Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2021 was +0.21 deg. C, up from the November, 2021 value of +0.08 deg. C.
The annual average anomaly for 2021 was +0.134 deg. C above the 30-year mean (1991-2020), which places it as the 8th warmest year in the 43 year satellite record, behind 2016, 2020, 1998, 2019, 2017,2010, and 2015.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.40 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.27 0.53 0.81 -0.95 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.84 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.27 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.24
2020 09 0.40 0.42 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.21 -0.07 0.29 0.44 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.63 0.01 -0.06
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2021 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
The running average center line, has no scientific relevance. IMHO.
They should make it a 5 or 10 year running average if the aim is to capture climate.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from/plot/uah6/from/mean:60/plot/uah6/mean:120
!!!This is a PETITION to Doctor Roy Spencer!!!
Dear dr. Spencer! We all appreciate this blog of yours that you use to publish the important highlights of your research into the climate and the climate farce of today, and kindly allow everyone to leave free comments and engage in the discussions on various related topics. But let’s face it: the comment section of your blog is a fuming dumpster-fire. That’s not inherently good or bad, and it is lots of fun to participate in it even though the unstoppable flood of nonsensical flame in the comments probably thwarts any commentaries and discussions that are immediately relevant to the contents of your blog-posts. I know that in the past, you had tried to fight this problem by putting up flame filters, specifically against one d’o’u’g c’o’t’t’o’n if I remember it correctly. Those filters indeed worked, as they prevented people from writing the word a’b’s’o’r’p’t’i’o’n without going into the labor of obfuscating one’s writing, and staved-off the transformation of your blog comment section into the aforementioned dumpster-fire. But let’s face it: over the years, it transformed into one anyways. So here is my petition: I kindly ask you to please if possible to remove the aforementioned filter, as it seems to me it does no good to the discussion, just making it very frustrating when commentaries *randomly* disappear for reasons that are hard to ascertain.
With respect from [coturnix19], ‘climate denier’ and lukewarmer, conspiracy theories connoisseur.
PS. I put this comment in this particular position in order for it to be at the top of the feed.
coturnix
I agree / Ich bin einverstanden / Je suis d’accord.
I wholeheartedly agree with the “fuming dumpster fire” label. This thread is a perfect example. A temperature update is published–a data point–and it generates 650+ off-topic “comments”; this comment being one of them.
One possible mitigation method involves two components: 1) email verification to post, and 2) a “mute” button to completely hide a poster (and their threads plus nested replies) based on their verified email.
I used to come here daily to read thoughtful discourse, but, sadly, the amount of trolling here is such a distraction that now I check in about once a month.
Help us help ourselves.
I enjoy following the monthly temperature trends and your blog Roy. My only suggestion to the chart would be to use the entire satellite era and not just 1991-2020. That way we can see the whole picture of the satellite era and not just the last 30-years. This prevents you from using a moving average for temperature.
Thank you,
Meteorologist/Climatologist
Jay Reeder
What method would you propose to reduce/remove the yearly signal?
Contrarians don’t want to remove short-term variation. They choose not to understand the difference between weather, multi-month and multi-year weather patterns, and climate. They need short term variation as an excuse to be pernickety.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
Clearly a warming trend. A little chaotic, but clearly upward as expected with the 0.14C/decade linear trend Roy publishes.
Linear trends with their implied use of Infinity are not of much use in natural systems. If we were to go back to the last millennium, say, then the linear trend would not show as much of a rise.
It is useful to compare linear trends over the same period of time in models and in observations. Everyone is aware that the trend is measured over a specific period. Why is that a problem for you?
Nate says:
”It is useful to compare linear trends over the same period of time in models and in observations. Everyone is aware that the trend is measured over a specific period. Why is that a problem for you?”
You haven’t made a case for what short term trends are useful in a climate regime that varies by a factor of 10 over what we have seen in the short term trends. It might be more useful if we actually understood how climate changes. So it is just completely vacuous to claim its useful without providing a single reason why it might be useful.
??
So it is just completely vacuous to claim its useful without providing a single reason why it might be useful.
Nate says:
??
==========
fking Duh?
Talk about fake endings..
Are you saying that simple data analysis is wrong? Only complex ones that show continuous warming is correct?
You know what I mean. You should not extend the LP filter to the end point, because it is an unreliable extrapolation based on limited data, that is misleading.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
You will have to wait a few days more for Roy to update the full December data.
alick…”The running average center line, has no scientific relevance. IMHO”.
***
So, you don’t think the average of a sine wave is zero? Seems to me they are saying no average warming since 2015.
Gordon Robertson, the average of a sine wave seems non-sequitur. The running average is an arbitrary creation depending on when you begin taking averages and will move up or down as new values are added. It has no scientific relevance, in relation to anything meaningful to say about climate change. IMHO.
Assuming you accept that the yearly signal will contain thing you are not interested in climate then using a 13 month running average or an accurate 12 month gaussian filter will go a long way to removing that.
You might also consider using a 7 year filter as that removes the weather but leaves climate untouched.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
S-G stands for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
The average of air is way to measure actual global climate, which is the average temperature of the ocean {about 3.5 C}.
And sea level rise is another proxy.
The global average temperature has little relevance.
Not one person lives in an average temperature.
And temperature is not the only important climate attribute.
The global average is a statistic, not a measurement.
Accuracy is questionable before 1979, and data are almost worthless before 1920, with very few Southern Hemisphere measurements.
A single average hides the actual pattern
and timing of the warming since 1979:
The most warming has been in:
— The Northern half of the Northern hemisphere,
— Mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and
— Mainly at night.
If people and/or crops are ever harmed by a long term change in their weather, it will be a significant change in their local weather, not some global average temperature abstraction.
Amen.
“The most warming has been in:
The Northern half of the Northern hemisphere,”
There is MORE warming in the NH than SH, and more in the Arctic than in the tropics, as predicted decades ago.
‘Most’ is not valid descriptor.
“Mainly during the six coldest months of the year, and
-Mainly at night.”
Again there has been MORE in the colder months and a night, but lots during the summer and day as well.
“Not one person lives in an average temperature.”
Sure.
“The global average temperature has little relevance.”
That means you are certain that a warmer global temperature will NOT have deleterious regional effects?
How do you know that? Big regional changes have occurred in the past when the globe warmed or cooled by only ~ 1 or 2 C.
Weather patterns are driven by nonlinear dynamics. There are tipping points expected to occur in slightly warmer world, where regional patterns can change.
Drying and desertification of already dry regions, like the Western US, melting of the Himmalayan glacier, are bad regional changes predicted in a slightly warmer world and may already be happening.
“The global average temperature has little relevance.”
____________________________________________
You are funny.
Since we discuss “global” warming, …. global temperature have even extrem relevance.
Alick: All temperature measurements are an average. Do you prefer an hourly average, a daily average, a weekly average, a monthly average, something else? In signal processing terms, performing a uniformly weighted average drops a ‘zero’ on frequency content at the reciprocal of the data block length, and harmonics thereof, and attenuates frequency components near the zero (sinc function).
My point here is that presenting a temperature time series requires data manipulation, if nowhere else than inherent in the thermometers themselves. There is no pure temperature data, so it’s important to understand what manipulations have been done, and understand the effect of those manipulations.
I, for one, like the running, centered 13-month average, since I have a much better feel for what it means than the monthly data. If there are other artifacts (well understood oscillations) in the time series, it would be interesting to see a plot of the data with a running average period that matched the period of those oscillations. If said oscillations aren’t totally predictable, there are other ‘window’ weighting functions that aren’t as sensitive to frequency and time-delay variations as uniform weighting.
Taking a step back, what is the purpose of the temperature-time plot? In my simplistic view, it serves as a rough proxy for the only thing that really matters for long-term climate change, the total energy content of the oceans. From that point of view, the amount of ‘averaging’ going on in the system being measured is already enormous. The temperature plots are a bit like fleas trying to estimate the size of the elephant they live on by measuring bumps on the elephant’s hide – not ideal by any means, but you make do with what you have to work with.
Well put..
Indeed: well put.
Thanks Milton Hathaway. I understand that every data point is made up of ‘average’ temperatures. I don’t see the point of using the running average to plot them against. If you look back 2 years ago that running average is in a different spot. I remember reading something by Dr. Spencer that it was purposefully changed. My point is, that as something to measure against, it is a moving target, and because of it’s movement, it has nothing significant to say about climate change.
I think the graph would look exactly the same if it were plotted with the actual monthly average temperature instead of the deviation from an arbitrary average. The deviations would be the same relative to each other without the running average going through the graph.
BTW, what I see when I look at that plot of monthly averages are 3 separate increases. 1979 to 1996, 1997 to 2014ish, and 2015 to present.
Milton Hathaway says:
not ideal by any means, but you make do with what you have to work with.
=========================
Too much non-productive work going on. Its like a government road repair project. One guy with a shovel and 9 supervisors.
Oh, so a trend means nothing? That is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have yet to hear in this debate, and I have read some doozies . You need to state why a trend of a heating atmosphere has no relevance to this debate.
This means that 2021 was slightly warmer than the last La Nina year of 2018, and ties with 2015 for equal 7th warmest year in the UAH data.
I see this posting puts 2021 below 2015, which may be correct if you weight the months by length. February 2021 was somewhat warmer than February 2015, though the difference is less than 0.001C, so I would say statistically tied.
The last La Nina calendar year was 2020 (it finished with 5 La Nina months).
But ENSO years are not calendar years. They are 2021-22, 2020-21, etc.
Using a page out of the media spin playbook, 2021 was the 2nd coolest in the last 7 years.
” Using a page out of the media spin playbook … ”
What’s that for a source?
Here are UAH’s ten warmest years since 1979 (in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1991-2020), with 2021 surprisingly at position 8 of 43:
1 2016 0.388 (C)
2 2020 0.357
3 1998 0.348
4 2019 0.303
5 2017 0.264
6 2010 0.193
7 2015 0.135
8 2021 0.134
9 2018 0.087
10 2002 0.080
Maybe one day you will come out with ‘the last 2 years’, won’t you?
*
I’d rather say I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level, see
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
2021: -1.20 -0.95 -0.79 -0.96 -1.06 -1.11 -1.53 -1.34 -1.41 -1.47 -1.40
I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level.
Possibly because the previous 3 years had El Nino effects to counter and the La Nina was incredibly weak [see BOM Historical].
The interest at the moment is the new even seemly weaker La Nina.
If this was to repeat last years effort a drop of 7 places could go down another 7 by years end.
The effects are alreadty being seen with mild arctic ice recovery.
angech
Please compare, both in MEI and UAH data, 2021 with the last big La Nina (2010-2012):
2010 0.93 1.28 1.31 0.49 -0.17 -1.33 -2.43 -2.40 -2.28 -2.18 -2.04 -1.91
2011 -1.83 -1.63 -1.79 -1.74 -1.29 -1.08 -0.86 -0.88 -1.16 -1.37 -1.21 -1.24
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
And then come here again.
Last year’s La Nina was moderate, not weak.
I of course agree!
Did you know that NOAA ENSO values are now computed off a moving base? When warming it has the effect of making El Nino events look weaker and La Nina events look stronger.
As a result the current temperature of the waters in the East Pacific could be the same as previous neutral conditions. Not sure why anyone would expect that to cause a lot of cooling. It also means comparing different years with different bases is pure nonsense.
Those darn meddling scientists…Why can’t they leave raw data alone?
ENSO has always been measured relative to an average ocean temperature for that location and time of year.
You think the Mean centered on 1970s is a better Mean than the Mean centered on the 2000s?
Nate, IIRC ENSO uses a 5 year (?) moving average. Most other climate values are based on a 30 year historical average. This makes comparing anomalies questionable.
Richard M says:
January 3, 2022 at 9:22 AM
Nate, IIRC ENSO uses a 5 year (?) moving average. Most other climate values are based on a 30 year historical average. This makes comparing anomalies questionable.
ONI uses a 30 year average moving in 5 year increments for the historical data and a 30 year trailing average in 5 year increments for recent data. This is intended to nominally remove the trend.
If one needs an index with constant baseline, one could go back to the SST (ERSST.v5 for ONI currently) data and compute it directly.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml
Mark B, thanks for the more detailed description. My point is still the same. Comparing ENSO years is questionable.
ENSO values are deliberately designed NOT to capture climate. Whether we are in El Nino or La Nina depends on the east-west temperature gradient across the near-surface equatorial Pacific, not on the actual temperature, so the warming trend must be subtracted.
“Did you know that NOAA ENSO values are now computed off a moving base?”
“Now?” It’s been done that way for years. Have you only just noticed?
The Japan Meteorological Association ENSO values are also computed off a moving base.
Both use SSTs as a central index, and slide the baseline in order to remove any long term signal that is not caused by ENSO. This is why you CAN compare ENSO values, because non-ENSO signals are weaned out of the data.
Hello angech,
‘I’m wondering about how a year with at least 11 (and probably 12) consecutive La Nina months can manage to keep at such a level.’
Because there has still been no significant recovery in the ozone layer. Until there is such, temps will remain relatively stable…
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/SH.html
LAST 7 YEARS (2021 is the 2nd coolest):
1) 2016
2) 2020
3) 2019
4) 2017
5) 2015
6) 2021
7) 2018
My point is that ranking annual average global temps does not say that much. It does not address the actual trend line and certainly does not address the amount of warming compared to the IPCC models. The media loves to do this to fit their narrative.
Also,
8th warmest year in the 43 year
7 of the 8 warmest occuring in the last 12 years.
2nd coolest of that hottest 7 years has a nice ring to it.
That should speak for itself, but won’t impress the Coolistas very much.
So tell us Mr. Science, how does that speak for itself?
He basically said it SHOULD speak for itself, but certain people will choose not to listen.
And that is exactly how it has panned out.
OK, how should it speak for itself?
Exactement.
>And that is exactly how it has panned out.
How exactly has it panned out?
>And that is exactly how it has panned out.
How exactly has it panned out?
How has it panned out?
You are ignoring the fact that 2021 was another warm year any way you can. You are ignoring the fact that 7 of the eight warmest years occurred in the last 12 years. You are ignoring that 6 of the 8 warmest years occurred in the last 7 years. Any way you slice it, you are ignoring the undeniable fact that the planet is warming very rapidly.
You are also ignoring that 2021 was one of the coolest in the last 5 to 6 years. And things look like they are going to get even cooler in the future.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah-1.jpeg
And yet warmer than any other year with La Nina bookends.
RLH,
“You are also ignoring that 2021 was one of the coolest in the last 5 to 6 years. And things look like they are going to get even cooler in the future.”
Can you be any more specific?
If you can I will save the comment and see how your prediction pans out.
The main thing to keep in mind is at least the past 8 years have been warmed by increases in absorbed solar energy (Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021, Loeb et al 2021). Kind of takes the steam off the claims of greenhouse effect warming.
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux. The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020).” – October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020.
” the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 + or – 0.22 W/M2 decade-1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 + or – 0.17 W/M2 decade-1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a -0.24 + or – 0.13 W/M2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR ” – Loeb et al, Geophysical Research Letters, June 2021, Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earths Heating Rate
Sure, point to any cause other than the one that scientist have been pointing to for over a century as the Global Mean Surface Temperature has gone from the coldest decade of the Holocene to (almost certainly) the warmest. And when the coming decade is even warmer, I am sure you will have an excuse for that too.
Robert. I just pointed to one cause. More solar energy reaching the surface of the planet. In addition, this increase corollates well with natural ocean changes.
In essence this explains most of the warming since the satellite data has been collected. A person interested in the truth would then ask if there are other possible ocean changes that could explain the rest of the warming.
They would then wonder what caused the warming prior to the satellite period. Warming that goes back at least 350 years. Since we know CO2 increases were minor to non-existent during most of those 350 years, a different cause would be likely.
So, the current decade could turn out to be warmer but then we would still have to consider the cause may be exactly the same as the previous 350 years of warming. Most likely the same cause that led to the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods.
In the mean time, it now appears there has been no greenhouse warming over at least the past 25 years. The added solar energy explains all the warming. How do you account for this lack of greenhouse warming?
It’s accounted for by Richard M simply making up that “lack of greenhouse warming” statement & leaving out what the authors do write since the Loeb 2021 paper shows there is no lack of greenhouse warming in the period CERES measured.
From actual CERES data showing the measured magnitude of greenhouse warming with 95% confidence nature’s true value lies in the ranges shown: “Global mean top-of-atmosphere flux anomalies and trends in ASR net of emitted thermal radiation for 2002/09-2020/03.. associated with contributions from changes in clouds, water vapor (WV), combined contributions from trace gases and solar irradiance (labeled as “Other”), surface albedo (SFC), aerosols (AER) and combined contributions from skin temperature and profiles of temperature (“Temp”).”
Net for greenhouse warming (wv, trace gases net of solar irradiance change) is measured more than double that of changes in each of cloudiness and surface warming plus aerosols.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
First of all a great thank you to Dr Roy Spencer who effortless put this information to the public, which I have followed for many years.
Many ways to look at statistics. You can start with 1979 at -0,4C and end up in December 2021 at +0,2C. In 42 Years the difference is +0,6C and obveously the temperature has gone up and down along the path, as the graph showes, while the Co2 has been steadily rising. Are we able to scream out loud that we are in a climate crisis? I think not. Are we able to scream out loud that Co2 is the main reason for 0,6C temperature rise during these years? I think not.
Wishing you all a splendid 2022.
As you can see these simple facts do not get through to the alarmist propagandists. You have to be willing to admit you may be wrong, that the question is a diffcult one, which they will never do.
And my further evidence is being blocked as usual.
Are we able to scream out loud that Co2 is the main reason for 0,6C temperature rise during these years?
Of course we are.
Mind you there are probably 30 other reasons for such a small variation to occur over 42 years that such a small signal is lost in the noise.
Does not mean that it is there.
Or not.
Scream all you want. Doesn’t make it true.
Evidence to blame CO2 is still lacking.
There is also Ed Berry’s claim that most of the CO2 increase that is observed is not due to human emissions.
I think at 1.63C this is the warmest December for USA48 in UAH history.
Are you sure?
2012: 3 2.24
2017: 2 2.06
1981: 4 1.97
1999: 11 1.87
2016: 11 1.84
2018: 5 1.80
2007: 3 1.75
2021: 12 1.63
2015: 3 1.57
1979: 12 1.54
Apos, I see you mean the December months.
Yes, I said warmest December.
2021 12 1.63
1979 12 1.54
2015 12 1.36
1994 12 1.30
1980 12 1.27
2006 12 0.82
1991 12 0.77
1984 12 0.76
1998 12 0.70
2014 12 0.67
I’m not saying this is important, the second warmest was back in 1979, and the overall trend isn’t very strong. I just thought it was an interesting detail.
Thanks Bellman.
Satellite data is not accurate in pinpointing where the warm air came from, as air doesn’t rise only vertically. And the record is not long enough. We’ll have to wait for the real data to come out on Jan 10.
What exactly do you mean?
https://i.postimg.cc/dQmXjM2T/Globe-GHCN-daily-vs-UAH-1979-2021.png
OK, I didn’t integrate until now the GHCN daily station data with HadISST1 SST into a global raw data series, but the two land-only series look pretty similar.
Roy Spencer stated at one point that the satellite data cannot be taken literally for a particular country. I think it was in May 2018 in response to the fact that the USA had had a bitterly cold April (I think 13th coldest in the NOAA 120+ year record) yet the satellite data showed the USA at pretty much average for their 40 years of data.
Why would anybody want to take any global data literally for a particular country? Why not… Andorra or Liechtenstein, for example?
USA is 2 % of the Globe’s surface, and 6 % of the land’s surface.
What would be the reason to compare US and the Globe?
I am not attempting to compare the USA to the globe. I am merely answering the question about whether or not this is the warmest December on record in the US, nothing more. We will have to wait until the surface data comes out – I suspect it will be.
Actually the US covers a large latitude and longitude range, sweeps the globe 365 times a year and global weather patterns sweep the US about 70 times a year. So yes, in this case a 2% area sample is more than enough to show overall climate variations. A little dot on a television screen sweeps the screen often enough to give you the whole picture.
GCMs indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCMs wrong!!??
Another look at UAH’s data: absolute temperatures, recombined out of the anomalies and the climatology you can find in their 2.5 degree grid data:
https://i.postimg.cc/gjPCfkmN/UAH-6-0-LT-reconstructed-absolute-data-since-2015.png
Source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
2021 has had three months with negative anomalies. Will 2022 have more negative anomalies than 2021?
I think the best for you is to look at this graph:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/November2021/202111_Bar.png
Thank you. My intuition tells me that in the future that graph will contain more and more blue bars.
During the remainder of the La Nina – possibly.
If we have a massive equatorial volcano – probably.
Otherwise – definitely not.
Exactly.
Using UAH’s 1981 -2010 old Base Period, which they raised +10 years in 2021, there are no blue bars going back to at least 2012.
As long as the Base Period can be raised every 10 years and the warmer temps for that decade added to it there will always be a few meaningless blue bars.
Lou, in 2021 alone there have already been no less than three blue bars. Imagine that 2022 has more blue bars than red bars. That would have scientific relevance.
Rawandi, you’re missing the point.
By adding the warmer decade 2011 – 2020 to the Base Period UAH significantly raised the baseline.
So, the only reason there are blue bars at all in the last decade is b/c UAH made the Base Period warmer by changing it to 1991 – 2020 instead of using the cooler 1981 – 2010 baseline.
Any recent blue bars remain irrelevant as UAH still states +.18*C/decade over all global-land surfaces.
Rawandi, if you look at HadSST3 values from 5-6 months ago, you can get a good feeling for what will happen to UAH temperatures.
The ocean values have increased from last year so I am currently not expecting to see any negative numbers for UAH. This could change since HadSST3 only has values published through October.
There’s how the data has varied in the past.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
This is also a version of what UAH has done in the past.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uah_lt.jpg
The linear trend of Dr. Roy’s data – 1.4 deg C per century global temperature increase is in pretty good agreement with the data for the same period from the JMA. It’s more confirmation that there has been acceleration in the rate of global temperature increase in the last 50 years.
For those of you who are interested I just added another short video to my YouTube channel. This one is on predicting sea level rise caused by rising global temperatures. Here’s the link:
https://youtu.be/nuRjejFRhxA
Enjoy!
You cannot claim “per century something” unless you have at least 100 years of data,
All you have is 40 years you duffus
So I can’t claim to be driving at a speed of 80km/h until I have driven for an hour – is that right?
Mark Shapiro,
Damn! 1.4 C per century!
In 10,000 years (100 centuries), that’s 140 C!
The world is bare! No seas – all boiled dry thousands of years ago!
I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?
I wonder if someone put the inmates in charge of the asylum. Thermometers get hotter or colder depending on their environment. They have all the predictive power of chicken entrails.
Heat a pot of water from 10 C to 99 C. Record the temperature, time, heat input and so on. Then try and project the future water temperature from your carefully recorded figures.
Or try and predict future global temperature from carefully recorded past temperature statistics.
Who really believes they can foretell future temperatures from examining past ones?
Climate cranks, that’s who!
Oh Bugger. Fat finger syndrome.
I was pointing out that AQ is an idiot if he believes that an instrument showing he is travelling at 80 km/h says anything about the future.
As it is with climate crackpots assuming that trends will continue.
I would say to AQ –
Laddie, you need to compose better gotchas. Your present standard is pretty dismal – isn’t that right?
Sorry about the inadvertent double post.
Mike Flynn,
Majorly Fatuous,
You say –
“Sorry about the inadvertent double post.”
You are all forgiven!
However, opinions on your post itself might vary.
Aw diddums!
Wee Willy Dimwit,
You wrote –
“However, opinions on your post itself might vary.”
From what, pray tell? Who would care?
Maybe you could provide some information that a slightly retarded 12 year old couldn’t, but I doubt it.
Thanks for the “Aw diddums” imitation. I accept flattery from anyone, obviously. I am intrigued – what are you expressing commiseration about, or are you just imitating without understanding?
Carry on with your fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Have you ever heard the expression ‘mileage varies’?
Do you ask yourself for whom?
Try not to be more ridiculous than you are with your silly charades, will you?
Cheers.
When do we enter the new ice age ?(a la milankovitch)
Next time Flynnson gets pulled over for speeding, he should remind the officer that he (she) must be “an idiot if he (she) believes that an instrument showing he is travelling at 80 km/h says anything about the future.”
They actually appreciate being informed about their customer’s viewpoints.
Mark Shapiro,
Damn! 1.4 C per century!
In 10,000 years (100 centuries), that’s 140 C!
The world is bare! No seas – all boiled dry thousands of years ago!
I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?
I wonder if someone put the inmates in charge of the asylum. Thermometers get hotter or colder depending on their environment. They have all the predictive power of chicken entrails.
Heat a pot of water from 10 C to 99 C. Record the temperature, time, heat input and so on. Then try and project the future water temperature from your carefully recorded figures.
Or try and predict future global temperature from carefully recorded past temperature statistics.
Who really believes they can foretell future temperatures from examining past ones?
Climate cranks, that’s who!
“I don’t believe it. Can some climate scientist tell me when this heating will stop? Or are predictions about the future too difficult, even for climate scientists?”
Probably climate scientist can’t, but our cold ocean appears to be warming.
So, the 3.5 ocean could warm for 1000 years, and we could still call a 3.5 Ocean, because we haven’t measured the temperature of the ocean, just as we have not measure global air temperature which is about 15 C.
The 3.5 C ocean been cooling for over 5000 years, and in Little Ice Age our cold ocean cooled a significant amount, and we are still recovering from LIA.
Climate scientists probably can’t tell you when the ocean was 4 C but could say that during the warmest period of past interglacial periods the ocean warm to 4 C or more.
I think the Holocene climate optimum period had ocean which about 4 C [or perhaps less]. Our ocean could warm for 1000 years and not reach the ocean temperature that Holocene climate optimum reached when it was at the warmest. Or a warming ocean for 1000 years can still be about 3.5 C, just as cooling ocean was about 3.5 C for last 5000 years.
Our 34 million year icehouse climate has had oceans warmer than 5 C, coldest period of our Ice Age, has been the last 2 million years. And no climate scientist could point to ocean warmer than 5 C, within the last 2 million years.
It’s possible {in sense it’s possible space aliens could show up} that ocean could warm to be about 4 C within the next thousand years.
And if ocean was 4 C, the world would have higher global water vapor. But one can say human activity has increasing global water vapor, and its possible human could increase a lot more.
Since global poverty or specifically poverty in Africa is decreasing, and the continent has vast desert wasteland, turning that wasteland into better land, seems likely within 100 years, could be in less than 50 years. And that would be more effective in increasing global water vapor as compared other global irrigation. Or California has turned desert land into farmland- one best farmlands in the world, but entire State of California is much smaller and gets less sunlight, than the deserts of Africa.
“our cold ocean appears to be warming”
We don’t measure even a small proportion of the actual deep ocean. Most of the ocean data covers the top few hundred meters. Data below that is quite sparse.
Linear trends are of little use on natural time series data.
mark…”Its more confirmation that there has been acceleration in the rate of global temperature increase in the last 50 years”.
***
Did you take into account the !C to 2C cooling that occurred during the Little Ice Age over the 400+ years prior til 1850? With the vast amount of ice that built up on glaciers, the Arctic and the Antarctic, and the cooling of the oceans, it would take some time for the world to return to normal temperatures. Therefore one might expect an acceleration to occur along the way as the ice receded.
The word acceleration is one I would expect from alarmists trying to make the degree of warming significant. Thee days they use words like atmospheric rivers and/or heat bombs, anything to make an insignificant warming appear to be potentially catastrophic.
Mark, much of that trend has been due to warming over the past 8 years which occurred when the PDO went positive in 2014. Since the AMO is already positive you no longer have any help from the oceans to produce warming.
CERES data suggests the positive phases of these oceans cycles leads to a decrease in clouds. Do you really think clouds are going to continue to decrease?
