heat to space from a higher altitude, which being cooler due to lapse rate radiates less strongly.

            Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.

            Seim and Olsen should be commended for confirming theory in this way.

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So, according to this commenter, Eli Rabett’s Green Plate Effect is indeed…debunked. No back-radiation warming, no GPE.

          • Willard says:

            Having designed a refrigerator that operates at mili-Kelvin, I guarantee that Eli’s plate model is real, and that operating at mili-Kelvin requires multiple plates to cut heat flow between room temperature and the cold plate.

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            I have to say that S&O went to a great deal of trouble and effort in this experiment, but the amount of design required to prove that “backscatter” does not work as supposed is greater still. Mechanical engineers design boilers and furnaces and ovens all the time, and if IR radiation didn’t behave as theory supposes, we would have noted the discrepancies long ago. So I wouldn’t have bothered with this effort to begin with, or at least until I had reason to believe something was amiss with theory first.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So…you think your first source is wrong?

          • Willard says:

            [T]his is an idealised model. No-one actually does any real calculations from it. Some of the concepts involved are used in GCMs, but anyone who says, for example, “aha! You’ve averaged the diurnal cycle in your model, therefore the GCMs are wrong” isn’t thinking.

            https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Oh, you are just trolling again.

          • Willard says:

            [T]he point is to have something in big print and simple figures that can be pointed to in a tweet. Understanding from those with an agenda is not hoped for. Stopping them from confusing the crowd might be

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507291878912#c3373261250729485848

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Probably most gardeners have an acquaintance with DLR without knowing the actual stats. They take into account visible ghg in their decisions about frost protection quite often.

            https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/#comment-4372

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            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:

            There is an important condition that everybunny misses. If you just have a warm body sitting in space, it will cool by radiation.

            If you have a warm body and a colder one near it, it will cool a little bit slower because of interchange of radiative energy btw the two but the net interchange of heat will be from the warmer to the cooler. But in both case the body(s) will cool down to the background temperature of the universe, like a few C

            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.

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            There it is:

            With his Moon rotation you had a J-Halpless jump in. When the topic came up again there was this odd N. Tesla poster who just happened to be reading at the same time the Moon rotation came up again.

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Who is going under the bus then Willard? Mr. Pratt, or Mr. Rabett?

          • Willard says:

            And here’s Kiddo:

            J Halp-less says:

            December 15, 2017 at 4:57 AM

            The debate over whether or not the plates come to the same temperature (244 K), or whether the blue plate comes to a higher temperature at the expense of the green plate temperature being lower, is purely academic.

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Pratt or Rabett, Willard?

          • Willard says:

            And here’s Kiddo again, this time in the thread cited above, in which Eli appeared:

            J Halp-less says:
            October 29, 2017 at 6:07 AM
            “MACRO flow is always from hot to cold”

            Just like the macro flow that must exist from the blue plate at its supposed equilibrium (or “steady state” according to T Folkerts) temperature of 262 K to the green plate right next to it at its supposed equilibrium (or “steady state”) temperature of 220 K.

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Trying to change the subject, Willard? Pratt or Rabett, Rabett or Pratt?

          • Swenson says:

            Pratt or Rabbett?

            Both delusional. Take your pick.

            Watch Wriggling Wee Willy go for the diversionary tactic.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            I hope people arent overlooking my paragraph “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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?

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo almost gets the irrelevant part of the point:

            What it can do

            Then the question becomes: did it? Let’s quote from the page he cited but hasn’t read in full:

            The authors in their response have provided some information to help clear up my criticism about the energy balance. First, they supply the size of the pressure relief hole of 5 mm diameter. This is probably too small to be an issue, but we didnt know until they supplied this value which was not in their original paper.

            Second, we now know the EDTA film is only 30 micrometers thick. This too was not in the original paper. A film this thin cannot supply any resistance to the conductive flow of heat. So, to avoid a non-radiative flow of heat across the thin films, which are separating gases at different temperatures by 12-26 degrees C, we are depending mainly on a couple of thin films of gas. In the interior of the box the air is stirred by a fan which increases its film coefficient. Thus the largest impediment to non-radiation heat flow is the film coefficient on the exterior of the box, which could be 2W per meter squared per Kelvin and at 26K Delta T over 0.15 square meters becomes 8W of heat flow. I think people should see why I had doubts about there being an accurate energy balance.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.:

            The problem of getting the walls to a steady temperature profile is one of diffusing energy into the styrofoam to raise its te,mperature, and this process is frustrated by the very low thermal diffusivity of styrofoam (the very reason it is a good insulator). To get the transient heat [the A word] down to 1W per meter squared requires about half a day. None of the graphs go beyond 30 minutes or so. How long did the authors allow any run to proceed? I dont know is the answer.

            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!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo would indeed need to throw Joe under the bus if he wants to get at Eli via Vaughan, for Vaughan clearly says:

            Seim and Olsen should be commended for confirming [the] theory in this way.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.:

            Just for the record, what Im claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you. That point of view may work for some people, but there may be people for whom it doesnt work because they regard the ice as cooling you.