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g003-550.jpg
“The annual average anomaly for 2021 was +0.134 deg. C above the 30-year mean (1991-2020), which places it as the 8th warmest year in the 43 year satellite record”
–
When we’re measuring differences of tenths or hundredths of a degree, it’s not really that significant in terms of climate.
Five degrees being what separate us from an event such as an ice age, so I beg to differ.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Who cares if you’re a differing beggar or not?
Use your brain. Antarctica used to be verdant and ice free. Took a bit more than 5 degrees to tip it into an ice age.
On the other hand, Death Valley could need more than a five degree drop to cause a glacier to form.
Go on, Wee Willy – start blathering about averages.
Who cares, anyway?
Thank you for your input, Mike Flynn.
In the Prairies, it was four degrees:
https://prairieclimatecentre.ca/2016/10/four-degrees-of-separation-lessons-from-the-last-ice-age/
It has been a while you have not talked about the Tuareg people.
Do your bit about their coats.
W
Six degrees separates us from almost anyone on the planet.
Zero degrees separate you from Pozzo.
“Five degrees being what separate us from an event such as an ice age, so I beg to differ.”
Well ok, a five degree change we would see the changes. But tenths or hundredths of a degree, are virtually indistinguishable. i.e., we still can’t grow citrus in Ohio despite how ‘warm’ the climate is.
Can Mars grow more crops than the US does?
The US using about 600 billion tons of water per year,
and a lot that use is used for farming.
A question is can Martian “waste” more water than US does.
Part of that is US makes a lot food and has hundreds million
of people. Or if Martian only feeding a few million people,
it seems unlikely Martians could “waste” as much as 600 billion tons of water.
But what if Martians were wasting 100 billion tons of water,
just for fun. Martians could be sinful people, or at least, being reckless as possibility. And what I mean by mostly for fun, doing it for decorative reasons. So having a winter wonderland theme- snow everywhere. H20 snow and CO2 snow.
As far as where, I will randomly pick, Hellas Planitia, wiki: “extends about 2,300 km (1,400 mi) east to west.” Or it’s less than 2300 km in diameter circle of 4,154,752 square km on planet of Mars of 144.37 million square km
Or:
“The basin floor, Hellas Planitia, can be divided into
two parts: an annular ring about 1,500 km in diameter and 200500 km wide made up of plains marked by ridges (including Zea Dorsa) at elevations of 5 to 1 km, and an inner, rugged zone about 1,000 km across consisting of mesas, ridges, scarps, depressions, and hills (including Coronae Scopulus and Alpheus Colles); elevation of this zone is mostly 5 to 4 km, but parts lie as
low as 5 km”
We talk about the smaller deepest part of it, the “inner” part which say just 1000 km diameter of 785,397.5 square km or something like two Californias. Go smaller scale of a lake which something like Lake Tahoe with 116 km of shoreline or circular lake of 37 km also has shoreline of about 116 km. Lake Tahoe has deepest water of about 500 meters. And has more than 150 cubic km of water, +150 billion tons of water.
And terms snow decoration, from middle of lake, in 200 km radius- or a 125,663.6 square km area, the land is covered in fresh snow.
So as you are coming from orbit, and going to land in middle of lake, you are landing into a winterland scene.
So in the inner part 1000 km wide, inner part Hellas Planitia it’s fairly large spot. You could want roads, and one can make roads of frozen C02, which H20 snow will “fall”, but despite a road which is white, roads get a bit dirty with traffic.
Mars snow is not like snow on Earth. Not sure one could ski on it, though it would be nice to have ski slopes on Mars.
But the topic was farming, so can farm on the winterland area?
And if could, one would be adding green to decoration. But also could have farming just on perimeter of it. But how water is this going to waste.
It seems like climate question.
Hellas Planitia is desert. Not a drop to drink.
Our efforts should be aimed at going to other solar systems to find Fiddlers Green.
It could be that Earth is only place humans can live on.
But it seems that NASA should explore space and is something
a large number of citizens and politicians want.
And it seems fairly reasonable to do what hundred million citizens are willing to pay for {and as in comparison, it seems no one wants to pay much to fix the global climate- as there no reason to assume the govt could anything about it, but it’s somewhat sane, that NASA could explore space] but perhaps if NASA were to actually explore space and find out some stuff, then at some point, most of these people could change their minds about whether it’s wise to spend money on it.
I think NASA should explore the lunar polar region to determine if and where there is mineable water and then explore Mars, to see if there is mineable water on Mars.
And think they should do it as quickly as they can, as that is quite clear, that they have be ordered to do it.
And seems to me they failed to do this, and only reason for their failure, is because they failed to do it.
Though it seems that it a possibility that we don’t need NASA exploring space, and also possible others might explore the Moon before NASA can get around to doing it.
And NASA has been paid far more money than all other world space agencies, combined. But lately, China is spending about 1/2 as much as NASA.
Btw, I don’t think China wants to actually explore space, rather it seems, they just want to appear to be exploring space.
NASA is a political body subject to the whims of government.
If there is a focus by China USA or Russia its the concept of Space as a theatre of war where Space is high ground.
Any exploration that is done is unfortunately a side benefit even as the exploration and the development of the tools needed to do the exploration is yielding technological knowledge benefits far beyond the outlay in cost.
The cost of Green Energy and other USELESS Carbon Policies is much higher by orders of magnitude than is NASA budget.
Mars won’t likely ever have a colony on it. Its not like Mayflower where a bunch of malcontents got onto a ship and sailed away to colonize a new land. Any colony on Mars will be forever dependent on Earth and for trillions of dollars. The cost would put an end to any other exploration initiative NASA might want to undertake.
“Any colony on Mars will be forever dependent on Earth and for trillions of dollars. The cost would put an end to any other exploration initiative NASA might want to undertake.”
Well, government {and NASA} what to throw money at something to make it work. That doesn’t work. So NASA could want to make lunar water mineable- that is the wrong approach. And is the reason I am oppose to NASA making a Lunar base. Of Course if Congress wants and will pay for lunar base- well that a different issue. And NASA would then have to make a Lunar base. But the moon is about exploration largely connected to whether there is mineable water, Mineable water is someone wants invest the money to mine lunar water. And if anyone in the world is mining lunar water, somewhere near where this is going to occur, would a place to put a lunar base- there is endless stuff about the Moon could be discovered if have a lunar base there.
With Mars, mineable water is important, but a lot other aspects are important- and they are related to can settlements “work” on Mars. Ie what long term effects of living on Mars, can animals or humans have offspring in Mars gravity and medical issues in general.
An example throwing money at something, is the idea of doing space power satellites. The problem is electrical power is too expensive in Space and electrical power in space has get close to electrical cost on Earth, before that can be considered. And If we having lunar mining and settlements on Mars, that will lower the electrical power in space. Or you need competition to drive down the cost of doing anything.
And it’s possible solar or wind can work on Earth surface- but again, you need competition to do this. And lunar mining and Mars settlement could also lead to solar power actually being viable on the Earth surface.
Moon is not habitable either. Vacuum is bad for one’s health.
Moon makes more sense than Mars because it allows a transfer between heavy rockets needed to escape earth gravity hole and lighter spacecraft needed for getting to places like the belt and beyond.
Otherwise no point in moon colony either. There is nothing on the Moon that we need on Earth.
Electrical power in space isn’t same as electric on Moon or Mars.
The main problem with power satellites is transfer of energy to earth without damaging earth energy budget.
It’d make more sense to robotize industry, move the said heavy industries to space, feed them with raw materials from the belt, and solar power collected onsite, before transferring finished product to Earth.
Water: get the hydrogen from Neptune where it is crystal form.
–Otherwise no point in moon colony either. There is nothing on the Moon that we need on Earth.–
I need lunar rock- if cheap enough.
I don’t collect baseball cards, but I would like to get lunar baseball cards. I would like to be able rent the use of a lunar telescope, I might like to rent an earth telescope, if it was not “hard” to do.
So via computer, look where ever I want to look, for whatever reason for however long I want to.
–Electrical power in space isnt same as electric on Moon or Mars.
The main problem with power satellites is transfer of energy to earth without damaging earth energy budget.
Itd make more sense to robotize industry, move the said heavy industries to space, feed them with raw materials from the belt, and solar power collected onsite, before transferring finished product to Earth.–
Well part of power satellites, is be able to move electrical power anywhere on Earth surface. This would include moving electrical power from Oregon to Hawaii. But also recharging a phone from anywhere. Or getting whatever amount of electrical you want.
So old and broken is having twice as much capacity to deal peak load, new is just making amount electrical power that is needed and used. And if hurricane wreck some place, one can get “back online” quicker.
But moving industry off world, is the main idea. Getting anything to earth surface is cheap, and evenually getting off Earth will be a lot cheaper. Power satellite allow beamed power as propulsion. And makes getting to Mars in week of time, as doable {and using less energy than we currently use getting to Mars in six months].
But from the point that lunar water is mined, it will take decades to get to this point of having power satellites, industry off world, etc.
I want my lunar rock in about 10 years.
–Ken says:
January 3, 2022 at 5:11 PM
Moon is not habitable either. Vacuum is bad for ones health.–
Mars is a pretty good vacuum. In terms of pressure, little difference with Moon. You have small lakes or large ponds on the Moon- if the Moon had enough water. A greenhouse on the Moon would better if it enclosed a large deep pond. If going to have lunar hotel, you should have swimming pool, and very deep swimming pool would not have problems with the bends.
“Moon makes more sense than Mars because it allows a transfer between heavy rockets needed to escape earth gravity hole and lighter spacecraft needed for getting to places like the belt and beyond.”
If you had one of large radio telescope on Earth, being on the Moon you could lift in one piece into Lunar orbit [or to Earth’s low orbit- if want “space stations” in LEO, you make them on the Moon].
So large structures you might want for Space Power Satellite, don’t need to be structurally strong [it could too be weak to hold up under Earth’s gravity] and bigger than any structure currently on Earth and launch it as one piece from the lunar surface].
And for things that can withstand high gee {water, bricks, food, etc] they can launched at high velocity at very, very low cost.
The moon is only reason why people think a huge “L-5 colony” is doable. It also works with Mercury. And more or less works with Mars.
Or people could live in brick houses in LEO- or in terms of fashion, one make houses in space, which look like houses on Earth [even if it’s silly to do so].
One thing about a deep lake, is you use, what I invented, which I call pipelauncher.
A pipelauncher “significance” is it’s cheap way to launch rocket from the ocean, and it lowers the energy costs to get to orbit.
The lowers the energy costs could be more important when pipelauncher are “developed”. A pipelauncher is like anything- the first cars, didn’t go that fast.
Anyhow, a pipelauncher would launch a rocket at about 100 mph, as said mostly about cheap anything to launch rockets from the ocean, and it’s a lot easier doing 100 mph than say 200 mph.
With Mars, pipelauncher are less effective at lower energy cost to get to Mars orbit. But they work better on Mars- 200 mph would easier. But even if they could do 500 mph, it does make much difference, largely because one doesn’t have much gravity loss, launching rocket from Mars. Or Earth’s gravity loss is about 1 km/sec and need 7.8 km/sec of velocity to attain orbit.
Mars is less than .5 km/sec and take a lot less velocity to attain orbit or even do Mars escape trajectory.
Pipelauncher are mostly about lowering gravity loss. If can lower it by half, that .5 km/sec [1,116 mph].
Anyhow 500 meter deep lake, is deep enough for pipelauncher. And could have pipelauncher because it’s something one use to launch [or land] rockets going into orbit or suborbital.
Also a large portion of suborbital energy cost on Earth, is gravity loss. Pipelauncher would useful for Earth suborbital travel- which better if done from the ocean.
Should make the Y axis scale -10 to +10 to reflect the utter nonsense of it all too.
Let’s keep in mind that when we talk about one year being the warmest, second warmest, etc., that we are talking about a few tenths of a degree C, maybe 100ths of a degree C in some cases.
Let’s not make mountains out of molehills and place undue stress on the public over nothing. A warming of 1C in a home would likely be undetectable. None of this pithy warming could possibly lead to noticeable climate change anywhere.
When we speak of warming, we are talking about an average warming over a large planet. The fact that the overall warming is only about 1C over 170 years and since some areas are claimed to have warmed +5C it means some places had to have cooled almost the same amount.
Not really. It depends on how large is the area covered by the +5 anomaly.
Reread his last sentence and then blather again.
-Lets not make mountains out of molehills and place undue stress on the public over nothing. –
Why should public be stressed by a warmer night time temperature.
Animals won’t be stressed as they are living outside where it’s cold at night, unlike most humans.
And in a house if warmer one uses less energy to heat the house.
Where I live, recently it’s getting below freezing at night, but imagine some are getting well below freezing.
I am getting free ice at night, but I am not using it.
Does anyone need the ice?
If I had a pond, I could go ice skating.
Is this the tragedy, less ice-skating opportunities on ponds?
Is anyone out there, enjoying the winter coolest by not warming their home?
I didn’t get snow for holidays- but hills around here have snow, and I like seeing the snow, at a distance.
I’m not even a “gifted amateur” scientist, but I do like reading the comments and have an interest in climate matters. I must say, I’m very impressed that the conversation has remained civil. Something one doesn’t often see in fora these days.
Well done guys.
This is certainly not a site I would call “civil”. Dr Spencer does little to moderate this site, and consequently there are people who regularly take advantage.
Yes, Dr. Spencer should be more like Youtube or Facebook and sensor us deniers.
Roy actually banned many Dragon cranks, Troglodyte.
But you keep coming back!
Not unlike FB or YT trolls, come to think of it.
“Sensor” …. oh dear, it just gets worse.
I read above:
” We don’t measure even a small proportion of the actual deep ocean. Most of the ocean data covers the top few hundred meters. Data below that is quite sparse. ”
“We … ”
Who is that?
JMA, for example?
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
*
Here is a graph showing seasonal and latitudinal OHC dependencies:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/ThermoclineSeasonDepth.png
*
And, of course: the ARGO network doesn’t exist:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Argo_floats_in_Feb._2018_colour_coded_by_country.png
” Argo is an international program of robotic profiling floats deployed globally since the start of the 21st century.[33] The program’s initial 3000 units had expanded to nearly 4000 units by year 2020. At the start of each 10-day measurement cycle, a float descends to a depth of 1000 meters and drifts with the current there for 9 days.
It then descends to 2000 meters and measures temperature, salinity (conductivity), and depth (pressure) over a final day of ascent to the surface. At the surface the float transmits the depth profile and horizontal position data through satellite relays before repeating the cycle.
A smaller test fleet of “deep Argo” floats aims to extend the measurement capability down to about 6000 meters. It will accurately sample OHC parameters for a majority of the ocean volume when fully deployed. ”
*
There are many more sources concerning the observation of ocean heat content.
You just need to search for them.
Some pretentious persons prefer to spread misinformation.
“Who is that?”
We the human race collectively. Could you be so dumb?
How many ARGO floats is that over how many square kilometers of ocean? I think you will find that the land areas are much better sampled than the oceans physically.
And measuring at 10 day intervals is 1/10 at best of the normal land sampling. Some of it is even done at 5 second intervals.
Precision of the mean = measurement accuracy / √sample size.
What precision do you want in the global average temperatures?
From that you can calculate how many samples you want and from that you can calculate the number of floats you want.
That assumes constant temperatures and global temperatures are anything but that. If the temperature is not constant then the sampling frequency, both vertically and horizontally, is the more important factor.
Until the ARGOS floats can resolve the 2 main pulses of colder water that feed the lower deep oceans (freezing producing concentrated brine and melting producing colder water than the surface) then it is obvious that what we have now is not sufficient.
*both vertically and horizontally over time
You’re the data analyst.
Please calculate the number of samples and number of buoys necessary to provide sufficient data.
How does this compare with the available data collecting infrastructure?
How much would “sufficient” capacity cost?
Are you willing to lobby, and encourage the fossil fuel lobby, for funding to achieve “sufficient” capacity?
Please supply the critical data on vertical and horizontal differences across various time periods. Without that no determination as to the numbers needed can be done.
Nyquist says that at least twice the reported frequency in data changes are needed for the very minimum of data analysis. In fact 10 times the changing frequency is needed for any form of accuracy.
Try sampling a sine wave to prove to yourself the basic requirements.
That is of course for point samples. For area/volume sampling then time intervals becomes the bounding statistic.
Without meeting the required data sampling required then a suitable uncertainty needs to be added to the measurements. About +/-0.5C would seem appropriate.
Here is an example from a portion of the globe for today.
https://imgur.com/a/hR2DF7x
> Nyquist says that at least twice the reported frequency in data changes are needed for the very minimum of data analysis.
Not really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Have you ever tried to re-create a sine wave from just slightly higher sampling than twice the base frequency? That 10 times statement comes from having to do just that with any hope of accuracy.
https://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf
“Sampling: What Nyquist Didnt Say, and What to Do About It”
Exactly:
So how should we interpret temperatures as continuous-time signals, and what happens if we can’t: does the world explode?
“It turns out that to meet the requirement of sampling in just one cycle of our 60Hz wave, the minimum frequency that we could sample at would be 660Hz”
He comes tp the conclusion that 11 times the base frequency is better. I would not disagree with him.
I normally work on 10 times the base but that is only a ‘rule of thumb’.
It is interesting that your defense of not understanding what Nyquist did or did not claim is solely to claim ‘the world won’t explode’ if we get things wrong.
Very scientific of you.
P.S. Sort out the difference between continuous and discrete time series will you. Otherwise you’ll look like an ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea
roy landberg…”First of all a great thank you to Dr Roy Spencer who effortless put this information to the public, which I have followed for many years”.
***
I second that emotion. Both Roy Spencer and John Christy have done the world a great service by honestly presenting a skeptical alternative to catastrophic global warming/climate change. Furthermore, Roy’s blog has allowed people from diverse backgrounds to openly discuss not only climate/warming issues but non-related issues.
Kudos to Roy for his open-mindedness and generosity.
This graph shows the warming since 1979 according to UAH, GISS and Had*CRUT4.
I’ve offset to give them a common starting point at 0 in 1979.
Please explain how GISS (0.8C) and Had*CRUT4 (0.7C) show catastrophic global warming and UAH (0.6C) does not.
Because GISS and Had*CRUT4 have cooled the past?
P.S. No graph.
Actually GISS and Had*CRUT4 have warned the past, which reduces their calculated warming rates.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
I had to add ****** to the graph address to remove the dreaded D**g C****n filter triggered by any mention of Had*CRUT.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2022/every/offset:0.49/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2000/to:2022/every/trend
Actually UAH and Had*crut4 have been very close over the last 20 years
Entropic man
Why don’t you simply use tinyURL.com?
https://tinyurl.com/2p8rjjph
Is that not simpler?
I preferred all the time to keep UAH6.0 LT at 0, and to give all others the offset I see in Excel when averaging their anomalies over UAH’s current reference period.
*
Looking at linear estimates is sometimes helpful; sometimes it isn’t.
We see, wenn looking at yearly averages, that UAH and Had-CRUT / GISS do not correlate at all.
Before 2003/4, UAH peaks way above the two, and after 2003/4, it drops way below the two.
RSS does the inverse:
https://tinyurl.com/3uey9ctb
that is, of course, the reason why it is so heavily discredited.
Would have RSS kept its rev 3.3 alive and UAH its rev 5.6, so you can be sure that all the discrediting people would rant on UAH and glorify RSS instead.
“Why dont you simply use tinyURL.com?”
Because using images is not the same as urls including parameters (which allow for further changes).
“Would have RSS kept its rev 3.3 alive and UAH its rev 5.6”
So old series are ‘better’ than the new ones because what?
Agreed entirely, Gordon – and also thanks are due for his books on the subject.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:-0.12/plot/had*******crut4gl/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend
Remove ****** before linking.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2022/every/offset:0.49/trend/plot/had*crut4gl/from:2000/to:2022/every/trend
Actually UAH and Had*crut4 have been very close over the last 20 years
My point exactly.
UAH, RSS and the surface datasets are all in broad agreement on recent temperature anomalies and warming rates.
Nick Stokes runs a Latest Ice and Temperature Data page on his moyhu blog. It includes a graph comparing the major datasets corrected to a common baseline. Worth a look, though you’ll have to get there by search engine. Roy’s site won’t allow a direct link. I’ve tried.
“Please explain how GISS (0.8C) and Had*CRUT4 (0.7C) show catastrophic global warming and UAH (0.6C) does not”
Over the last 20 years? You agreed that Had*crut and UAH are indistinguishable during that period.
” Over the last 20 years? You agreed that Had*crut and UAH are indistinguishable during that period. ”
Yes.
UAH shows that global warming is happening, as do the other datasets.
Yet denialist claim otherwise.
And over the last 6 years?
This tells us everything we need to know about GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.36/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:-0.12/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2022/every/trend/offset:0.02
It tells us that something isn’t right with UAH or HadSST or both. UAH says that the land+ocean warming rate should be about 16% higher than the ocean-only warming rate. Yet UAH ocean-only is significantly than HadSST and UAH land+ocean is the same as HadSST. Something clearly isn’t right here.
Or they both need an uncertainty margin that means both are correct.
Yeah. Good point. Christy et al. 2003 say the warming rate uncertainty is 0.05 C/decade. Their warming rate would only need to be off by about -0.025 C/decade for their dataset to be consistent with HadSST which is well within the UAH uncertainty envelope. I’m not sure what the HadSST uncertainty envelope is.
Bdgwx, did you know that CERES also computes a warming rate? It only applies to the period starting in 2000 but is another check on the satellite data.
The CERES rate is .12 C / decade. Over the same period UAH is .16 C / decade. CERES is looking closer to the surface so should be closer to surface data sets.
No. I was not aware that CERES provided near surface temperature data. Can you post a link to it?
No.
It tells us everything we always knew about UAH6.0:
https://tinyurl.com/52de8295
If a time series for the lower troposphere shows the same trend as a sea surface series, then the former must be overly dominated by its part above the sea.
It is exactly what you expect, isn’t it?
If you use
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.61/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.61/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:-0.35/trend
then you can adjust the parameters as well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:-0.35/trend
Looks like UAH and Hadsst3gl agree quite closely.
Well as 70% of one is the other, quite closely is what I would expect.
Entropic man
“You have invented an equation which purports to measure planetary temperatures from their rotation rates. You have included parameters whose value you derive by adjusting them until the rotation rate and temperatures match observation.
You then claim that when you put in the rotation rate you get out the temperature.”
Entropic man, please, can you demonstrate with some examples what parameters you think I am adjusting “until the rotation rate and temperatures match observation.”
The Bond Albedo cannot define for the smooth surface planets the specular reflection, because the specular reflection slides off the sides of the sphere and does not reach the spacecraft sensor.
Please, I am very interested, what it is you see there which it is wrong?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH
I was responding to Gordon’s claim that UAH is an alternative to catastrophic climate change, one of his sillier commments.
I also tend to take anything that Gordo says with more than a large pinch of salt 🙂
Christie
Your chi is just the sort of parameter I had in mind last night. Please justify it and explain how you calculate it for each body.
He uses his real name. What about you?
My answer is still in moderation. Please wait…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man, you can read my answer in my website. I created a new page there “LET’S WORK Φ -factor”.
LINK:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/451443968
I see no reason why a coefficient from fluid dynamics has any relevance to radiative physics.
I considered a parallel fluid flow as an analogue to the parallel solar rays…
It is the energy interaction with matter. The laws of reflection…
We can observe it in sports, football, basketball etc.
A bullet ricocheting from a target is also an analogue of reflection. The new trajectory is angular incidence on the target dependent direction.
GCM’s indicate the surface temp trend is SMALLER than the lower troposphere trend. Are the GCM’s wrong!!??
m d mill
The reason might be due to their LT choice, very probably RSS4.0 instead of UAH6.0.
RSS showed in July a trend of about 0.22 C / decade, which is higher than
– GISS: 0.19
– NOAA: 0.18
– JMA: 0.18
– BEST: 0.17
– Had-CRUT: 0.17
– UAH: 0.14
And if you include the trends of surface reanalysis data, you are sure to keep your surface trends way below LT.
Linear trends are a very poor way of measuring natural time series data. Especially if you do not know what the important time series natural cycles are.
Tell that to yourself, little teacher:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1108877
I am not in a position to calculate non-linear trends. Perhaps you could recalculate my WoodfortheTrees graph using 1st order polynomials.
I’m not a great one for explaining climate change using short cycles. That assumes that the energy content of the climate system is constant, while there is clear physical evidence that the energy content is increasing.
“That assumes that the energy content of the climate system is constant, while there is clear physical evidence that the energy content is increasing.”
Temperatures can vary with same energy content. The opposite is also true.
I can even think of examples.
Melting ice absorbs energy as it melts without changing temperature. Water at 0C contains considerably more heat than ice at 0C.
I remember how surprised I was to learn that the energy required to melt one gram of ice at 0C would increase one gram of cold water by 80C.
Fohn winds flow down hillsides. The increasing pressure reduces volume and increases temperature adiabatically, with no change in energy.
Unfortunately there is a definite limit on how far cycles can drive local or global temperatures away from equilibrium without an external energy source. The observed global average temperature change is above that limit.
Estimated not observed.
RLH, Entropic man used appropriated terminology here. The global mean temperature is observed or measured. It would also be acceptable to say that it is estimated as well. What would not be acceptable is to say that the 2022 annual mean temperature is observed or measured because it hasn’t happened yet. But you could say that it is estimated to be X based some predictive model. Keep in mind that all observations and measurements are estimates since they have uncertainty. And that observations or measurements can themselves a combination of two or more measurands. There is even a formal procedure for determining the combined uncertainty of a measurand that is itself a combination of measurands. My point is that I think you’re being excessively pedantic here with your challenge of the use “observed” here.
“The global mean temperature is observed or measured”
Wrong. It is observed/measured at point samples places and then interpolated between those to provide a continuous estimation.
Or alternatively it is area scanned at discrete time intervals which are then interpolated between those to provide a continuous estimation.
I have not covered measurement uncertainty which also covers the volume that a point sample can fairly represent.
If you’re going to be that rigid with your definition then I question whether any temperature value can truly be described as observed/measured. I will remind you though that the GUM defines a measurand as a “particular quantity subject to measurement” and measurement as a “set of operations having the object of determining a value of a quantity”. NIST defines it as “an experimental process that produces a value that can reasonably be attributed to a quantitative property of a phenomenon, body, or substance”. The global mean temperature is a particular quantity of a body. There is a set of operations that can determine its value. Therefore it is a measurand and can be measured. And I see no reason why observe/observation cannot be used interchangeably with measure/measurement. If this is insufficient to sway your position then no big deal. I’ll avoid ever using the term “measurement” in my responses to you and only ever use “estimation” regardless of the particular quantity. As long as we both agree that “estimation” can be any particular quantity reasonably attributed to a quantifiable property of a phenomenon, body, or substance.
RLH,
If a single molecule or atom doesn’t have a temperature, then it follows that a point doesn’t have a temperature either.
Any temperature measurement is the average kinetic energy of a sample of atoms and or molecules.
A global temperature is the same as, say the temperature in the room I am sitting in, just a bit trickier to measure it precisely.
It’s interesting that the last 4 months, USA48 has been the driver. And, in this last month, USA48 “went nuclear”.
All that hot air from Washington, D.C.?
> A warming of 1C in a home would likely be undetectable. None of this pithy warming could possibly lead to noticeable climate change anywhere.
Gordo should buy a new thermostat.
Besides:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
But Gordo hasn’t noticed it in his Vancouver home, so all is good.
Only 1.5c since 1750 for >25% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year? Really?
Sorry. Can’t do simple maths apparently.
Only 1.5c since 1750 for >20% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year? Really?
Only?
The difference between the Equator and North Pole averages 44C over 6500 miles. That is 6500/44=147 miles/degree C.
A 1.5C increase in average temperature moves a climate boundary 225 miles further from the Equator.
That is good news of you live at the Northern edge of the US wheat belt. The forests now burning off can be replaced with wheat fields.
Not on the Southern edge, where wheat fields are becoming desert.
The bad news is similar if you live in Southern Europe, Southern Africa, Southern China or Eastern Australia which are desertifying briskly.
You did get that this only applies since 1750 for >20% of the human population for at least 1/4 of the year didn’t you?
If you prefer to use global annual averages the change for 100% of the population over the whole year, that would be 1.2C, the change in biome boundaries would be 1.2*144= 173 miles.
The principle and the consequences remain.
Assuming that the whole temperature change is driven by the change in CO2.
In the Southern Hemisphere things are not so clear.
Sounds interesting.
What non-CO2 mechanism might be warming the Southern Hemisphere?
How does it work?
What are the temperature and energy flow numbers?
Any links?
There be this thing called Hadley cells. All that happens when the atmosphere is warmed is the boundaries between the Hadley cells move North. Tjat’s why any significant warming is observed at the poles while not much is observed in equatorial areas.
1.5C warming is a lot more beneficial than 1.5C cooling. 1.5C cooling would mean most of Canada and Russia wouldn’t be able to produce food.
Entropic man asks “What non-CO2 mechanism might be warming the Southern Hemisphere?” The answer is in a recent paper.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
It’s called solar energy.
Well if you combine the temperature/latitude maps that have been recently shown with the global CO2 distribution then the effects seem to be concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Ocean_Data_Analysis_Project#/media/File:Surface_ocean_anthropogenic_CO2_concentration,_GLODAPv2.png
Is incredulity all you got, dummy?
When was the last time the Earth warmed 1.5C in less than 300 years, and what happened then?
As you observed, only parts of it and then only for a part of the year.
“When was the last time the Earth warmed 1.5C in less than 300 years, and what happened then?”
1700 – 1735 it warmed 2C. What happened then is it unfortunately cooled off again.
See CET for details.
DREMT
You said last night
“Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue”
That gives an opportunity to resolve the issue without reference frames.
Put two large sealed rooms, one on the surface of the Moon and one on the surface of the Earth. No windows, no signals from outside.
What physical experiments can you do in the room to tell youwhether the body on which the room sits is rotating and at what rate?
If I am correct, the results would show the Earth is rotating once every 23 hours 56 minutes and the Moon once every 27.3 days.
If DREMT is correct, the results will show that the Earth rotating once every 23 hours 56 minutes and the Moon not rotating at all.
Can’t be bothered. Leave me alone. Leave the subject alone.
This might explain why Kiddo pauses his soldiering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1109438
Pup should be here any time soon. For Gordo’s recitations, we’ll have to wait 8 hours or so.
Willard
Leave DREMT be. He’s clearly not in the mood for debate.
EM,
Alright. Will let you tell him about the relationship between gyroscopes and inertial frames of reference yourself.
I gave him so many chances to make amends. Too late now. We are done. My new resolution is to never address him again.
I already know about the relationship between gyroscopes and inertial frames of reference, troll.
So why is it that a gyroscope will show that a horse on a roundabout rotates wrt the stars?
…because it is rotating…
…but not on its own axis.
It orbits around the Earth/Moon barycenter which only makes sense if it is the center of the whole.
In the case on the Moon that is.
The axis of rotation for the wooden horse on a merry-go-round does not go through the body of the wooden horse itself. It goes through the center of the merry-go-round. Since as far as I know you agree with that, I have no idea what your problem is.
But you want the internal axis of the MGR to represent what you incorrectly claim is an external axis of the Moon/Earth pair.
Can’t have it both ways.
The axis in the center of the merry-go-round is external to the wooden horse. The axis passing through the Earth-moon barycenter is external to the moon. There is no problem except in your remarkably confused old noggin.
Ent, you don’t want debate. You want to pervert reality. This issue is easily resolved with the simple ball-on-a-string, but you try to claim passenger jets fly backwards. None of you braindead cult idiots is interested in science or reality.
And, as we have learned from the two simple physics problems, NONE of you knows squat about basic physics.
No wonder DREMT gets tired messing with you.
Clint R: So you want us to believe that a ball-on-a-string does not include the axis it rotates about?
No troll, I want you to stop “believing”, and start facing reality. Stop pretending you understand vectors when you can’t answer a simple problem. Face the reality that you have NO background in science, and then try to start learning.
But, that won’t happen.
So are you saying that the axis around which the ball-on-a-string rotates is not part of it?
No troll, I’m saying you have no appreciation for reality. You live in your own dreamworld.
That only works until it doesn’t.
"What physical experiments can you do in the room to tell you whether the body on which the room sits is rotating and at what rate?"
OK, fine. If you insist. A Foucault Pendulum, or a gyroscope, could only tell you that the body on which the room sits is rotating about some axis, not necessarily that it is rotating on its own axis.
So you are saying that the Moon orbits the Earth wrt the fixed stars as well as rotating on its own axis wrt the fixed stars.
No.
Do you people actually not understand the difference between an orbit and an axial rotation about the center of mass? Is that what this is about? Rotation of an unrestrained object is ALWAYS about the center of mass. This is fundamental. If the center of mass moves in a concentric circle with any other element of the object, it is an orbit, not a rotation.
> Do you people actually not understand the difference between an orbit and an axial rotation about the center of mass? Is that what this is about?
More or less. There’s also the difference between a rotation in mathematics and in physics.
But just wait until you ask if blankets warm.
The concept of latent heat is fairly simple. The relationship between heat and temperature with sensible heat is also fairly simple. Heat transfer is time dependent and involves physical properties that are not thermodynamic properties, but it never violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Wondering Wee Willy is delusional, and not widely read.
Here’s an example blanket for him –
“Superwool Plus High Temperature Insulation Blankets are designed to provide excellent heat protection and thermal insulation.”
One of a vast number of similar products – all designed to keep the temperature as cool as possible.
Weird Wee Willy is obviously confused about the properties of matter, heat, and many other things.
Luckily, only those even more intellectually damaged than Wee Willy pay attention to his fixation.
As I stated above, heat transfer is time dependent, so insulation can only delay heating or cooling, not prevent it if the source of the different temperature remains for long enough.
Basically, Tim S, one group thinks that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, and the other group thinks that an object that is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis, moves like the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So as you can see, Tim, there are those who interpret the GIF as a mere mathematical recreation, which is a tiny clique I affectionately call Moon Dragons or Moon Dragon cranks.
And then there is the rest of the world that follows the laws of physics we all know. Kiddo calls them Spinners, but quite intriguingly he never really talks about spin. He prefers the concept of rotation on an internal axis.
I guess Tim S gets it. It’s not difficult to understand, after all.
It is an interesting question. Clearly, the moon on the left is not rotating — it is orbiting. The moon on the right appears to be in a neutral inertial state, but the centripetal forces of the orbit are not evenly applied to all points on the surface at all times. This would seem to cause a rotational moment of inertia that would eventually cause rotation.
"Clearly, the moon on the left is not rotating — it is orbiting"
Exactly. The MOTL is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis. That being the case, the MOTR must be orbiting, whilst rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
“The MOTL is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.”
WRONG. The MOTL is orbiting AND rotating on its own axis once per orbit.
That could only be true if “orbital motion without axial rotation” was as per the MOTR, RLH. It isn’t.
Since the near side and far side of the moon orbit in different orbital paths of different diameters, it cannot be considered to rotate on it axis. Neither the near side or far side ever orbit in the same diameter as the axis. They may at times orbit in the same location in a crossing pattern due to a non-circular orbit, but that is different.
I guess Kiddo does not get it. It’s not difficult to understand, however.
More nonsense from Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, cranking up his gaslighting.
What gaslighting!?
Which part of “If the center of mass moves in a concentric circle with any other element of the object, it is an orbit, not a rotation.” Kiddo does not get?
Doesn’t matter. He *will* soldier on.
What part of “since the near side and far side of the moon orbit in different orbital paths of different diameters, it cannot be considered to rotate on it axis” did you not get?
And Kiddo will keep talking of rotation nonetheless instead of spin, oblivious to the fact that his position leads to the weird idea that it is impossible for a celestial body to spin, because definitions.
Laughably wrong.
I guess one could find elegance in trying to troll people into believing that the GIF illustrating spin-orbit locking disproves spin-orbit locking.
But after more than three years, the trolling still persists, and Kiddo soldiers on.
I’m not arguing against the tidal locking mechanism. Some "Non-Spinners" do. I don’t, personally.
Physics argues against the “tidal locking” nonsense.
I go with physics….
> Physics argues
You’re not physics, Pup!
You’re not really arguing, but at least you try!
Swoon.
Clint: ‘I go with physics’
Well theres a first time for everything!
But, which physicists are not arguing against tidal locking?
Tim S
What about reading a few words written by Sir Isaac Newton?
Third edition of the Principia Scientifica (1726), BOOK III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56', Mars horis 24. 39'. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56', Sol diebus 25 1/2 et Luna diebus 27. 7. hor. 43'. ”
That is, in English:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56'; Mars in 24h.39'; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56'; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43'. “
With respect to the fixed stars, you can be forgiven for thinking the moon rotates on its own axis. It does appear to, after all. Just like a ball on a string would, with respect to the fixed stars. However, as you agree, Bindidon, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis in reality. Appearances can be deceptive.
bunny must have tried this same nonsense 10 times, or more.
“…with respect to the fixed stars… does NOT imply axial rotation.
He just can’t learn. He’s braindead.
You’re not general enough, Pup.
X does not imply Y… unless X implies Y!
Next time, keep the chin on.
Bunny,
What’s the problem?
From a long way away (Newton’s fixed stars), all sides of the moon can be observed, as it moves in its orbit around the Earth.
From the Earth, not so. One side perpetually facing the Earth.
From the fixed stars, apparent rotation. Apparent, not real, just as the Moon appears to wobble simultaneously both vertically and side to side. Not magic, just appearances.
If you must appeal to authority, be prepared to defend your understanding of what was written.
So from an object that has a very elliptical around Erath such that for some part of its orbit it would outside the Moon’s orbit and the other part inside the Moon’s orbit, it would observe different behaviors of the Moon for each part.
> From the fixed stars, apparent rotation.
Mike Flynn’s a funny guy!
Tell us more about Fourier, Mike!
*The crowd roars.*
“From the fixed stars, apparent rotation. Apparent, not real”
So ‘apparent’ means apparent from the universe, while ‘not real’ means not apparent from the Earth?
Just like GW is apparent to globe, but ‘not real’ because it is not apparent from Swenson’s basement.
What about the old boomerang?
“Rotation of an unrestrained object is ALWAYS about the center of mass. ”
Yep. Please explain that to DREMT.
…and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.
[KIDDO, January 3, 2022 at 12:55] Leave me alone you relentless, sadistic sociopath. Ive had enough of this.
[KIDDO, January 3, 2022 at 1:20 PM] The MOTL is rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, wrt an inertial reference frame. Swanson just does not understand rotation.
…and once again, the “Spinners” cannot leave the subject alone.
Once again, Kiddo blames others for his own comments.
Not at all…I guess I could have left it…but EM called me out specifically on this thread, bringing up the whole subject once again. I tried to make it clear I didn’t want to talk about it, but various people started their baiting and goading, and so here we are.
So once again Kiddo cannot leave the subject alone.
Apparently, you cannot leave me alone.
No one will leave you alone whilst you continue to spout nonsense.
The baiting and goading continues…
And so Kiddo will soldier on:
https://youtu.be/5F9sw32-EEs
See what I mean?
DREMT
” Not at allI guess I could have left itbut EM called me out specifically on this thread, bringing up the whole subject once again. ”
Actually you were asking for a response.
” Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 2, 2022 at 10:59 AM
Waiting for a response from Entropic Man, only”
I was locked out of the site at the time and unable to respond. My response on this thread was my first opportunity to reply.
Yet what I was asking for a response on is not what you actually replied with here. I had asked you a specific question. Never mind.
Data slicers have their swords out
Any reason you haven’t responded to my reply regarding your nonsense comment about rates?
Eben: “But officer, I couldn’t have been driving at 100 mph … I’ve only been driving for 5 minutes.”
You must be new here trying stupid stuff like this on me
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-863249
EM
Tell me more.
I guess you could tell if you were rotating by how often the coffee spills out of your coffee cup when you are upside down.
Silly angech.
During the last months, I was so busy with lots of other Moon topics that I forgot this one:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3453
It’s simply a little story about Moon’s orbiting by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
LRO has a polar orbit around the Moon that is spatially fixed with respect to a distant star. This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon, and not to an own rotational drift.
*
No MOTL / MOTR syndrome here. And please kindly keep these beautiful inertial frames of reference away from the stage.
As I said so many times: like Earth and all other celestial bodies, the Moon rotates about its polar axis, independently from the point in space from which it is observed.
*
Anyone who does not believe this LRO stuff is acting just like a Flatearthist who looks at Earth from a camera installed on the ISS and says:
“It’s fake”.
Great find for the Spinners…
binny does it again: “…spatially fixed with respect to a distant star.”
He just can’t learn. He’s braindead.
(But, at least he fooled Willard Jr., aka E. Swanson.)
Bunny,
Once again, “relative to the stars”. Read and comprehend the rest.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd spins and spins and laughs and laughs.*
"This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon…"
…but not on its own axis.
If the Moon does not rotate on its own axis, then the LRO, which sees the same parts of the Moon every 348 orbits about the Moon, cannot orbit the Moon in a fixed way, but must artificially displace its orbiting trajectory after each orbit.
Why don’t you ask the LRO team if that is really the case?
binny, you STILL don’t understand anything about orbital motion. LRO is “seeing” Moon’s orbital motion.
Bunny,
Why should he? Facts are facts.
Don’t forget that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, and that the Moon orbits the Earth.
Now work out the gravitational forces on the orbiting satellite (the only forces acting on it), and the resulting motion with respect to say, the Moon. There is your answer. No rotation of the Moon about an internal axis necessary.
Or just keep making silly assertions, of the “If . . . then . . .” type, based on your own fantasy.
For example – “If a thermometer shows a rise in temperature, then CO2 must be responsible.”
Or, “If you disagree with the notion that the average of weather controls future weather, then you are a climate denier.”
See how easy it is?
The LRO sees the same parts of the moon every 348 orbits about the moon because the moon is changing its orientation wrt the fixed stars whilst it orbits the Earth. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, then that change in orientation is just due to the moon’s orbital motion. No axial rotation. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right” in the below GIF, then the change in orientation must be due to axial rotation of the moon.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And so Kiddo soldiers on, again with the question-begging construction.
More nonsensical commentary from Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, again oblivious that everyone can see his little trick:
[BINNY] Researchers observed that the Moon spins, therefore it spins.
[KIDDO] Of course if you believe that the Moon spins, researchers will observe it spinning.
Kids at home – don’t be like Kiddo!
Kids at home can read what I wrote, and see how it differs completely from your desperate misrepresentation.
Kids at home should not read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1110474
Quick, change the subject…
Kiddo quickly cries “misrepresentation” after having sniggered “gibberish”!
…because I did not understand your 8:32 PM comment at all, but when you followed up with your 8:45 PM comment, I understood that you were misrepresenting my 6:55 PM comment.
Of course Kiddo can’t understand that his “If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”” begs the question at hand, and in fact Binny’s evidence renders the whole if-by-whiskey completely irrelevant.
The question is if the Moon spins or not. This does not rest on how we interpret the silly GIF. It’s actually the other way around: we can interpret that silly GIF because we have determined why and how the Moon spins.
It is in fact you that is using circular reasoning to suggest that the LRO observations are evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis. Your confusion is seemingly limitless, but very amusing.
Kiddo really has no idea how reasoning works:
P1. The orientation of the satellite’s orbit remains fixed in space, relative to the stars.
P2. The Moon slowly rotates beneath it as they travel together around the Earth.
C. The Moon spins.
The only way for Moon Dragon cranks to keep the game afoot is to reinterpret spin as a rotation on an external axis, say by suggesting that the Moon “curves” as it follows its orbital path.
Which makes no sense physically, as TimF showed time and time again.
So they have to return to definitions. But even then it does not work, as a planet’s orbit should not be conflated with a rotation on an external axis as the Moon-Earth system does not form a rigid body.
This is all overly silly.
You simply reveal that you have never understood the “Non-Spinner” position. The moon changes orientation wrt the fixed stars because it is orbiting. One single motion, through 360 degrees. That is the “Non-Spinner” position. So the LRO sees the moon changing its orientation beneath it because the moon is orbiting. Not rotating on its own axis.
the ‘Non-Spinner’ position is foolish in the extreme. No-one sensible could ‘understand it’. It is quite simply wrong.
Incorrect.
And so Kiddo reveals that he had never shown any integrity. He’s only in it for the lulz, except when he tilts.
Wrong, boring, and relentless.
Kiddo finally found a mirror!
Another 18 hours of this? Really?
With emphasis:
If you think that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, then you would of course mistake what is really just the moon’s orbital motion, for axial rotation.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious as to how scientific arguments work.
If you think that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, then you would of course mistake what is really just part of the moon’s orbital motion, for axial rotation. Nobody denies that the moon is changing its orientation, relative to the stars, whilst it orbits, after all. That orientational change is just part of its orbital motion, however. It is not axial rotation.
… as observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R explained.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1109993
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that we can conclude that the Moon spins because we have evidence it does, and not the other way around.
In a way, he displays how Moon Dragon cranks go from assertion to assertion without ever constructing anything that could remotely be considered an argument.
“My new resolution is to never address him again.”
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to what “to address” means.
I had hoped it would mean you would stop responding to me, stop mentioning me in comments to others, and generally stop hanging on my every word and being completely and utterly obsessed with me. Oh well.
And so Kiddo soldiers on with his manipulative crap.
Whinging Wee Willy
You wrote –
” . . . without ever constructing anything that could remotely be considered an argument.”
Have you heard of these marvellous things called facts, and an even more marvellous thing called science, which uses the scientific method.
You can argue all you want, and play all the “silly semantic games” you wish, but the universe doesn’t care. CO2 heats nothing. Michael Mann was not awarded a Nobel Prize. Climate is the statistics of past weather, and neither controls nor changes anything. Facts, you see.
You might as well argue with yourself, for all the difference it will make to the physical world.
You are powerless, impotent and useless.
Carry on arguing.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Pray tell us more about the scientific method, and how Kiddo’s proofs by assertion counts as scientific.
It’s been a while you did this bit.
Why are you bringing me into this, again?
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that in this subthread we can read:
“Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that we can conclude that the Moon spins because we have evidence it does, and not the other way around.”
which he still fails to grasp.
What evidence are you referring to? If you are referring to the LRO observations, then that only supports the idea that the moon is rotating on its own axis if you assume that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR…but this is what you need to find evidence for in the first place! So it is circular reasoning.
Kiddo still plays dumb.
Perhaps he should go to sleep now that he spent all his night trolling Roy’s.
My 11:25 PM comment is correct.
You are wrong regardless of what time it is.
That comment is not wrong, regardless of what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.
Kiddo backtracks from “correct” to “not wrong.”
Progress!
Desperate and pathetic BS from Willard.
My 8:58 AM comment is correct.
Dud falls into the same trap: “…relative to the stars.”
It’s called “braindead”.
Oh, Pup – you have no idea how much this means to me.
Next time, try not to confuse what I write from what I quote, OK?
Alternatively, you can always do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Best.
Wily Wee Willy,
Why do you post appeals to authority that support your opponent’s statements?
Notice ” . . .relative to the stars”.
Apparent rotation, just as an observer would see all sides of a raised bump on the deck of a carousel. Some people would hold that the bump is rotating on its axis, but could not even describe the entire dimensions of the bump!
Try it yourself. Take an aluminium foil picnic plate or similar, raise a bump with your finger, make some stripes of different colours equally spaced around the bump, from the top to the bottom. Poke a hole through the centre, and mount on a record turntable or similar. Set the turntable rotating
Stand back and observe. You will see all sides of the bump.
Notice that one side of the bump faces the centre of the turntable at all times, and the opposite side is invisible to the centre.
Just like the Moon in relation to the Earth, and to distant stars.
Mike Flynn,
Milquetoast Fallacy,
Thank you for your comment.
Once again it’s useful. You’re showing why Kiddo’s wrong about frames of reference. They do matter to settle the pickle of characterizing the motion of the Moon, don’t you think?
Great, let’s celebrate!
You’re wrong about appeals to authority, but who cares?
Oh, and thank you for confirming that you’re Mike Flynn with your very flattered comment!
Ta.
No, Swenson actually explains once again why reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[ALSO KIDDO] Sure, you need to use a reference frame.
Correct. You use them, but in the specific case of the moon debate, they do not actually resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the issue. In fact, all discussion of them tends to do is obfuscate the problem.
Kiddo does not always use frames of reference, in fact Kiddo does not always need them to solve problems, but when he does, they don’t even contribute in the resolution.
You can’t make this up.
DREMT, notice Swenson does state two locations to observe Swenson’s bump on the turntable “the centre” and the “stand back”. Just like Clint R did “inside of it orbit” (“the centre”) and outside “see” view from sun (“stand back”).
DREMT should always similarly include observation location i.e. frame of ref. when discussing moon issue but DREMT always has to be corrected to include such location.
You are making it up, though. You are twisting my words, as usual.
Ball4,
DREMPT possibly assumes his audience is not completely brain dead, and accept reality.
He is probably far more tolerant of delusional, argumentative, dimwits than I am.
He might take no notice of your demands, and why should he? If you discover that you have misunderstood what he has said, that is your affair. Don’t blame him for your lack of comprehension.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The audience bursts into a frenzy.*
Swenson, sure, DREMT will take no notice of Swenson’s demand: “Stand back and observe.” Or even “notice that one side of the bump does something from “the centre”. Don’t blame yourself for DREMT’s lack of comprehension.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swenson, sure, DREMT will take no notice of Swenson’s demand: “Stand back and observe.”
Are you sure? Have you added mind reading to your repertoire?
It is DREMT’s choice to do as he wishes. On the other hand, I didn’t ask anything of DREMT.
Maybe you are confused – I suggested an experiment to Willard. Of course, he is free to ignore my suggestion, as is anybody else. Anybody else who chooses to perform (or not perform) the experiment can come to any conclusion they like.
You can choose to accept reality or not. Reality doesn’t care. Nor do I, really.
Ball4, as I have told you countless times already, I am well aware that from the inside the orbit, you see only one side of the moon, and from outside the orbit you see all sides of it. That does not mean that when viewed from inside the orbit, the moon is not rotating on its own axis, and when viewed from outside the orbit it is rotating on its own axis.
So what does “from outside the orbit you see all sides of it [the Moon]” means, then? In fact, when would be able to *see* a celestial body spin?
Kiddo’s too busy soldiering on to close up the loops.
Three years of that silly trolling.
You see all sides of the moon from outside of the orbit, and only one side of the moon from inside the orbit because it is orbiting, without rotating on its own axis.
Kiddo soldiers on, this time “forgetting” to say when we would able to *see* a celestial body spin.
Generally speaking, when you see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit. In the specific case of a celestial object that is rotating on its own axis in the opposite direction to its orbital motion, at a rate of exactly once per orbit, you would see all sides of the object from the inside of the orbit, but only one side from the outside of the orbit.
[KIDDO] Reference frames do not resolve, nor do they even contribute towards resolving, the moon issue.
[ALSO KIDDO] Sure, you need to use a reference frame.
[AND NOW KIDDO] Generally speaking, [you can determine if a celestial body spins] when you see all sides of the celestial object from both inside, and outside, of the orbit.
Exactly. No contradiction, because reference frames are clearly not going to resolve, or even contribute towards resolving, the issue.
Kiddo will never be able to settle the Moon issue using a reference frame, but to know if a celestial body spins, he needs at least two.
You just can’t make this up.
Yet making it up is what you are doing.
Kiddo should stop trolling and get to sleep.
Good night.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Don’t be an idiot. Who is Kiddo, anyway? Is he another of your imaginary enemies, like Mike Flynn?
Telling me I’m wrong – by assertion, backed only by your fantasy, just makes you look as disconnected from reality as you are.
Still obsessed with Mike Flynn, are you? Another witless assertion – “Oh, and thank you for confirming that youre Mike Flynn . . . “. This would be the same Mike Flynn who commented on this blog recently, or some other Mike Flynn who you say cannot possibly exist, because he is not allowed to post comments, except that he demonstrably does. You can thank anyone you want for anything you like. What mental aberration leads you to think I care?
You need to separate your fantasy from reality.
You are so stupid that you probably believe a pile of blankets can be used as a heat source. Or that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
Mike Flynn,
Misfired Felicity,
CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon’s rotation!
However, you got a point –
Moon Dragon cranks are often Sky Dragon cranks!
Why do you think this is?
Time for your regular Tyndall quote.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Nor has CO2 anything to do with making thermometers hotter, but idiots like you prove that some people prefer fantasy to fact.
What are Moon Dragon cranks and Sky Dragon cranks?
I don’t believe I have categorised anybody as either, but that obviously doesn’t stop you from making weirdly obscure comments.
Why are you asking me what I think about some nonsense words which you have strung together for some purpose known only to the inhabitants of your fantasy? What a stupid question!
By the way, which Mike Flynn do you think I am today? The one whom you claim has been banned, or the one who commented recently, telling you you were wrong – without my flair and panache. Maybe you have split fantasies?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mechanical Fraction,
You keep denying –
“This would be the same Mike Flynn who commented on this blog recently”
No, that was Kiddo trying to make a point.
Here’s you saying “diddums”:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/10/pre-traumatic-stress-syndrome-climate-scientists-speak-out/#comment-717144
What a dumb guy you are!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weird Wee Willy,
So the Mike Flynn who commented is really another fantasy figure called Kiddo. Is that it? I am confused – you believe one Mike Flynn is really me, who you persist in calling Mike Flynn, and that another Mike Flynn is really someone called Kiddo.
Are you sure you are not delusional?
Mike Flynn,
Multiplying Farces.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Which Mike Flynn is that?
Mike Flynn,
This one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251333
Search for “CO2 makes thermometers hotter” on this page.
Cheers.
Delusional Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Search for “CO2 makes thermometers hotter” on this page.”
No. Why should I dance you your nonsensical and jangling discordance?
Keep quoting facts. When you appeal to the authority of whichever Mike Flynn you choose, I, at least, am likely to agree.
Which begs the question – why do you quote facts which destroy your GHE fantasy?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/if-the-polar-vortex-is-due-to-global-warming-why-are-u-s-cold-waves-decreasing/#comment-340015
Cheers.
Worrying Wee Willy,
Keep quoting Mike Flynn (either one).
He asks a valid question (which I note you have emphasised), “Do you really think that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?”
Well, do you?
Answering yes is an act of denial of reality, so of course you will answer in the affirmative. All you have to do is to explain is how this magic occurs.
Of course, you can’t, so you won’t. The usual climate crackpot collapse under pressure.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Madonna Fest,
You say –
“He asks a valid question”
It’s not “a” valid question, whatever that means, it’s the very same question you just asked, in fact with the same words! And we can find more than 60 occurrences of it over the years:
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%20%22CO2%20makes%20thermometers%20hotter%3F%22
Keep denying.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
willard…”…the amount of time it takes the Moon to turn once on its axis, relative to the stars”.
***
At no time does the Moon turn on its axis relative to the stars. It is performing translation along an orbital path without turning on a local axis. The near face, changes orientation wrt the stars, through 360 degrees as it orbits, but the far face is mirroring that motion in parallel, making it impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
Pay attention, Willard, there will be a test on this soon. You don’t want to fail and be forced to wear a Willatd the Dunce hat.
> At no time does the Moon turn on its axis relative to the stars.
C’mon, Gordo.
The Man on the Moon faces the Earth. The Earth turns on its axis relative to the stars. What do you think should follow from that?
Think. You got no second chance.
C’mon Witless Wee Willy,
Don’t even try to think. Your peabrain can’t cope with that particular activity.
Best retreat to your fantasy world, where you can be wise, powerful and respected, unlike in the real world.
Mike Flynn,
Pay attention:
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm
Wee Willy Idiot,
Which Mike Flynn do you think I am now? Moving right along –
Of course it does. Are you stupid? It’s moving around the Earth, for a start. Its position is also changing, relative to everything else in the universe. The stars are part of the universe last time I looked.
Why should I pay attention to an Impotent, powerless idiot?
Carry on being delusional.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about Feynman.
willard…”The Man on the Moon faces the Earth. The Earth turns on its axis relative to the stars. What do you think should follow from that?”
***
Don’t you get it that the side of the Moon with the Man In The Moon always faces the Earth? That means the other side which is the Dark Side to us on Earth, always faces toward space.
Both faces are moving parallel to each other. If the Moon did rotate about a local axis, the Man in the Moon would have to face away from Earth through part of the orbit. But that’s not happening, ergo, the Moon does not rotate around a local axis with or without respect to the stars.
> If the Moon did rotate about a local axis, the Man in the Moon would have to face away from Earth through part of the orbit.
C’mon, Gordo.
Once again you forget the possibility that the Moon spins at the same rate it orbits.
There’s even an expression for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It’s really not that complex.
Our moon can only be spinning at the same rate it orbits if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
Kiddo keeps soldiering, once again with his proof by assertion.
All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together. It should not be difficult.
Kiddo still forgets that there are many ways to see the GIF, therefore it does not resolve, or even contributes towards resolving, the Moon issue.
We can still appreciate how he exploits the GIF illustrating the orbit-spin lock to argue that the orbit-spin lock is impossible.
My 12:54 AM comment is correct.
Kiddo’s 1:05 AM comment is incorrect:
Without any knowledge of physics, it is impossible to interpret GIF properly.
Which might explain how Moon Dragon cranks interpret it!
My 1:05 AM comment is also correct.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Without any knowledge of physics, it is impossible to interpret GIF properly.
Which might explain how Moon Dragon cranks interpret it!”
GIF? Moon Dragon cranks?
Are you completely deranged, or just pretending?
You are wrong no matter what time it is.
Those comments are not wrong, no matter what the ultimate answer is on the moon debate.
Kiddo’s comment is wrong because there’s no way to make sense of a physical explanation without knowing at least some physics. At best Kiddo should argue that we need naive physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_physics
So no, “adding” two motions, whatever he might mean by that, is only good if one wishes to reduce physics to geometry.
Problem is that Moon Dragon cranks suck at geometry.
The comments are correct.
[KIDDO] One single motion, through 360 degrees.
[ALSO KIDDO] All that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together.
There is no contradiction Willard, because the second quote refers to something involving understanding of the “Spinner” position, which involves two motions, and the first quote refers to the “Non-Spinner” position, which involves one single motion.
Kiddo keeps digging.
If one can say that A + B = C, then it’d be silly to say that C is more correct than A + B. Either they’re equal, or they’re not. Adding bold to “is” adds nothing.
So at best Moon Dragon can claim that their theory is equivalent, as I said the first time I got involved into this farce.
Lunar theory involves much more than two motions anyway.
The comments are correct, waffler.
Kiddo’s assertion that “all that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together” have been refuted in at least two different ways: faulty psychology, and faulty algebra. Let’s add another one, by recalling his favorite GIF’s legend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
The last claim is a counterfactual. Counterfactuals are seldom evaluated by just looking at them. They require some thinking, hence the expression “counterfactual thinking.” To evaluate what we should expect if the Moon was not spinning requires some physics knowledge.
Kiddo’s “adding” does not cut it.
Keep on waffling. The comments are correct.
Here’s one tiny bit of knowledge that Kiddo needs to reach the Moon Dragon crank conclusion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-549311
As a claim about geometry, it’s fine: a rotation changes orientation. As a claim about physics, it’s not: angular momentum is independent from orbit. As a claim about the concept of orbit, it’s false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
You are still waffling on, arguing against things I am not even discussing in this particular sub-thread. Meanwhile, the two comments remain correct.
Kiddo soldiers on, gaslighting once again.
No gaslighting here.
Since my argument is related to Kiddo’s “all that is required is the ability to mentally add two motions together,” his “arguing against things I am not even discussing in this particular sub-thread” is more than disingenuous.
Pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
Whatever you say, Willard. I’m sure you’re right.
WIN! WIN! WIN!
No, as observed from above and outside of the moon’s orbital plane, Ball4. Same POV as in the GIF I linked to earlier.
The GIF does not proof if the Moon rotates on its axis or not.
Never said it did.
Anyone following the JWST adventure must have noticed the extensive cooling apparatus needed. Although another 900,000 miles farther from Sun than Earth, the spacecraft would reach temperatures above 220F, 104C. Such temperatures would prevent proper use of the telescope. Back on Earth we say “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
The design of the spacecraft includes an artificial “atmosphere”, to hopefully limit Mr. Sun. Interestingly, the “atmosphere” is designed to both reflect solar SW, and emit LW.
It’s almost as if they copied how Earth does it….
Not possible.
Dr. Spencer,
Do you know yet how large the error bars are on each data point and on the running, centered 13-month mean? If so, please consider posting a graph with the error bars included. Without the error bars it seems impossible to know whether or not the apparent warming trend you and Dr. Christy find since 1979 is a statistical fluke or indicative of actual planetary warming.
Thank you.
Dr Spencer doesn’t believe in error bars.
Indeed. I don’t understand it, but it seems that climatologists believe that the accuracy of any measurement can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the number of samples, regardless of the accuracy of the instruments used. The number of samples that global climate measurement use are in hunderds to thousands to tens of thousands if not more per datapoint, hence the accuracy god up to the second and third digit after the dot which is too small to be depicted in the graph.
coturnix…”The number of samples that global climate measurement use are in hunderds to thousands to tens of thousands if not more per datapoint…”
***
Not so. NOAA uses less than 1500 stations to cover the global surface and each station uses two ststs, the high and low for a day.
What’s a climatologist? It could be an economist, a geographer, a computer programmer, or anyone even remotely associated with climate science.
“less than 1500” does fall withing the indicated range of “hundreds to thousands”, dont it?
Coturnix, Gordon
The precision of temperature means depends on sample size.
Precision = measurement accuracy/√sample size.
Using simple mercury thermometers measurement accuracy is a conservative +/- 1C.
For n= 100 precision is 1/√100 = 0.1C
For n= 10,000 precision is 1/√10,000 = 0.01C
For n= 1,000,000 precision is 1/1,000,000 = 0.001C.
Plot precision against sample size and you get a rectangular hyperbola. Initially you get a bit increase in precision for a small increase in sample size, but you reach a point of diminishing returns.
How does this work for the global average temperature?
One station using a mercury thermometer takes 2 measurements/day, 730/year. The precision of the station mean is 1/√730 = 0.04C
For 1500 stations n = 730*1500 = 1,095,000.
The precision of the global mean is slightly better than 0.01C.
If you want to achieve 0.001C you would need 150,000 stations.
In practice all the datasets show the global mean increasing by 0.01-0.02C/year. 0.01C from 1500 stations is precision enough.
Curses. Correction.
For 1500 stations n = 730*1500 = 1,095,000.
The precision of the global mean is slightly better than 0.001C.
If you want to achieve 0.0001C you would need 150,000 stations.
In practice all the datasets show the global mean increasing by 0.01-0.02C/year. 0.001C from 1500 stations is precision enough.
@Entropic man
you said
>>The ~precision~ of temperature means depends on sample size.
and yet I asked
>>Indeed. I don’t understand it, but it seems that climatologists believe that the **accuracy** of any measurement can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the number of samples, regardless of the accuracy of the instruments used
notice the marked words. Do you see?
and then you say
>>Precision = measurement accuracy/√sample size.
uhm ok, r u sure there is nothing wrong woth what you just said? I can’t be sure of that because i really am reaching the rim my competence here, but i feel there is something wrong with what you said. Do you see?
curioso…”Do you know yet how large the error bars are on each data point and on the running, centered 13-month mean?”
***
This is a blog, not a scientific journal. UAH does keep error margins since they announced circa 2005 that the error detected in the sat data fell within the error margin they claimed.
Where would I find those tolerances?
UAH walks into an error bar:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/one-more-data-point/
Whacko Wee Willy,
Appealing to the authority of a pedestrian mathematician, and a loser, liar, scofflaw and deadbeat!
Gee, how could anyone not be impressed by that!
Pretty easily, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about the chemical properties of CO2.
Please.
A full-blown ad hom attack follows. Realclimate was at the heart of the Climategate email scandal with one of its owners, Michael Mann front and centre, while his friend and co-owner Gavin Schmidt was busy with damage control at realclimate.
Realclimate are diehard alarmist whose science is so diabolically inadequate they would only be quoted by a desperate alarmist. They are in no way qualified to talk about the integrity of UAH.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here are your first sentences:
1. A full-blown ad hom attack follows.
2. Realclimate was at the heart of the [But Emails].
Don’t you have any integrity?
AQ,
Why do you ask? Can’t you find out for yourself?
I could suggest you try Google or something similar, but you obviously lack the ability to find information for yourself.
Oh, well. I suppose you will have to remain in ignorance, unless you can give someone incentive to overcome your laziness.
Good luck.
“Where would I find those tolerances?”
Somewhere in the UAH documentation.
IIRC the 95% confidence limits of a UAH monthly average (and indeed similar anomalies from other datasets) are +/-0.05C.
Thus the December 2021 UAH temperature anomaly should be written as 0.21C +/- 0.05C.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I’m not aware of a comprehensive error analysis from UAH.
RSS published one a while back for the 3.3 version of that data set and it’s reasonable to presume UAH would be similar:
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf
Entropic man, re: the 95% confidence limits on UAH you mention, please have a look at my response to Gordon Robertson.
Mark B, thanks for sharing that RSS paper, it was helpful. I noticed that their per-decade error bar estimates for different latitudes-longitudes of the globe, and in particular for their TLT trend, are quite substantial (see Figure 13). In fact, in some cases, especially TLT, the error bar estimates are much *larger* than the the global per-decade warming trend that RSS finds (see Figure 12)! What seems to be missing from their paper, however, is an estimate of the global per-decade error bar, but it’s presumably also quite substantial.
So if it’s reasonable to presume that a comprehensive error analysis for UAH would be similar to that of RSS, it raises the question why Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy estimate vastly smaller global-per-decade-trend error bars (+/- 0.04 C/decade) than the RSS people do. And, who is right?
I don’t see significant differences in RSS and UAH in Fig 13. Can you point them out for me?
https://imgur.com/a/hF8Dzyg
RLH, look for example at the TLT chart (d) in Figure 13, and at the outer error bar on the light orange triangle located slightly to the right of 20N-75N on the x-axis. The caption says that this outer error bar refers to “the total 2-sigma errors including the contributions from the diurnal adjustment and the MSU/AMSU drift”. If the latest RSS data for global TLT per-decade trend turns out to have an error bar that large, and if it’s reasonable to assume that it’s the same for UAH, then that’s about +/- 0.11 C/decade, whereas the UAH per-decade global TLT trend is currently at 0.13 C/decade and the estimated error bars for UAH Version 5.6 is only +/- 0.04 C/decade. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
Curioso says:
. . . Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy estimate vastly smaller global-per-decade-trend error bars (+/- 0.04 C/decade) than the RSS people do. . . .
I’m not clear where the +/- 0.04 C/decade estimate is coming from. Can you cite a source?
Mark B, that estimate comes from Dr. Spencer himself, in this blog post I linked to in my reply to Gordon Robertson below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
It’s also mentioned in the 2017 paper on UAH Version 6.0 by Spencer and Christy:
“The difference between the Version 5.6 and Version 6 trends is within our previously stated estimated error bars on the global temperature trend (+/. 0.04 C/decade). While all adjustments performed to produce the temperature products have inherent uncertainty, through sensitivity experiments we find it is difficult to obtain a global LT trend substantially greater than +0.11 C/decade without making assumptions that cannot be easily justified.”
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results
Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell
Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(1), 121-130, 2017
Curioso,
The methodology for the 0.04 C error bound isn’t described in the blog post or the paper, but it’s about what one gets as an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only while the Mears paper is trying to bound all systemic errors.
That is, the former would be derived from the time series only and the latter is derived from an error model of the entire collection system.
Mark B,
“The methodology for the 0.04 C error bound isn’t described in the blog post or the paper, but it’s about what one gets as an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only while the Mears paper is trying to bound all systemic errors.
That is, the former would be derived from the time series only and the latter is derived from an error model of the entire collection system.”
Thanks for this. That would indeed explain why the error bars in the Mears paper are larger than the 0.04 error bound used by Spencer-Christy. In that case, it’s a disappointing omission by Spencer-Christy that they don’t comment on or attempt to model all the systematic errors in their measurements (they don’t even cite the Mears et al. 2011 paper you shared in their 2017 paper on UAH Version 6).
Also, since what we are ultimately interested in is bounding all systematic errors, and to the extent we can assume that the Mears et al. systematic error bounds are applicable to the UAH trends, don’t you think we should take the UAH per-decade trend with a grain of salt? After all, if the UAH global trend is 0.14 C/decade but the systematic error bound is around +/- 0.11 C/decade (possibly more, depending on what an updated error analysis finds), then we can’t be confident their satellite data shows there’s been any (significant) global warming trend since 1979.
The biggest source of uncertainty for the satellite temperature series is diurnal drift which is mitigated by the most recent satellites’ ability to make orbital corrections, so I’d expect the error bounds to be somewhat smaller in the most recent decade.
Of course, uncertainty works in both directions, so if one wants to argue “but uncertainty”, there’s no reason to believe it works only in the direction supporting their preferred narrative. In any case +/-0.11 2 sigma on a 0.14 trend is statistically significant by normal convention.
Mark B,
Re: the most recent satellites’ ability to make orbital corrections, do we know for sure that that won’t introduce new sources of uncertainty? If not, how can we be confident that new sources of uncertainty won’t replace whatever diurnal-drift-related uncertainty is reduced by orbital corrections?
Yep, uncertainty works in both directions, hence the + sign in +/- 0.11 C/decade I keep writing. And yes, +/-0.11 C/decade on a 0.14 C/decade trend is statistically significant by normal convention. But if all we could say is that there’s evidence of a warming trend somewhere between 0.03 — 0.25 C/decade, that’s much less impressive/striking/interesting than the claim that it’s 0.14 C/decade +/- 0.04 C/decade. The latter claim substantially oversells the validity of the satellite data from UAH.
Of course, there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about what the systematic error bound is on the RSS global trend for the most recent dataset and likewise for UAH (which involves some different adjustments from that of RSS). It seems quite possible that the error bound is even larger than +/- 0.11 C/decade, perhaps enough to wipe out the statistical significance of the trend for UAH (and maybe even RSS).
Anyway, until these subtle error-analysis issues are sorted out, I just don’t see how we can say with confidence that the satellite data from RSS and UAH show a statistically significant global warming trend, or, on the flip side, a global warming trend significantly smaller than that found by surface-based temperature station datasets.
Latest realclimate blog post has a plot and some discussion of uncertainty in the surface data sets (HAD, GISS, Berkeley) annual estimates, showing better than 0.1 C absolute error.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/another-dot-on-the-graph/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=another-dot-on-the-graph
Gordon Robertson, that’s a disingenuous and lazy response to my question. It’s basic statistical literacy that a meaningful graph requires some knowledge of uncertainty on the data points. And the vast majority of people who will find/read this blog will have at least basic statistical literacy. Also, if this is the first time they’re seeing Dr. Spencer’s graph or they haven’t read his papers thoroughly, they’ll immediately think the question I’m asking. So the fact that this isn’t a scientific journal is irrelevant.
Incidentally, despite what you say, I found a relatively recent post by Dr. Spencer in which he says (in response to bdgwx) that the error bars on his graph are “not well known”:
bdgwx says:
February 11, 2021 at 2:26 PM
I think you present a well thought out argument here. Obviously I’d like to see this published and have other experts weigh in before drawing any conclusions. One obvious discrepancy that would need to be resolved is the +0.17C/decade trend from UAH TLT. Perhaps the +0.13C/decade throw out here is underestimated by 30%? Or perhaps there is a US based variation of the mid troposphere hotspot in play? Also, what does reanalysis show for the USA48 region?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
February 11, 2021 at 2:32 PM
All of these trends have error bars which are NOT WELL KNOWN. Also, the tropospheric trends cannot be expected to match the surface trends over such a “small” area (~2% of the Earth).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/urban-heat-island-effects-on-u-s-temperature-trends-1973-2020-ushcn-vs-hourly-weather-stations/
Before this, the most I could find on the error bars question is this earlier blog post by Dr. Spencer in which he says:
“The rest of the reduction in the LT trend between Versions 6.0 and 5.6 (-0.016 C/decade) is believed to be partly due to a more robust method of LT calculation, and the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure, described later. It is well within our previously stated estimated error bars on the global temperature trend (+/- 0.040 C/decade).”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
But this is at odds with his more recent admission that the per-decade UAH trend has error bars which are “not well known”. Also, the estimated error bars of +/- 0.040 C/decade refers to Version 5.6, not Version 6.0 which has new adjustments over and above Version 5.6.
“All of these trends have error bars which are not well known”
I am not sure that this refers to just UAH trends as many other trends are mentioned in the same post. Urban Heat Island, USHCN, U.S. Hourly Temperature Data and Hourly Temperature Data. I am not sure that all of those trend’s error bars are ‘well known’.
RLH, I agree that this doesn’t refer to just UAH trends (and I agree with his assessment about the other data you mention), but I think it’s clear from his use of “All” that he is *also* referring to UAH trends. And my question about error bars is regarding UAH trends.
‘All’ could just as easily be ‘all other’ trends as he does specifically mention the UAH trend and sets out a specific number for it. Why he would contradict himself in the same article/answers which requires a belief in his dishonesty?
RLH, I don’t think it requires a belief in his dishonesty — it could also be that he’s changed his mind about the error bars on the UAH trend being “well known”. But I admit I can’t rule out your interpretation of his “All”. Perhaps Dr. Spencer can clarify this for us, if he’s reading this exchange.
RLH,
I’m not confident that Dr. Spencer will respond to my question, but Mark B makes a comment above that’s clarifying: He points out that the +/- 0.04 C/decade error bound estimated by Spencer-Christy refers to an estimate of the linear fit uncertainty only, rather than an estimated bound on all systemic errors. (The latter is done by the RSS people in an earlier version of their dataset: https://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2011_MSU_AMSU_Uncertainty.pdf)
For some reason Spencer-Christy don’t address the question of bounding their systematic errors in their 2017 paper on UAH Version 6. If Dr. Spencer was referring to systematic error bounds when he said “All of these trends have error bars which are not well known”, and he was including UAH in his comment (as I suspect he was), that would be fully consistent with his estimated linear fit uncertainty of +/- 0.04 C/decade in the 2015 blog post I shared. It wouldn’t entail any dishonesty on his part.
binny…”LRO has a polar orbit around the Moon that is spatially fixed with respect to a distant star. This of course ensures that the movement LRO observes below itself is due solely to the rotation of the Moon, and not to an own rotational drift”.
***
The quote you provide comes from an animation section of NASA. In that section, they are under the impression that the Moon rotates on a local axis but wrt the stars. Why would they specify wrt the stars?
I have just pent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis.
The idea when launching LRO was to get it into a polar orbit at about 50 km altitude. Once in that orbit it is meant to have a fixed orientation wrt the stars.
Suppose for arguments sake that the Earth is at 0,0 on an x-y plane representing the lunar orbit. The Moon is at 3 o’clock somewhere along the x-axis. The LRO is orbiting the Moon in an orbit that always faces due north.
As the Moon follows it orbital path, always keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, its near face re-orients during the orbit through 360 degrees. The far-side face does the same, in parallel with the near face. So, the LRO will be able to scan the entire surface of the Moon without the Moon rotating about a local axis.
Note that NASA claims the Moon rotates wrt the stars, not about a local axis. They are confusing a change of orientation due to translation, where the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis, with local rotation about an axis.
> I have just pent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3453
That’s the first paragraph of Binny’s cite.
Sometimes, I worry about you. Do you have access to a social worker?
Witless Wee Willy,
Yes. The Moon appears to rotate – relative to the (distant) stars. NASA just forgets to be specific that the rotation is apparent, not real.
I don’t worry about you at all. Maybe you could name someone who does. There are over seven billion people on Earth, and over seven billion of them don’t care whether you live or die.
Why should they?
But don’t get too upset, they don’t care about me either, unlike you, you obsessive fantasist.
Mike Flynn,
Do your bit about Einstein.
“As the Moon follows it orbital path, always keeping the same face pointed at the Earth, its near face re-orients during the orbit through 360 degrees. The far-side face does the same, in parallel with the near face. So, the LRO will be able to scan the entire surface of the Moon without the Moon rotating about a local axis.”
Exactly, Gordon. They are confusing the moon’s change in orientation due to its orbital motion, for axial rotation.
There is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit. See newton.
Incorrect.
DREMT: Are you saying that Newton was incorrect?
I am saying that you are incorrect.
But you agree that Newton would say that nothing makes an orientation depend on an orbit.
Would I? Oh.
So you disagree with Newton then?
Why don’t you explain exactly why you believe “there is no mechanism for a change in orientation due to an orbit”?
Cult Leader pups asked:
There are no significant forces on the Moon to provide the net torque necessary to change the Moon’s rate of rotation. The Moon does not rotate around the barycenter.
…but what about all the “Spinners” who believe the moon does rotate around the barycenter, they just think it also rotates on its own internal axis? Do you agree they are wrong?
Quick quick, Kiddo changes the subject
Swanson is obviously wrong, because the moon does proceed through its orbit at varying rates. Bit hard for him to argue that something that is happening, cannot possibly happen!
And so Kiddo misreads “There are no significant forces on the Moon to provide the net torque necessary to change the Moons rate of rotation.”
Oh, well.
I misread nothing. Smug grin.
Newton requires that there is energy supplied for all motions wrt the fixed stars.
1. Energy for orbits.
2. Energy for rotations about their own axis.
OK…and your point is?
That you are an idiot.
Ah, so you have realized that your logic is circular. Good.
Cult Leader pups is still confused:
No doubt the Moon orbits the barycenter with different rotational rates for the radial line between the barycenter and the Moon’s CoM. But pups still can’t grasp the fact that the moon also rotates at a constant rate around it’s CoM while the Com translates around the orbit.
No, as I’ve told you several times now, Swanson, I am perfectly aware that the moon changes its orientation at a steadier rate than it proceeds through its orbit. It’s still only one single motion, as Ftop_t showed. Why don’t you go and study his comments, and ultimately bother him next time he’s here?
Except ftop_t programmed two separate motions for the orbiting and rotating on its own axis object. It is DREMT that needs to go argue with ftop_t.
Oh look, a troll has appeared.
Yeah readers can see the DREMT troll has appeared on their own; nice to see DREMT actually confirm being a troll.
See how it operates?
Cult Leader pups wrote
pups, the Moon’s translation motion around it’s orbit does exhibit varying velocities. It’s rate of rotation around it’s COM is a constant that does not change while revolving around the orbit. pups can’t comprehend the concept of angular momentum.
I repeat my previous comment to you, Swanson.
The “mechanism” is gravity, as modeled by the ball-on-a-string. Or, the model of a toy train on an oval track. For people that understand physics, there is also the vector diagram showing the resultant of the vectors acting on an orbiting body.
https://postimg.cc/JyCw5bzq
A ball-on-a-string does not model gravity. It also includes the axis that it rotates about.
“the model of a toy train on an oval track”
Do you think that the ‘outer’ wheel covers a larger distance than the ‘inner’ one?
Troll RLH, you can’t learn. You have no respect for truth or reality. That’s why you can shamelessly claim that you know how to add vectors, but yet you can’t solve the easy problem. You can’t even understand the solution.
You have no credibility. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
In contrast to Kiddo, Pup, and Mike Flynn, at least Gordo tries.
Your ‘truth and reality’ is a distortion of what real science is about.
I add vectors in a practical manner daily. Unlike you who have a completely distorted view of how to handle them and operate purely in your head.
Nice, your curves bring out the step changes of about 0.25C that seemed to have happened in 1998 and 2016. I say seemed because, to be fair, even though the steps stand out clearly to me I can draw a line from -.3C on the far left to +.3C on the right (roughly representing the 0.15C/decade over the satellite era) and get a reasonable fit too.
Anyone here really good in statistics that can figure out which is the better model of the data, or how many more years of data collection before it can be decided? If the temps wiggle around +0.25C from 2016 to say 2032 and then say there’s another El Nino and there’s another step up, will that be enough for most to settle the issue, or will we have to wait for say a century of data?
Straight lines are of little use in natural systems.
Willard…re reference frames, lets see if we can dumb this down a bit for you.
Turn a bicycle over on its handle bar and seat so you can spin the wheels. Spin a wheel and we’ll all agree it is ‘physically’ spinning/rotating about its axle despite any reference frame.
Now stop the wheel so it is stationary. There is no angular momentum about its axle. No matter which reference frame you use for observation, there is no angular momentum about its axle.
The wheel is stopped!!!! Not rotating!!!!
Looking at it from any other reference frame will not make it begin spinning ABOUT ITS AXLE. To get it spinning again, you must apply a force somewhere on the spokes or the tire. The force must be applied in a tangential direction.
If you want to be silly, you can attach the handle bars and the seat to a rotating platform and turn the platform. You can then argue that the tires are turning about the axis of rotation of the platform but you cannot claim either wheel is turning about its axle. Unless there is angular velocity about an axle there is no rotation about an axle.
C’mon, Gordo.
As far as dumbing things down, there’s really no bottom for you. All you need is a theme. You will riff on it at 22:00 each night. At least you are distracted from Montagnier. I call it great success!
But no, you just don’t understand the point at all:
A reference frame won’t tell if an object spins or not, but without a reference frame, chances are you won’t be able to tell if it does.
In fact, according to Kiddo’s new revelation, you’d need not one, but two.
Make that what you will.
Willard’s confusion is without end.
Kiddo’s trolling might be coming to an end.
Who knows?
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n DREMT please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+1 DREMT please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
#n+2 DREMT please stop trolling.
#4
RLH, please stop trolling.
Where best place to mine water on the Moon?
I thought I would google it:
https://www.planetary.org/articles/water-on-the-moon-guide
https://theconversation.com/mining-the-moons-water-will-require-a-massive-infrastructure-investment-but-should-we-117883
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/23/17769034/nasa-moon-lunar-water-ice-mining-propellant-depots
https://www.mining-technology.com/features/mining-the-moon/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/rockets-to-mine-water-from-the-moon/ar-AALA77z
They didn’t seem very helpful.
How do mine water on the Moon
The last link seemed to have weird idea.
I had various ideas over the years, it seems possible they
are outdated, but it seems it will depend upon the current
“situation”.
One of current situations is Starship.
Will it work, and how well will it work.
And Musk doesn’t think, or doesn’t seem to think
mining lunar water is “useful” for his Mars plans.
And Starship isn’t really designed to be use on the Moon,
but also Starship could make easier to mine the Moon.
Where you mine on the Moon, could be related to how you
going to make electrical power- solar or nuclear.
I always assumed solar. Mainly due to wider access to
solar power. So if solar power, near where you get best solar
power. But nuclear, can work where there good solar and where
there isn’t good solar. Advantage, nuclear.
But another aspect of mining lunar water, is it sort like mining
oil {as couple above links mentioned} but I mean is that terms dollar amount, water enables, but isn’t the big business, or for
every rocket fuel dollar one needs a larger amount money being make, which rocket fuel makes possible. Oil companies may large, but there are bit player in terms of entire economy.
Or rockets companies are important but small monetary part of the global satellite industry.
And this will continue, spacecraft and fuel will be small part of space economy- it has to be. But water mining can evolve into mining other stuff. And kinds mining of all the other kind of stuff, would/could be pretty big thing. But main point is
that one has line up customers of rocket fuel, or you have generate demand for rocket fuel- and that’s the hard part.
But one can wonder how mine one could actually lunar water- as long as one realizes even best battle plan always get tossed. It will be trial and error, and constant improvement.
I was surprised to find that gold is considered very profitable when the ore yields about a couple ounces per tonne.
I don’t know where on the Moon or Mars you’d find an ‘ore’ body containing even that much water per tonne. There is no geophysical mechanism for water to concentrate into lumps of ore valuable enough to mine. Water that costs too much to mine, even as a colony wouldn’t be viable without tonnes of water, means colony not viable.
When I was kid {when lived in Campbell River}, went on elementary field trip to iron mine they got a fair amount gold and I think other stuff, but most of revenue was iron and therefore an Iron mine. I watched them pour a bar of gold {I think they wanted to show to the kids to make things more interesting}.
So therefore one could say the gold was mineable, but not really- it was iron mine. I hear they mining gold in very low concentration and it’s common find gold mines, which are “mined out” and mine the gold again. Particularly in China where they have mined gold for long time. But anyhow, they could call it a gold mine, but it’s also mining silver and other stuff.
Likewise with the Moon, it depend on other stuff than water, such as CO2, and/or iron.
Some claim 1% concentration of water is impossible, of course volume or weight are different, I tend to think of it as volume. But with weight regolith is 2 to 2.5 density, and water is 1, so say 2500 kg per cubic meter and 1% is 25 kg of water. Though per volume cubic meter at 1% 10 kg of water. I tend to think 1% either with volume or weight is unlikely mineable. Earth dirt with less 5% per volume will kill plants, and with clay it holds on to the water, and need higher amount of water for plants to live. Too much clay, I think 20% is not enough water because plants can’t pull the water out.
So I tend to say your non dead lawn would mineable for water on the Moon {fairly easily}. But being optimist, I tend think in terms 5 to 10% water per volume as somewhere around minimal range of mineable lunar water, these amounts are claimed to be on the Moon.
On Mars they say they got lots permafrost type wetness [more than 50% water] I would not count that as mineable water on Mars.
And mineable depends if there somewhere else, where water costs less to mine. If your costs is X, someone else selling water for less than your costs, it’s not mineable. Unless all the stuff you mining will result in a profit. So Iron mine was making say more 1/2 profit on Iron, then it could afford to mine the gold.
Another aspect is 1 square km might have 5% water per volume but portion of 1 square km, higher amount and lower amounts, so you mine the higher amounts. Maybe mine the lower amounts later, or maybe to move to another location. And what has value is the company, because company value depends upon what can mine in the future. So one mine 1 billion dollars of water, and company is worth 5 to 10 billion dollars, because they everything working and company is lowering cost and can mine greater amounts in the future. {And company could end up mining the entire solar system}
Or NASA can’t do this, and US Congress would as general principle, would stop NASA if it made a profit {not that it could}. It’s waste of the public’s time, for NASA to mine the Moon, NASA should explore Mars, after exploring the Moon.
La Niña.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_pacific_current.png
Temperatures across North America (except Florida) are dropping well below average. Residents of the eastern U.S. are feeling it the most.
https://i.ibb.co/B2tGYBG/Screenshot-1.png
In Europe, a serious energy crisis and total dependence on Russian gas. Advice to America – don’t shut down nuclear power plants.
Forecast for Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/BGJZNbB/hgt300.png
Our Natural Gas industry is much more important than nuclear, and will carry us through the energy transition, however long that takes.
https://ibb.co/HHQhKSY
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1091225
America has NO energy source problem of any kind.
Their problem is energy supply, given the old age of their energy transport facilities, whether electricity or gas.
It was amazing to see last year that numerous people in America tried to explain the great Texas energy breakdown with wind energy based production problems, and carefully avoid to mention that the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines.
And as usual, ren, your forecasts for Europe are completely delusional.
You are a funny troll.
https://i.ibb.co/RD2s4Xd/Screenshot-1.png
Because of people like you, Putin is holding Europe down.
WOW!!!
I wasn’t aware of my power having such destructive influence on a whole continent.
Reminds me Popeye and his spinach, doesn’t it?
I will say more than that, there is no longer an energy community in the EU because Germany wants to become a middleman in selling Russian gas. This policy will lead to the breakup of the EU.
Wanna bet, ren?
EU’s markets are looking good these days.
Some info from the ‘braindead cult idiot’
I read above, without any surprise
” In that section, they are under the impression that the Moon rotates on a local axis but wrt the stars. Why would they specify wrt the stars? ”
Incredible. ‘under the impression’. Robertson is dumb, and will keep dumb.
Nowhere did anyone write that.
What was written in the article is this below:
” Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be placed in a nearly circular polar orbit about 50 kilometers (31 miles) above the surface of the Moon, completing each orbit in a little less than two hours.
The orientation of this orbit remains fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly rotates beneath it as they travel together around the Earth, allowing LRO to scan the entire surface of the Moon every two weeks. ”
Is that REALLY so complicated to understand?
LRO’s orbit around Moon is fixed in space!
” Relative to the stars ” means that if a sensor is onboard LRO, it will see a previously selected star at exactly the same position in the sky.
And you need the star’s position in order to ensure that LRO’s orbit keeps absolutely stable.
This means that LRO itself doesn’t rotate. Why should it do that?
And … where should the fuel have come from since it orbited the moon? From magic?
*
” Note that NASA claims the Moon rotates wrt the stars, not about a local axis. ”
No wonder to read such a nonsense from a person who UNTIL TODAY still did not manage to really understand how anomalies with annual cycle removal are computed, be it by UAH, GISS, NOAA or others.
NASA never claimed ” the Moon rotates wrt the stars “.
That is what Robertson thinks, and nothing else.
Nothing rotates wrt the stars.
All what astronomers do is to COMPUTE ROTATION PERIODS wrt to a fixed point in space: for example, a distant star (not: the Sun !).
Newton had perfectly understood that: he knew that Sun’s rotation period is
– 27 1/2 days when observing the return of a selected sun spot at the same place
but
– 25 1/2 days when the same distant star is at the same place in the sky. Astronomers know how to compute the difference.
*
Finally, a few references because Robertson is unable to search for information:
” I have just spent a couple of hours reading on LRO and in none of the articles did they refer to the Moon rotating about a local axis. ”
1. Here is a reconstruction of what LRO sees during 348 orbits; remember: it needs 27.3 days to obtain the whole stuff, this can therefore only be a video synthesized from numerous recordings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNUNB6CMnE8
There are numerous videos of that kind:
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130916.html
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180318.html
etc etc etc.
But… Robertson and his friends-in-denial will of course say:
“That’s not real; I don’t believe it”
like do all Flateathers when they look at any Earth picture taken from space.
2. I have posted a link to this article at least once:
Lunar rotation measurement using orbital observations by LRO
Stark, Alexander & alii (2018)
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.9977S/abstract
” In this paper, we demonstrate that this data can be used to track the slight variations in the orientation of the rotation axis and the rotation rate. ”
” In our initial results, based on more than 10 million LOLA footprints (6166 profiles) from the lunar North Pole, we demonstrate the recovery of small oscillations in the orientation of the lunar rotation axis (in the order of ten arc seconds) in agreement with models obtained from the lunar LR data. ”
*
There are also a few other articles about cross-checking lunar spin computed out of LRO data with LLR data obtained from Earth observatories like in Grasse, France.
Once more, a link problem, here is its tinyURL:
https://tinyurl.com/msdm3bs8
The LRO does not, and cannot, provide evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis, as has now been thoroughly explained. That you did not understand the explanation is nobody’s fault but your own. This is not even the first time you have tried to bring this up.
I perfectly know what you mean.
But… what I write must always be put in relation to the fact that among many many others
– Mayer in 1750 (simple telescope)
– Habibullin in 1963 (modern telescope with fixed star calibration)
– Calamé in 1976 (lunar laser ranging data)
– Stark & al. in 2018 (LRO data)
all four computed nearly the same value for Moon’s spin and polar axis inclination, though their observation tools and their observation data processing methods were completely different.
Around all that you can dodge as long as you want.
“…all four computed nearly the same value for Moon’s spin and polar axis inclination”
Of course they did…because the moon moves as it does.
The Moon rotates once on its axis for every orbit of the Earth. That is its motion.
Actually 2 separate motions that combine to what we on Earth see of the Moon.
Agree to disagree.
It appears that I will always disagree with you. And if you continue with your ridiculous posting, my replies will continue also.
OK, curmudgeon.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
OK, RLH.
DREMT: #n Please stop trolling.
I said OK, didn’t I?
DREMT: #n+1 Please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n+2 Please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n+3 Please stop trolling.
#3
RLH, please stop trolling.
And, as a last hint, I repeat what I wrote a few times.
Should there be some idle time for lunar observation in James Webb’s time schedule, so there must be, for any fixed point on the Moon, when viewed e.g. from Sun-Earth’s Lagrange point L2, a difference between its trajectory in space when moving (1) without or (2) with a lunar rotation about its polar axis.
In the first case, the fixed point’s trajectory in space will be the same as that of the lunar poles; in the second case, there will be a small difference, due to the rotation of 13.1762 degrees per day.
You demonstrate you do not understand, but claim you do. Got it.
What about YOU explaining WHAT I don’t understand?
Already have. You just dismiss any MOTL/MOTR talk out of hand, without even trying to understand. Same as a few other people I could mention.
So Kiddo soldiers on, once again dismissing what others tell him by whining about how misunderstood he is.
Butt out, Buttinski.
” You just dismiss any MOTL/MOTR talk out of hand, without even trying to understand. ”
Sorry, but this is not true at all. I understand all what you write.
But… between understanding and agreeing things based on nothing else than a few highly superficial Serbian quick-shots compared with centuries of science, there is a gap I do not accept to move over.
Your problem: you, Robertson, Flynnson, Clint R, bill hunter and a couple of others are a tiny minority basing their guesses on the thoughts of a tiny minority.
OK, Bindidon.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
DREMT: Please stop trolling.
RLH, please stop trolling.
DREMT: #n Please stop trolling.
#2
RLH, please stop trolling.
And I repeat: what you see can’t be due to a non-rotating Moon. But that you see only when looking how a non-rotating Moon behaves along its orbit, e.g. in a simulation software.
Bindidon, you’re braindead. You can’t understand the motions. You refuse the reality of the ball-on-a-string. You can’t visualize that the LRO in a fixed orbit would see all sides of Moon as it made its orbit. It’s just like sitting in the bleachers watching a track runner. The runner is not rotating about his axis, but you would see all sides of him in one lap.
You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Does the ‘outer’ leg of a track runner travel further than his/her ‘inner’ leg during a lap? Would that not result in a turn being performed?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111372
Vintage 2020-11:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548545
It’s been a while Kiddo hasn’t tried his hand on torques.
Pup never tries his hand on anything. He just enables Kiddo.
Cult Leader pups, there is no string between the Earth-Moon barycenter, only the force of gravity. The string prevents the ball in your scenario from rotating independently, gravity does not. The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once each orbit.
Willard Jr, you and your dad have the same problem. Neither of you knows anything about orbital motion, or the physics involved. Neither of you had a clue how to solve the easy problems.
Without any credibility, you both will remain worthless trolls, wasting space on this blog.
Have we ever saw Kiddo trying to solve a problem? How about Mike Flynn? At least Gordo tries.
Pup mostly plays Sphynx.
By any chance, could you please try to become utterly obsessed with somebody else, Willard?
Vintage 2018-12:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333249
Look who’s obsessed!
Digging up and quoting my old comments just makes you seem even more obsessed with me.
Kiddo soldiers on, forgetting that “site:drroyspencer.com” takes seconds. He also kinda miss the point of why I have chosen this very comment. Check what he says there. Check what he says here.
Nothing changed much in his Master Argument. Which isn’t an argument at all, come to think of it.
If only Kiddo did some physics all these years instead of asserting ad nauseam a simplistic thing he then claims nobody understands.
Yeah, you still seem pretty obsessed with me.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the point that has just been made.
Your “point” is just another personal insult in your relentless stream of endlessly derogatory comments towards me. Anything I would say in my defense you would automatically take up the opposing position no matter what, and the discussion would just go on indefinitely. So I choose to ignore your “point”. Because…there’s no point talking to you.
You will now respond with another insulting or condescending comment.
Kiddo rips off his shirt instead of addressing the point being made:
Nothing changed much in the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument since 2018, a mere laundry list of simplistic assertions.
How he can repeat these assertions ad nauseam and then claims he’s being misrepresented, is only par for his victim bullying.
People demonstrate they do not understand through what they post. Like claiming that the LRO observations provides evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis.
More insults and condescension, please.
Sure. You are an idiot.
Kiddo keeps doubling down on how people are mean to him and how he’s being misrepresented instead of owning that commenters on this blog already countered every single point he might have raised over the years. All they got in return, from our Dark Triad of commenters, are endless repetitions of ridicule and trolling.
Gordo, at the very least, tries.
Earlier I cited a 2018-12 thread, but it extends beyond that, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/l-a-wildfires-creating-spectacular-smoke-plume/#comment-277793
The first poster is of course one of Pup’s sock puppet.
That’s the spirit.
Vintage 2018-03:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/a-1d-model-of-global-temperature-changes-1880-2017-low-climate-sensitivity-and-more/#comment-290056
Mike Flynn was already peddling his “molten core” theory. Pup was already spouting Moon Dragon crank stuff. Kiddo appeared later on. It changed nothing much, except to create a Dark Triad impersonation.
At least Gordo tried, even back then.
Sure, "Dark Triad". That sounds sinister. No idea what you are talking about, but it sounds good.
Moon Dragon Cranks Just Want to Have Fun:
https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf
Let’s remind readers which role Kiddo pretends to play at Roy’s, and compare with the effect his interactions create.
While some kind of Comedy of Menace ought to be expected, online communities should be able to defend themselves against characters such as Pup, Mike Flynn, and Kiddo.
What about characters such as yourself, and RLH, for instance? How will this online community defend itself from the likes of you two?
And so Kiddo soldiers on, trying to “What About” his way out of this intervention, oblivious to the fact that me and Richard have very different roles, and can contribute much more than pure contradiction.
He also forgets that we already been where we are right now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719183
Speaking of timestamps, Kiddo spent a white night yesterday here.
You are a troll, Willard.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that he’s being slayed.
No, you’re just trolling.
Said the troll.
And so, having no idea what it means to act in an authentic, constructive, and collaborative manner in a social setting on the Internet, with no real sense of purpose, with a silly “NO U,” Kiddo soldiers on.
He’s yours, guy. Cherish him. He definitely needs love.
OK, RLH. You think I am a troll. Presumably though, you also think Willard is a troll, yes?
Kiddo needs all the allies he can get these days. That includes our Hall Monitor. Will he succeed with his deceptive deflection?
Tune in tomorrow… Unless Kiddo decides to sacrifice more sleeping hours!
Machiavellianism is hard for the body.
Maybe we should all just post continuously about who is the biggest troll.
01:11 his time, Kiddo soldiers on, suggesting that content doesn’t really matter, being oblivious to what could be considered a constructive, collaborative, or authentic comment.
Even style escapes him.
Willard, have you ever considered that I’m not actually evil, and that maybe I’m just some guy that disagrees with you on trivial matters…but is perhaps more tenacious than most?
02:19 his time, Kiddo soldiers on, trying to bargain while playing once again the victim.
Let’s hope he won’t fall into depression next.
Well I am the victim, of an extraordinarily long, extended personal attack…but don’t worry, I’m starting to find it funny now. It is pretty hard to take you seriously.
☺️
And so Kiddo soldiers on, with a bright 2:26 AM spirit!
DREMT,
He might be vacuous, but at least he’s irrelevant.
No doubt a legend in his own lunchbox, but in all likelihood just another embittered plodding academic, whose self-esteem has received a flogging at the hands of reality.
I’ve met a few. Sad sacks, desperate to be recognised, but incapable of doing better.
Generally spend a lot of time whining about how the world doesn’t appreciate their greatness, people bully and insult them, administration is biased against them, and on it goes.
Luckily, they are generally too ineffectual to do more than try to gum up the system a bit. No real harm done.
DREMTA: I KNOW you are a troll. You have even said so yourself.
I have never said the words “I am a troll”. I don’t think I’m a troll, no, but I at least have the self-awareness to realize other people might see it that way, and why.
Swenson: yes, no harm done. Just another yapping chihuahua.
Kiddo soldiers on:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
But he never said “I am a troll.” Strictly speaking he just did, but he did not mean it.
Our Dragon cranks don’t troll. They just want to have a bit of fun.
Yes, having a bit of fun, with the whole “Emergency Moderation Team” thing. As in, it’s not meant to be taken seriously, like I am not actually saying I’m a real moderator! But some people are a bit slow on the uptake…
Trolls just want to have fun. Kiddo just wants to have fun.
But Kiddo never ever ever trolls.
Ever.
And so Kiddo soldiers on.
Take that sentence out of context all you want, it does not mean what you want it to mean. Yap away.
Kiddo never trolls, ever ever. He *will* try to deflect from the fact that when he says that he’s just having a little bit of fun when he’s PSTing people, he might very well be. And for his defense he might try to suggest that someone, somewhere, *really* believes he’s Roy’s moderator and that he’s misrepresented once again.
As long as Kiddo is having fun:
all is well.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Yap away.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Still yapping, I see.
Willard says:
April 30, 2021 at 5:56 PM
Isnt that an indicator of trolling?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
April 30, 2021 at 6:01 PM
Probably.
But DREMT is not a troll. Apparently.
I’m touched that you hang on my every word, but no…I was just being facetious.
Binny,
You wrote –
“This means that LRO itself doesnt rotate. Why should it do that?”
Well, according to you, if the LRO continuously keeps one face to the Moon (reasonable, if it is taking pictures of the Moon during its orbit), then it bears the same relationship to the body it is orbiting (the Moon), as the Moon does to the body it orbits (the Earth).
You say the Moon rotates about an internal axis as it orbits the Earth with one face towards it. The LRO faces the Moon as it orbits it, but you claim it doesn’t rotate.
The LRO free falls around the Moon, just as the Moon free falls around the Earth.
In any case, could you please explain why the Moon rotates while orbiting the Earth, but the LRO does not rotate while orbiting the Moon?
Tidal locking. A phenomena well understood in scientific circles.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111197
“It was amazing to see last year that numerous people in America tried to explain the great Texas energy breakdown with wind energy based production problems, and carefully avoid to mention that the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines.”
That is a bald-faced lie. The Root Cause Analysis of The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages in Texas and the South Central United States concluded that:
” That is a bald-faced lie. ”
1. Sorry, this information came last year from a Texan newspaper, the “Texas Tribune”.
2. The ‘Root Cause Analysis’ you mention does not contain any reference to what I wrote.
From Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
I read
” State officials including governor Greg Abbott[13] initially blamed[14] the outages on frozen wind turbines and solar panels. However, data showed that failure to winterize power sources, primarily those of natural gas, had caused the grid failure. ”
And please manage not to be the next guy telling us like Robertson & Co that Wiki is misinforming just because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
You said: “the breakdown in fact was due to… frozen gas pipelines”. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1111197)
Your Wiki page does not corroborate your statement; therefore your statement is a bald-faced lie.
The RCA Report says on page 92:
Reminds me of this great story:
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
P.s.: I’m not trying to be a d*ck about this but natural gas is my business and, coming up on the anniversary of an event that killed more than 200 fellow Texans, perpetuating these myths is counterproductive if not negligent.
As usual, Americanos know everything better, sometimes even about the entire Globe.
No problem for me.
Now you’re just being silly.
Don’t forget you are the one who opined about the cause of the power failure in Texas (USA).
> Don’t forget you are the one who opined about the cause of the power failure in Texas
Perhaps you’ll listen to Joshua Rhodes, Tyson:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/what-went-wrong-with-texass-main-electric-grid-and-could-it-have-been-prevented/
You might also like:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185
Next time, leave Liz alone 😉
Yes, all true. Still, the fact remains that, the natural gas distribution system (a.k.a. the pipelines) were not the problem. The bulk of the failures occurred upstream due to wells freezing up, or downstream at the generating facilities.
Fair. You’re also right about scapegoating – it won’t bring us any soul back.
The JWST uses an artificial “atmosphere” to cool itself. The “atmosphere” consists of 5 layers. Like Earth’s atmosphere, it reflects solar SW, and emits LW. JWST’s “atmosphere” will always face the Sun, allowing the telescope to maintain very cold temperatures.
The IR telescope must be at very cold temperatures to absorb the low energy photons from space. The typical operating temperature is -380F (-229C).
It’s nice to see some “real engineering” from NASA and its contractors. “Real engineering” points out that an atmosphere cools, it does NOT warm. And surfaces must be very cold to absorb low energy photons. Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons.
And the surface that points towards the Sun constantly is at what temperature?
Clint R,
Temperature has nothing to do with it, if Earth at 288K can emit 15 u photons, and it does, then it can absorb them.
They name a law of physics for this principle after someone, gee, can you remember whom?
Wrong again, braindead bob. You’re probably thinking of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation. But, as usual, you can’t understand it.
“Before Kirchhoff’s law was recognized, it had been experimentally established that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. Naturally, a good reflector must be a poor absorber. This is why, for example, lightweight emergency thermal blankets are based on reflective metallic coatings: they lose little heat by radiation”
“a good absorber is a good emitter”
Not sure but might be interesting discussing atm. radiation fundamentals on a climate blog again. So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a “good absorber” of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isn’t ozone also a “good emitter” of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?
“One of Einstein’s contributions was to show that for a given radiation, the probability for emission is the same as the probability of a*b*s*o*r*ption. This fact is described in terms of the Einstein A and B coefficients and is very important in laser theory”
You want to argue with that?
Unimportant for the question I asked. Of course absorp_tion and emission are inverse processes.
Hint: Whether something is good or bad cannot be determined until criteria for goodness or badness are specified.
ball4,
You wrote –
“So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a good absorber of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isnt ozone also a good emitter of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?”
That is actually a good question, and points out several misunderstandings about the nature of atmospheric physics. The question is completely misleading, of course, and makes assumptions which are not relevant to the thrust of the question.
Maybe you could do some research for yourself. The answer is quite simple, but you will find that many of the supposedly factual statements coming from the EPA, NASA, Wikipedia, and others are complete nonsense, and not supported by fact.
If you do determine the correct answer to your question, your climate faith may suffer quite a hit. I wish you well.
Ball4 says: “So, RLH, if ozone in the upper atmosphere is a “good absorber” of solar ultraviolet radiation, why isnt ozone also a “good emitter” of such radiation, thereby undoing the good that ozone is said to do?”
Ozone *is* also a “good emitter” — but you must fully understand the situation. If some amount of ozone absorbs 90% as much as a blackbody at a particular wavelength, then it also emits 90% as much as a blackbody at a particular wavelength.
But here is the critical practical difference. The absor.bed UV comes from the sun, which is hot enough to create significant amounts of UV. The emitted UV comes from the atmosphere, which is NOT hot enough to create significant amounts of UV. 90% of “a lot” is not the same amount as 90% of “practically nothing”.
Tim, decent points. As Swenson implies, writing “a good absorber is a good emitter” is useless until the criteria for good and bad are specified.
To reduce the rate of radiative cooling of the contents of steam pipes in power plants or insulation for houses (or of anything) they are wrapped with a “bad” emitter, which is “good”.
Do you wrap hot sandwiches with aluminum foil? If so, you are making use of the “good” properties of a “bad” emitter (low emissivity polished metal).
It gets a little more complicated with Ozone and with Oxygen, because in the case with Ozone and Oxygen there are chemical reactions that take place such that when Ozone or Oxygen absorb UV, then they are no longer Ozone or Oxygen molecules.
See here
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35734/what-property-allows-ozone-to-absorb-uv-light
Yeah, Right, Clint R, you understand it but I don’t.
Tell me again, who has passed the higher level physics course?
The Earth emits between 3 and 100 u photons, and thus can absorb them as well.
bobdroege master of the completely irrevelant!
Good, bob. Now demonstrate your internet cutting and pasting skills, and show us you don’t understand what you are talking about.
What is the power in W/m2 of the15 u photons emitted by the Earth? What percentage of total emissions does this represent?
If you can’t answer a simple physics question, you have successfully shown you are are as dumb as a box of hair.
Go on, idiot bob, do it for my amusement. Measured, of course, not dredged from the foetid contents of your fantasy. Don’t forget the Earth is not a blackbody, and there is a significant dip in the emission spectrum at around 15 u.
You really are a dumbass (as you put it), aren’t you?
Boring bong dead Mikey Swenson Flynn,
“Dont forget the Earth is not a blackbody, and there is a significant dip in the emission spectrum at around 15 u.”
Yeah, right, its not a blackbody, so apply the measured emissivity.
Yeah, right, there is a notch around 15 u, but I was talking about the surface at 288 K average, the notch is from the emission including the atmosphere, and looky looky, Mike Swenson Flynn has found the greenhouse effect again.
What a tool, hey, can you loosen a screw, or maybe tighten one?
Or maybe you need a trip to the dispensary.
braindead bob admits: “…you understand it but I don’t.”
Correct bob.
And I’ve obviously had much more physics than you when you can’t solve the simple problems I’ve presented. And the funny part is you can’t even understand the solutions! You and RLH had never heard of “polar coordinates” before.
Clint R,
Yeah Right,
Though I did get spherical coordinates mixed up with polar coordinates, you got me there, but
Using polar coordinates for an orbital problem is stupid.
And your vectors are wrong, if the two vectors at the top of your stupid diagram are the only vectors acting on the body, it will not move in a circle like you claim.
And I know this because you claimed they could be added, which means they are the same kind of vector, and the sum of them would move the moon linearly and would not cause it to move in the manner shown in your problem.
Come on there, bobdroege,
Just because you don’t know what you are talking about is no excuse to act dumber than a box of hair.
Here’s the question again – what is the power in W/m2 of the 15 u microns emitted by the Earth? What percentage of total emissions does this represent?
Pointless asking, I know, because neither you nor your idiot fellow cultists have a clue about reality.
Maybe you are dumber than a box of hair. A box of hair would have been smart enough not to demonstrate how dumb it was , dumbass (too use one of your terms again).
Next time, seek advice from a bag full of hammers. Above your level of intelligence – should be able to help you out, dumbass.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
Using polar coordinates for an orbital problem is the correct choice. Knowing which coordinate system is best for solving a problem comes from experience. And it doesn’t take much experience to know polar coordinates best fit circular motion.
The given vectors are not wrong. If correctly added, the resultant steers the body in a new direction. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string. In the perfect situation identified, the orbit will result in a perfect circle, as the vectors are not changing in magnitude. In a real orbit, the vectors are changing in both direction and magnitude, resulting in a ellipse.
You keep trying to make a smokescreen about “kinds” of vectors. In this simple problem, they are all the same “kind”, i.e., same units. All you need to solve the problem were magnitudes and directions.
You’ll never understand because you’re braindead.
Clint R,
“The given vectors are not wrong. If correctly added, the resultant steers the body in a new direction. It’s the same as a ball-on-a-string. In the perfect situation identified, the orbit will result in a perfect circle, as the vectors are not changing in magnitude.”
Nope, if those are the only two vectors, then the body will move off in a straight line, if they are the same vectors.
If they are velocity vectors, it will move at a constant velocity.
If they are acceleration vectors they will move off in a straight line accelerating as it moves off.
Are there other vectors involved that will cause it to orbit?
Swenson,
If you walk out in the night sky with a spectrophotometer, pick up an IR CO2 band, then it proves GHE. See, you’d be standing on the ground, and the CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Swenson Mikey Flynn,
Yeah you can ask me a question I don’t know the answer to, big deal.
I don’t know how much of the out going long range is 15 u
The topic was whether or not the Earth can absorb wavelengths that it emits, which Clint R said was impossible.
If you want to know that number, check out the Trenberth diagram.
Like do your own research, you might find another example of where the greenhouse effect can be found.
But then you have already provided several.
I must always be the one to break off with these braindead cult idiots. Someone has to be the adult in the room. braindead bob will be here all night.
I started this with my comment about how much engineering was required to keep the JWST cold enough for the telescope to function: “And surfaces must be very cold to absorb low energy photons.”
Then bob states: “Temperature has nothing to do with it.”
bob is so braindead he doesn’t realize he’s arguing with NASA engineering.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
You are taking my comment out of context for one, and second you might want to take a look at why the James Webb telescope has to be so cold.
You might find there is a difference between absorbing photons and getting a good IR image.
Remember that this is what you said
“Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons.”
And I say, Earth emits them, so Earth can absorb them.
“Being an exquisitely sensitive infrared astronomical observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope’s optics and scientific instruments need to be cold to suppress infrared background “noise.”
from NASA at https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/innovations/cryocooler.html
Had you refrained from writing “Earth at 288K can NOT absorb low energy 15μ CO2 photons,” Bob might not even have replied to you.
Funny you forget to mention that bit, Pup.
But then to troll or not to troll, isn’t it?
braindead bob forgot the rest: “Moreover, the detectors inside each scientific instrument, that convert infrared light signals into electrical signals for processing into images, need to be cold to work just right. Typically, the longer the wavelength of infrared light, the colder the detector needs to be to do this conversion while also limiting the generation of random “noise” electrons.”
Now I have to leave so the cult idiots can pervert the issue as much as they like.
Clint wants to know how “back radiation” from a colder atmosphere heats a warmer surface to a temperature higher than the Sun heats it? He also wants to know why the Sun can’t heat the Earth above -18C when its actual intensity at the Earth is well above 100C? Two simple questions?
stephen…”Clint wants to know how back radiation from a colder atmosphere heats a warmer surface to a temperature higher than the Sun heats it?”
***
There’s another issue at stake with this lame AGW theory. The back-radiation allegedly comes from heated trace gases that were heated by absorbing IR from the surface. They only back-radiate an unknown proportion of the radiation received. That theoretical processes requires the recycling of heat from the surface and back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the source.
Such a heat amplifier would be a neat trick for heating a home cheaply but it won’t work. It’s called perpetual motion.
The surpassingly dimwitted bobdroege still can’t figure out how to force water to absorb photons emitted by ice, becoming hotter in the process.
Search Wikipedia or the internet as hard as he might, blather away furiously, he can’t turn fantasy into fact.
He is a dumbass (one of bobdroege’s terms).
Here’s Bob’s response to a question I asked, to see if he understood what he was cutting and pasting from the internet –
“Swenson Mikey Flynn,
Yeah you can ask me a question I dont know the answer to, big deal.”
Easy for anyone to check the thread, and see if the question I asked was reasonable. It would appear that bob couldn’t find an answer anywhere, which points to a similar level of ignorance amongst so-called “climate scientists”.
Pity, but not unexpected.
I mean thank God for that miracle and these idiots want to get rid of the Greenhouse gases. They want to get rid of these miracle gases that heat our planet from -18C where very little can live to a nice cozy 15C. Geez Louise. It’s amazing life has endured these billions of years with such a delicate balance. 3C more and we’re toast. A few C less and we’re toast. I can’t sleep.
Swenson,
“Easy for anyone to check the thread, and see if the question I asked was reasonable.”
It may be reasonable or maybe not, but then am I your errand boy?
You are capable of doing your own research?
It’s actually irrelevant to the question posed, that is whether or not the Earth can absorb the same radiation it emits.
I think that’s a simple question for a simpleton.
Maybe that’s right down your alley.
Gordon,
It would actually be of some use if you understood the greenhouse effect, and that you wouldn’t be attacking a straw man version of it.
“Theres another issue at stake with this lame AGW theory. The back-radiation allegedly comes from heated trace gases that were heated by absorbing IR from the surface.”
They are also gaining energy from collisions with other gases in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen.
“They only back-radiate an unknown proportion of the radiation received.”
Nope, the amount is know, it depends only on the temperature and concentration of the CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The emission of radiation from the CO2 gas in the atmosphere is first order, maybe you remember what that means from your chemistry lessons.
“That theoretical processes requires the recycling of heat from the surface and back to the surface so as to raise the temperature of the source.”
Well, the surface isn’t the source of the heat, which comes from the Sun, and then the surface emits, the atmosphere absorbs, and the atmosphere emits, and the surface absorbs again.
No perpetual motion, as there is a heat source, it’s the Sun.
Clint R confuses being cold to work just right and being cold necessary to absorb IR.
One is true and one is false, and CLint R can’t tell which is which.
You’re the confused one, Droege, and it isn’t a first-order process. There is no insulator here, and CO2 doesn’t heat anything. The atmosphere cools the surface; it is the heat sink. Not the other way around. If it wasn’t for the atmosphere the planet would be very hot.
Stephen p anderson,
The atmosphere is the heat sink?
Nope, everything is a heat sink.
“If it wasnt for the atmosphere the planet would be very hot.”
That’s not the point, and irrelevant.
“There is no insulator here”
Yes there is, everything insulates, some things better than others, some things insulate only in certain ways.
“CO2 doesnt heat anything.”
That’s a pretty general statement and of course there are exceptions.
CO2 does prevent IR of certain wavelengths from transmitting though the atmosphere, and it emits radiation based only on concentration and temperature. And the concentration of excited states do decay to lower levels according to dN/dt = – lamda T.
That’s what I meant by first order.
Don’t tell me I am confused when everything in your post is wrong.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
An idiot troll posted –
“Moon Dragon Cranks Just Want to Have Fun: . . .”
The troll is so stupid he just strings words together at random, hoping that this will make him look intelligent. Pity he has nothing relevant to say.
Good thing he is powerless, stupid, and incompetent. Could be a danger to himself and others. otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Marshalling Falsities.
Powerless, stupid, incompetent – and totally out of ideas.
Hasn’t realised his fantasy is not reality, yet.
Mike Flynn,
Mightily Freewheeling.
As I pointed out, powerless, stupid, incompetent, lazy – and repetitively demonstrating insanity, as Albert Einstein defined it.
Mike Flynn,
Macabre Marginalization,
Why do you reveal your deepest fears?
Tell us your bit about the teaspoon of cement.
You know, to harden up.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Powerless, stupid, sloppy, incompetent, and often incoherent.
A perfect mascot for climate cultists.
Await more repetitive fantasy, with the dummy hoping it will become fact.
Mike Flynn, Machine Gun Firing –
You sure you can’t do better than that?
Try your bit about Gavin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I continue Antonin Qwerty’s comment posted on January 3, 2022 at 4:47 PM
” And yet warmer than any other year with La Nina bookends. ”
I think he made a good, moderate point.
Because it doesn’t make much sense to point out that 2021 was the coldest one during the last 5, 6 or 7 years in UAH’s history.
Simply because
– 2016 was UAH’s warmest on record;
– 2016 and 2020 were both Nino years.
Correct would be to compare 2021’s anomaly average – a full Nina year – with that of some similar years in the recent past:
1999 -0.154 (C)
2000 -0.157
2008 -0.238
2011 -0.119
2018 0.087
2021 0.134
*
It is well worth noting that in 2021, the first 11 of the 12 months were cooler than their corresponding last year. For sure!
But… according to my SQL corner, that happened in 1981, 1982, 1989, 1992, 1999 and 2011 as well.
*
It is also well worth noting that in 2021, global sea ice extent was higher than during all the years following 2015:
1981-2010: 23.27 (Mkm^2)
2015: 23.03
2012: 22.42
2021: 22.07
2020: 21.70
2016: 21.45
2018: 21.36
2016-2020: 21.32
2017: 21.14
2019: 21.01
But here too, a fair comparison with similar years is needed.
*
Anyway, for us in Western Europe, more warming is good locally, for sure! I love mild winters.
But more warming globally means more sea ice and ice sheet melting in Northwest Atlantic, hence more cold and less salty water there, hence more atmospheric perturbations, more rain and wind all over the year.
” it doesnt make much sense to point out that 2021 was the coldest one during the last 5, 6 or 7 years in UAHs history”
Even if it is a fact?
Your cherry-picking is boring ad nauseam.
Simply because
– 2016 was UAH’s warmest on record;
– 2016 and 2020 were both Nino years.
Correct would be to compare 2021’s anomaly average – a full Nina year – with that of some similar years in the recent past:
1999 -0.154 (C)
2000 -0.157
2008 -0.238
2011 -0.119
2018 0.087
2021 0.134
So a fact is cherry picking is it? Let’s just ignore all facts then.
The fact isn’t a problem. Your subtext is.
What sub-text? That the fact that this year is lower than most (if not all) of the last 5-6 years. Sure you can observe that the last 5-6 years have also been the hotest ever, but that does not alter the claim. It does set it in context perhaps but to observe that this year is descending from a recent high point is also relevant.
“It does set it in context perhaps”
Very good, next time context would be helpful.
With James Webb Space Telescope’s huge sunshield in place, focus shifts to big mirrors
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-deployment-next-steps
“On Tuesday (Jan. 4), Webb finished bringing its huge, five-layer sunshield up to the proper tension, wrapping up the most complex and tricky operation of the $10 billion observatory’s lengthy deployment phase.
The mission team can therefore now turn to the next big-ticket item on its to-do list: getting the telescope’s secondary and primary mirrors into the proper configuration. But it’ll take a while to check those boxes.”
g,
How you can use something established by experience without having to know why –
“Gold just happens to reflect blue light very poorly but red and infrared light extremely well.”
From the jswt.nasa.website. The article also mentions what happens to photons which impinge upon a surface but are not absorbed – a fact which climate crackpots refuse to accept. You often hear them plaintively whining “But what happens to the photons emitted by GHGs?”
Maybe they should read about the James Webb Space Telescope. The builders seem fairly sure that their facts are good enough to ensure the project’s success.
I certainly wish them success.
Good. I’ve always regarded the James Webb telescope as a Heath Robinson contraption, so I’m glad it’s unfurling is going so well.
“The James Webb Space Telescope achieved another major milestone today, successfully extending its secondary mirror as it continues to sail seamlessly through its never-before-conducted deployment sequence on the way to its destination. ”
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-secondary-mirror-deployed
Who can state what is wrong with this statement from a national publication concerning the JWST sunshade?
“with gaps between each layer to allow residual heat to escape to the sides, the sunshade will constantly face the sun.”
Taken out of context, it’s hard to see your perspective. Are you referring to the fact that the gaps aren’t the reason the sunshade faces the sun?
Spoiler:
I will give the answer. Stop reading if you want to figure it out.
There is no convection in a vacuum, so nothing will “escape to the sides”. The gaps are to prevent the layers from touching which might cause conduction. Otherwise, there is no need for the gaps.
tim s…radiation will travel through a vacuum and any heat converted to EM or IR will move through the vacuum, dissipating the heat within.
Tim S,
Although a surface emits heat in all directions, meaning that heat from the radiating surface will indeed escape “sideways”. I suppose the builders are happy with trade offs that almost invariably have to be made.
However, I agree that often journalists often don’t seem to realise that they are talking nonsense – in all sorts of areas.
No offence intended.
Here is the way I see it. The first shield facing the sun sees the extreme temperature of the sun, but with a relatively small surface area, so the effect is not very strong. The second layer sees the full area of the first, but the temperature has been reduced greatly from that of the sun. Each layer is at a lower temperature including the final layer which sees the background temperature of outer space. I think there was a comment somewhere that the final layer facing outer space cools the instruments. That is nonsense. To the extent that the operation of the instruments creates heat, outer space does the cooling just fine, thank you. The final layer simply shields the instruments from the fourth layer, and so on.
“There is no convection in a vacuum, so nothing will “escape to the sides”. ”
Since the radiation shields are not perfect reflectors, then at least some radiation will escape to the sides. Bigger gaps = more escape (but I agree this is a relatively small affect here.)
“The first shield facing the sun sees the extreme temperature of the sun, but with a relatively small surface area, so the effect is not very strong. ”
Surface area is not really a factor. Everything scales with area. It is the high reflectivity that is key, reflecting most of the EM radiation so that only a little gets absorbed.
My point about the sun was that the very high temperature is offset by the relatively small projected area because we are so far away from the sun. I agree that the coating making the shields highly reflective is the key to its performance.
This looks like the green plate blue plate scenario to me
test one
curioso…”Gordon Robertson, thats a disingenuous and lazy response to my question. Its basic statistical literacy that a meaningful graph requires some knowledge of uncertainty on the data points. And the vast majority of people who will find/read this blog will have at least basic statistical literacy. Also, if this is the first time theyre seeing Dr. Spencers graph or they havent read his papers thoroughly, theyll immediately think the question Im asking. So the fact that this isnt a scientific journal is irrelevant”.
***
1)This is a blog….I am sure Roy provided the graph to appeal to blogsters not for scientific scrutiny.
You are cherry-picking by demanding error bars on data points that cover an entire month and you come across as an alarmist nitpicker who is looking to discredit Roy’s data.
2)I took a full years’ course in engineering probability and statistics. Although much of that part of my memory is rusty I still the retain the basics of what I was taught. In fact, I was taught how to estimate error margins for data measurements in labs.
2)I was also taught enough about confidence levels to understand that the IPCC, NOAA and NASA use them inappropriately. The IPCC presents confidence levels as ‘likely’, most likely, etc., a completely fabricated system for ranking scientific facts.
NOAA claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever using a 48% confidence level. Some have argued here they are not confidence levels but probabilities. To me, there is no difference. NOAA is claiming essentially that they don’t know 2014 was the hottest year ever but they think it might be. Their 48% number says it all…they are lying alarmists.
NASA GISS ranked the same year as the hottest using a 38% confidence level. With chicanery like that from surface records why quibble over the lack of error margins on Roy’s data? At least his data is real, unlike the fudged data produced by NOAA and GISS.
UAH does work out error margin for their data points but I see no reason why they need to clutter up a simple graph for a blog with error bars. If you look at the current hockey stick graph put out by the IPCC it has so many error bars cluttering the graph that it is unreadable. That’s why it’s called the spaghetti graph.
Roy’s graph is delivering a visual message and it does it very well. There is no need for error bars on it since they would make no difference to the visual message.
Most sceptic graphs leave off the error bars.
A cynic would wonder if their purpose was not to inform the educated, but to misinformation the uneducated.
Tell me what error bars you would add for point samples at ~2m in volumes that are 10,000m cube.
Insufficient detail.
swannie…”…The string prevents the ball in your scenario from rotating independently, gravity does not. The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once each orbit”.
***
Gravity prevents the Moon from flying off along a tangent line to the orbit therefore it is accomplishing the same things as the string. The ball wants to fly off along a tangent line to its orbit, what’s the difference?
The point is that both the ball and the Moon have an inner face and an outer face moving in parallel, therefore neither can rotate about the COG. It’s easier to explain why with the BOS, tension on the string does not allow the ball’s inner face to rotate.
With the Moon, the string is not required since it has a natural linear momentum that always wants to move in one direction only. Gravity serves only to keep redirecting the velocity vector into an orbit.
Although there is no physical connection between the Moon and Earth, the gravitational field holds the Moon at a relatively constant altitude. The altitude is critically related the linear velocity/momentum of the Moon and to any anomalies in the gravitational field.
They have the same problem with the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO). Gravitational anomalies in the Moon affect its orbit slightly. The same anomalies account for the eccentricity of the lunar orbit. As gravity weakens slightly in certain portions of the orbit, the Moon’s linear momentum has a greater effect, elongating the orbit.
There is a similar measurable effect when a cylinder rolls down an incline at the surface. Although gravity always acts vertically on the cylinder at 9.8 m/s^2, it is the sine/cosine component of the vertical force, acting down the incline, that controls the acceleration of the cylinder down the slope. The cylinder rolls down the slope at an acceleration related to the angle of the ramp, not at 9.8 m/s^2.
With an eccentric orbit, gravity acts in a similar manner. There is always a straight line gravitational vector acting centre to centre, between the Earth at the principal axis and the Moon, but the component of that vector acting on the near face of the Moon is a sine/cosine component of the full vector.
The direction of that component is determined by bisecting the angle formed by lines drawn from each focal point to the Moon’s centre. That component varies with the position of the Moon in its orbit, allowing the Moon’s linear momentum more control when it is slightly weaker.
Gordo completely misses the physics. Gravity has no significant effect on the Moon’s rotation while orbiting around the Earth-Moon barycenter because it provides little or no torque on the Moon. The Moon’s angular momentum is a constant while the rate of rotation of the radial line between the two varies around the orbit. For the string to ball case, the attachment of the string at the surface of the ball provides the forces and torques which keep the ball facing toward the center of the circular path as it’s swung around overhead.
The LRO being fixed wrt the stars proves that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
“it is accomplishing the same things as the string”
No it isn’t. The string is attached to the surface. Gravity can be assumed to act on the center of gravity.
Dr. Spencer wrote “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade.”
I disagree. The trend is expressed to the nearest hundredth of a degree. While there are several ways to calculate the linear trend,accounting for months having different number of days, and/or accounting for leap years,just assuming that all months have the same number of days gives a trend from January 1979 to December 2021 is +0.13485844, which rounds to +0.13 C/decade, not +0.14 C/decade.
The graph starts January 1979 but the full dataset starts December 1978. The trend from December 1978 to December 2021, using a count of months for the trend calculation, is +0.13517220, which rounds to +0.14 C/decade. Spencer’s trend calculation starts in December 1978 but his statement incorrectly says “since January, 1979.
The trend is only slightly different when using a count of days. The trend from January 1979 to December 2021 calculated various ways are;
Count of months: +0.1348584 C/decade [assumes all months are equal and 120 month per decade]
The trend per day is +3.692168E-5 C/day. Over a 4 year period there are 365.25 day/year on average due to a leap year every 4 years. The year 2000 is a leap year.
Count of days: +0.1348564 C/decade [assumes 365.25 days/year]
But our time period is not an even number of years nor an even number of 4-year periods. There are 15,675 days. The number of years is 42 + 334/365 = 42.91507 years from Jan 1979 to Dec 2021. Note there are 11 month mid Jan to mid Dec. The average number of days per year over our period is 15,675 days divided by 42.91507 years = 365.2563202. The most accurate trend is;
Count of days: +0.1348588 C/decade.
The three methods all round to +0.13486 C/decade, which further rounds to +0.13 C/decade.
ken…”…trend from January 1979 to December 2021 is +0.13485844″
***
The 8 at 0.1348 rounds the 4 up to 5 as 0.1385. The 5 rounds it up to 0.14.
Besides, you’re quibbling over 1/100th of a degree C.
“The 8 at 0.1348 rounds the 4 up to 5 as 0.1385. The 5 rounds it up to 0.14.”
This is such an obvious error in rounding (even ignoring the apparent typo of “0.1385” instead of “0.135”). Everyone can see it.
Rounding 48 to the nearest 100 is 0, not 100.
Rounding 1348 to the nearest 100 is 1300, not 1400
By this logic, the proper rounding of 44.445 would be
44.445 -> 44.45 -> 44.5 –> 45 -> 50 -> 100
The amazing thing is that this same mistake has been pointed out before, and yet Gordon repeats it.
https://ms.intl.chemicalaid.com/tools/sigfigscalculator.php?expression=0.1348
You only round once.
Twice if you’re James Bond.
Twice if you are the Beach Boys.
Round! Round! Get around. I get a round.
Mine’s a pint.
Round and round..
or so says Ratt.
Well the joint was jumping, going round and round
Realin and a rockin what a crazy sound
Ken
To be honest, I don’t care about whether it’s 0.13 or 0.14 C / decade.
What rather annoys me is when the trend is constantly fluctuating between the two values.
” Oh, look! The trend is down, it’s cooling. ”
” Oh, look! The trend is up, it’s warming. ”
Boring.
Binny,
You are right. Trends change, and provide no useful guide to the future.
Why do you bother telling people that you are bored?
Do you really think that anybody cares whether a graph obsessed climate cultist chooses to be bored?
Some people might find your comments boring, but I don’t, of course. I find them laughter inducing at the very least, and there’s nothing wrong with being amused.
Carry on.
Flynnson
Thanks for this extremely impressive show of how arrogant, stupid, stubborn and boring you are in all of your ‘comments’.
You are at the forefront of redundancy – every day.
Binny,
You’re welcome.
Carry on. Or not, as you wish.
Binditler would give his nuts to became a moderator on this board and get his finger on the delete button
Thanks for the BindHitler insult you were however too much a coward to clearly formulate.
Btw, your claim
” … would give his nuts to became a moderator on this board and get his finger on the delete button”
is as wrong as nearly all what you write on this blog.
I have nothing to do with any kind of moderation – with however one exception.
Those namely who, like Anderson and… yourself, woefully try to identify me with Nazism, Hitler or similar: those indeed should be banned off this blog.
*
A lot of us are not at all affectionate to each other on this blog, and especially you or stupid people like Clint R or Flynnson don’t miss any opportunity to berate others.
That is OK.
But to equate others with alt-right fascists, Eben: that goes too far, especially behind a pseudonym or a fake name.
He is the worst repulsive creep in here since Dave Appel
He wish he knew the real posters names so he could go after them personally
Eben
There are intelligent liars. You don’t belong to them.
You are simply a stoopid guy, whether you lie or not.
Background noise is all it is.
“The long predicted collapse of the EU renewable energy push has finally arrived. The EU has effectively just admitted renewable energy does not work, by moving to extend their definition of green energy to include reliable power sources like natural gas and nuclear energy.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/04/eu-natural-gas-and-nuclear-are-now-green-energy/
You should read the text, ren.
It begins with
” Fury as EU moves ahead with plans to label gas and nuclear as ‘green’ ”
When the plan becomes reality, then…
What if interstellar travel, is just going to a rogue planet?
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Since we can’t see them, we could have rogue planet near us.
Maybe when James Webb is working and we trying to peer into distant universe, a rogue planet might get into the picture.
Anyhow, if found one fairly close [much nearer than alpha centauri} would we to go to it?
Could be Space Aliens on it.
Now seems to me, if was like Jupiter, would we have all hard radiation one gets at Jupiter?
It seems to me it’s because Jupiter is close to Sun it has that radiation.
It’s cold out there on Jupiter moon, but under surface, there supposed to be liquid water {or warm}. Or space aliens could be taking very slow way to explore the Milkyway- and have been there millions, or billions of years.
Now, still hard to get there, and probably can’t do it, immediately, but if it was 1000 or 10,000 AU, a lot easier than the nearest star system, alpha centauri.
Also Jupiter is cooling, what would older and colder Jupiter look like?
Planetary radiation belts like our or Jupiter’s Van Allen belts result when energetic electrons and protons are trapped by a magnetic field. Jupiter’s radiation belts are much more intense than ours of its because of its more powerful magnetic field.
A rogue planet might have a powerful magnetic field, but probably not a lot of radiation. There would be no sun to replenish the energetic particles.
Jupiter emits more IR than it receives SW from the Sun. The excess is because the planet is shrinking. The atmosphere is converting potential energy to heat and then IR.
What would a cooler Jupiter look like?
Smaller.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/juno-jupiter-auroral-heating
It would be interesting to quantify the aural energy flow, so that it might be plugged into Jupiter’s energy budget.
See Fig. 9 here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
https://marcellusdrilling.com/2021/12/eqt-officially-responds-to-sen-warren-re-corp-greed-lng-exports/
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, …blamed “corporate greed” and LNG exports for the high price of natural gas in Massachusetts and other New England states in a letter sent to 11 big natural gas producers. EQT, one of the recipients of Ms. Warren’s nastygram, initially responded by going on the record with the Pittsburgh Business Times… EQT has just issued a press release and a letter of its own back to Warren-and it’s devastating (for Warren).
[…]
TM, As we all know, NG, like oil, is a non-renewable energy source. Both will eventually run out and before that happens, Peak Oil (or Peak NG) will arrive and production will begin an inexorable decline. Expanding the rate of NG production, for whatever purpose, brings the date of peak production closer than simply continuing production at the present rate.
As I’m sure you are aware, drilling and producing oil or NG requires energy. Processing also requires further energy, thus, the remaining energy from each reaching the final consumers is considerably less than that taken from the ground. Those of us who have studied NET ENERGY realize that long before the last barrel of oil is pulled out of the ground, the amount of energy required to do so will exceed the energy in that barrel, thus no usable energy for the consumer will be produced. A similar example in economic terms is off shore production, where the wells are capped once the cost of production exceeds the return, even though there’s still oil to be had.
China is not our friend and their rapid expansion of coal fired electric production in spite of clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem would make it hard for me to support the idea of shipping LNG to them. European nations are that support Democracy and the Rule of Law are different and they have agreed to cut their emissions.
I see no easy solution, especially as there are those in the US who deny the scientific evidence that we must change. Given the magnitude of a top to bottom re-structuring of the entire US economy which will be required and our current US political divide, I am not optimistic for the future.
Willard Jr., you can’t provide any “clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem”. All you have are your biased opinions, cult beliefs, and lack of physics education .
Pup, you can’t even do the Poll Dance Experiment.
What a sad sock puppet you are.
Clint R
“you cant provide any clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem. ”
Various commenters have, but you refuse to accept it.
Perhaps we should turn the problem around. Can you tell us what you think convincing evidence would look like?
As I stated, you can’t provide any “clear scientific evidence that CO2 emissions is a problem.”
All the “various commenters” do is “turn the problem around”, or link to things they don’t understand.
That ain’t science.
EM,
Just an experiment demonstrating that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer results in the thermometer becoming hotter.
Or is the GHE supposed to be supported by some other reproducible experiments?
You are talking pseudoscientific nonsense.
Your post shows that you can spend more time avoiding answering, rather than just cutting pasting the “clear scientific evidence” which you claim exists.
Follow the scientific method.
E. Swanson,
I am perfectly aware of the finiteness of oil and gas. I am also aware of the fact that in addition to fueling transportation, oil and gas are also primary feedstocks to around 500,000 products that allow us to live like kings compared to our not too distant ancestors. Fertilizers are high on that list.
I am not a student of NET ENERGY, but it is a trivial exercise to calculate the benefit of coal-to-gas switching in the power generating sector. Since the objective function is the stock of GHGs, expediting this conversion seems a no-brainer.
Using natural gas for power generation combined with CCS is our best option for a transition fuel. The energy transition will be very expensive, but not impossible. Now that the science is done we are moving into the engineering phase, which brings to mind this old saying: “Physics is Math constrained by reality; Engineering is Physics constrained by money.”
TM, I don’t disagree with your comment regarding NG as a fuel during the transition. More electric cars will need more electric supply, with all that implies. However, my post was in reply to your claim that exporting LNG to China to reduce their coal burning was a useful method of reducing overall CO2 emissions. Don’t forget that China (and Russia) didn’t attend COP 26.
I’m afraid that the US is going to need all we have, just to keep going during the transition, which will likely require 30 to 40 years. To be sure, there’s been a glut in recent years as everyone jumped on the bandwagon in the typical boom-bust fashion. The problem is that the more recent production appears to be from fracking, not the older “conventional” methods of producing oil and gas. As far as oil is concerned, fracking results in a high initial rate of production which rapidly drops as the pressure is reduced. And, also typically, the easiest to find and produce resources are developed first, so later drilling will be less productive.
(part 1 – posting trouble)
(part 2)
Peak Oil’s been around as a topic since before WW II and NET ENERGY analysis since the ’80’s, as I recall. HERE’s a LINK to a site I sometimes visit, which started after The Oil Drum site closed down and went to archive mode because some folks wanted to talk about Climate Change.
Humans don’t “make” energy, we only covert it from one source to more useful activities and products. And, no matter how much money one has to spend, that conversion will never be 100%.
Yes, I’m familiar with the peak oil issue. I am a third generation Petroleum Engineer and peak oil has been a topic of conversation at the dinner table (off and on) since I was a child.
Fracking is part of the natural evolution of production technology. The first commercial frac was performed in 1947 in southwest Kansas and has been part of our toolkit since, depending on the needs of the reservoir. The general public didn’t hear about it until about 20 years ago, so they fear it.
We started producing the easy to access hydrocarbons from the most attractive [host] rocks first. With time we have moved to exploiting the “source rocks” which have nano-darcy permeability and cannot produce naturally. The trade-off is now we have to drill more wells, closer together, but the resource in place is orders of magnitude greater.
I am hoping you didn’t intend your last paragraph to be condescending, but it came out as such. But I digress; I understand about entropy.
We, the US, have 80 to 100 years of Nat Gas reserves. That number is much higher when you include the total Resource base, some of which could be re-classified (added) to reserves with technology and economic enhancements in the future.
China and Russia will do what they determine best suits their own needs. We have the largest coal reserves in the world and must lead the transition away from it; in the world of energy you either lead, follow or get out of the way.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/kazakhstan-government-resigns-after-violent-protests-over-fuel-price-2022-01-05/
Kazakhstan government’s resignation fails to quell protests
Always hard for governments which subsidise living costs to survive when the subsidies can no longer be sustained.
I think particularly of Egypt; when it could not sustain subsidised bread prices without subsidised Russian grain the food riots triggered a military coup.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/01/will-britain-survive/621095/?utm_source=feed
Will Britain Survive? A road trip through the ancient past and shaky future of the (dis)United Kingdom January 5, 2022, 1:30 AM ET
“They actively prefer the thought of being a less powerful but more settled European country: a greater Holland rather than a mini United States.”
Probably for the best. Neither the UK or the US are the world powers we once were.
This is a good way to live in general:
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/cultural-traditions/reasons-why-danes-are-happy.htm
The Queen is truly dead.
Looks like the La Nina is gonna fizzle.
Subsurface warmth headed East.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Surface winds will give it a boost.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
What do people think?
Not much:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
I am slowly but surely getting tired of this La Nina discussion, which is mostly driven by people who, for whatever reason, are secretly hoping that we are facing some global cooling and think that La Nina would be an indication of it!
La Nina is nothing else than storing heat into the ocean.
How boring.
“La Nina is nothing else than storing heat into the ocean”
And it is balanced by El Nino then, which is the opposite. Are you saying that the 2 are not balanced overall?
“How boring.”
Then maybe dont post. But you’ve had several posts on it this month.
What is interesting to me is how the westerly winds bursts in certain locations (near 180 deg) and the resultant subsurface heat Kelvin waves, seem to correlate well with surface temperatures a month later.
Then the next 6 months global air temperature look like being overall negative from the current figures.
This is the current winds in the Pacific. Not much Westerlies there.
Sorry – forgot the map
https://imgur.com/a/JJ3iibS
Yep there is.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
From here under zonal wind anomalies
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
The westerly anomalies are positive values- yellow-orange-red.
These produce Kelvin waves which drive subsurface heat eastward and eventually to the surface in the Eastern Pacific.
I rely on http://www.windguru.cz for current and predicted wind all over the world. The Pacific along the Equator shows constant wind from the East both now and for the next few weeks.
OK so you believe the NOAA NWS CPC source is lying about the winds then??
C’mon…
The CPC page is showing, as I noted, space-time wind anomalies on or near the equator, as a function of longitude and date.
So there was a moderately strong westerly wind anomaly centered near the equator at -175 longitude, centered on Jan 2.
Can you find wind anomalies at that place and date in your source?
-175 longitude means 175 East longitude.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Looks pretty steady to me. We will see later this year.
What do people think?
You have it exactly backwards
I’m with RLH.
Over a whole El Nino/ La Nina cycle ENSO is energy neutral.
It raises and lowers global average temperature in the short term by changing the proportion of incoming energy absorbed by the deep ocean. It has no influence on the long term warming trend.
If/when balanced. Unbalances will have an overall effect (i.e. very low frequency) until they correct themselves.
I would note that NOAA’s prediction of a month or two ago was that nino 3.4 would reach ~ -2.0 C. They have now revised that quite a bit.
So predictions change for only a few months into the future but for years ahead we are 100% certain?
Nobody is claiming to predict ENSO years in the future.
But you’re are claiming to predict the global temperature for decades ahead.
Am I?
Don’t mix up things, we were talking about La Nina.
I think the underlying long term upward GLOBAL temperature trend .will continue, because the GHG forcing is still rising. But natural variation, like ENSO, will continue as well, and that is not predictable.
What do you think about the disparity between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the predicted rises?
Fully expected. See below.
“It has no influence on the long term warming trend.”
I agree, but it does add variability that must be considered to determine the underlying trend over short periods of less than a decade.
And in La Nina dominated periods, like 2005-2014 it can appear to some, that there has been a Pause in AGW.
Unbalanced behavior will effect things on a low frequency basis, true. Are you saying that the future 30 years will result in more El Nino than La Nina or the other way round?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315327565/figure/fig2/AS:473125902131201@1489813413945/The-Multivariate-ENSO-Index-MEI-in-the-form-of-a-graph-Source.png
I could just as easily observe that the period between 1976-2005 was El Nino dominated and the period before 1975 was La Nina dominated.
“Are you saying that …”
In general, RLH, what I am saying is what I’ve just said, and no more.
“I am saying is what Ive just said, and no more”
So you predict that global temperature’s will continue to rise in the future. Regardless if La Nina or El Nino predominate into the future.
Are you illiterate?
Are you dodging the questions?
Stop trolling.
“I could just as easily observe that the period between 1976-2005 was El Nino dominated and the period before 1975 was La Nina dominated.”
Yep, that natural variability is there. And yet it cannot account for the overall rise of the last 50 years, or the last century.
Do you agree that global temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age and descended before that to there?
P.S. Do you agree also that the majority of the rise occurred in the Northern Hemisphere? See the 2 graphs of Latitude against Trends of UAH and Berkley Earth.
The LIA if it was global at all, was over by the mid 19th century.
The LIA is not a mechanism for never-ending warming, it is a catch-all excuse.
“The LIA if it was global at all, was over by the mid 19th century”
So now you agree that the LIA exists but as it only effected the NH, the warming since then in the NH is not a recovery from that?
I am pointing out that natural systems have a lot more fluctuations in them then you are prepared to admit. Unless you wish to claim the the LIA was not a natural occurrence.
Can you define the place and time period of the LIA? What caused it?
Did that cause cease? When?
My point is the LIA has become an ill-defined, untestable, catch-all excuse.
Its recovery is declared to be never-ending, and somehow has even accelerated since 1970.
“P.S. Do you agree also that the majority of the rise occurred in the Northern Hemisphere?”
More warming occurred in the NH. More warming has occurred on Land. The majority of land is in the NH.
These differences were predicted 40 y ago, and make physical sense. The ocean is a massive heat sink.
Except that Antarctica is mostly land and any warming there is confined to a small area and that may well be to underground heat sources rather than other temperatures.
More melting ice should produce more icily cold water, colder than the the surface water. The only suggestion is that this is fresher water thus less dense.
The facts are that sea ice grows in the ‘winter’ (which produces cold brine) and shrinks in the ‘summer’ (which produces cold water).
“The ocean is a massive heat sink”
Potentially a massive heat sink. Because of low sampling, short time period of the deep ocean and the small variation needed to conclude how much heat is going into it, the size of the effect is still disputed.
*short measuring time period
“Because of low sampling, short time period of the deep ocean and the small variation needed to conclude how much heat is going into it, the size of the effect is still disputed.”
All contrary facts are disputed by you and your ilk. Science will keep calm and carry on observing and understanding.
And as I noted “These differences were predicted 40 y ago, and make physical sense. The ocean is a massive heat sink.”
The ocean is not just ‘potentially’ a massive heat sink.
It is an observable fact.
Your ongoing meme seems to be that science knows nothing.
I’m quite amused. After so much argument about energy transfer between plates, it is interesting to see a working example.
However it works, that sunshade has a temperature gradient of 344K from 380K on the sunward side of the first layer to 36K on the spaceward side of the fifth layer.
It’s probably non-linear, but each layer is reducing the temperature by an average of 89K.
…you believe this somehow supports the Green Plate Effect? How, exactly? Hughes experiments debunked the GPE, which was already theoretically debunked on here and elsewhere quite some time before that. Not to mention the Seim & Olsen experiment…
I guess you clowns call this a debunking:
“But we
only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter”
So Seim and Olsen observed a greenhouse effect.
Well done chaps
https://m.scirp.org/papers/abstract/99608
“In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.”
DREMPTY,
Read that last sentence you just posted again.
That’s in a 70 cm tube, what if you measured the whole column of the atmosphere?
We are not even to a 0.5% increase in temperature globally, yet, almost there with some indices.
“The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed ab.sorp.tion of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter.
This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case.”
Wrong units.
If you are measuring % increase in temperature, use Kelvin, not Centigrade.
A 0.5% increase to 46C would be an increase of (319/200) = 1.6C.
1.6C is not an insignificant change. It’s less than the 2.4C-4C predicted by the SB equation, but we don’t know the losses due to the experimental design.
As bobdroege said
” So Seim and Olsen observed a greenhouse effect.
Well done chaps”
“If E in the rear chamber is increased with the same value as the reduction in the front chamber (29.8 W/m2), then Equation (5) gives an expected temperature of 323.5 K, or an increase in the temperature of 4.0 K, not close to zero, as measured.”
“not close to zero, as measured.
It wasn’t close to zero, it was 0.5%, 1.6C.
This paper isn’t coherent. It doesn’t even agree with itself.
It appears it was not 1.6 K, it was close to 0 K, because that is what the people conducting the experiment state. That would also be consistent with their language (“very slight temperature increase”). Perhaps you got your calculations wrong?
“Is the temperature increment with CO2 too low to be detected by a single thermocouple? To check this, a thermopile was constructed, consisting of eight serial connected thermocouples and placed on the rear inner wall of the box. The measurement tip of the thermocouples was painted black with paint containing carbon in order to ensure heating by IR radiation. Finally, the voltage signal from the serially connected thermocouples was amplified 50 times. The advantage of this construction, compared to the IR detector used by us, was that the reference connection, with temperature T2, was placed outside the box at room temperature. (The room temperature only increased 0.2 ̊C during the experiment). The voltage was measured with a digital voltage-meter and found to be 36.5 mV per thermocouple. The CO2 experiment was then repeated and the result is shown in Figure 10.
Each axis in Figure 10 contains the measured voltage of the thermopile during heating, with air (abscissa) and CO2 (ordinate) respectively in the front chamber. In addition, a trend line and its formula are included in the figure. The trendline shows that there might be a very slight heating of the thermopile with CO2 in the front chamber. The experiment was repeated several times and the average increment with CO2 was ca 0.5%. For heating the air in the rear chamber from 20 ̊C to 50 ̊C, then the temperature increment, with CO2 in the front chamber, should be ca. 0.15 ̊C.”
cult Leader pups wants to go Back to The Future again. there was lots of discussion about the Seim and Olsen paper, (which wasn’t peer reviewed) a while back. One sticking point I recall is this section:
They never mention how they compensated for the temperature of the cold junctions within their semi-conductor IR detector device. Also, as I recall, they never mention whether they measured the IR from the room into the box using air, so they don’t have a baseline for comparison.
Guess what? I built a box like that, only I operated it vertically to be able to purge the air from inside and fill it with CO2. It took quite a while for the box temperature settle and I had trouble keeping the hot O2 or CO2 in the box long enough to make a determination of the heating of the rear wall. I was just about to haul it to the dump, but it might be fun to try again with some additional mods.
OK, Swanson.
And Cult Leader pups continues to be a sock puppet and ignore any discussion of the relevant physics. Typical reply from Cult Leader when facts and real science is required.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/18/review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper/
https://tinyurl.com/2p89jhjp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
So, according to this commenter, Eli Rabett’s Green Plate Effect is indeed…debunked. No back-radiation warming, no GPE.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
So which one of your sources do you think is correct, Willard? The one saying there is no back-radiation warming or the one saying there is back-radiation warming?
Source: wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/15/answer-to-a-review-of-seim-and-olsen-paper-the-influence-of-ir-[THE A WORD]-and-backscatter-radiation-from-co2/#comment-3247268
Replace “THE A WORD” with the A word.
So…you think your first source is wrong?
https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies
Oh, you are just trolling again.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507291878912#c3373261250729485848
Eli is trying to defend the back-radiation account of the GHE with his Green Plate Effect, which your first source, Mr Pratt, stated has been debunked.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/#comment-4372
So is Eli wrong, or is Mr. Pratt wrong? Or will someone come to Willard’s aid to argue that there both is and isn’t back-radiation warming, at the same time?
And so Kiddo soldiers on, unable to understand Vaughan’s point. For some reason his nick does not appear in the relevant comment thread at Roy’s:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267470
Was he absent, or else?
Let’s find out!
I get that he’s saying that he still thinks there is a GHE…but he is quite clearly stating that the back-radiation version of it, which Eli defended with his Green Plate Effect, is debunked.
There it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-319109
So Kiddo’s a sock puppet too?
WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK?
That deserves due diligence!
Who is going under the bus then Willard? Mr. Pratt, or Mr. Rabett?
And here’s Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276403
Writing checks out, and follows a cite to Joe’s.
Fun! Fun! Fun!
Pratt or Rabett, Willard?
And here’s Kiddo again, this time in the thread cited above, in which Eli appeared:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270420
What fun he must have had since then!
Trying to change the subject, Willard? Pratt or Rabett, Rabett or Pratt?
Pratt or Rabbett?
Both delusional. Take your pick.
Watch Wriggling Wee Willy go for the diversionary tactic.
And so Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that one of his sock puppets have been found out, pretending to be the King of Topics after having misread Vaughan – calling him “Mr” to boot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671002
Does Kiddo prefer to attack the target of his silly old sock puppet, or does he prefer to defend Joe, of whom he is the most dedicated fan?
“What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should”.
…and Eli Rabett was trying to support that back radiation account of the GHE with his Green Plate Effect. So if Mr. Pratt is correct, Mr. Rabett is wrong. So who are you going to throw under the bus, Willard?
Kiddo almost gets the irrelevant part of the point:
Then the question becomes: did it? Let’s quote from the page he cited but hasn’t read in full:
The most important part of the point is this: is Kiddo willing to throw Joe under the bus to get at Eli?
It’s almost 1 AM where Kiddo is.
Another interesting night in perspective!
Kidding. I’m only being facetious. He should get a good night sleep.
Willard the sophist quotes a nit-picking comment on the experiment which his own source (Mr. Pratt) states, “successfully debunk[s] the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally”, then bizarrely suggests I need to throw Postma under the bus to get at Eli!?
Who knows what goes on in that brain of his.
Kiddo the Sky Dragon crank has three problems:
First, to get at Eli, he would need to throw Joe under the bus.
Second, he does not understand Vaughan’s comment, Eli’s model or for that matter Kevin’s comments, e.g.:
Third, it’s past 1 AM where he is, and he must have slept like five hours in the last two days. Add to this the fact that I already gave him the answer he’s looking for (his adaptative skills are no better than a drone missile) and he’s looking for lots of fun!
So, who will it be? Joe or Eli?
Tune in tomorrow!
I don’t need to throw anybody under any buses. Ultimately, Mr. Pratt states the back-radiation theory of the GHE is wrong, but naturally still believes there is some alternative version of the GHE which is correct. I do not have to agree that alternative theory is correct to acknowledge that he is right about the back-radiation version being wrong. Mr. Pratt states the back-radiation version of the GHE is wrong theoretically as well as experimentally, anyway, so the criticisms of the S & O experiment are somewhat of a moot point. So it still comes down to Mr. Pratt vs. Mr. Rabett.
Well, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Seim, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Pratt vs. Mr Rabett, I should say.
Kiddo would indeed need to throw Joe under the bus if he wants to get at Eli via Vaughan, for Vaughan clearly says:
Perhaps he missed that Vaughan is talking about the theory Joe and fellow Sky Dragon cranks are so adamant in attacking?
If Kiddo could find any reference to back radiation in the IPCC’s reports, that be great!
Almost 2 AM. Tick tock. Tick tock.
All Seim & Olsen confirm is that there was negligible warming from an increase in back-radiation from CO2. They certainly do not confirm any alternative theory of the GHE! So no, once again, I do not have to throw anybody under the bus. Unlike Willard, who must choose between Mr. Pratt, and Mr. Rabett.
Kiddo soldiers on, perhaps a bit dulled by the late hours, concedes that S&O indeed confirm that CO2 warms. Their apparatus wasn’t perfect, so we must accept it on principle. As Vaughan underlines, it indeed vindicates the IPCC position.
Something tells me that Kiddo should get to know Vaughan a bit more.:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
Sometimes a bit devillish, but never really facetious.
Willard needs to look up the meaning of the word “negligible”. Think 0.15 C when a between 2.4 and 4 C increase was theoretically predicted. Then he needs to stop misrepresenting Mr Pratt’s original comment. Then he needs to decide who to throw under the bus between Mr. Pratt and Mr. Rabett.
Kiddo conflates S&O’s interpretations, which do not stand scrutinity, with their results, which confirm the IPCC’s position.
In fairness, it’s nearing 3 AM where he is.
So let’s give him a break and reiterate the bit that settles his silly You-And-Him-Fight trick:
It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, or at least without trying to know where’s he’s going.
Lots of Dragon Cranks learned the lesson the hard way.
“Kiddo conflates S&O’s interpretations, which do not stand scrutinity, with their results, which confirm the IPCC’s position.”
Readers can judge for themselves if what you have said here is truth, or a lie.
Late into his night, it is almost 4:00 where he is, Kiddo intimates that Vaughan’s words, which he tries to weaponize, contain a lie.
Perhaps he should look for the definition of “confirming.”
If only he could distinguish models and theories, but no – he must soldier on.
Witless Wee Willy,
You didn’t really mean to write –
“It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, or at least without trying to know wheres hes going.”
Regardless of who Vaughan is (or isn’t), I assume you have invoked his authority – and now try to say that he can’t be believed!
Are you a complete idiot, or are you still not quite there, yet?
Not terribly clever, Wee Willy, not terribly clever at all.
Mike Flynn, Mastodon of Feebleness – thank you for misremembering:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-741022
Vaughan’s answer was delighfully to the point: You still here? So yeah: “regardless of who Vaughan is” indeed!
Enjoy your evening,
Weary Wee Willy,
So Vaughan is Vaughan Pratt. Thanks. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Easy enough to be straight forward, rather than mysterious.
As to –
“Vaughan Pratt,
Your assumption, that people who endlessly play with weather averages, hoping (in vain) to determine the future, are any more credible than a reader of entrails, is simply bizarre.”
What do you disagree with? Did someone take Vaughan Pratt at his word, and according to you, should not have? In any case, what new information does “You still here?” Import?
You are indeed a strange obsessive little monkey, aren’t you?
Maybe if you could just say what you mean clearly, and provide some verifiable facts to back up whatever it is you are trying to say, you might get a little further.
Mike Flynn,
Remember the time you tried your Tyndall gotcha with Vaughan?
I do:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742546
Right before the comment where he calls you a complete twit.
Whacko Wee Willy,
As I said “Maybe if you could just say what you mean clearly, and provide some verifiable facts to back up whatever it is you are trying to say, you might get a little further.”
Rattling on about a couple of strangers is all well and good, but achieves nothing as far as I can see.
I hope you get something out of your obsession, but I doubt you can even justify it to yourself.
If you can’t, you are obviously just another delusional nutter.
Cult Leader pups, lacking anything to say, repeats old arguments to waste more people’s time.
If one reads the S&O rebuttal carefully, one would notice that their Figure 8 shows that the IR back scatter measured on the rear wall of their chamber is greater for CO2 than for the case with air. This fact supports the conclusion that increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in IR impinging on the rear surface of their box. Since they control the temperature of the AL foil to maintain ~100 C, any heating of the foil from the back scatter will result in their lowering of the heating applied to the foil.
Also, they blame that increase in back scatter to increased emissions from the “thin EDTA…plastic film that transmits more than 90% of visual light and IR radiation” separating the two chambers. Since said film exhibits high transmission of IR, thus little emissions could originate from said film.
Sorry, Swanson, you are behind the times. The GHE Defense Team have already acknowledged that, according to Mr. Pratt:
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally”
and that the back radiation account of the GHE is wrong theoretically, anyway. He even suggests, in a later comment, that the Wikipedia entry on the GHE is wrong because it refers to back radiation warming, and should be updated to reflect the new version of the GHE which you guys should be pushing. So it is time for you to swallow your pride and accept it…the back radiation warming concept has had its day. Eli was wrong to promote the Green Plate Effect.
Times have changed.
“back radiation account of the GHE is wrong”
Well that dooms the James Webb Telescope sun shield which is designed and built in accord with Eli’s GPE and the GHE. 7 years of college down the drain for DREMT & another $10bln well spent when the ‘scope reaches the predicted operating temperatures & produces data.
The sun shade cools, and does so thanks to reflectivity. The GPE was supposed to be a warming effect, and was supposed to work via back-radiation (not reflected radiation). Ball4 needs to move with the times, too.
In Eli’s GPE, there was only one sunshield, so just use Eli’s same math on the other JWT sunshield layers to determine the eventual ‘scope operating temperature. If DREMT is right, the JWT temperatures will not reach predicted eventual operating temperature. When JWT does so, the world will know Eli was right and DREMT wrong.
Odd, your response did not even mention anything that I wrote in my preceding comment. How strange. I guess you are just trolling.
Mr. Pratt stated that “Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally“, and also that “it can be debunked so easily with theory, and with somewhat more effort experimentally as done by Seim and Olsen“. Perhaps Mr. 4 needs to go and argue with Mr. Pratt.
DREMT, Mr. Pratt could not possibly have debunked the earthen GHE with the S&O box experiment since the box’s optical depth is measured in meters and the optical depth of the earthen atm. is measured in tens of thousands of meters.
Anyway, the JWT will not operate at the predicted steady temperatures if the “back radiation account of the GHE is wrong” as you write. The world will soon know by the steady state JWT temperatures reached ~ temperature predictions so that DREMT was wrong and Eli was right.
Mr. 4 disagrees with Mr. Pratt. At least Mr. 4 can admit that, plainly. Mr. 4 is still repeating himself, however, without responding to either of the points raised in my 12:51 PM comment. Any further repetition and ignorance of the points raised will unfortunately trigger a PST response.
Cult Leader, as Willard pointed out, you took Pratt’s comment out of context. But then, Dr. Pratt (born 1944) worked as a computer scientist, not a physicist, and his knowledge may not include careful study of atmospheric radiation heat transfer. The basic physics has been well established for decades, which is why S&O referenced MODTRAN as providing corroboration for their results. Pratt’s claim that S&O “debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect” is his opinion and is likely wrong.
I responded to both when DREMT (or anyone) understands the GPE works like the JWT sunshield which proves DREMT’s 10:26 am “back radiation account of the GHE is wrong” when JWT achieves predicted steady state temperature with physics working just like the earthen GHE backradiation physics.
No, I took nothing out of context, Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson throws Mr. Pratt under Mr. Bus. Fair enough. I expected nothing less from Mr. Swanson.
He needs to get with the times. Back-radiation warming is old hat.
Kiddo soldiers on, oblivious that his silly tactic has turned against him, for let’s remind Vaughan’s position:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
Later on he clarifies it:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
Kiddo also misconstrues Vaughan’s point regarding S&O: at best they have succeeded in proving that model wrong. Vaughan hasn’t checked the details. Why not grant them for argument sake? If true, S&O only reinforces the IPCC’s official position, which is to talk more directly about lapse rates. Hence why Kiddo is still squirming: if he accepts S&O, then so long for his affection for Joe’s crap. However they may evaluate the effect they found, as Bob observed, an effect they did find.
Good for Kiddo, I say! Bob wins again, but who cares?
Scientists ditch at least four models before breakfast every day. No big deal. They certainly don’t mind if we still engineer refrigerators and furnaces with it.
Like models, contrarians are wrong, but some are useful. Kiddo’s mindless parroting is the opposite of useful. As a bonus, this episode helped me establish that he’s just a little sock puppet.
And that’s the memo.
The Seim paper is unusually bad. I had a lengthy email discussion with Seim and he admits that he cannot explain his results, not with established heat transfer principles. He backed away from claiming that his paper proves ordinary heat transfer laws wrong.
So we have a crappy experiment in a crappy journal, that sort of claimed to show something is wrong with standard heat transfer laws that were established by thousands of prior experiments.. but in the end, not really.
But DREMT/Halp never found a paper so crappy that he couldnt get 100% behind it, IF it agreed with his beliefs.
Yes Willard, nobody is saying there is no back-radiation. What is being said is that there is no back-radiation warming. That is being said by the source you introduced. So you have nobody to blame but yourself…and no, he is not saying that the S & O result confirms a different version of the GHE. That appears to be your misrepresentation of his comment. And even if that was what he was saying, it would be a total non-sequitur. And no, bob is wrong. S & O is not a victory for Team GHE.
> What is being said is that there is no back-radiation warming. That is being said by the source you introduced.
Our slimy sock puppet forgot to quote.
Here’s what a quote looks like:
It’s not like our slimy sock puppet hasn’t read that quote before! It’s the very one he clings to like the little leech he is.
And there are more in the thread at Judy’s. It’s a great thread. He should read it. It’s dedicated to Sky Dragon crap. It involves Vaughan, Pekka, Jim D, Joel, Judy, Captain, Nullius, Chris, Fred M, Maxwell, and tutti quanti, many of them on the contrarian side of things.
But they played Climateball with honor.
Our slimy sock puppet has none.
So, not back radiation warming then, Willard!
Here is your quote:
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally.”
“Seim and Olsen successfully debunk ”
And why should we blindly accept the authority of whoever said that??
“Cult Leader pups, lacking anything to say, repeats old arguments to waste more people’s time.”
I’m sorry, Mr. Swanson…who brought up Mr. Pratt’s “old arguments” in the first place – I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t me. If a GHE Defense Team member wants to say that the back radiation version of the GHE is debunked, and another GHEDT member wants to draw attention to that comment, who am I to stand in the way? And, please don’t feel obliged to waste your time responding to me if you do not wish to.
Cult Leader pups wrote:
And indeed S&O found “back radiation” using the IR detector by comparing a run with air with another run with CO2. But, Cult Leader, do tell us what happened to that increased IR “back radiation”, which can’t disappear, else it would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. If it didn’t warm the radiating surface, where did it go?
What a strange question, Swanson. The predicted warming as a result of the back-radiation was between 2.4 – 4 K. The observed warming was somewhere around 0.15 K…so, negligible. So asking what happened to the back radiation is somewhat of a moot point. What happened to it is that it did not lead to the predicted warming. If it was absorbed, it did not lead to the predicted warming. If it was reflected due to Clint R’s “wavelength mismatch”, it did not lead to the predicted warming. Either way, whatever happened to those photons, they did not lead to the predicted warming.
And Cult Leader pups continues to be a sock puppet and ignore any discussion of the relevant physics. Typical reply from Cult Leader when facts and real science is required.
Swanson, there is never any point responding to any of you people, so you get what you get. Even when one of your own tells you that the back-radiation version of the GHE is nonsense, you ignore and dismiss it. If there were a hundred different experiments conducted which all showed the same result, you would be there picking nits with the setup of all of them, without ever quantifying what difference your criticisms could make. You just want to believe there is back-radiation warming, basically.
Good grief, little sock puppet. Read that post:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv
Then read the comment thread. That should be enough to make you realize that not only you have no idea what you’re talking about, but your Machiavellianism is silly.
If you don’t read that thread, I will hammer every single point in it until you tilt again.
Mark my word.
You can speak to me with respect or gfy.
Everyone,
I promised never to address Kiddo again. I just did.
My apologies to that little prick.
OK then…gfy.
Our slimy sock puppet soldiers on.
Gfy.
Yes, NASA engineering use the “plates” to cool, not warm.
It’s almost as if they understand physics, huh?
I haven’t expressed an opinion regarding how the heat transfer and dispersion works. I just note that it works.
Perhaps you would care to discuss the physics of heat transfer between the layers, where the heat goes and why it stops energy from sunlight warming the telescope.
“It is the high reflectivity that is key, reflecting most of the EM radiation so that only a little gets absorbed”
– Tim Folkerts
Ent, here’s a diagram of the heat flow in the JWST layers (plates). Each warmed layer (plate) emits. The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps. This is just basic physics, unknown to braindead cult idiots.
https://postimg.cc/k6tqY1R8
EMR is not heat Clint. The arrows are wrongly labeled.
“Oh no, not again!
D Adams
“The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, ”
In which case the spaceward side of each layer should have been painted black for maximum heat emission. No point in having the spaceward surfaces reflective if no photons will be emitted by the sunward side of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th layers.
No point in the layers being reflective on both sides unless photons are being emitted from both sides of each layer.
Sorry, ClintR, the sunshade is designed according to conventional physics, not your version.
No one should even try to make sense of that, Ent. You clearly have no clue.
And Ball4 gets confused with his silly semantics, as usual.
It’s interesting that both of you are anonymous, and clearly willing to pervert reality. If someone had the time, they could go back and find both of your claimng that the “green plate” could warm the “blue plate”.
Both of you seem to revel in perverting reality — Ball4 with his “real 255K surface”, and you with your “passenger jets flying backwards”.
You’re nothing more than braindead cult idiots. And your agenda is easy to unmask.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It’s not semantics Clint, you get radiative transfer physics wrong because you wrongly show EMR as heat. And I see Clint still hasn’t found the location of the real 255K earthen system surface confirming my point.
It is fun.
You write some foolish physics.
I provide a correct version for the lurkers.
You insult me, as losers in a debate often do.
Thank you for the entertainment.
“No point in having the spaceward surfaces reflective if no photons will be emitted by the sunward side of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th layers.”
Where did Clint R say that no photons would be emitted by the sunward side?
It IS semantics, braindead4. You play with semantics so you can pervert reality. Just as you try to claim it was me that “wrongly” showed EMR as heat. It was that way in the NASA diagram. That’s the usage of the word in common vernacular. People that understand physics have no problem with it.
Your game is to distort reality, as you attempt with your “real 255K surface” nonsense. The only people you fool are other braindead cult idiots like Norman, and several others.
Entropic man — Referring to you as a “braindead cult idiot” is NOT an insult. It’s reality. You believe the cult nonsense, religiously. That makes you a “cult idiot”. You reject reality and you can’t learn. That makes you “braindead”.
You could probably see the same flaws in others here, if you weren’t braindead.
DREMT
“Where did Clint R say that no photons would be emitted by the sunward side? ”
He says
“Each warmed layer (plate) emits. The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate,”
It follows logically from his hypothesis. He holds that energy (ie photons) cannot travel from a colder to a hotter object.
Thus no photons can leave the sunward side of the second layer and interact with the spaceward side of the first, the warmest, plate.
He said they emit. Thus he is not saying that the layers do not emit. Presumably he is arguing that the photons going from cold surface to hot surface are reflected from the hot surface. Not that they were never emitted in the first place…but perhaps Clint R can confirm.
DREMT
So the sunward side of the first layer absorbs part of the radiation falling on it, but the spaceward side is a perfect reflector?
Don’t be silly.
“The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps”.
I am simply correcting your misreading of his comment, EM.
This is just another good example of how Ent tries to pervert reality.
More than once he has quoted me as “The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate”
But, here’s the actual quote, in its entirety: “The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps.”
He’s so desperate.
Oh, you beat me to it, DREMT.
Thanks!
The emitted flux is not heat so the flux can go back to the hotter plate increasing universe entropy in the process; the flux is reflected, absorbed, and emitted by the 5 layers on both sides until the flux ends up emitted to deep space at eventual long term equilibrium.
Clint gets radiative transfer physics wrong incorrectly using the word heat for EMR whereas NASA does not get radiative transfer physics wrong and designed the 5 sunshield layers appropriately.
That’s why Ball4 is a braindead cult idiot. He has no respect for truth or reality. He just believes his corrupt opinions are science.
Clint R writes comments in accord with Clint’s imagination; I will go in accord with experiment traceable to first principle theory so no imagination is needed.
EMR is not heat, Clint.
Keep trying to pervert reality, braindead4. Everyone is watching, and you always get caught.
As I stated upthread: Just as you try to claim it was me that “wrongly” showed EMR as heat. It was that way in the NASA diagram.”
https://postimg.cc/k6tqY1R8
(And since you won’t be able to stop this nonsense, I have to do it. Someone has to be the adult in the room.)
Clint posted the image with no attribution using Clint’s imagination to believe it was correct. The image is not correct because EMR is not heat. Go argue with the image source Clint not me.
And use experimental science-based images in the future – oh wait, Clint only uses Clint’s imagination for science not experiment. Better to not use any images because Clint can’t tell which images are based on experiment.
Oh and Clint, realize commercial airplanes do not fly backwards as they can in Clint’s imagination.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” But, heres the actual quote, in its entirety: The emitted flux can NOT go back to the hotter plate, so it is reflected until it ends up going out the gaps.
So photons emitted from the second layer reflect off the back of the warmer first layer without interacting with it? That can’t happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.
You don’t realise that scientific statements, even yours, have implications. When those implications do not match reality they invalidate the original statement.
This happens repeatedly. You make a statement which sounds superficially reasonable, but which turns out to be nonsense when you dig into the detailed physics required to make it work.
I don’t know who trained you. Whoever it was fed you lies-to-children, simplified explanations which allowed you to use the science without fully understanding it.
EM: “That can’t happen since reflection requires the original wave/photon to be absorbed and reemitted as a secondary wave.”
That’s an interesting comment in this field. Strike that word photon. The rest is true only when using the wave language for a light beam. The incident light wave excites molecules in, say, glass to radiate secondary waves that combine to form (approximately) a net reflected wave given by the law of reflection and a net transmitted wave given by the law of refraction.
A mirror illuminated by an incident beam gives rise to a reflected beam. Is this reflected beam redirected incident photons? No experiment can answer that.
In the photon language, to determine if reflected photons are the same as incident photons would require an experimenter to be able to identify them. But photons are indistinguishable. Experimenters cannot tell one from another since they cannot tag a photon and follow its progress even though they can count individual photons.
Thus, if you want to believe that reflected photons are the same as incident photons, you may do so. No one can prove you wrong. But you cannot prove you are right.
“Thus, if you want to believe that reflected photons are the same as incident photons, you may do so. ”
If the classical interpretation is correct, the induced oscillation in the electrons in a metal is 180 degrees out of phase with the original incoming field. As a result the outgoing field is emitted in the opposite direction to the incoming field at the same angle.
That would imply that the emitted wave is not the incoming wave, though it is identical in wavelength, energy, direction and angle (though not necessarily in polarisation.)
Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics explanation of reflection includes a similar interaction of the incoming wave with electrons in the surface. He explains the observed geometry as the only path through the interaction in which the spherical wave function from the source to the mirror and the outgoing spherical wave function from the mirror to the detector do not cancel out.
I don’t understand that either, but I gather that the maths works.
Sorry Ent, but reflection does not require absorp.tion. Maybe if you’d studied physics instead of biology, you’d know that.
Here is the current data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WoAkrPnzbM
(top right hand corner).
Hot side sitting at 53c. Cold side sitting at -197c.
RLH,
It’s called Insulation. In this case, used to keep something cooler, than it otherwise would be.
This is an example of the mythical GHE, is it?
Reflective metallic layers provide insulation. With or without a vacuum between them.
Scientists Propose Jumpstarting Mars Magnetic Field to Make It Habitable
Even NASA is on board.
linked from: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
https://futurism.com/scientists-propose-jumpstarting-mars-magnetic-field
“Any long term human presence on Mars colonization, research, visit and travel that didnt confine settlers to airtight compounds would rely on a stable atmosphere that doesnt lose too many particles or fry human bodies with too much radiation.
Now, scientists from a star-studded list of universities and organizations, including NASAs own chief scientist James Lauer Green, are suggesting that we protect humans on Mars from deadly atmospheric conditions by jumpstarting the planets magnetic field.”
I am not on board.
“Terraforming Mars” just needs a lot Mars water mined, and doing something to lower effect of global dust storm.
To have Mars settlements, one need millions of tons of water mined, which over decade or two, having billions of tons of water mined per year.
And the million of tons of water needed to start a Mars town, has to be cheap, about $1 per kg, or 1 billion dollar for 1 million tons of water {which is very expensive water compared to Earth water]. When doing 1 billion tons per year, 1 billion tons can’t cost 1 trillion dollars, more like 100 billion dollars, so, $.1
per kg. Which is still expensive water compared to Earth, but once get to couple billion tons per year, it could get even cheaper. And given enough time {many decades} Mars water could be cheaper than Earth water.
Now our magnetic field doesn’t protect Earth from harmful radiation, people on ISS are getting harmful radiation and they are within Earth’s atmosphere and within our Magnetic field.
What halves the radiation is Earth itself and it’s thick atmosphere.
Going to Mars from Earth, involves getting a lot radiation, as there is not planetary mass blocking half of it. And Earth surface has 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And rather hard to surround spacecraft with 10 tons of radiation shielding per square meter.
What NASA should do, is get to Mars in 1/2 of the time, and crew will get 1/2 as much radiation. Once at planet Mars, the planet can stop 1/2 of it. And 1 meter of water can block it, so it’s less radiation than ISS crew get. So, 2 or more meters of water, get even less than ISS crew get.
But water is expensive on Mars when NASA crew show up, so NASA will have use cheap Mars dirt, a few meters of it, block the radiation to get less radiation than ISS crew get. Or Mars base could be in lava tube {a cave}.
Going to Mars when there is Solar Min, gets twice as much radiation and when going at Solar Max.
Or solar max blocks more radiation than our magnetic field.
But we are just starting towards solar Max {it could end and not even get there. So another thing about getting to Mars fast, is it
gets 1/2 as much radiation, and radiation can twice as much during Solar Max.
Or if try to explore Mars “dodging times” of solar min and we are maybe going into Grand Solar Minium- or don’t have Mars exploration program. NASA just wasting our time and endangering NASA employees.
So:
“Sunspot number: 12
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 05 Jan 2022
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2022 total: 0 days (0%)
2021 total: 64 days (18%)”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 7.95×1010 W Cool
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
{and radiation:
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +8.7% High”
Or one could say we are leaving solar min, but we have not left it in terms getting less radiation for crew going to Mars.
And this time period:
2020 total: 208 days (57%)
2019 total: 281 days (77%)
2018 total: 221 days (61%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
2008 total: 268 days (73%)
2007 total: 152 days (42%)
2006 total: 70 days (19%)
Has not been "good" in terms of having much time with lower radiation level in space. And it could get "worse" in future.
“and radiation can twice as much during Solar Max.”
Solar Min has twice as much radiation as Solar Max
Now, Solar Max has more solar flares, and rather than
just more radiation, they can be lethal, but you have a solar flare
shelter in spacecraft.
Or one can design and have to design spacecraft to protect
crew from these relative short but lethal events.
Or ISS has a solar flare shelter. Though the Apollo crew didn’t {they could have been killed- only luck saved them}
I was wondering the amount of times ISS crew had to shelter,
but I got this instead:
“Space Station crew forced to seek shelter during massive solar flare
The International Space Station (ISS) crew had to hide in a special shelter during a massive solar flare, a nuclear scientist said. The sun produced several huge solar flares last week, one of which was the strongest observed in a decade.”
https://www.rt.com/news/402946-iss-shelter-solar-flare/
More info {but not about how times ISS had to take shelter}
Sickening Solar Flares
“Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), however, were safe. The ISS is heavily shielded, plus the station orbits Earth inside our planet’s protective magnetic field. “The crew probably absorbed no more than 1 rem,” said Francis Cucinotta, NASA’s radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center.
One rem, short for Roentgen Equivalent Man, is the radiation dose that causes the same injury to human tissue as 1 roentgen of x-rays. A typical diagnostic CAT scan, the kind you might get to check for tumors, delivers about 1 rem. So for the crew of the ISS, the Jan. 20 proton storm was no worse than a trip to the doctor on Earth.
On the moon, Cucinotta estimates, an astronaut protected by no more than a space suit would have absorbed about 50 rem of ionizing radiation. That’s enough to cause radiation sickness. “But it would not have been fatal,” he adds.
To die, you’d need to suddenly absorb 300 rem or more.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
First you have to prove there is water and, second, if that condition is met, that it can be economically mined.
I would say first NASA has to explore the Moon.
If NASA doesn’t find any water on the Moon.
It seems one should review NASA assumption regarding the water it has detected on Mars.
If simply find say twice as water as Apollo found on the Moon, one also review NASA assumptions regarding the water it has detected on Mars.
If it’s say 4 times as much, but not mineable, it still might helpful to take lesson learned and apply them to Mars.
But what NASA has detected in regards water on Mars, doesn’t indicate Mars has mineable water somewhere. Or a reason to send crew to Mars is to able to do this type of exploration on Mars.
With Moon, it seems minable water is within a small area of the Moon. I would say randomly going anywhere on Mars has almost same chance of finding minable Mars water.
Or I tend to agree ever worried, that best place to put a base on Mars is where it seems easiest to put base. Or crew safety and getting a toe hold on the Planet, seems reasonable.
Or generally tend to think we should put bases on Mars rather just focus only on one base. But I don’t think there much value on just orbiting Mars with crew.
But a base first on a Mars moon followed with base on Mars surface, might be good idea.
It possible though the small moons even have minable water- but I doubt NASA wants to do this. NASA seems overly obsessed with finding life on Mars, and not likely on the Mars moons.
But I would say NASA exploring Mars, will help with further exploration of the Moon and possibly mining the Moon. If there is Moon mining, it will help the chances of using Mars and/or exploration of Mars. Some nut thought should be drilling water wells on the Moon. Maybe you can drill water well on the Moon and get water. I don’t think NASA should drill for water on the Moon, but NASA should doing a lot drilling on Mars.
But idea that NASA is going to all the exploration on Mars, is not going to happen.
If NASA explore Moon and finds on water and explores Mars and finds no water [within say 10 years] I would say NASA is over- and could be the actual thought out reason, NASA has not done any meaningful exploration in decades- they are scared they will fail so much that they are incapable of exploration.
But if NASA gone, exploration of space will continue. And exploration might more of the very exciting and dangerous kinds of activities.
Oh, related to this.
Should Space Force explore the Moon?
One could blame the US military for bring up the
topic of water on the Moon.
But that is not very good argument, as they were not trying to
explore the Moon- and it was not their job to explore the Moon.
But if NASA continues to fail to explore the Moon, should Space
Force become more interested in exploring the Moon.
It seems it relates to how much time, NASA continue to fail to
explore the Moon.
Such as in the next 20 years, NASA continues to fail to explore the
Moon. Or if given enough time, such as 20 or 40 or more years, it becomes a better argument.
But there does not seem to be that much time that NASA could waste.
One could blame Elon Musk for this. But you were going to get Elon Musk, at some point in time, anyhow.
A thought experiment!
Let’s say the artificial barrier built across Atlantic ocean which stops the Gulfstream current circulation.
What will be the change (everything else equals) in Earth’s average global temperature?
1. No change at all.
2. Average global warming.
3. Average global cooling.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If all the cold water is concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere then 3.
If Christos means the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is like a planetary conveyor belt, then read here:
https://www.umass.edu/news/article/winter-coming-researchers-uncover-surprising-cause-little-ice-age
1)
The barrier prevents heat transport away from the US, which becomes warmer and reduces heat transport to Europe which become colder. The Greenland Sea will receive less heat from the Gulf Stream and lose less heat into the thermohaline circulation.
Locally temperature and heat transfer will change, but the planetary energy budget will not change.
If insolation is changed then the energy budget changes due to surface albedo.
Gulf stream prevented from carrying heat north means colder north. Colder north means sea ice extends further south. Continental glaciers would advance. Winters, particularly in Northern Europe get much colder and snowier.
End result is that insolation at 60N increases dramatically and you get global cooling.
Global cooling means much wilder weather including heat domes and arctic intrusions such as has been experienced over the last couple of years. Yeah, its all climate change but nothing to do with CO2.
In my opinion there would be an average global cooling.
My answer is the 3.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Based on the Stefan Boltzmanns law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.
0.5% of what?
The authors expected a rise in temperature and got a rise in percentage.
It’s nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1113385
The rise was about 0.15 C. So small they needed to use specialist equipment to even detect it was there at all.
Elon Musk says SpaceX making good progress on Starships upgraded Raptor 2 engines
“As is routine, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken to Twitter to offer a few details about the status of Starship, its Raptor engines, and a few upgrades planned for both.
In mid-December, Musk revealed even more ambitious plans to upgrade Starship by stretching its propellant tanks and adding another three Raptor engines, potentially boosting the ships maximum thrust by 50% and substantially improving payload performance. ”
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-spacex-starship-raptor-2-engine-progress/
“According to Musk, as SpaceX continues to ramp up ground testing of the upgraded engine variant, Raptor 2 now operates routinely at 300 bar main chamber pressure. For context, on February 10th, 2019, just days after SpaceX began testing the first full-scale Raptor prototype ever completed, the engine briefly reached a main combustion chamber pressure just shy of 269 bar (3900 psi). That narrowly beat records set by Russias RD-270 and RD-180 engines, the latter of which is used on ULAs Atlas V.”
I heard about 300, I good to get the context.
So, Raptor 2 seems getting than faster, than I thought
Musk is amazing.
Entropic Man wrote earlier –
“I havent expressed an opinion regarding how the heat transfer and dispersion works. I just note that it works.
Perhaps you would care to discuss the physics of heat transfer between the layers, where the heat goes and why it stops energy from sunlight warming the telescope.”
– presumably about the method of insulation used to prevent the Sun’s radiation from adversely affecting the operation of parts of the Webb space telescope.
Obviously, EM accepts the reality of the insulation, but does not possess sufficient physical knowledge to understand how it works.
I can assure EM that no discussion is necessary. Facts will suffice. EM will discover that no mythical GHE or other magical means are needed to explain the insulating effect of the apparatus in question. If EM can be specific about the physical aspects he does not understand, and can demonstrate sincere and meaningful efforts to overcome his lack of knowledge (without gaining such understanding), I will be glad to help.
Of course he won’t. He has merely posed a gotcha, with the intention of strenuously opposing anyone who is silly enough to attempt explaining the physical basis of what EM acknowledges occurs in fact.
Strange lot, theses climate crackpots.
Strange lot these denialists .
DREMT and Clint R hilariously misunderstand the science. Even this biologist ends up ROFL. Professional physicists would probably burst their spleen laughing.
Then there’s you, Swenson. A fool who doesn’t understand even as little as your fellows, but tries (unsuccessfully) to disguise his lack of wit by ridicule.
Ent has dropped all pretense of understanding science, as he degrades into false accusations. The cult meltdown continues.
Reality always wins.
The real fun is educating you.
Clint R
You would probably rather disembowel yourself than admit it, but since I started comparing your comments with reality you have moved a lot closer to the conventional position on energy flow between between surfaces at different temperatures.
There was a time when you denied the possibility that a photon could be emitted by a colder object in the direction of a hotter object.
Now you accept that a photon can be emitted from the second layer of the JW sunshade towards the warmest first layer, though you haven’t yet accepted that it can be absorbed when it arrives.
Never mind, we are making progress.
“There was a time when you denied the possibility that a photon could be emitted by a colder object in the direction of a hotter object.”
No, E Man, that was you misrepresenting Clint R’s comment! Wow, you people are dishonest.
Ent is openly and blatantly misrepresenting me. He’s in full meltdown. His beliefs are collapsing and he’s reacting irrationally.
This is what happens when cults implode. The cult idiots are all in desperation mode. And, it’s going to get worse.
Leftist propagandists are often full of contradictions, mix-ups, reversals, and lies. Furthering their objective is their only agenda. Advancing science isn’t their objective. Achieving their “utopia” is their objective.
Nope. Heat transfer is really not a political issue. Its just what nature does, and regular physics explains it.
Clint’s made-up fizuks doesnt.
Materials don’t magically switch from abs*orbing to reflecting when the photons come from a colder source.
EM,
And yet, no physicist appears to support you.. Burst spleen or otherwise.
Come on EM, demonstrate your knowledge of the physics which you claim others hilariously misunderstand. You can’t, can you?
As to any perceived lack of wit being disguised with ridicule on my part, do you realise how ridiculous (not to say irrelevant) you appear?
You see, if you explain how the sun shield works, you destroy the nonsensical “back radiation” and “colder makes warmer” claims made by climate cultists.
Go on, appeal to your own authority some more.
You will no doubt convince some of the gullible, retarded, or ignorant members of the Earth’s population of over seven billion. Name one of them, if you dare.
Or just keep wriggling and evading. Don’t blame me if you can’t understand physics.
So says are resident denier of science.
Earlier, Willard quoted –
“However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.”
Completely irrelevant. The author of this specious nonsense is implying the existence of a mechanism which allows a colder atmosphere to make a warmer surface increase its temperature. Or, to use the radiation from ice to raise the temperature of a bowl of water heated by the Sun.
Here’s what idiots like Whacky Wee Willy’s “expert” miss – placing a colder object (like an atmosphere) between the warm object and the sun, does not raise the temperature of the warmer object. That’s why people use hats and sunshades to reduce the energy from the sun hitting their heads!
If they don’t, their brains will overheat, and they will start dribbling the sort of nonsense that Wobbly Wee Willy believes so passionately!
Others are free to believe as they wish.
Mike Flynn, Mischievous Flatulence, please, stop – you’ll make Kiddo cry. He was starting to believe in the Greenhouse Effect, the Tyndall Effect, or is it the Angstrom Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/angstrom-effect.html
Since he can’t distinguish theory from model and can’t for the life of him read an equation, that’d be really mean of you.
Please.
Weak Wee Willy,
Incoherent nonsense, is it? Who is Kiddo? Another of your imaginary opponents, I suppose. Just as Don Quixote tilted at windmills, and tried to convince others he was a marvellous slayer of dragons, you are seemingly just as deluded.
Your unsupported assertions are typical climate crank nonsense.
You can’t produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. That’s why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!
Mike Flynn, Mosquito-Size Follicule – have you noticed how Kiddo did not use the same sock puppet in that 2017 classic thread?
No? You’re in for a treat:
You can’t say that Kiddo has changed much!
Tell us your BOM bit.
Wriggling Wee Willy,
Still no identification of Kiddo? Just more nonsense, and references which no doubt make no reference whatsoever to “Kiddo”!
What are you one about?
Wriggle as much as you like, like a worm on a hook, you can’t escape. As I said before –
“You cant produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. Thats why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!”
You are free to keep confirming my assumptions, if you desire.
Mike Flynn, Mathematically Febrile – do you have any idea how silly you sound by asking me who’s Kiddo? I mean, srsly – you keep butting in our exchanges and you still don’t?
I don’t blame you – Kiddo’s a bit tedious, and you don’t really need to read anything anyway to write your prosaic and pugilistic prose.
Nevertheless, here’s a hint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299239
Do your bit about deep oceans.
Waffling Wee Willy,
Keep avoiding, it suits you.
Here –
You cant produce a theory, or an equation relating to the heating powers of based on anything except your fantasies. Thats why you appear delusional and stupid.
Just as well you are powerless and impotent. You might be dangerous, otherwise.
Phew!
Still no theory? Can’t find an equation?
So sad, too bad. Maybe you should practice obscurity and mystic “hints”. That might make some particularly gullible fools believe you are wise and respected.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Missionary Frivolity, meet a Mike Flynnian response –
Enjoy your evening, silly sock puppet.
Woeful Wee Willy,
I agree with Mike Flynn. Laddie, you need to learn how to formulate better gotchas. Your present standard is abysmal.
There. I’ve improved on Mike Flynn’s comment.
Go on, tell me which comment you prefer.
Only joking. Attacking the messengers(s) doesn’t affect the message. Why not just copy Mike Flynn? Or does he not bother with gotchas?
Don’t worry. If you spend as much time developing your gotcha skills, as you do obsessing about Mike Flynn, you might even raise yourself to the pathetic level.
Mike Flynn,
A blast from your Climateball past –
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742644
So yeah, *that* Vaughan, and yeah, that complete twit is you.
Whining Wee Willy,
Why would I care what Vaughan Pratt says about Mike Flynn, particularly when you wrote – “It is very unwise to take what Vaughan says at face value, . . . “?
You are getting more bizarre by the minute.
Producing an opinion from someone you mistrust, about someone you don’t know, for a purpose you can’t state, doesn’t seem to be particularly useful or rational.
Maybe you could spend your time to better effect by trying to get your gotchas to a more acceptable standard. You have to follow your obsession, I guess.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
If you read the quote, you’d realize that Vaughan was asking you not to be a complete twit. You were pretending to have been apologetic once, when in fact (a) it was for a typo, and (b) you were blaming your computer.
Now, look at you – pretending you do not know who was Kiddo, and still pretending you’re not Mike Flynn when it’s obvious you are. In fact you still are using your Tyndall bit, e.g.:
[You in 2015 at Judy’s] I take my information from Tyndall’s “Heat as a form of motion”, 6th edition, published 1905. If your reference is more recent, I will chase it up and read it.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/#comment-742572
[You in 2021 at Roy’s] Anybody interested can read “Heat – a mode of motion,” by Professor John Tyndall, 6th edition, if they so wish.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631025
Oh, and you know *why* you were pretending to be apologetic? Because Vaughan met your challenge to find support for your favorite effect in Tyndall’s corpus!
So yeah, *that* Vaughan.
So how long will you continue to be a complete twit about this? Take your time. No rush.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
I suppose it has escaped your notice that many copies of a book are usually printed, and many people have been know to read the same book or a copy thereof.
You probably can’t accept that not everybody has to comply with your rules on what words, phrases and modes of expression they may or may not use.
I suppose you think that people like Presidents, Prime Ministers and Premiers, write all their own speeches! If you do, you are a bigger fool than you appear. And yet, you might notice that the speech author manages to adopt the style of the person on whose behalf he writes.
I write as I wish. Whether I choose to copy another’s style, or whether it happens to be coincidental, is my affair, and you may jump to any conclusions you wish. It won’t make you any less the delusional nitwit that you are.
But in any case, who gives a toss for your opinion? You can’t name a single person who cares, can you? As I have said before, it’s a good thing that you are powerless and impotent, not to say exceptionally stupid, otherwise you might try to make your fantasies become fact – just like that other loony , Bindidon.
Good luck with that, dummy. Maybe someone cares, but I doubt it. You just look more obsessed by the day. You can’t even accept that Mike Flynn commented recently, because it would upset your fantasy. In your mind, it was either me, or some other anonymous person trying to trick you!
No need, you are a definite trick all by yourself. No assistance needed.
Mike Flynn, Memetic Fascia, so you continue being a complete twit about being another silly sock puppet.
This time you pretend that there are not many lines of evidence that points to you being Mike Flynn. Themes, memes, expressions, sentences, references. Even timestamps.
Who do you think you’re kidding? Pace Feynman, that’d be you.
Aw diddums!
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote “. . . many lines of evidence that points to you being Mike Flynn.”
Unfortunately, “many lines of evidence” are meaningless, if facts decree otherwise.
You might just as well say that there are “many lines of evidence” that CO2 makes thermometers hotter! Experimentation demonstrates it doesn’t.
Keep on being an obsessive fantasist, Wee Willy. If you accidentally stumble upon an inconvenient fact, you can always pretend it doesn’t exist.
Maybe someone wants to share your fantasy, but it isn’t me, I can assure you. Ken Rice, perhaps?