            Committed [Dragon Cranks] may not care either way, but those trying to make sense of the subject without just taking it all on faith may have a hard time with the idea of ice as a warming agent. Why push that point of view on them when it isnt necessary?

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571

            Sometimes a bit devillish, but never really facetious.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            Just for the record, what I’m claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Mastodon of Feebleness – thank you for misremembering:

            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.

            […]

            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,

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            “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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious that his silly tactic has turned against him, for let’s remind Vaughan’s position:

            Just to clarify my own position, it is clear to me, based solely on the temperature and CO2 records to date, that if CO2 continues on its present course it will reach between 850 and 1000 ppmv by 2100, by which time temperatures worldwide will have increased some 2C. The concept of back radiation does not enter into my projections, and I have no idea how I would use it for forecasting climate change. I’ve been unable to persuade myself that back radiation is anything more than a computationally unusable extrapolation from John Tyndalls insightful experiments in the 1850s.

            https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/

            Later on he clarifies it:

            Just for the record, what I’m claiming is not that there is no back radiation but that the only sense in which back radiation warms the Earth is the same sense in which a block of ice next to you warms you. That point of view may work for some people, but there may be people for whom it doesn’t work because they regard the ice as cooling you.

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            > 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:

            [H]ow could the IPCC account for the greenhouse effect if not with back radiation?

            Great question. The glossary at the back of WG1 of AR5 defines the greenhouse effect as follows.

            Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.

            That is, with more CO2 Earth must radiate its heat to space from a higher altitude, which being cooler due to lapse rate radiates less strongly.

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.”

          • Nate says:

            “Seim and Olsen successfully debunk ”

            And why should we blindly accept the authority of whoever said that??

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Cult Leader pups wrote:

            Yes Willard, nobody is saying there is no back-radiation. What is being said is that there is no back-radiation warming.

            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?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

        • E. Swanson says:

          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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can speak to me with respect or gfy.

          • Willard says:

            Everyone,

            I promised never to address Kiddo again. I just did.

            My apologies to that little prick.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK then…gfy.

          • Willard says:

            Our slimy sock puppet soldiers on.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Gfy.

    • Clint R says:

      Yes, NASA engineering use the “plates” to cool, not warm.

      It’s almost as if they understand physics, huh?

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “It is the high reflectivity that is key, reflecting most of the EM radiation so that only a little gets absorbed”

        – Tim Folkerts

      • Clint R says:

        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

        • Ball4 says:

          EMR is not heat Clint. The arrows are wrongly labeled.

        • Entropic man says:

          “Oh no, not again!

          D Adams

        • Entropic man says:

          “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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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?

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            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.

          • Entropic man says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            Oh, you beat me to it, DREMT.

            Thanks!

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.)

          • Ball4 says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, please stop trolling.

      • Entropic man says:

        ” 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.

        • Ball4 says:

          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.

          • Entropic man says:

            “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.

        • Clint R says:

          Sorry Ent, but reflection does not require absorp.tion. Maybe if you’d studied physics instead of biology, you’d know that.

    • RLH says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

  54. gbaikie says:

    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}.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        “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}

        • gbaikie says:

          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/

          • gbaikie says:

            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

    • Ken says:

      First you have to prove there is water and, second, if that condition is met, that it can be economically mined.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

        • gbaikie says:

          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.

  55. 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

  56. Entropic man says:

    “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.

  57. gbaikie says:

    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.

  58. Swenson says:

    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.

    • Entropic man says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent has dropped all pretense of understanding science, as he degrades into false accusations. The cult meltdown continues.

        Reality always wins.

        • Entropic man says:

          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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “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.

          • Clint R says:

            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.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            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.

          • Nate says:

            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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

  59. Swenson says:

    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.

    • Willard says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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!

        • Willard says:

          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:

          J Halp-less says:
          October 29, 2017 at 9:19 AM
          To whom it may concern:

          My never-ending, repeated response to absolutely anything that you may argue, to try to imply that the blue plate comes to a higher temperature than the green, given what we know of the blue and green plates from the setup as described, will be […]

          You can’t say that Kiddo has changed much!

          Tell us your BOM bit.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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:

            J Halp-less says:
            April 26, 2018 at 6:27 AM
            As far as Im concerned the argument re the moon rotating on its axis was settled here:

            […]

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299239

            Do your bit about deep oceans.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Missionary Frivolity, meet a Mike Flynnian response –

            Laddie, you need to compose better gotchas. Your present standard is pretty dismal – isn’t that right?

            Enjoy your evening, silly sock puppet.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            A blast from your Climateball past –

            Don’t be such a complete twit, MF. You weren’t “groveling in mortification” for anything you’d done, or anything remotely like that. You were apologizing on behalf of a computer with an IQ of apparently less than 30 that you’d blamed on that occasion for its braindead autocomplete.

            The day that you take credit for your own frequent inanities is yet to come.

            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.

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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!

          • Swenson says:

            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?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn, Momentous Fraudster – there is really no need to deny how empirical sciences work to keep pretending you’re not a sock puppet!

          • Swenson says:

            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.

          • Willard says:

            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.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Willard, please stop trolling.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “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’?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        I dont think the shell needs a hole to let in sunlight, it just needs to be very transparent ice.

      • Nate says: