Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2022 was +0.03 deg. C, down from the December, 2021 value of +0.21 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 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 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
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
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2022 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
OK, because some people were extremely upset that I stopped talking about the moon halfway through last month’s thread, I will make this post nice and early this month, for their benefit.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
There are two basic motions being discussed. If an object is orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis, it moves through the orbit whilst remaining oriented a certain way. That is the first motion, “orbital motion without axial rotation”, or simply “orbital motion”. It can be as per the “moon on the left”, in the above GIF, or as per the “moon on the right”. Those are the only two options for the first motion. The second motion is “axial rotation”, which is the motion of an object about its own axis (an axis passing through the body of the object itself). So we have:
1) Orbital motion, as defined above.
2) Axial rotation.
These motions must be kept separate from each other. So, if “orbital motion” is as per the MOTL, then in order to keep 1) and 2) separate, the motion of the MOTR must be “orbital motion” plus axial rotation of the moon in the opposite direction to the orbit, at a rate of once per orbit. Whereas, if “orbital motion” is as per the MOTR, then in order to keep 1) and 2) separate, the motion of the MOTL must be “orbital motion” plus axial rotation of the moon in the same direction as the orbit, at a rate of once per orbit.
Hopefully you should now see why the moon issue transcends reference frames. Whilst some still insist that the “Spinners” see things wrt the inertial reference frame and the “Non-Spinners” see things wrt the accelerated frame, you should now see that in fact it is simply a question of how each group classifies “orbital motion”, and then keep their version of “orbital motion” separate from the “axial rotation”. The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion” as motion per the MOTL, and the “Spinners” see it as motion per the MOTR.
Please note:
a) Trolls will be ignored, or asked politely to stop trolling.
b) This sub-thread is to be about why the moon issue transcends reference frames only. If you wish to discuss anything else, please start another sub-thread.
This should be “easy” to determine:
measure the gravitation on the moon surface at the poles vs. the equator.
since it is spinning, the centrifugal force will be opposite to the gravitational force at the equator und the measurement will show a slightly lower value vs. a measurement at one of the poles.
Please note:
b)…
If you agree that the moon issue transcends reference frames, then great. It is one of (at least) three main widely-discussed sub-topics that the “Non-Spinners” are correct about, and have been from the very beginning, regardless of who is right overall on whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not.
Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of reference frames here.
If an object rotates on is own axis aka “spins”, can be measured and determined by the centrifugal force.
If a centrifugal force is measurable all around the “equator” and directed away from the “axis” the object spins.
Simple as that.
No matter if it is orbiting any other objects in a planetary and/or solar system or traveling alone in the vast empty space between galaxies. The centrifugal force will tell you if it spins or not.
“Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of reference frames here.”
Good.
Cybergof
DREMT does not like discussing reference frames. His argument that the Moon does not rotate only works in an Earth-centred reference frame.
In any other reference frame the Moon rotates. He particularly hates the inertial reference frame in which the rotation of the Moon can be measured directly by instruments such as gyroscopes.
I explained in the opening comment why the moon issue goes beyond reference frames. Was there something in that comment that you failed to understand, Entropic Man? How can I help you, today?
“He particularly hates the inertial reference frame in which the rotation of the Moon can be measured…”
I have no problem with any reference frame. Your problem is that the only way that the moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. This means that judging rotation of the moon wrt a specific reference frame becomes a moot point. It is instead all about whether “orbital motion…” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR, and about keeping the “axial rotation” separate to that motion.
> the only way that the [M]oon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if [orbit without spin] is as per the MOTR.
False. If we look at the Moon without a valid physics module, like Moon Dragon Cranks do, then of course we could interpret orbit without spin as per the MOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
For those who are new here, “MOTR” and “MOTL” refer to the GIF on tidal locking – so yeah, Kiddo insists in using the GIF representing tidal locking to prove that tidal locking is not possible.
If there is only thing that Kiddo should take out of his three years trolling Roy’s, it’s that “Moon” takes a capital M when it designates our moon. The Moon. Our moon. Not that complex.
And for the Nth time, reference frames matter when we want to build numerical models. That’s how we measure motion in physics. Which goes on to show that Moon Dragon Cranks are more into metaphysics than anything.
"False. If we look at the Moon without a valid physics module, like Moon Dragon Cranks do, then of course we could interpret orbit without spin as per the MOTL"
Then you would be agreeing that our moon is not rotating on its own axis! As I said, the only way that our moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
To correct Willard on another of his misrepresentations, I am not arguing against the tidal locking mechanism. Some "Non-Spinners" do, I do not.
> Then you would be agreeing that our moon is not rotating on its own axis!
Once again, false.
There are many ways to interpret that silly GIF.
Notice how Kiddo hides his assumptions behind that silly GIF.
That’s just one way he trolls.
Some people just cannot be reasoned with.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View
more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.GOWORK24.com
“Some people just cannot be reasoned with”
Such as DREMT, Clint R, GR, etc.
The only way that our moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR.
How ORBIT is defined by astrophysics is easily checked and verified. We have done this many times.
Now stop forever trying to turn a verifiable FACT into an opinion thing.
See? It’s clear that some of them agree that the only way our moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. They just never speak up when other "Spinners" disagree on these basic points.
> I am not arguing against the tidal locking mechanism
From our slimiest sock puppet’s mouth:
Let’s repeat the legend of our slimiest sock puppet’s favorite GIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Willard, I do not argue against the tidal locking mechanism, the actual process by which a moon becomes tidally-locked. Obviously, I just see a tidally-locked moon as not rotating on its own axis, since as far as I’m concerned "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL.
You probably will still not understand…
> I do not argue against the tidal locking mechanism
Our slimiest sock puppet cuts himself short.
He’s not arguing at all.
And yeah, to claim that tidal locking stopped our moon would require an argument that “transcends” mere definitions and armwaving.
It’s agreed that the tidal locking mechanism ultimately results in motion like the MOTL. So all that is needed to understand that tidal locking results in a moon not rotating on its own axis is to realize “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL. So painfully simple that no doubt Willard will continue to refuse to understand…
> all that is needed to understand that tidal locking results in a moon not rotating on its own axis is to realize “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL. So painfully simple
… that it contradicts what has been established for a long time now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
See? He’s actually quite stupid, really.
Our slimiest sock puppet perserves in what can only be interpreted as gaslighting. That shows how good he is.
Not trolling at all.
…stupid and off-topic, of course.
And of course our slimiest sock puppet can’t monitor his own thread properly:
“These motions must be kept separate from each other.”
Stupid, off-topic, and often incoherent.
More gaslighting from our slimiest sock puppet.
Stupid, off-topic, often incoherent, and relentless.
It is an established fact that the Moon’s Orbit involves Synchronous rotation.
How Synchronous Rotation is defined by Astrophysics is another easily checked verifiable fact.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/outerplanets/math/synchronous_rotation.pdf
The word Synchronous requires TWO motions to be acting together. In this instance Orbital motion and Axial Rotation. So again the notion that the Moon’s Orbit is somehow a singular Orbital motion is inconsistent with this verifiable FACT.
But some people are very much gas-lighting by trying to claim that such verifiable FACTS are merely OPINIONS.
“They just never speak up when other "Spinners" disagree on these basic points.”
They continually try to make it all about what others may get wrong, while ignoring the larger issues that THEY get wrong.
This is how we recognize trolling.
If only the “Spinners” had the capacity to admit that they were wrong, this could all be over. Certainly I would never comment on the issue ever again, anyway. They don’t even have to say that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Just admit that they were wrong about a few related sub-topics. They can start by admitting that the moon issue transcends reference frames. Why is that so hard for them?
“They dont even have to say that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Apparently DREMT has decided that what he has been arguing for many years is a lost cause.
That’s that.
Why is that so hard for them?
And so our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT is a troll.
Incorrect.
And centrifugal, centripetal and coriolis forces.
Until I looked at the check which said $5381, I be certain …that my best friend like they say really bringing in money in there spare time from their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for under 10 months and just now cleared the morgage on their apartment and purchased a new Alfa Romeo.
visit this web-site…..… http://Www.jobsRevenue.com
> because some people were extremely upset
That’s how we recognize trolling.
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, (dro-70) I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
pups, PLEASE STOP TROLLING!! Learn the basics of dynamics and STFU.
Swanson,
As much as I would love to teach you the basics of dynamics, that will have to wait until another sub-thread, I’m afraid. As you will note in b), this sub-thread is only about how the moon issue transcends reference frames. When you are man enough to admit that you were wrong, and I was right, about that, just acknowledge it and apologize and then we can move on to the next sub-topic.
pups refuses to acknowledge that one must first define a coordinate system (aka, a reference frame) to quantify angular rotation. For orbiting bodies, from satellites to stars, planets and the Moon, the appropriate reference frame must be one fixed against the distant stars called an inertial reference frame. That’s basic physics and is important because the angular momentum vectors are most easily quantified that way.
Of course, as we all know, pups doesn’t do math, so these subtle issues are beyond it’s understanding.
No, I get it, Swanson. What you fail to understand is that the only way our moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if you see “orbital motion” to be as per the MOTR. Which is why the moon issue transcends reference frames.
Still wrong, pups. DON’T FEED the TROLLS.
You will need to do better than just saying I’m wrong, Swanson.
Here is some troll food.
“No, I get it, Swanson. What you fail to understand is that the only way our moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if you see “orbital motion” to be as per the MOTR. Which is why the moon issue transcends reference frames.”
Nope, orbital motion can be the MOTL, the MOTR, and the Earth around the Sun.
All three have something in common regardless of reference frames.
See? If I don’t spell it out for them every single time, they make the same mistake. By "orbital motion" I of course meant "orbital motion without axial rotation". See my original comment.
Maybe it’s not me who is making the mistake.
If you mean orbital motion without axial rotation, say so.
Orbital motion means one thing, orbital motion without axial rotation means something else.
If you are not clear in your writing it indicates you are not clear in your thinking.
If you had read my original comment, you would have understood.
I did understand.
The fact is I caught you being sloppy.
OK, bob. Agree to disagree.
“You will need to do better than just saying Im wrong”
No I don’t. You are wrong.
Incorrect.
Stay at home mom Kelly Richards from New York after resigning from her full time job managed to average from $6000-$8000 a month from freelancing at home…
This is how she done it… http://workpay1.blogspot.com/
It does not “transcend references frames” – they just do not matter at all. They are irrelevant.
You du not need even need coordinates.
If an object spins, you can measure the resulting forces.
If theses forces do exist, the object is spinning.
So the moon is spinning. There is no way to define this away.
Sure, the moon rotates…but not on its own axis. It is rotating (revolving) about the Earth/moon barycenter.
As I just pointed out: the moon is spinning aka rotating around its own axis – that is measurable.
All other additional movements around other objects in space (earth, sun, galaxy, ) are completely irrelevant for this observation.
From a relativistic point of view the lateral (orbit) movement of the moon is always a straight line – only the space is warped.
So it is no difference if earth or sun exist: the moon would still rotate amounting own axis without them.
Is a ball on a string rotating on its own axis?
How about a wooden horse, bolted securely to the floor of a merry-go-round so that it physically cannot rotate on its own axis when the merry-go-round is stationary. Start the merry-go-round. Is the wooden horse suddenly rotating on its own axis, just because the merry-go-round is rotating?
Draw a circle in chalk next to the horse, on the floor of the merry-go-round. Are the contents of the chalk circle rotating on their own axis, just because the merry-go-round is rotating?
The first question (ball) is irrelevant in this case, since there are no strings attached 😛
(But the answer is is yes, if the ball is spinning – no matter if it is attached or not)
The second question is also irrelevant, since there is no floor in space. Just curved space.
Without a nearby gravity well, that deforms the space-time, the moon would fly in a straight line for an outside observer.
But also the outside observer is irrelevant in our case:
A lateral movement is not detectable on an body in space on its own. Even with a outside reference point you can never decide if the moon is moving in a direction or if the reference point is moving.
Hence all lateral and therefor orbital movements are totally irrelevant in our case.
Imagine you are in a closed box somewhere in space.
You have no way to tell if you are moving at fast speed or if you are orbiting or if you are standing still.
But you can measure (and feel) if the box is spinning aka rotating on its own axis.
The centrifugal/pedal force will tell you.
This is the ONLY valid criterium – if you can detect the resulting force it is spinning – if not … not.
Everything else is simply irrelevant.
And so: the moon is spinning.
Answer to all questions is no, and yes they are all relevant, as they establish what the motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is like. It is motion like the MOTL. Motion like our moon, which is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own, internal axis.
… as observed from the lunar surface.
…as observed from the same POV as shown in the GIF linked to in the original comment.
DREMT 11:10 am, thanks for admitting you know POV location can change observation of object spin.
It does not change the reality of whether an object is spinning or not.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
That spin reality would be determined by the experiment Cybergorf explained to DREMT. Observation of spin though depends on POV wrt to the object as DREMT has admitted 11:10 am.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
@DREMT
“Answer to all questions is no, and yes they are all relevant…”
Just saying things does not make them true.
You did not bring a single argument for your case, while I did explain you in detail, why your questions/example are indeed irrelevant to the question at hand.
“as they establish what the motion “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is like”
There is no external axis, when we talk about spin. I explained to you why potential outside movements in space like biting or lateral movement (which is actually the same in spacetime) is a very different thing, that has simply no impact on the decision, if an object is spinning or no.
“which is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own, internal axis.”
If if would not rotate about ins own internal axis, there simply would not be any resulting forces be measurable – but they are. So it MUST be spinning.
I am surely not the fist one to mention Foucault’s pendulum in this context, where the case of a spinning earth was proven in 1851.
You can do the same on the moon.
(only it will take a month instead of a day, so you need a proper pendulum to do so)
Unless you can revolutionize physics and prove Foucault and Einstein wrong, your statement is to be considered false.
I sadly did not even see any attempt on doing so from you – just baseless claims.
“In all the communications I have received, tho different in the manner of presentation, the successive changes of position in space are mistaken for axial rotation. So, for instance, a positive refutation of my arguments is found in the observation that the moon exposes all sides to other planets! It revolves, to be sure, but none of the evidences is a proof that it turns on its axis. Even the well-known experiment with the Foucault pendulum, altho exhibiting similar phenomena as on our globe, would merely demonstrate a motion of the satellite about some axis. The view I have advanced is NOT BASED ON A THEORY but on facts demonstrable by experiment. It is not a matter of definition as some would have it. A MASS REVOLVING ON ITS AXIS MUST BE POSEST OF MOMENTUM. If it has none, there is no axial rotation, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.”
– Nikola Tesla
Tesla is writing “If it has none, there is no axial rotation” wrt to the Earth since Earthshine illuminates only one lunar hemisphere.
Tesla used momentum analysis to prove the inertial lunar rotation on its own axis. Ref. Tesla’s June 1919 report in the Electrical Experimenter.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“The view I have advanced is NOT BASED ON A THEORY ….
– Nikola Tesla”
Exactly:
Even Tesla could not come up with a theory to explain his misled thought here.
With all respect to Nicola Teslas achievements: he was much more often wrong than right in his live – a tot of trial and error. His unconventional way of thinking led him to many great inventions, but also sometimes to colossal failure.
That is why in physics we do not only need REPRODUCIBLE experiments, but also a theory to back it up. A theory that does not violate other proven facts.
And that is the problem here:
You (or Tesla) can not explain the measurable forces resulting from the spin around its own axis on the moon.
What else if not spin would lead to centrifugal forces of an orbiting body?
What else would make Foucaults pendulum move as it does?
Magic?
You can not give an explanation without spin, at least not without violating other provable facts of physics.
You don’t have to fly to the moon to prove my point. You can do it on earth live Foucault did:
On the earth his pendulum is 4 minutes “short”, if you install it directly over the axis e.g. in Antarctica.
These 4 minutes accumulate to a whole day over a year, because the earth orbits around the sun.
So the pendulum shows one more rotation in comparison to observed “dawns” on earth.
Would the earth day last one whole year (meaning the earth would be in a tidal lock within the sun, like the moon is with the earth now), this additional rotation of the pendulum would still be left.
The prove that the earth would still be rotating around its own axis once a year.
And the same is true for the moon within a so called lunar day.
(27 Earth days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 12 seconds)
"The prove that the earth would still be rotating around its own axis once a year."
No, this demonstrates completely that the Foucault Pendulum cannot correctly distinguish between "orbital motion" and "axial rotation". It makes the point that Tesla made about the Foucault Pendulum, which I highlighted:
"Even the well-known experiment with the Foucault pendulum, altho exhibiting similar phenomena as on our globe, would merely demonstrate a motion of the satellite about some axis."
The moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, not on its own axis. This is "orbital motion". "Axial rotation" then has to be kept separate from this motion.
@DREMT
Can you please give some logical explanation for you statement?
Just quoting an opinion from someone else, does not prove your point.
You mentioned earlier a “Merry-Go-Round” – this is a bad or even false analogy, since this is NOT how gravity works – at all.
But for the sake of argument, I will go with it of now:
Imagine such a horse on a Merry-Go-Round fixated at a just one point – and lets say this is an ideal mechanical bearing with no friction.
The one thing this bearing does is delivering a counter-force to the centrifugal force, so the wooden horse will not be thrown outwards.
When the Merry-Go-Round stand still, the head of said horse is facing in a certain direction.
If we now star the Merry-Go-Round tu turn around, what will happen?
Does the horse change the direction it is facing – let’s say towards a distant building (or e.g. north)?
No!
Since there is no friction, it will keep its original orientation all the time.
It will move around the center off the Merry-Go-Round in a circle, while the head of the horse will always be faced towards the building (or north).
Only if you apply a force to that wooden horse (give it a push) and make it spin around its own axis, you can archive that one of its flanks will always be orientated towards the center of the Merry-Go-Round.
That spin needs to be very exact, so it does not turn faster or slower and lose its orientation towards the center of the Merry-Go-Round over time.
When we now stop the Merry-Go-Round again, what will happen?
The horse will continue its spin around its own axis, while the whole thing stand still.
In space is no friction besides tidal forces, which can be seen as an equivalent – but only until tidal locking is achieved. So the strong tidal forces the moon experienced in the past are the same as the push we gave the horse to let it spin.
The moon continues to spin till this very day.
Cybergorf, this has all been discussed a hundred times before, and it’s all strictly-speaking off-topic to the subject of this sub-thread, which was supposed to be about how the moon issue goes beyond reference frames (which you already agree with, anyway), but…
…your merry-go-round analogy is absent one important aspect – something to represent the force of gravity. An orbit is simply the result of the force of gravity interacting with the object’s linear momentum. As you can see clearly here, in the linked sequence of animations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The cannonball, if fired without spin, would complete the orbit with the same side of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth. The arrows representing the cannonball’s linear momentum and the force of gravity are clearly shown. I think it illustrates pretty well why “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
“Cybergorf, this has all been discussed a hundred times before, and its all strictly-speaking off-topic to the subject of this sub-thread”
Not at all. You can certainly not make this move now.
Every last bit of my explanation, was towards questions and analogies YOU brought up here in your own thread.
So please, don’t be ridiculous.
”
your merry-go-round analogy”
It was YOUR merry-go-round analogy – you were the one, that brunt it into the discussion here in your very own thread!
“is absent one important aspect something to represent the force of gravity.”
It is a very bad analogy to begin with – but you brought it up.
The equivalent to the force of gravity it the frictionless bearing, that compensates the centrifugal force. That is as close as you can get with your analogy.
I established that in my example, so don’t ignore what I wrote.
“An orbit is simply the result of the force of gravity interacting with the objects linear momentum.”
Thats exactly what I told you many comments ago …
“As you can see clearly here…”
Nothing that brings anything new or relevant to the question at hand.
One last try:
Explain to me the centrifugal forces you can measure on the moon.
Where do they come from?
The orbital motion.
Sorry, but that is a rather nonsensical answer – this motion would not lead to the observable forces. Your statement opposes everything we know about physics.
Just to make that very clear:
You are now postulating that the measurable centrifugal forces e.g. on the earth’s surface (strongest at the equator – absent at the poles) are somehow without any prove or explanation whatsoever stemming from the earth’s orbital motion around the sun and not from the rotation around its own axis.
All other measure- and observable of centrifugal forces here on earth as e.g. in your marry-go-round, must be pure magic, since there are no orbital motions in these cases ….
Honestly: what are you trying to archive with such obvious nonsense?
No, Cybergorf. The Earth is orbiting, and rotating on its own axis. The moon is just orbiting.
So you accept the spinning of the earth – ok.
So you also have to accept the resulting forces that are measurable, like the centrifugal force.
But you would not accept them it the earth day would last one year?
On what basis?
Now the same force suddenly has different origin?
Or would it be absent?
If so: why don’t we observe the difference right now?
Wouldn’t be the centrifugal force be 1/365 lower as expected?
But that is not wat we measure … so how does that work?
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
Are there any more straw men you would like to attack, or are you done?
Cybergorf, the idea is that motion like the MOTL is "orbital motion without axial rotation". Do you know what is meant by MOTL? Axial rotation is separate to that motion. You act like you are surprised I agree the Earth is rotating on its own axis! If you had followed the argument at all, from the beginning, you would have already known that.
Honestly, it’s like you’re hearing all this for the very first time!
“Are there any more straw men you would like to attack, or are you done?”
That depends:
Do you consider said straw men spinning or just orbiting?
But back to your claims:
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
Do you know what is meant by MOTL?
MOTL
Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
But that’s probably not what you mean.
On the other hand:
I am really not interested in any acronyms your defined by yourself – please use the established language of the scientific community.
Once again: prove your point – give me something substantial instead of constantly avoiding the answer:
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
So you did not even pay any attention to my original post. Sorry, but that is just rude.
You have been given everything you need to understand, already. The rest is up to you.
(This discussion is over).
Could you please stop evading your answer.
Your response are becoming more and more off topic.
Are you trying to derail your own thread?
Why can’t you stick to the discussion and answer my questions?
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
No. I refuse to comply with your request, as you already have enough information to answer it for yourself. Please continue responding for the rest of your life – that I will have the last word is certain, so you will only be wasting your own time.
(This discussion is over).
Sure: I did have enough information from known provable physical facts to begin with.
This information leads to the conclusion, that the moon is spinning.
You could not follow this conclusion, but failed to back up your claim, it would not.
You are constantly evading all questions to specify your claims in a meaningful and coherent manner.
Your position contradicts known physical laws, but you are not capable to present any alternativ explanation or theory.
So I have to conclude, you already know you lost this argument and are only trying to hide this with overuse of sophistry and derailing.
Conclude as you wish. You proved to me that you had no interest in understanding, you did not even make the slightest effort to grasp what I tried to explain. You have everything that you need to understand, but you choose not to. You obviously did not even read the original post, as you do not know what I mean by MOTL. So, what is the point? You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
I’m sorry for your argument loss…
(This discussion is over).
“You proved to me that you had no interest in understanding, you did not even make the slightest effort to grasp what I tried to explain”
But you never explained anything. You just made outlandish claims, without any logical explanation.
That is why I keep asking you. But you refuse to answer:
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
The answer to your question has already been given: because it is orbiting, and orbiting (without axial rotation) is itself a rotation, about an external axis (“orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL – please go to my original post and find out what I mean by MOTL). Since orbital motion is a rotation, the object experiences the centrifugal force you keep mentioning.
This is what I mean – you had already been told all of that. You had the answer to your question already. So, you are clearly not trying. Since you are not trying, I cannot be bothered to talk to you.
(This discussion is over).
But “orbiting” is not a physical explanation – its nor an explanation at at all.
Ist like you would say: “there ist Gravitation on earth because the sun is shining”
It makes no sense.
Please give a physical explanation how an object in space can have measurable centrifugal force, if it is not spinnig?
Show me the formulas to calculate it.
If you can not give a valid answer to this, the case is closed.
Seems you are really just trolling.
I am sorry that you failed to understand.
(This discussion is over).
I may fail to understand your magical thinking.
But giving something a fancy acronym, does not make it true or useful.
Nor does ist explain anything.
Fact is, you have nor explanation for your claim. No theory has this is supposed to work – at all.
You are not even able to answer basic questions about physics…
—> Troll
(This discussion is over).
Maybe it helps you to understand your misconception, if you have a look at the planet Neptun.
Try to fit it’s rotation in your “model” and you will see it fails.
I have no misconception, thank you. Neptune rotates on its own axis.
(This discussion is over).
(What conversation?)
“Neptune rotates on its own axis”
But that axis is 90° out of the plane of its rotation around the run.
So that is like you would let the horse in your marry-go-round on its side!
And while Neptune circles the sun, its poles do not change orientation, meaning a day lasts half a year and the night lasts half a year at the poles.
This behavior is totally independent from its angular velocity – so we can ignore it or set it to zero for our question.
Would it now now rotate around its own axis or not?
Neptune’s axial tilt is 28 degrees with respect to the plane of its orbit around the Sun.
(This discussion is over).
You are right here: I was thinking of Uranus, not Neptune.
Sorry for that.
So again:
Uranus’ axis is 90° out of the plane of its rotation around the run.
So that is like you would let the horse in your marry-go-round on its side!
And while Uranus circles the sun, its poles do not change orientation, meaning a day lasts half a year and the night lasts half a year at the poles.
This behavior is totally independent from its angular velocity – so we can ignore it or set it to zero for our question.
Would it now now rotate around its own axis or not?
Uranus is also rotating on its own axis.
(This discussion is over).
That is why wrote:
And while Uranus circles the sun, its poles do not change orientation, meaning a day lasts half a year and the night lasts half a year at the poles.
This behavior is totally independent from its angular velocity, so we can ignore it or set it to zero for our question.
Would it now now rotate around its own axis or not?
Describe the motion now within your “model” – can you?
How does it work with an axis tilted 90 to the plane?
(the discussion still goes on)
Your question makes no sense. If you set the angular velocity of Uranus about its own axis to zero, then of course it would no longer be rotating on its own axis.
As it stands, Uranus is currently rotating on its own axis.
To possess a rotational axis means a body must be rotating about that axis. So if an axis within a body is tilted 90 degrees, then there must be a rotation about that axis. So my (actually, Tesla’s) “model” works fine with a body that possesses a rotational axis tilted 90 degrees.
I simply have no idea what you are driving at…but it seems you are just clutching at straws. Another reason why…
(…this discussion is over).
“If you set the angular velocity of Uranus about its own axis to zero, then of course it would no longer be rotating on its own axis.”
Very good – this it the correct answer.
And since Uranus is still having a half year “day” and a half year “night” in this case, showing all of its surface towards the sun over the year, you now admitted, that our moon must be spinning.
(And now the discussion is really over)
No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis. None of what you say follows.
(This discussion is over).
If you set the angular velocity of Uranus about its own axis to zero, then of course it would no longer be rotating on its own axis.
and
“No, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Both statements contradict, because Uranus and Moon show different behaviors towards the body they are orbiting, so one of them must be spinning.
Obviously It is the Moon that spins.
Thank you for pointing out your mistake by yourself.
Case closed.
If you say so, Cybergorf.
(This discussion is over).
“To possess a rotational axis means a body must be rotating about that axis. So if an axis within a body is tilted 90 degrees, then there must be a rotation about that axis.”
But for the observed axis within the body of the Moon that is tilted at 6.7 degrees, there CANNOT be a rotation about that axis, according to DREMTs failed logic.
"To possess a rotational axis means a body must be rotating about that axis."
Should have added here; if a body is not rotating about its own axis, then that body does not possess a rotational axis. Objects moving like the MOTL are of course only orbiting, not rotating on their own axes. So they possess no rotational axes.
On the other hand, "Spinners" believe the moon is rotating on its own axis, so naturally they believe it possesses a rotational axis. Due to the way the moon remains oriented whilst it moves in its orbit, they believe that this "axis" remains tilted slightly wrt the moon’s orbital plane.
All been discussed a dozen times of course. For that reason, I’ve opened up another sub-thread further down-thread where this can continue to be discussed, if anyone wants. Although currently people are taking that one completely off-topic as well. Oh well.
(This discussion is over).
“hould have added here; if a body is not rotating about its own axis, then that body does not possess a rotational axis. Objects moving like the MOTL are of course only orbiting, not rotating on their own axes. So they possess no rotational axes.
On the other hand, ‘Spinners’ believe the moon is rotating on its own axis, so naturally they believe it possesses a rotational axis.”
This has nothing to do with belief. It is about observable facts. The axial-tlt of the Moon is an observable fact. Thus the axis is an observable fact.
When one is at the point in an argument where one must deny observable facts, that’s how we know one has lost the argument.
But to continue to make the argument, in the face of undeniable facts and even their OWN logic, that’s how we recognize a lack of integrity.
That’s how we recognize trolling.
All been discussed a dozen times of course. For that reason, I’ve opened up another sub-thread further down-thread where this can continue to be discussed, if anyone wants. Although currently people are taking that one completely off-topic as well. Oh well.
(This discussion is over).
“All been discussed a dozen times of course.”
As I recall ‘discussing’ meant DREMT claiming the observable Lunar axis, its tilt, the Lunar Poles, their locations on the celestial sphere, are ILLUSIONS of some kind, without a shred of evidence or explanation.
IOW, DREMT has absolutely no answer for these observable facts that contradict his beliefs, and simply wants them to not exist.
Hence the ongoing evasion.
…I’ve opened up another sub-thread further down-thread where this can continue to be discussed, if anyone wants. Although currently people are taking that one completely off-topic as well. Oh well.
(This discussion is over).
“Ive opened up another sub-thread further down-thread where this can continue to be discussed”
Nope, there is no other thread where DREMT offered answers.
He is simply running away from facts that he cannot explain.
That’s how we recognize DREMT has lost the argument and has no integrity.
I’ve opened up another sub-thread further down-thread where this can continue to be discussed, if anyone wants. Although currently people are taking that one completely off-topic as well. Oh well.
(This discussion is over).
A website is needed that is dedicated to arguing about whether the moon rotates on its axis and other damned fool discussions such as the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Please take your anti-science nonsense elsewhere.
Ken, have you ever noticed that when people’s beliefs get debunked they get frustrated, bitter, and vindictive?
You mean like you?
Not like me, RLH. No one has been able to debunk the established physics I use.
Heck, I don’t even get riled when worthless trolls stalk me so they can attack my comments within 2 minutes.
You just don’t accept that anything that contradicts you is valid science. That way you get to always claim you are always right.
Correct RLH. Anything that contradicts valid science is nonsense. Anything that contradicts reality is nonsense.
When you claim you understand vectors, but you can’t understand a simple problem, or the solution, that’s YOUR nonsense.
Clint R
The really sad thing about you is you do not use any established physics. You offer stupid opinions (unsupported by any science and goes against established physics) like energy from a cold emitting body can’t be absorbed by a hotter surface. Just a stupid unfounded opinion. You never state real science or physics. You only state your idiot opinions over and over. You are the Cult of Clint. You have two idiot followers on this blog. Swenson and Gordon Robertson. The rest think of you as an idiot troll that haunts a science blog with stupid opinions endlessly.
Funny you think your ideas are not debunked. I have demonstrated you wrong several times. You ignore everything that does not fit into your cult of one.
Carry on troll it is what you do. You can’t do science but you know the troll trade quite well.
“Anything that contradicts valid science is nonsense”
So the Moon orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter and revolves on its own axis once per orbit. That is what valid science says.
Well, Ken…I stopped talking about it halfway through last month…and was met with a torrent of abuse for doing so. Now, I start talking about it again, and the abuse continues. What’s a pro-science truth purveyor to do?
Pointing out you are wrong is not abuse. It is a public service.
Feeding trolls is not a public service.
1) What I received for leaving the discussion last month was not people saying I was wrong. It was a relentless stream of personal abuse.
2) Nobody has shown me to be wrong about the issue under discussion in this sub-thread. The moon issue transcends reference frames. By which I mean, it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame.
You are wrong.
Incorrect.
Dremt, I would suggest that you don’t participate in discourse with people who are disrespectful and are clearly not willing to change views in response to the data. Particularly as those trolls are likely trying to distract and discourage participation in actual discussion about climate that this page is supposed to be about.
Don’t feed the troll.
DREMPTY,
If this is true:
“I am both more intelligent than you, and a better person than you.”
Why are you whining about a torrent of abuse?
You are dismissed.
As I explained at the time, I was just mirroring what I was receiving, to show it for what it was. I don’t think I’m better than anybody else. You people seem to think you’re better than me.
> I was just mirroring what I was receiving
That’s how we recognize trolling.
> and was met with a torrent of abuse for doing so
That’s how we recognize trolling.
I agree. The abuse I received was trolling, on the part of the perpetrators, of which you were one.
> I agree. The abuse I received
Notice how Kiddo agrees not on what I said, but on a misrepresentation of it, which he then uses to follow up on his shirt ripping.
That’s how we recognize slimy trolling.
I see…so I should have understood that you were saying I rightly received abuse, because in your opinion I was trolling. Is that right? It’s always hard to understand what point you’re trying to make.
> so I should have understood that you were saying I rightly received abuse
Notice how Kiddo misrepresents what I’m saying to spin his shirt ripping.
That’s how we notice trolling.
Lol, OK then, I have no idea what your 11.16 AM comment meant.
Our Shirt Ripper exploits a very old trick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
Everything’s a trick. Sure.
Our slimiest sock puppet might try to trivialize this too:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-278096
I was being sarcastic. Everything is not a trick.
DREMT is a troll.
Incorrect.
many of are studying this issue to develop valuable insights into dairy futures
you can earn 30 pounds a week of Cheshire or Colby while working from home
You guys need to start your own blog to discuss the moon and get off this one.
You need to start your own sub-thread if you wish to discuss something other than “the moon issue transcends reference frames”.
Not necessary. I don’t need to distract from why Dr. Spencer has this blog for informational purposes that do not include the orbit (spinning or not) of the Moon. What does the Moon have anything to do with the purpose of this blog? Do you even know what that purpose is? Start your own blog so the few folks that comment on the moon can hurl insults over there without subjecting others to the breathless, pugnacious, scorn you guys throw at each other. Is that so difficult to ask? Is it too hard of a task?
Throw insults somewhere else and stay off this blog unless you are on topic of the post above. Better yet, contact each other directly and send emails with insults or set up a time to meet. Anonymity can sometime make brave people who are not normally brave.
The other Brad, you are completely off-topic to the subject of this sub-thread. Please start your own sub-thread if you wish to rant about others being off-topic and abusive towards each other. If interested, I will join you there.
And that is how we recognize trolling,
Our slimiest sock puppet will soldier on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT is a troll.
Incorrect.
I agree. The comments here are always littered with off-topic squabbles.
So, to save the rest of us having to scroll through all this noise, please go bicker elsewhere.
People falling for DREMT’s trolling again.
I am not trolling, barry, in fact I told you I was going to write another comment in the new month to try to explain why the moon issue goes beyond reference frames. That is exactly what I’ve done. Try commenting on that instead of your usual false accusations. Or, if you wish to falsely accuse me of trolling, please start a new sub-thread, and maybe I will join you there (if interested). This sub-thread is for the moon and reference frames only.
Ages ago I accused you of constantly restarting the interminable, go-nowhere, off-topic moon rotate/no-rotate ‘argument, and you denied it.
You almost are mostly responsible for its reintroduction on every thread. Maybe you like argument for its own sake, as its obvious after a couple of years of the endless droning that this discussion is going nowhere.
barry says:
”Maybe you like argument for its own sake, as its obvious after a couple of years of the endless droning that this discussion is going nowhere.”
Thats not true Barry. I had never heard this discussion before seeing it here.
It is an interesting question in which in my initial participation argued for a middle position that one could arbitrarily choose either position.
I contended that astronomers selected the spinner position for the purpose of simplifying the classification system for the various bodies and multiple hierarchical rotations of celestial bodies around other celestial bodies.
But then DREMT introduced scientific references to kinematics and the arguments of the kinematic experts are convincing and consistent with my experience in dealing with rotations and designing such systems.
OTOH, the spinner side never produced any references that discussed the topic of motions supporting their point of view beyond ‘my daddy told me it was so’.
So I consider it game, set, match.
It is an interesting topic and it is educational regarding our universe.
Obviously Tesla also found it interesting and we know a lot about what came out of what Tesla found interesting.
So it seems to be going somewhere to me.
Further the lack of references from astronomers on the topic who appear to be ”the daddy” spinners seem to be sycophantically parroting seems likely an indicator that they just don’t care what the answer is. . . .in fact that also seemed to be the case when I argued for the middle position initially.
Now if it is Daddy who doesn’t care; why are the children caring?
So I would suggest as DREMT has suggested that if you want to talk about something else, start another subthread and talk about what ever you want to talk about. I might also join you if I find it interesting.
Only one new thing has been said on the topic for a year – the notion of lunar polar satellites tracking the surface without needing propulsion to get the entire surface (because the moon rotates beneath the satellite orbiting pole to pole).
That’s it. The rest is rehash.
And no one has had their mind changed.
(You have missed a lot – tons of references to astronomers and physicists who speak of the moon’s rotation. Cassini, Newton etc)
barry, all the LRO issue demonstrated was that some of the “Spinners” still don’t understand the “Non-Spinner” position. Anyone who thinks that the LRO provides evidence that the moon rotates on its own axis demonstrates that they do not understand the issue. To those who get it (mostly the “Non-Spinners”), it was simply a question of rolling our eyes at the “Spinners” once again getting “orbital motion” confused with “axial rotation”. It gets tiresome.
Yes, the moon changes orientation, because it is orbiting. Look at the GIF, for example, that’s what the MOTL is doing. Changing orientation. The MOTL is “orbital motion without axial rotation” in the “Non-Spinner” view. So of course the moon is going to move beneath the satellite as it orbits pole to pole. The moon is “orbiting”, after all.
As to Cassini and Newton etc, that was nothing new. That has been brought up since the beginning, and bill has not missed any of it.
You are once again taking the discussion off-topic…
Barry what DREMT replied is exactly what I perceive. Science is more than simply observing the world is warming and then assigning a cause that meets all the laws of science. Thats ignorant!
And to be clear its is NOT ignorance of the laws of science it is lack of science that specifies a cause. Fact is like everybody else scientists remain careful about violating any law of science that has relevance to their bailiwick.
But one can get wrapped around an axle when one speculates about the limits of laws never tested, just like in jurisprudence.
So when I specified that the spinners had failed to offer evidence that their position was correct I meant a scientific argument, not an opinion that seemingly rules out something that was only expressed as an opinion. Opinions are different than proofs. Scientists like everybody else when beyond that what has been proven simply express opinions.
Same goes for so-called expert opinions. An expert opinion is often something beyond clear evidence. But that isn’t itself a shred of evidence. Thats the first rule of an auditor. One can only give true expert opinion in reciting the laws and the math that leads to a scientific fact. (paraphrasing a quote of Lord Kelvin)
Producing the words of a renowned scientist that once said the ‘moon spins on its axis’ isn’t either an expert opinion, nor is it science. Its merely an expression of a thoughtless opinion.
Since astronomers don’t engineer solar systems nor planet systems they have no profession reason to care about moons and planets and the processes they undergo over the eons.
They only care about things that have impacts on their current efforts. The fact that objects rotating around an external axis can be disassembled conceptually into individual components doesn’t mean they should be or that concepts are identical to what something can exist alone in reality. Case in point is the MOTR.
So I declared a winner after DREMT produced the Dr Madhavi course outline and the spinners had had adequate time to effectively dispute it.
Instead overtime all that appeared were more papers consistent with the Madhavi paper. And from the astronomical perspective all quotes from astronomer types were simply declaratory in nature that says nothing consistent with kinematics. The best argument for the lack of a system of kinematics and dynamics in astronomy is the orbit system doesn’t involve a rigid connection between the moon and the earth. But astronomy does recognize forces that eventually over the eons creates a reliable rigid connection. They recognize them but never use them.
So if you then breakdown the astronomical classification system into components it is clear a force is needed to break that reliable connection of the moon to an earth and that a different motion that resulted in the MOTR would have its own angular momentum that results from that force.
Conversely arguing about what a space craft might do is highly mission dependent. It likely is too inconvenient to allow nature to do its work of orienting a space craft to either space or the earth as we don’t want to wait that long.
Certainly one who has an open mind and active mind can see the reality here. Adamant spinners simply don’t want to see the reality of an object rotating on an external axis and the ‘nature’ of that. Instead they are adamant in ignoring nature to quickly accomplish whatever mission they have in mind and fail to recognize the need for an artificially created force to over come the forces of nature over the long term. This is a problem that has variable amplitudes of consequences, but never zero consequences. Instead they are consequences that might be acceptable to ignore.
Ultimately as science advances it finds consequences previously ignored have become those that cannot any longer be ignored and the truth of nature becomes recognized.
I haven’t fully explored Tesla’s treatise into this as I haven’t been able to find it. But what we do know about Tesla is he had a rare ability transcend human designed limits. Einstein was another. While Einstein was super great he didn’t have Tesla’s quickness who seemed to do it on a whim. What would have been great IMO would have been a Tesla partnership with Einstein for a long period of time to solve the great mystery that plagued Einstein until his death regarding the true nature of a quanta.
Hunter wrote:
The Moon is well proven to be rotating because it’s angular motion wrt the stars has been measured over many decades ago. It’s also been determined that the axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the orbital plane, which is required for basic “General Plane Motion”, thus all of the “no spin” claims which require otherwise are doubly falsified. These are FACTS, not opinions.
Swanson…it is the "Spinners" who claim the moon’s motion is "General Plane Motion". How do you get yourself so confused? Plus, you keep ignoring that the moon issue transcends reference frames. How many times do you need it to be explained to you?
pups, since you haven’t “explained” anything yet, we are still awaiting your mathematical description.
Scroll up to the very top of the thread. There you will find a comment explaining how the moon issue goes beyond reference frames. Read it, over and over again, until you understand it. Once you are up to speed, never say things like "the Moon is well proven to be rotating because it’s angular motion wrt the stars has been measured over many decades ago" again.
E. Swanson says:
”The Moon is well proven to be rotating because it’s angular motion wrt the stars has been measured over many decades ago.”
———————-
Swanson your point here is a non sequitur. Nonspinners believe the MOTL has angular momentum wrt the stars via a single indivisible motion. And yes it has been measured. . . .many decades ago.
In fact nonspinners believe that the MOTR has even more angular momentum than the MOTL.
===========
===========
===========
===========
E. Swanson says:
”It’s also been determined that the axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the orbital plane, which is required for basic “General Plane Motion”, thus all of the “no spin” claims which require otherwise are doubly falsified. These are FACTS, not opinions.”
Swanson engineers have recognized for many decades, even more than the number mentioned above, that it is not necessary to have an external axis perpendicular to the rotational plane. Witness carnival rides like the octopus.
Further one can weld a disk on to an axis without it being perpendicular and still all the particles will rotate in circles around the axis so your second argument is also a non sequitur.
Hunter, None of your examples refer to a free body in space translating around an elliptical orbit. The “particles” of the Moon can not be rotating in circles around a fixed point other than the CoM.
Swanson, that argument has already been refuted. Nate provided the reference that destroys it.
For your review.
One no one specifies a circle need to have the axis at COM.
Both rotations involving external axes and internal off center axes are still rotations.
And finally elliptical motion is ascribed to have rotational properties. If it is not a rotation it cannot have rotational properties.
and
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
> elliptical motion is ascribed to have rotational properties
A lawyer would not have worded it better, Bill.
What you’d need to show is that an ellipse preserves isometry.
It does not. Only a circle does. Circles are special ellipses, but ellipses are not special circles.
Better luck next time.
Obviously Willard you didn’t read or understand the reference I provided. The Kepler orbital ellipse maintains the necessary conditions to possess rotational properties.
Not to speak of your misuse of the word isometry.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isometry
Obviously Bill does not understand that what he calls “rotational properties” are the conditions themselves.
More importantly he fails to get the difference between a motion that implies a rotation and a motion that is only a rotation.
But perhaps more importantly he fails to understand that the argument he pretends to defend argues that orbits do not imply any rotation!
And why wait for another silly rant from Bill. Here’s the relevant definition of isometry for rotations:
From his own source.
That is what Flop’s trick does not preserve. His line stretches.
> orbits do not imply any rotation
Correction: orbits would do not imply any rotation on an internal axis. In other words, orbits do not imply spin. Orbits and spin are really simpler conventions!
And to repeat: strictly speaking, a spin is seldom a pure rotation. It could be modeled as such, just like we could model the Moon orbit as a circle. We can’t transpose the properties of the model to the target domain unless we make sure that the models preserve them in the first place.
Willard says:
”Obviously Bill does not understand that what he calls “rotational properties” are the conditions themselves.
More importantly he fails to get the difference between a motion that implies a rotation and a motion that is only a rotation.
But perhaps more importantly he fails to understand that the argument he pretends to defend argues that orbits do not imply any rotation!”
———————
I will tell you what I told Nate Willard. I provided you a scientific reference to orbital math presented as part of presentation on ‘rotational motion’
1) It is all laid as to the math
2) It is compliant with Kepler’s orbital ellipses
3) If you do the math of each particles angular momentum where the particles are not themselves rotating it will equal Lorb+Lspin and it will appear as the MOTL. Therefore, if you want it to appear as the MOTR you will need to impart a spin in the opposite direction and you will also need to maintain a force to counteract the forces of gravity to stop the additional spin you just imparted.
Now if you want to dispute any of that please provide a reference from somebody who knows what he is talking about and lays out the proper math for the orbiting of a particle that results in a figure equal to Lorb. . . .or alternatively do the math yourself.
=======
=======
=======
=======
Willard says:
> orbits do not imply any rotation
Correction: orbits would do not imply any rotation on an internal axis. In other words, orbits do not imply spin.
———————
Yes the correction is correct. An orbiting object does not imply any spin on an internal axis – unless it is there already due to a different process.
Non-spinners believe such a rotation is there on an internal axis in the case of the MOTR. The math bears the non-spinners out. The simplified math for the angular momentum of a group of particles moving in concentric circles (orbiting as a group without crossing paths) is the sum of the orbital angular momentum of each particle.
That just happens to equal
the orbital angular momentum of a point mass plus Lspin.
This simplification makes it easier to calculate the orbital angular momentum of the moon which is different than the orbital angular momentum of a point mass where the mass equals the mass of the moon.
P.S. Finally as to your isometric mapping if you want to refute this ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp ) as an example of rotational motion. . . .bring forth a source that refutes it. Like I have told Swanson and Nate you can blabber endlessly but prove your spinner point of view is actually being embraced as to the moon’s rotation. . . .along with the math.
Bill, Bill, you’re soap boxing again. The issue is simpler than that.
Draw a circle around a center C using a compass. The compass draws a length D around C: it’s the diameter of the circle. To construct the circle, the compass made a (pure) rotation: D can be seen as an isometric line between C and each point on the circle perimeter.
Is this a reasonable model for the Moon motion? If you believe so, then you’re a Moon Dragon Crank. The rest of the world thinks otherwise.
You’re just arguing for argument sake, and you suck at it.
Please move away from the carcass. At this point I know the issue better than Kiddo.
Willard says:
Bill, Bill, you’re soap boxing again. The issue is simpler than that.
Draw a circle around a center C using a compass. The compass draws a length D around C: it’s the diameter of the circle. To construct the circle, the compass made a (pure) rotation: D can be seen as an isometric line between C and each point on the circle perimeter.
Is this a reasonable model for the Moon motion? If you believe so, then you’re a Moon Dragon Crank. The rest of the world thinks otherwise.
You’re just arguing for argument sake, and you suck at it.
Please move away from the carcass. At this point I know the issue better than Kiddo.
—————–
Willard, D is not a point its a distance!!!!
In isometric mapping you pick two points and map those two points to a different location.
Beyond that you are just howling at the moon and NOT producing any support for your argument!!!
I provided support and a proof! If you want to deny that address that directly and bring your support!
Willard to be more specific about what you are being a moron about is you can isometrically map an ellipse. You don’t do it by cherry picking the distance the moon is from the earth and then keep the distance the same for the rest of the ellipse because you would have utterly failed to isometrically map the ellipse. Sheesh I learned that in junior high school drafting class.
Some people hear it a thousand times and never get it right.
“In fact nonspinners believe that the MOTR has even more angular momentum than the MOTL.”
Huh?
This is like believing that 9 > 11.
Nate says:
“In fact nonspinners believe that the MOTR has even more angular momentum than the MOTL.”
Huh?
This is like believing that 9 > 11.
———————
Nate are you saying the MOTR has the same angular momentum as the MOTL? Isn’t one spinning and not the other?
Have you completely lost your mind?
You have it backwards, Bill.
The MOTL has a SUM of the ORBITAL angular momentum of the MOTR, MVR, and additional SPIN angular momentum, I*omega.
MVR + I*omega > MVR.
Thus the MOTL has > angular momentum than the MOTR. It is straightforward math.
Does that change which side of the argument you will take?
> D is not a point its a distance!
I never said it was a point, Bill. For some reason I called it the diameter when I meant the radius. It makes no difference for the point I was making, but let’s simplify furthermore:
Take a Line L. Fix one of its extremity E. Rotate L around E. What do you get? A circle.
(See? That’s how we preserve isometry.)
Can you produce anything else than a circle using that technique? No, you can’t. You’d need to stretch L or to use two lines, like any gardener knows.
(See? That’s how isometry breaks.)
That leaves you with two choices:
(C1) You stick to the “pure rotation” meme, model the Moon’s orbit as circular, and your armwaving about Kepler orbits fizzles.
(C2) You drop the “pure rotation” meme, accept that Madhavi contradicts the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument, and your adjudication fails.
Which is it?
Nate says:
You have it backwards, Bill.
The MOTL has a SUM of the ORBITAL angular momentum of the MOTR, MVR, and additional SPIN angular momentum, I*omega.
MVR + I*omega > MVR.
Thus the MOTL has > angular momentum than the MOTR. It is straightforward math.
Does that change which side of the argument you will take?
———————-
Sorry Nate but it is you who has it backwards.
Let me fix your equation.
Your equation:
The MOTL has a ORBITAL angular momentum of a point mass that is the mass of both the MOTR and the MOTL, and additional SPIN angular momentum, I*omega.
However, that entire equation is equal to the sum of the angular momentum of all the individual particles of the moon that are spread out equally around the COM.
In other words the angular momentum of an object with dimensions is larger than the angular momentum of a point mass of the same mass.
Your own link shows that to be true. The entire angular momentum of a particle rotating in a circle is L=mvr, (there is no spin element) thus the sum of a group of particles rotating in the circle is equal to the sum of the angular momentum of each particle with its unique velocity and unique radius.
The basic math error introduced by the point mass usage is say you have the following for a point mass.
Velocity 5
Radius 5
angular momentum (MVR) would be 25M
But an object with dimensions would have:
Outer velocity 6
Outer radius 6
Outer particle angular momentum 36M
Inner velocity 4
Inner radius 4
Inner particle angular momentum 16M
Mean angular momentum of the sum of particle angular momentum = 26M which is greater than the point mass angular momentum of 25M
Thus spin angular momentum is a convenient correction to the angular momentum of a point mass for the MOTL and cannot be separated, exists without any additional force creating that Lspin.
It is only the MOTR which would be the MOTL + Lspin. or Lorb+2Lspin
Willard says:
> D is not a point its a distance!
I never said it was a point.
————————
Isometry is taking two points as a line segment or dimension of and object and moving those two points a distance to map them. (not draw a circle though you can move a line segment, dimension, shape in a circular/elliptical or linear motion)
You are confounding mapping with drawing circles. You can map those two point in a circular motion but it doesn’t change the 2 points into a circle. . . .then are still just two points still.
If you want to isometrically map a circle or an ellipse you essentially take the circle or ellipse like it was a plastic sheet cut into a circle or ellipse and then move it as a translation or a rotation (heck move it in a Kepler orbit for that matter)
These are just basic drafting principles whether you are using line segments with a ruler or shapes with a drawing template.
> Isometry is taking two points as a line segment or dimension of and object and moving those two points a distance to map them
Not exactly, Bill. An isometry is a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces.
Turning a compass around a center to create a circle is one. That is, the distance between any two points in the line of the original radius is preserved.
If you stretch the line, the distance between the points of the line is not preserved. You can’t draw an ellipse using a compass unless you stretch it from time to time.
Game, set, and match.
Willard says:
> Isometry is taking two points as a line segment or dimension of and object and moving those two points a distance to map them
Not exactly, Bill. An isometry is a distance-preserving transformation between metric spaces.
————
Whats the difference in your mind?
========
========
========
========
Willard says:
Turning a compass around a center to create a circle is one. That is, the distance between any two points in the line of the original radius is preserved.
—————-
Thats a motion not a transformation the compass hasn’t changed
========
========
========
========
Willard says:
If you stretch the line, the distance between the points of the line is not preserved. You can’t draw an ellipse using a compass unless you stretch it from time to time.
————————–
You stretch the line and that changes the compass and would be a transformation rather than an isometric mapping.
But so what? All you are saying is you can’t draw a circle with a compass that changes its span. . . .DUH!!!
========
========
========
========
Willard says:
Game, set, and match.
—————–
Indeedy do! You win a genuine certificate of moronship!
So what, Bill?
Have not you read your Madhavi?
If you cannot draw an ellipse without stretching your compass, that means it is not a pure rotation. Rotations are isometries.
So much the worse for the Moon Dragon Crank project to model the Motion of the Moon using a simpler model and one pure rotation!
Willard says:
If you cannot draw an ellipse without stretching your compass, that means it is not a pure rotation. Rotations are isometries.
———————-
Willard just because you say so does not make it so!
Nate provided a link that shows you are wrong.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
And you haven’t provided anything to show you are right.
” The entire angular momentum of a particle rotating in a circle is L=mvr, (there is no spin element)”
Indeed, Bill.
For the MOTL you can use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem.
to see that its angular momentum is
MR^2*omega +Icm*omega
The first term can be written
MR^2* (V/R) = MVR
Thus The total angular momentum of MOTL is
MVR + Icm*omega
> just because you say so does not make it so!
I showed you so, Bill. But no need to trust me:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/joma/Volume8/Kalman/Ellipse2.html
You asked for properties, right?
Look for the Two Foci property.
Willard says:
I showed you so, Bill. But no need to trust me:
Every ellipse can be obtained by stretching some circle.
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/joma/Volume8/Kalman/Ellipse2.html
You asked for properties, right?
Look for the Two Foci property.
———————-
Just so we are clear you are not denying that an object rotating in the shape of an ellipse is a rotation. If so then you are just exercising your typing fingers and not contributing anything to this thread.
Nate says:
February 7, 2022 at 11:35 AM
The entire angular momentum of a particle rotating in a circle is L=mvr, (there is no spin element)
Indeed, Bill.
For the MOTL you can use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem.
to see that its angular momentum is
MR^2*omega +Icm*omega
The first term can be written
MR^2* (V/R) = MVR
Thus The total angular momentum of MOTL is
MVR + Icm*omega
——————————–
Just so we are clear. Your MVR is of a point mass lets abreviate it as such MVRpm. We will also create another MVR for 2 particles with two different radii, one particle more distant than the other particle but in line to the orbital axis.
We will call those MVRfar and MVRnear. And we will call the sum MVRfar and MVRnear as MVR2p for MVR of the sum of 2 points.
So indeed for a object with 2 particles near and far, MVRpm + Icm*omega is the total angular momentum of that object orbiting an external axis in the manner of the MOTL. We agree on that.
But MVRpm + Icm*omega
also equals
MVR2p
and for an object rotating like the MOTR
The equation is MVR2p + Icm*omega
and that is also equal to
MVRpm + 2Icm*omega
The moon’s angular
> Just so we are clear you are not denying that an object rotating in the shape of an ellipse is a rotation.
You are not very good at this, Bill. I am showing you that the only way to model the path of the Moon around the Earth as a pure rotation is to make its orbit a perfect circle. A perfect circle is a very special kind of ellipse. Its two foci are at the same point.
Consult your Madhavi once again:
The “the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes” part is the isometry. As soon as the line connecting the Moon to the Moon stretches, isometry breaks down. No isometry, no rotation.
You are trying to fight basic affine geometry. My bet is that you’re doing so unknowingly. Please desist.
“Just so we are clear. Your MVR is of a point mass”
No. Not at all.
I used big M to indicate total Mass of moon.
Use m for a point mass to be clear.
V is velocity of COM.
Omega = V/R is angular velocity.
Again total ang momentum is
MVR + I*omega for MOTL.
And this > than for a moon that has no spin, like the MOTR.
Read parallel axis discussion.
It has been over a year now since Ftop_t first showed that you can rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape, using Desmos:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
…and obviously that is true. If it were not, why would there be sources defining orbital motion as a rotation about an external axis in the first place!?
Rigid Body Kinematics textbooks and college courses ALL agree that ROTATION requires all the mass in a rigid body to move in CIRCLES around a fixed axis.
The Definition of ROTATION is yet another easily checked FACT, but AGAIN, very dishonest people here insist that this verifiable FACT is somehow just another OPINION that can be ignored.
That’s how we recognize trolling and gaslighting.
Notice how our slimiest sock puppet deflects. He deflects from Madhavi, the authority behind Bill’s “adjudication.” That a motion is defined by isometry is fairly well established in geometry.
Notice also how he equivocates. Any motion can be described as a composition of rotation and translation. In geometry, that is a theorem.
One can model the Moon’s orbit as a circle. One can’t infer from it that the Moon’s real orbit is a pure rotation.
It’s been a year now and Flop has yet to respond to the isometry argument. He always flees away. One has to wonder why.
The denial continues. There are sources that define orbital motion as a rotation about an external axis. Very dishonest people here insist that this verifiable fact is somehow just another opinion that can be ignored. Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape. Very dishonest people here insist that this verifiable fact is somehow just another opinion that can be ignored.
That’s how we recognize trolling and gaslighting.
The gaslighting continues.
An orbit can be described as a rotation. Of course, of course. However, it can’t be described as a pure rotation unless it’s a perfect circle, which it seldom is.
This geometrical fact destroys this kind of Moon Dragon crank argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610816
Over the years our slimiest sock puppet insisted too much on pure rotations for his own good.
“Pure” in that context does not mean what you make it mean, Gaslighter. In that context, “pure rotation” or “pure translation” just means “only rotation” or “only translation”, you see. As opposed to general plane motion, which is a combination of translation and rotation.
Willard says:
You are not very good at this, Bill. I am showing you that the only way to model the path of the Moon around the Earth as a pure rotation is to make its orbit a perfect circle. A perfect circle is a very special kind of ellipse. Its two foci are at the same point.
—————————
Oh I understand what you are saying. A circle is an example of an ellipse. But you muck around on this and have never found anything to support your case that an ellipse is not a rotation. . . .despite you being provided references that show its a rotation.
Willard says:
Its been a year now and Flop has yet to respond to the isometry argument. He always flees away. One has to wonder why.
———————————
I saw you making such an argument Willard but anybody can argue about anything. Where is this argument being established as a condition for rotation? You have been arguing it endlessly with me without providing any support for your argument.
Nate says:
Rigid Body Kinematics textbooks and college courses ALL agree that ROTATION requires all the mass in a rigid body to move in CIRCLES around a fixed axis.
——————
Correction: Most sources uses circles as an example of rotation and none rule out all ellipses.
So here you employ an unsupported claim that examples in courses are to be considered to be limitations in fact.
Yet it was you who provided us http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp and now you choose to ignore your own source. Why? The answer is obvious your own source explicitly says you are wrong and you have no source that explicitly says you are right.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his verbal defense does not counter the point:
Rotations are isometries.
Any motion can be described using rotations and translations, each of which will be preserving isometry.
The Dragon Crank model of the Moon’s motion only as rotation (i.e. as a pure rotation) breaks isometry.
Moon Dragon Cranks suck at geometry.
“An orbit can be described as a rotation. Of course, of course.”
Welcome to the “Non-Spinners”, with that comment.
As the honest agree, an object that is in “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” moves as per the MOTL, and not the MOTR. This is another of the sub-topics that the “Non-Spinners” are correct about, regardless of who is right overall on the moon issue. So, if you agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” can be described as a rotation [about an external axis], then you agree that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
You will wriggle your way out of it, naturally, so I suggest that next time, you say “an orbit can only be described as a translation. Of course, of course”, instead. That way, you will be agreeing with the rest of your fellow “Spinners”, instead of directly contradicting them.
The gaslighting continues.
Our slimiest sock puppet equivocates between two different claims:
(1) It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation.
(2) It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit only as a rotation.
Everybody in the universe who knows about Chasles theorem agree with (1). Only Moon Dragon Cranks insist on (2). That we proved it false won’t stop them.
Accepting (1) and rejecting (2) implies that we need to describe the Moon using both rotation and translation.
Gaslighter tries to wriggle his way out of it, as expected. Sorry, Gaslighter, the “Spinner” argument is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion (by which the “Spinners” mean, motion like the MOTR). So, now you are up to speed on your own side of the argument, hopefully you won’t keep making the same mistakes in future.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, trying to interpose another silly “spinner argument” strawman.
Here’s an instance of it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1110363
I’ll let him discover who holds that “spinner argument”!
Yes, Willard, Gordon describes “translation with no rotation about an internal axis”, or “purely translational motion”, as being motion like the MOTL. You may have noticed some “Spinners” trying to correct him before, but to no avail.
The “Spinner” argument is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, and that this motion is as per the MOTR. And no, that is not a straw man.
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, trying to fall back on the GIF part of his Master Argument. His cope fails for a very simple reason:
The argument he’s not even trying to counter rests on geometry alone.
The GIF illustrates a physical phenomenon. The responses he gets are physics-based, not geometry-based.
Since Moon Dragon Cranks’ interpretation of that GIF is purely geometrical, yet they suck at geometry.
The “Spinner” argument is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, and that this motion is as per the MOTR. And no, that is not a straw man. Sure, they might claim to have any number of reasons why they think this is the case, but ultimately that is their position. Deal with it.
That’s a strawman. Remember Clint R correctly explained observing rotation for MOTR or not depends on location of observation wrt to celestial objects.
So our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, incapable of throwing Gordo under the bus for suggesting that the motion of the Moon is pure translation. Yet none of that is relevant to the argument made in this subthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1160643
Compare and contrast:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1164276
Purest form of gaslighting would be hard to find.
Incorrect, Ball4, but I would rather die than continue to talk to you, so you are on “automatic PST” for the rest of the sub-thread.
No idea what point you are trying to make, Willard, I really don’t. You appear to be comparing and contrasting statements made in completely different contexts in order to falsely accuse me of gaslighting….not sure why, or how any of what you say follows or makes any sense…but in any case, all of this part of the sub-thread is completely off-topic to the original comment anyway, where I made clear that this sub-thread was only supposed to be about how the moon issue transcends reference frames.
Ok then DREMT 11:51 pm you are now on record writing Clint R is “incorrect” commenting the lunar rotation wrt to certain celestial objects (e.g. MOTR, MOTL) being observed or not depends on being located “inside of it orbit” or outside wrt to certain celestial objects.
Different time zone, I meant DREMT 12:51 pm…
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
> you muck around on this and have never found anything to support your case that an ellipse is not a rotation
I actually did, Bill:
You can always read on that manual if you prefer:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/joma/Volume8/Kalman/General.html
If you need to start at the beginning:
https://www.maa.org/external_archive/joma/Volume8/Kalman/Linear1.html
Willard says:
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on, oblivious to the fact that his verbal defense does not counter the point:
Rotations are isometries.
Any motion can be described using rotations and translations, each of which will be preserving isometry.
The Dragon Crank model of the Moons motion only as rotation (i.e. as a pure rotation) breaks isometry.
Moon Dragon Cranks suck at geometry.
—————————–
Your error here Willard is that in isometries only distances need preservation. And the ‘distance’ measure does not entail the rigidity of a compass. It only requires the preservation of proportionality of distance between elements of the object/drawing.
One learns that in the ninth grade if one decides to take a drafting elective.
Claiming that you must maintain the same distance via say a compass is something you made up. You invented it in your own imagination. If you had taken 9th grade drafting, and remembered what you learned there, you would laugh at your own characterization of it. You have 11 year old kids laughing at your ignorance here Willard!
> You appear to be comparing and contrasting statements made in completely different contexts
The gaslighting continues, yet our slimiest sock puppet tries to obfuscate something really simple. When he says:
he’s only making a verbal defense.
Nothing in what I said implies that “pure” rotation refers to anything else than a motion that is only a rotation.
> Claiming that you must maintain the same distance via say a compass is something you made up.
Big if true, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straightedge_and_compass_construction
Big if true.
Willard said:
“An orbit can be described as a rotation. Of course, of course. However, it can’t be described as a pure rotation unless it’s a perfect circle, which it seldom is.”
That certainly reads to me like he is implying that “pure” rotation refers to something other than a motion that is only a rotation. Seems more like he is implying that “pure” rotation refers to rotation in a strict circle, whereas plain old “rotation” can occur in an ellipse.
This will probably be seen as “gaslighting”, no doubt [rolls eyes].
> Seems more like he is implying that “pure” rotation refers to rotation in a strict circle
Our slimiest sock puppet soldiers on:
An. Object. That. Rotates. About. A. Fixed. Axis. Does. So. In. A. Circle.
(At least in Euclidean spaces.)
Will he now deny his own Holy Madhavi?
Willard now either genuinely cannot follow a discussion, or he is playing the part of somebody who cannot follow a discussion. Either way, it is pointless talking to him.
So our slimiest sock puppet gaslights a bit more, this time to ignore a fact known to mankind since at least the invention of the wheel.
One day he might even ask himself what “circular” stands for in “circular motion”!
More false accusations from a troll that simply cannot be reasoned with.
“So here you employ an unsupported claim that examples in courses are to be considered to be limitations in fact.”
Stop misrepresenting the facts, Bill.
In similar courses from three Universities that have been posted here, ALL are DEFINING rotation in the same exact way.
Here is one from University of Washington.
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
See page 15.
“ROTATION ABOUT A FIXED AXIS: In this case, all the particles of the body, except those on the axis of rotation, move along CIRCULAR paths in planes perpendicular to the axis of rotation”
Nearly identical to Madhavi and Brown U.
These obviously are not simply EXAMPLES.
These are GENERAL DEFINITIONS.
“(1) It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…
…Everybody in the universe who knows about Chasles theorem agree with (1)”
– Willard.
Accepting (1) and rejecting (2) implies that we need to describe the Moon using both rotation and translation. Only Moon Dragon Cranks insist on (2). What’s (2) again? Ah, yes:
(2) It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit only as a rotation.
That we proved (2) false won’t stop them.
Claiming that the “Non-Spinners” think (2) is a strawman, Willard. The “Non-Spinners” are well aware that the moon’s motion can be described as motion like the MOTR plus axial rotation. The point is, the moon’s motion can only correctly be described that way if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. Once again, the issue ultimately comes down to whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR. I know you despise that simplicity, but it is correct, I’m afraid.
You were not supposed to agree with (1), by the way. Whoops.
The gaslighting goes on:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/can-space-com-teach-us-anything-useful-about-climate/#comment-333249
Whoops indeed.
And all totally irrelevant to the claims you are making.
Still not a single reference supporting any of your babble.
Yes, Willard. Whoops, indeed. Still don’t get it, do you?
The gaslighting goes on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
Our slimiest sock puppet quoted that definition a few times. Here is one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551805
He’s still falsely accusing me of gaslighting! And he’s still banging on about rotation about an external axis having to occur in a circle, despite having already agreed that:
“It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…”
when the moon’s orbit is an ellipse!
> It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…
Note the ellipse from our slimiest sock puppet. Like his trolling, the gaslighting is strong in this one.
Here would be an existential proof of my claim: Moon Dragon cranks like himself indeed describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation. Will he start denying what the Moon Dragon cranks’ have been doing at Roy’s for years? Since that is indisputable, he surely will.
None of that will distract us from pointing out that one can’t simply characterize an ellipse as a rotation unless that ellipse is a circle!
The whole point of introducing this idea of “rotation about an external axis” was:
a) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL rather than the MOTR. So it helps people to understand the concept that motion like our moon’s could be described as one single motion. Before this concept was introduced to the moon debate, a lot of people struggled to view motion like the MOTL as anything other than being comprised of two motions. So it helped move the debate forward.
b) “Orbital motion”, or “revolution”, is frequently defined as “rotation about an external axis”.
c) “Rotation about an external axis” makes more sense as a descriptor of “orbital motion without axial rotation” than does translation, because it involves an axis. You can mentally connect the axis with the barycenter. Whereas with translation, there is nothing anchoring the motion itself to the barycenter.
Whining about how you think it must occur in a circle rather than an ellipse (despite point b, and despite the fact that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse) will not change the positives that “rotation about an external axis” has brought to the debate.
> despite the fact that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse
Flop only succeeded that by stretching the string connected to the ball.
A line can only stretch by translation.
In a rational universe, that’d be the end of it.
"only"
I’ll do a Willard here, and focus on a really small part of his comment, which I will quote, and ignore the rest. I will "only" focus on the word "only", so that the comment I write is "only" related to the word "only", and nothing else that he said. Only "only". Then I will sit back and act like everything’s settled.
https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Geometry/Similarity/SMstretch.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
> despite the fact that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse
Flop only succeeded that by stretching the string connected to the ball.
A line can only stretch by translation.
In a rational universe, thatd be the end of it.
——————————-
Willard stop being such a moron, or troll which ever the case maybe.
The radius of an orbit/string may stretch.
But a radius is not a motion!
It is not a path of travel!
It is not a rotation or a translation!!
It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a rotation or translation!
Only the fixed external axis and the path of the object has anything to do with the definition of a rotation or translation (lack of a fixed axis in the case of a translation)!!
Your statement that the motion requires a radius that stretches is an admission that the motion is a rotation!! Translations don’t require radii or fixed axes.
> It is not a rotation or a translation!!
You you stretch more, Bill.
Ten days later, he tries to sneak a response in!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard has gone full speed babble!
Irrelevant concepts raised by Willard in this thread alone include:
Implied rotation
Pure rotation
Isometry
straightedge and compass constructions
And the only support he has given for any of these as being relevant concepts to the moon orbit being or not being a rotation is his own original brand of drivel.
Add to that it seems Willard is rather confused about whether the moon’s motion is a single motion or two motions or even maybe 3, 4, or 5 motions with various other wobbles observable.
Let’s see, Bill.
Number of “implied” followed by “rotation” on this page: 1. Yours. “Pure rotation” is from the sock puppet you’re trying to whiteknight right now. You provided yourself with the relevant definition “isometry” I need. A straightedge and compass is the basis of all constructive geometry, and that we can’t build an ellipse with them is a known fact.
If you wish to play dumb a bit more, try to comment in the proper subthread.
Still not a single reference supporting any of your babble.
> Still not a single reference
Vintage 2022-02-07, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1163020
Perhaps you prefer something more to your level:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/rotation
Rotation about a fixed axis most commonly applies to an axis within the body, so of course they are going to write that the particles within the body move in circles. Rotation about a fixed, internal axis is of course rotation in a circle, always. Rotation about a fixed, external axis can occur either in a circle, or an ellipse. As we know from the fact that there are various sources that define “orbital motion” as rotation about an external axis, and because Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse. As you agree yourself:
“It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…”
> Rotation about a fixed, internal axis is of course rotation in a circle, always. Rotation about a fixed, external axis can occur either in a circle, or an ellipse.
Special pleading much:
https://tinyurl.com/mr488nmv
No, no special pleading. Thank you.
Your reference DOES NOT EXCLUDE ellipses as rotations Willard.
and the reference Nate provided included them. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
The only thing going on here is the usual group of groupees aping the stuff there daddies told them and wild extrapolations of such. It is so settled that the motion of the moon is a rotation about an external axis, the only argument is if it is like the MOTR or the MOTL and old Willard can’t seem to keep up.
Bill, Willard has already agreed that:
"It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…"
Therefore all of his whining about rotation about an external axis having to occur in a perfect circle is rendered moot. Since the moon’s orbit is elliptical, and he has agreed that it is still possible to describe that orbit as a rotation. He just argues for the sake of arguing. I have tested it before – you can literally argue with him for hours and hours on end if you choose to keep responding to him. He just automatically opposes anything that you say.
… when what DREMT says (writes) is known to be wrong.
They know the issue goes beyond reference frames. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t spend so much time discussing sub-topics besides reference frames. The very fact that here, in this opening sub-thread, I have tried to keep the sub-topic on reference frames, but they have refused to stay on topic, shows that tacitly they already accept the moon issue transcends reference frames. They will just never admit it, because then all their fellow “Spinners” who happen to believe the whole thing is resolved by reference frames, will be thrown under the bus…and there is quite a few of them.
> Your reference DOES NOT EXCLUDE ellipses as rotations
Ellipses ARE NOT circles, Bill. Which reference, BTW? A circular movement implies, well, a circle somewhere.
As for the proof, it’s easy: any rotation that would not follow a circular path would break isometry. Confer to Flop’s demonstration to see how.
> Willard has already agreed that
And so our slimiest sock puppet switches from gaslighting to outright lying. Here are two things with which I would agree:
– Since we can model any motion using rotation and translation, of course we can model any motion using rotation. But we can’t model every motion using only rotation. The same applies to translation.
– We can model the Moon’s orbit as a rotation around a circle if we abstract away the fact that it’s in reality an ellipse. Teachers do that all the time.
Let him soldier on. It helps us compact our argument.
“Rotation about a fixed, internal axis is of course rotation in a circle, always. Rotation about a fixed, external axis can occur either in a circle, or an ellipse.”
FALSE.
Nothing like that is stated in any of the DEFINITIONS.
Sorry that the facts are not agreeing with you guys.
But to not face this reality, and continually make up your own ‘facts’, is simply trolling.
Just stop.
Willard tries to weasel his way out of his own words, whilst accusing me of lying! It is plain as day what you said, Willard:
"It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit as a rotation…"
Now you are trying to change it to:
“It is possible to describe the Moon’s orbit using rotation as well as translation…”
If you want to correct yourself, correct yourself. Don’t accuse others of lying for quoting you verbatim and making the only logical interpretation of your words.
> Now you are trying to change it to:
Moar gaslighting:
Will our slimiest sock puppet succeed his quote-mining?
We wish him the best of luck!
“Your reference DOES NOT EXCLUDE ellipses as rotations Willard.
and the reference Nate provided included them.”
Yes it does exclude them, Bill
And where does the reference say elliptical orbits are rotations? I don’t see that!
We had a discussion about this a while back.
We discussed a kid on a MGR that is rotating, and he walked from the outer edge to halfway to the center and back, while the MGR completed a revolution.
You agreed that his non-circular motion, akin to an ellipse, could not be described as simply a rotation. It had to include translation.
The same applies to ellipses.
Thus far the non-spinners simply assert that ellipses are rotations.
Where is an explicit DEFINITION of rotation that:
a. is different from what we found,
b. explains elliptical orbits,
c. comes from a legitimate source??
“Accepting (1) and rejecting (2) implies that we need to describe the Moon using both rotation and translation”…
…but that is so vague, Willard. Is what you are arguing:
a) that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is a mixture of both rotation and translation? b) that the moon’s motion is a combination of translation in an ellipse plus rotation about the moon’s internal axis?
> that is so vague
Perhaps our slimiest sock puppet might prefer:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
I would prefer that you do me the courtesy of simply answering a) or b), rather than making the same exact argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Our slimiest sock puppet tries to bait once more.
Time for another strategy.
From now on, not only I will stop addressing him, but I will only address the claims he makes.
No interaction. No commentary. Only propositions and support.
Let’s see how he’ll appreciate the desert landscape of pure dialectic.
Willard, your Theorem 67 includes ellipses in its proof. This is seen employed through sine theta as indicated in the source provided by Nate here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
As I told you Willard, rotations are planar motions and the circumstances that would change a circle into a non-circular ellipse or vice versa is via sine theta as detailed in Nate’s own source.
Nate says:
Thus far the non-spinners simply assert that ellipses are rotations.
Where is an explicit DEFINITION of rotation that:
a. is different from what we found,
b. explains elliptical orbits,
c. comes from a legitimate source??
—————————
Gee Nate you did that for us with the source you provided us. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Catagorized nicely under: HyperPhysics/Mechanics/Rotational motion by C.R. Nave from Georgia State University.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Gee Nate I must have responded to this a dozen times. All it invokes in you is silence and ignorance. And on the flip side you have completely failed to respond to my request for support for your point of view. When is this clown circus going to end?
> Theorem 67 includes ellipses in its proof.
There are three points in that theorem, Bill: C, P, and Q, to which is applied a rotation. Check Definition 66 right above for the details how it works. Figure 1.13 might also help.
Oh, and if you consult Nate’s resource properly, you should be able to find this tidbit:
(Rotational motion) includes (circular motion)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
Circular, Bill. Not elliptical. Did you know that circles were ellipses but that ellipses were not circles?
One day you’ll learn.
Willard I have given you the link at least a half dozen times.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Right at the top of the page in the section on rotational motion is an example of an elliptical orbit. are you blind? And reading a braile copy or something?
Still patiently waiting for Willard to answer a) or b).
> I have given you the link
The link does not lead to Madhavi, Bill.
Nor does it lead to your claim about Theorem 67.
Why do you keep moving the goalposts?
Willard I am getting really bored with your baseless claims and then challenging me to argue the point you are supposed to be supporting.
As Gordon points out isometry is perfectly preserved in any transformation/motion that treats all the elements/particles in a way that preserves all the distances between them.
Just to show how screwed up your viewpoint on isometries are here is an definition of an isometry:
”The word isometry is used to describe the process of moving a geometric object from one place to another without changing its size or shape. Imagine two ants sitting on a triangle while you move it from one location to another. The location of the ants will change relative to the plane (because they are on the triangle and the triangle has moved). But the location of the ants relative to each other has not. Whenever you transform a geometric figure so that the relative distance between any two points has not changed, that transformation is called an isometry. There are many ways to move two-dimensional figures around a plane, but there are only four types of isometries possible: translation, reflection, rotation, and glide reflection. These transformations are also known as rigid motion. The four types of rigid motion (translation, reflection, rotation, and glide reflection) are called the basic rigid motions in the plane”
so obviously somebody filled your head with bullshit when you claim an elliptical motion of the moon is not an isometry. Its only not an isometry if you move one part of the moon one way and other parts another way.
All you need to maintain isometry via an image of the moon is a template and you have freedom to move that template anyway you wish. Yet you imagine it to be a magic carpet that takes you to being right about rotation. LMAO!!
“There are many ways to move two-dimensional figures around a plane, but there are only four types of isometries possible: translation, reflection, rotation, and glide reflection.”
How is rotation defined here, Bill?
> isometry is perfectly preserved in any transformation/motion that treats all the elements/particles in a way that preserves all the distances between them.
You and Gordo are forgetting a little detail, Bill:
The string itself.
To orbit in an elliptical manner, that string will need to stretch. That breaks isometry.
Thanks for playing.
Willard says:
isometry is perfectly preserved in any transformation/motion that treats all the elements/particles in a way that preserves all the distances between them.
You and Gordo are forgetting a little detail, Bill:
The string itself.
To orbit in an elliptical manner, that string will need to stretch. That breaks isometry.
Thanks for playing.
———————-
In that case:
The ball’s movement in an elliptical rotation is an isometry
and the stretching string is an allometry.
Good enough, Bill.
In that case you will need some translation component to describe the elliptical path of the Moon, just like everybody else. And you cannot claim that your description of the orbit is simpler than the others. It involves general motion, as per your own authority, Holy Madhavi.
a) or b), Willard?
Reminder:
Lol. So Willard finds a way out of ever having to answer any questions! How convenient for him.
a) or b), Willard?
Here’s what Bill said:
Here’s what Holy Madhavi says about rotation:
Unless Moon Dragon cranks can find a way to define an ellipse as a circle, either they throw Madhavi under the bus, or they fold.
What will they choose?
Or they simply carry on, remembering that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse, and that orbital motion/revolution is frequently defined as rotation about an external axis.
Yes Bill I did respond to you.
Where o where is you explicit Definition of Rotation at this link?
Quote it please.
It’s just a silly deflection, Nate.
Bill has no formal bone in his body.
Yep. They can’t tell us what a rotation is.
Apparently theyre defining rotation as ‘we know it when we see it’.
a) or b), Willard? No more silly deflections. Just answer.
Nate and Willard, Nates source here is directly from Nave’s chapter on Rotational motion. See the panel with the orbiting particle and see that it is explicitly labeled as such.
No Bill,
There is a Venn diagram linking various subjects.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
Rotation is linked to circular orbits which are in turn linked to orbits.
Rotation is linked to angular momentum which is linked to orbits, because as we discussed before, in a Kepler orbit the angular momentum is a constant.
As we also discussed, a mass can have angular momentum without rotation.
Linkages between subjects in physics is common, but does make those subjects equivalent.
Meanwhile, we’ve shown you an explicit DEFINITION of rotation from three reputable sources that agree with each other.
You have not offered up an alternative definition that works for elliptical orbits, and comes from a reputable source.
Its simply not good enough to declare ‘I know a rotation when I see it’.
You cannot logically claim elliptical orbits are rotations without showing that they fit the definition of rotation.
We can do better than that, Nate:
Let C be the center connected to A and B by lines L1 and L2 respectively.
If L1 equals L2, then you can rotate L1 onto L2 and vice versa. In that case, you get a circular motion.
If L1 does not equal L2, then you can’t rotate them onto one another. That’s the case for ellipses that are not circular. The biggest difference between L1 and L2 is when we compare the apoapsis with the periapsis of an ellipse.
Willard is hilarious with all these “profound realizations” that an ellipse is not a circle.
Yes, Willard. An ellipse is not a circle. We know.
Meanwhile, back in reality, orbital motion or revolution is routinely defined as rotation about an external axis, and we know that orbits are elliptical, so…
That, as they say, is that.
Now, onto more important matters. a) or b), Willard?
“orbital motion or revolution is routinely defined as rotation about an external axis, and we know that orbits”
Nope.
They fail miserably at finding a Defintion of rotation that agrees with them.
It is quite hilarious how they just cannot say what a rotation actually is!
Oh well. Science is happy with its definitions, and goes on without them.
"Orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTL, no matter how you want to label or describe that motion.
The moon issue transcends reference frames, as all of this discussion indicates. If it didn’t, the "Spinners" would just say, "the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame", and they would make no further argument. The fact that they are prepared to spend hours and hours going off-topic to this sub-thread with discussions about the nature of "rotation about an external axis", amongst other things, just proves that deep down, somewhere hidden away inside their minds that they are not willing or able to share publicly, they get that the moon issue goes beyond that.
Onwards and upwards.
Willard: a) or b)?
Nate says:
No Bill,
There is a Venn diagram linking various subjects.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/circ.html#rotcon
————————-
LMAO! So now Nate in complete desperation is going to ignore the same source in the same chapter on rotational motion. He is even next going to pretend it doesn’t exist by not addressing it. He won’t lie about its existence because its part of the record of this blog that he is in the fact the one that produced it as a source.
And of course what that link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp does is describe an elliptical orbit and mathematically presents the formula for the rotational angular momentum. . . .a quantity that only exists for rotations.
I would have say your response has gone far beyond the honesty line Nate! You have devolved down to lying to avoid admitting that you are lying and really don’t know shit about this topic but you won’t admit it because you lack the balls to do so. If you are so sure you are right here, write a paper claiming C.R. Nave is wrong and submit it to peer review. Of course you won’t do that because all that would do is spread the news about what a bozo you are and amplify the sound of laughter already surrounding your posts.
?and mathematically presents the formula for the rotational angular momentum. . . .a quantity that only exists for rotations.”
Bill, again, making up your own physics facts is not a winning argument.
You already saw the example of a kid running in a straight line, on a tangent to the outer edge of a MGR, then jumps on. The MGR with kid on board now has rotation, and clearly, angular momentum.
But angular momentum is conserved in such collisions. So where did this MGR angular momentum come from?
Obviously it came from the kid. He HAD ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
Angular momentum is L = mvxr, shows that even a mass translating in a straight line past a point (the center of MGR) can have angular momentum.
Now try to weasil out of it, again. Tell me my Daddy told me or some other inane, childish retort.
But don’t ever ever ever admit you were simply wrong.
It is how we recognize trolling.
So they attempt to argue with us about what qualifies as a rotation, for a couple of days, but finally are unable to answer the most basic question:
‘How is rotation defined?’
They cannot say what a rotation even is!
They now hilariously deflect by claiming this discussion was all off-topic!
“going off-topic to this sub-thread with discussions about the nature of “rotation about an external axis”
It is how we recognize obvious trolling.
It is how we recognize losers.
Just a polite reminder:
“This sub-thread is to be about why the moon issue transcends reference frames only. If you wish to discuss anything else, please start another sub-thread.”
I note that Bill, being a better commenter than some, has indeed started a new sub-thread to discuss this diversion, way further down-thread. As I was saying, the fact that some “Spinners” are happy to go off-topic for such long discussions shows that tacitly they must accept the moon issue goes beyond reference frames, else they would have been happy to stay on-topic. They know, whether they are prepared to admit it publicly or not, that I am right about reference frames.
Still patiently waiting for Willard to answer a) or b).
” The fact that they are prepared to spend hours and hours going off-topic to this sub-thread with discussions about the nature of ‘rotation about an external axis’?”
“I note that Bill, being a better commenter than some, has indeed started a new sub-thread to discuss this diversion”
DREMT Feb. 8:
“It has been over a year now since Ftop_t first showed that you can rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape, using Desmos:”
etc. etc.
What other dishonest deflection tactics will they use to evade defining rotation?
I would think that people who were discussing all about ROTATION, declaring with certainty what qualifies as a ROTATION would be able to easily DEFINE rotation.
I would think it would be quite easy to simply state what rotation is.
But no. Apparently it is not so easy for them.
If they were here to seek the truth, then their lack of ability to define rotation SHOULD concern them.
But it doesnt.
That’s how we recognize trolling.
Still patiently waiting for Willard to answer a) or b).
Reminder:
Moon Dragons need to let go of Holy Madhavi.
a) or b), Willard?
Reminder:
Lol. So Willard finds a way out of ever having to answer any questions! How convenient for him.
a) or b), Willard?
When will Moon Dragon cranks throw Holy Madhavi under the bus?
The plot thickens.
No need to, so not going to happen.
a) or b), Willard?
Here’s why Moon Dragon cranks need to throw their Holy Madhavi under the bus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
That source is their Holy Madhavi.
Those that are still confused about such arguments can just scroll up and re-read my comments until they understand.
Now, a) or b), Willard?
Here’s what Holy Madhavi says about rotation:
Will our Moon Dragon cranks try to define an ellipse as a circle, throw Madhavi under the bus, or throw the towel?
Or they simply carry on, remembering that you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse, and that orbital motion/revolution is frequently defined as rotation about an external axis.
a) or b), Willard?
> you can program Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse
It’s not a pure rotation, however, a notion that we can find in the Moon Dragon Master Argument, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-569434
By "a pure rotation" I just meant "a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
a) or b), Willard?
Edit:
‘You are mostly responsible’
“You are mostly responsible for its reintroduction on every thread”
Completely false, barry. In fact the most common offender for re-raising the issue is Bindidon.
“…as its obvious after a couple of years of the endless droning that this discussion is going nowhere”.
It will go somewhere when the “Spinners” can publicly accept they were wrong about certain things. As I mentioned earlier, there are (at least) three main widely-discussed sub-topics that the “Non-Spinners” are correct about, and have been from the very beginning, regardless of who is right overall on whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not. That the moon issue goes beyond reference frames, is one of them.
Now, either comment on topic, or start a new sub-thread.
> It will go somewhere when
That’s how we recognize trolling.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> http://Www.GOWORK24.com
I’ll just make one quick comment in this interminable discussion.
Any theory that cannot handle elliptical orbits is not worth bothering with, since all orbits are elliptical.
For elliptical orbits, there are several ‘certain ways’ the MOTL could hypothetically be oriented if you try to call MOTL ‘orbiting without rotating’.
MOTLa) keeping one point *directly toward the center*
MOTLb) keeping one point *directly forward*
MOTLc) changing orientation at a constant rate with respect the ‘distant stars’.
All of these are true for a circular orbit; all of these are different for an elliptical orbit. Only one can give the correct libration for a moon.
EXPERIMENTALLY: Has anyone actually confirmed which is correct?
THEORETICALLY: What physical laws lead to that choice?
Until someone has solid answers to both questions, they are just conjecturing.
Tim, if you want to make “one quick comment”, how about you make it one that is on topic to this sub-thread? Do you agree that the moon issue transcends reference frames? By which I mean, do you agree that it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame?
If you wish to instead discuss elliptical orbits, for the twentieth time, please start a new sub-thread, and (if interested) I will join you there.
OK .. maybe one more comment.
First, my other comments IS on-topic. Reference frames are simply tools for framing [intentionally using the same word again] discussions. So, sure, we can say that *any* physics discussion ‘transcends reference frames’. The physical moon moves the same whatever reference frame we choose to use.
The only real issue is always “does the theory agree with observations?” That is what science about. That is what my comment was about. If two theories both work OK in a simple situation (eg a circular orbit), then you try a more complicated situation (eg elliptical orbit).
If you can’t even define what “orbiting without rotating” means for you for an elliptical orbit, how can you possibly expect to use your definition in any real situation?
No, Tim, your comment was not on topic. I will ask you again:
Do you agree that this issue goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame?
if you choose a reference frame in which the Moon is not rotating, and then look at say Ganymede, which revolves around Jupiter keeping the same face towards Jupiter.
Then Ganymede is rotating on its axis with respect to the reference frame that the Moon is not rotating with respect to.
But then according to your definitions, both Ganymede and the Moon are not rotating around their axes.
Therefore the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
The moon issue transcends reference frames, as explained.
If you say so, but that is your side hustle.
But if you pick a reference frame where the Moon is not rotating, then all the other moons that keep one face to the object they are orbiting are rotating.
Which proves by contradiction that your premise that the Moon is not rotating is false.
Dismissed with prejudice.
“But if you pick a reference frame where the Moon is not rotating…”
Reference frames do not determine if the moon is rotating or not. As explained, the moon issue goes beyond reference frames. It is simply a matter of whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR, and then a matter of keeping the axial rotation separate to that motion. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then neither our moon, nor Ganymede, is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTR, then both moons are rotating on their own axis, regardless of reference frame.
DR EMPTY,
“Reference frames do not determine if the moon is rotating or not. As explained, the moon issue goes beyond reference frames.”
Sort of, you pick a reference frame and then determine if the Moon is rotating or not, in that reference frame.
So what you have “explained” is wrong.
” If orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTR, then both moons are rotating on their own axis, regardless of reference frame.”
So this statement is correct.
You have to get the same answer if you are looking at Ganymede or the Moon, whichever reference frame you choose.
“Sort of, you pick a reference frame and then determine if the Moon is rotating or not, in that reference frame.”
No. Whether the moon is rotating or not does not depend on your choice of reference frame. It depends on whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR. Then you have to keep axial rotation separate from that motion.
You quote me saying, ”If orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTR, then both moons are rotating on their own axis, regardless of reference frame.”
and you respond:
“So this statement is correct.”
So you should understand that this other statement is also correct:
If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then neither moon is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
DR EMPTY,
“So you should understand that this other statement is also correct:
If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL, then neither moon is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.”
This other statement is incorrect because the premise is not true.
If “orbital motion without axial rotation”
is like the MOTL
It is not, orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTR.
You should be old enough to not want butter on both sides of your bread.
Whether you realize it or not, bob, you have already written enough to prove you agree that the moon issue transcends reference frames. So thanks for that.
The problem is DR EMPTY,
No matter what argument about the Moons spin you are making, you are using reference frames to make that argument.
For example, the MOTR MOTL gif is exhibited from a single reference frame.
Maybe transcends is not the word you are looking for.
No, "transcends" is just fine. I get what you mean, but you agreed with a statement that includes the words "regardless of reference frame". That’s the key.
DREMT, this is your thesis: “you should now see that in fact it is simply a question of how each group classifies ‘orbital motion’ “
And yes, that is the ultimate issue.
‘We’ classify “orbital motion” in a clearly defined way that is in agreement with all of classical mechanics. We can use our model to accurately predict real motions of real moons in real elliptical orbits.
‘You’ classify “orbital motion” in a way that is not even self-consistent with itself, let alone with the rest of classical mechanics. Your model can’t predict anything beyond the motion of a computer animation of a perfectly circular moon.
"And yes, that is the ultimate issue."
Well done, Tim! Another one agrees that the moon issue transcends reference frames. We’re getting there.
No DR EMPTY No,
“No, “transcends” is just fine. I get what you mean, but you agreed with a statement that includes the words “regardless of reference frame”. Thats the key.”
I didn’t agree with that statement, in fact, I said it was wrong.
When I said “this statement is correct” I was referring to the following statement.
ME: You have to get the same answer if you are looking at Ganymede or the Moon, whichever reference frame you choose.
This is what I said:
ME: So what you have explained is wrong.
YOU: If orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTR, then both moons are rotating on their own axis, regardless of reference frame.
That’s once
YOU: If orbital motion without axial rotation is like the MOTL, then neither moon is rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
ME: This other statement is incorrect because the premise is not true.
That’s twice.
OK, bob, whatever.
> There are two basic motions being discussed.
That’s not exactly true.
The Moon has one motion. We call it the motion of the Moon. This motion is part of the Earth-Moon system. This system can be decomposed into equations.
Moon Dragon Cranks have no equations. They have no model.
They have an infinite amount of trolling, however.
“The Moon has one motion…”
Yes, exactly. “Orbital motion”, only.
> “Orbital motion,” only.
Notice how Kiddo tries to suggest that because there’s only one motion of the Moon the Moon does not spin, which runs contrary to facts and all of our numerical models. That’s how we recognize trolling once again.
Let’s recap since there seems to be newcomers:
The Moon moves however it does. We can say that it moves around the Earth each 27 days, or 29 days if we use another reference frame. But its overall behavior is quite complex: it wobbles and wiggles quite a bit.
We might describe and explain that motion using many basic components, like rotation and translation. But we should not confuse that with the real thing. In fact the concepts of rotation and translation are not exactly appropriate: astronomers usually speak of orbit and spin. Why Kiddo refuses to use orbit and spin might remain a mystery, like his refusal to write “Moon” properly.
In the end, these conventions matter little. What we want is a numerical model of the motion of the Moon. Moon Dragon Cranks have none. The established viewpoint has plenty, some of them very, very precise.
That’s all there is to it.
OK then, if that’s all there is to it, you can go. Bye.
Our slimiest sock puppet should go first.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The established viewpoint has plenty, some of them very, very precise.
Thats all there is to it.”
Well said, Willard.
Let’s recap since there seems to be newcomers:
This sub-thread was intended to only be about how the moon issue goes beyond reference frames; by which I mean, it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. As I said, it is one of the (at least) three sub-topics that the "Non-Spinners" are correct about, regardless of who is right overall on whether the moon spins on its own axis, or not.
As I explained, it is simply a matter of whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the MOTL or the MOTR, and then a matter of keeping the axial rotation separate to that motion. That consideration renders judging rotation of the moon wrt a specific reference frame a moot point, since if "orbital motion…" is like the MOTL, then our moon is not rotating on its own axis no matter what reference frame you choose to look at the problem.
…and that’s it. That is all I wanted to discuss. However, many of the "Spinners" are completely unable to keep on topic, and refuse to say whether they agree or disagree with what I’m trying to get across. That’s par for the course, here. I think some of them know that if they agree with me (and I’m obviously correct on this sub-topic) then it will cause problems for many of the other "Spinners" who have argued throughout that the issue is resolved by frames of reference.
> This sub-thread was intended to only be about how the moon issue goes beyond reference frames
The established viewpoint has plenty of models, some of them very, very precise. Their precision rests on the fact that they use frames of reference. So once again our remarks are topical.
Our slimiest sock puppet’s sleight of hand is quite simple. He’s trying to conflate two claims:
C1. To model the Moon-Earth system properly, a frame of reference is necessary.
C2. Fixing a frame of reference suffices to model the Moon-Earth system.
Nobody argues for C2.
Hence the trolling.
No, Willard. Again you misrepresent me. As I have explained, many “Spinners” argue that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. As far as they are concerned, that is the end of the issue. What I am pointing out is that is not the case. That is what I mean by the “moon issue transcends reference frames”. If you had the understanding of the issue that you claim, you would agree with me.
In an accelerated reference frame where the Moon does not rotate, objects in that reference frame exceed the speed of light.
Therefore that reference frame is incorrect.
So no, the motion of the Moon does not transcend reference frames.
“In an accelerated reference frame where the Moon does not rotate…”
Immediately incorrect, bob. You do not judge whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not by reference frames. It goes beyond that, as explained. Go back through the comments and re-read them until you understand.
Willard says:
astronomers usually speak of orbit and spin.
———————-
A nice summation of Willard’s entire argument.
Which argument, Bill? I have many. The simplest one involves three points and two lines.
Yes Willard you are loquacious. But you lack even one source that supports your ‘turning around’ another object being different than ‘rotating around an external axis’.
I cited many, Bill, including yours, Holy Madhavi.
You, on the other hand, seem not to understand that definitions have implications.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
This should be “easy” to determine:
measure the gravitation on the moon surface at the poles vs. the equator.
since it is spinning, the centrifugal force will be opposite to the gravitational force at the equator und the measurement will show a slightly lower value vs. a measurement at one of the poles.
Reply
That is a colourful website!
Irregardless of reference frames [love that malapropism,] this whole thread seems moot. Once a month, nearly every surface of the Moon receives sunlight; therefor, it has axial rotation. QED Search NASA.gov (or any physics site) for “synchronous rotation”.
Now, how about that latest temperature measurement?
“Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? …”
Once a month, nearly every surface of the moon receives sunlight; therefore, it is engaged in "orbital motion without axial rotation", which is motion as per the "moon on the left" (MOTL) in the GIF in the opening comment.
For the moon to be rotating on its own axis, "orbital motion without axial rotation" would have to be as per the "moon on the right" (MOTR).
Wrong, DREMT. So very wrong. Astrophysics says you’re wrong.
#1
As an easy verification, let’s pretend MOTL and MOTR both exist concurrently. MOTL goes through its phases in 29+ days, whereas MOTR goes through its phases in 365+ days; therefor, the Moon in MOTL is axially rotating faster than MOTR.
#2
Whomever created said video, had to rotate the Moon in MOTL to create the stop-motion effect; not so for the MOTR Moon.
#3
NASA says you’re wrong. UKSA, JAXA, INCOSPAR, Roscosmos, and Neil deGrasse Tyson say you’re wrong.
Contend not in wisdom with a fool, for thy sense maketh much of his conceit; and some errors never would have thriven, had it not been for learned refutation. –M.F. Tupper
Wizgeek demonstrates he still doesn’t get it, and then appeals to authority a little.
If "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR, then the MOTL is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit. That would be the "Spinner" position. If "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL, then the MOTR is rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit. That would be the "Non-Spinner" position.
WizGeek, you are correct, DREMT lost the debate several posts ago per Clint R explaining for DREMT location of observation matters when determining lunar rotation wrt to certain celestial objects.
DREMT will continue forever being wrong about lunar rotation & it will be forever fun to watch, so enjoy the DREMT entertainment.
OH! I get it now. You’re simply arguing the definitions for MOTL and MOTR irrespective of MOTR not applying to the actual Moon and not applying whatsoever to the original post.
I guess that makes me the bigger fool because I’ve willingly contributed to the persistence of inane noise.
Roy: Please add an li tag data-poster attribute with the poster’s name, so we can locally filter out the cruft.
No, WizGeek, you do not “get it”. Try reading the original post, again. This entire sub-thread is (supposed to be) simply about how the moon issue transcends reference frames. Since you started your commentary with “irregardless of reference frames”, it seems you already agree with that. Making your combative tone somewhat misplaced. Thanks for your contribution, anyway.
> You’re simply arguing the definitions
Mostly, yes.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Once a month, nearly every surface of the moon receives sunlight; therefore, it is engaged in “orbital motion without axial rotation”, which is motion as per the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the GIF in the opening comment.”
This is known as “begging the question”. Assuming one answer is right, then using that assumption to conclude that the answer is right. Yes. the moon is engaged in motion “as per the moon on the left”. But the whole discussion is whether it is better to call that sort of motion “orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation” or “orbital motion WITH axial rotation”. Everyone in the universe other than a small handful of people here have concluded that we ought to call that sort of motion “orbital motion WITH axial rotation”. We ought to chose wording that agrees with all of classical mechanics, rather than wording that agrees with the intuition of a few people who have never studied physics.
Tim, did you note that the comment I was responding to used the exact same false logic? That is why I copied so much of the exact text they used. You really do not get subtlety, do you?
DREMT, you continue to treat this as a debate, rather than as science.
You quibble endlessly about definitions of “rotation” or “orbital motion” or “one motion”. About what the ‘central issue’ is.
The only issue is “can you accurately predict the motion of a real moon?”. The answer clearly is ‘no’. Your model can’t predict libration for a moon in an elliptical orbit.
Tim, I told you what the topic of this sub-thread is. Why is it so hard for you to keep on topic? How about you answer the question I asked you further up-thread?
If we isolate the moon objects in the MOTL/MOTR gifs then doesn’t it become apparent that the only object which is exhibiting axial rotation is the MOTL?
Unless you’re trying to say that all axial rotation is relative, which seems…obtuse?
The only way that the MOTL can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR. Is that really what you think orbital motion is?
…but we are off-topic again.
☹️
You attempt to define “two basic motions” for discussion, but then you seemingly mix and match the definitions.
Consider, you posit “orbital motion” and “axial rotation” as the two basic motions. But you then take an animation which clearly shows axial rotation (MOTL) and define it as “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You even start off making sense, as with ‘If an object is orbiting, whilst not rotating …, it moves through the orbit whilst remaining oriented a certain way.’ But you immediately follow that logical sentence with the contradictory assertion, ‘It can be as per the “moon on the left”, ….’?!
I’m extremely confused.
If you analyze every frame of the MOTR animation, it seems clear that it is the only example given of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, as a similar analysis of the MOTL clearly shows axial rotation.
Why do you claim that the MOTL is NOT rotating about it’s own axis? A simple thought experiment would seem to prove the case: freeze all orbital motion in each animation. I.e, stop the moon objects from revolving around the center object. The MOTL will still be spinning, exhibiting axial rotation while the MOTR will be a still image.
I’m also probably missing something basic, because I don’t understand your next assertion that “These motions must be kept separate from each other.” Why can’t a celestial body be orbiting another body AND rotating about it’s own axis at the same time?
And again, even by this point in your original post I’m just massively confused with your assertions and basic definitions.
TLDR:
The MOTL clearly exhibits axial rotation. The MOTR does not. Please explain why I am wrong? Not because I’m asserting my absolute correctness, but again because I’m very confused how the MOTL is not axially rotating and the MOTR is.
I can’t even logically get to the last paragraph where you conclude that the moon [rotation?] issue transcends reference frames!
Thanks in advance for your time.
Christopher, a body can be orbiting and rotating on its own axis at the same time. I am not suggesting otherwise. What I mean by keeping the motions separate from each other I will try to explain by working through an example.
The moon orbits counter-clockwise 90 degrees. If orbital motion without axial rotation is motion like the MOTL, then that orbital motion… results in the moon changing orientation through 90 degrees. Imagine there was an arrow painted on the face of the moon, so at the start of the orbit the arrow was pointing up relative to the screen we are watching the GIF on. After the moon has orbited counter-clockwise 90 degrees, the arrow now faces to the left.
Now, we want the moon to be orbiting and rotating on its own axis at the same time. So, to keep the motions separate from each other, if the counter-clockwise orbital motion results in the arrow pointing left, and we add axial rotation of the moon to that motion, clockwise, of 90 degrees, then the moon ends up with the arrow still pointed up. With both motions occurring at the same time, each acting separately to reorient the moon at the same time, but in different directions, the arrow faces up throughout the orbit. Motion like the MOTR.
Of course, the axial rotation could also be in the same direction as the orbit.
lpokl
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View
more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.Easywork2.com
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. I’ve never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to avail…View
more instructions visiting this web page >>> http://Www.Easywork2.com
ENSO heads to neutral in April.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202202.gif
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_global_current.png
Subsurface temperatures indicate that there is little chance of an El Nino in the summer.
ENSO predictions before April are known to be difficult/wrong.
I believe that Feb is considered the worst month of all.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however TR68JH one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> https://webwork242.blogspot.com/
The strength of the solar wind magnetic field is still lower than at previous solar minima until the minimum after the 23rd solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/2ycT4m9/Screenshot-1.png
Wonder if the big drop in tropics was a result of the Tonga eruption?
Could be, except that there was a similar low value for last March. Don’t forget that there was another large eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Semeru last December (more), which also would have tended to cool the tropics.
What La Niña caused.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_45ns.gif
So far….
This is the picture world wide.
TheFinalNail
” … a result of the Tonga eruption? ”
In between, after having read some comments in a previous thread
” Preliminary measurements indicate the the eruption emitted only about 2% of the SO2 emitted by Pinatubo. If so, it will not be causing any noticeable global climate effects. ”
comparing Tonga’s output with that of e.g. Pinatubo, I have serious doubts about Tonga’s effect, especially in the lower troposphere.
*
The effect of volcanoes anyway is better seen in the stratosphere, where SO2 weakens solar irradiation.
But when you look at UAH’s data for the lower stratosphere (LS)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
you see that the LS peak which specialists correlate with Pinatubo (Oct 1991), not only occurs months later than the eruption.
When processing UAH’s LS grid data for the month with the highest grid cell values at that time (Nov 1991), you see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
and understand that only specialists can evaluate why the huge stratospheric warming corresponding to the peak happens near the South Pole, and not where the eruption in fact took place.
What does that mean?
A single monthly anomaly simply means nothing.
A single anomaly means everything.
It is proof the climate is always changing.
Doesn’t predict the future climate,
but no one can predict the future climate.
Bindiclown just made a claim he can predict the future climate by dissecting the past temperature
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1150244
“A single anomaly means everything.
It is proof the climate is always changing.”
It is ‘proof’ that weather is constantly changing.
Why are ‘skeptics’ so awful at distinguishing weather from climate?
Why are you not accepting that climate is only the summation of weather?
Define “summation.”
How many months is a row do you require before it becomes ‘significant?
WRT to global climate? 360.
So 30 years before we can come to any significant conclusions?
And if there is a 60 year cycle to global temperatures?
If its amplitude as represented in global temperatures exceeds the long term linear trend, then that will make winnowing any underlying long-term climate signal difficult.
But it looks like we don’t have this issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
“by the 60 year quasi-periodic cycle”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015820616384
“from 50-to-70 years”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031584
“This relation suggests that the AMO and the 60 year component of the PDO are signatures of the same oscillation cycle.”
https://imgur.com/a/X4CUeb9
Various series
The paper analyzes ‘periodicity’ with one to two ‘cycles’. There is an implicit assumption that these ‘cycles’ continue back in time.
But reconstructions show they do not. Then the analysis of apparent phase-locked link between these non-continuing cycles over one or two periods is rather unconvincing.
AMO – nothing demonstrates that this feature has an effect at global scale where the amplitude exceeds that of global temperature. It is measured as a local phenomenon and people assume that it has a global effect.
Also, it is by no means determined that AMO is simply an alias of global temperature or not. I hope someone with expertise will do an analysis to se if AMO leads or lags global temps.
A recent analysis suggests that the oscillatory behaviour is an artefact of external inputs, and not internally driven.
There is no compelling reason to suppose that temperatures in the Atlantic drive global temperatures.
Another paper suggests that the PDO amplitude is enhanced by moderate to strong global warming over time.
"However, it has been shown that under the influence of global warming the PDO SST index displays significant power at multidecadal time scales, which can even dominate the 20-yr time-scale variability of the natural PDO when warming is intense (i.e., 1% increase of CO2 concentration per year). Because the spatial pattern of dominant SST variability under forced warming does not differ substantially from the classical horseshoe pattern of the PDO, this indicates that the forced warming either modulates the natural PDO with lower frequency or excites another low-frequency mechanism, which reinforces the PDO in the sense that it has the same surface signature."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/20/2009jcli2428.1.xml
Here a paper considers that AMO may be aliasing global temps:
“Indeed, if the AMO signal, defined on the basis of SST values over a larger area is present over a significant fraction of the ocean surface, this casts doubt on the use of AMO as an explanatory factor in multiregression analysis. ‘Explaining’ global mean temperature variations by the mean temperature variations on a large fraction of the globe is a rather tautological exercise. It may seem that AMO is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One may even argue that this is also true for ENSO to some extent, even though SST data are only one of six inputs that are combined to form this particular index.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3179-3
Another paper considers the possible contribution of AMO (assuming it has a global effect) to global warming in the late 20th century, and attributes a third to AMO, with most of the rest due to GHGs.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL059274
It means that very soon a certain Lord will be posting on WUWT that the pause has increased by 2 months, now starting on December 2014.
Yes, Bellman.
By the way, according to Roy Spencer in person, the Third Viscount is a ‘brilliant mathematician’ :- )
Oh Noes.
Well he has apparently just proven both the Goldbach and twin prime conjectures in a single paper.
Actually, depending on exactly how Monckton defines the pause he might claim it starts in November 2014 this month. The trend from that date is slightly positive, about 0.001C / decade, but if he rounds this to 0.0C / decade he could claim it’s not a positive trend, and hence the new start.
Excellent prediction, Bellman! /sarc
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/02/the-pause-lengthens-no-global-warming-for-7-years-3-months/
I stopped commenting on the Third Viscount’s threads, too boring.
This means that a lot of cold water reaches the equator with the Peruvian Current.
https://i.ibb.co/CMNdMg5/nino12.png
It means another month going only sideways and the gap between models and reality getting bigger
Does anyone take UAH data seriously anymore? Their proprietary algorithm seems to be creating temperatures which diverge significantly from surface observations. Only see them used when Christy is asked by the Republicans to testify to Congress.
They not only ‘diverge significantly from surface observations’.
They also diverge from all other observations of the lower troposphere.
*
That’s the reason why the Coolistas love UAH.
But… if UAH had not moved from revision 5.6 to 6.0, and RSS had not moved from revision 3.3 to 4.0, anyone who currently praises UAH and criticizes RSS since 2015, would obviously do the opposite since then.
Johnny, UAH and SSTs match almost perfectly with a small lag. What that tells us is the surface data is infected with a lot of UHI.
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
You realize that you are comparing ocean to global uah, which is land+ocean.
Apples and oranges.
The global mean from Climate Reanalizer has been approximately +0,2 compared to the 1979-2000 baseline for January.
That is not far from UAH.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
UAH average for that period (1979-2000) is -0.25, so if we want a comparable result, we just add 0.25 to the January result from UAH to match the Climate Reanalyzer baseline.
UAH would then be 0.45 C for January if UAH used the same baseline as Climate Reanalyzer.
No one takes Johnny Doe seriously
That is exactly what suppression of opposing views means. it is well described in several of the books posted on this site. They will attack and discredit the person, squeeze his communication channels and then claim he is a fringe/extreme/debunked/funded by Satan etc.
when i look outside my window I think srface temps are much colder than what has been reported by UAH for the last 5 years.
If you did gardening, instead of listening to AOC, you would feel we entered a cooling period 3 years ago.
And it goes well beyond the “suppression of opposing views”. Some here actively attempt to suppress truth. They don’t like reality, so they strive to change it.
We live in interesting times….
There is no suppression of views here.
If you’re relying on your backwinowometer to explain what is happening with global temperature, then you can expect some hearty and well-deserved criticism.
Unless you can show the method and results to be wildly inaccurate or that there was deliberate fudging of the results I would suggest UAH data must be taken seriously.
The theory is that AGW effects will be seen in the troposphere where the UAH measurements are taken.
Surface data is fraught with issues that arguably make the data suspect. The troposphere does not have nearly as much interference that would render troposphere measurements inaccurate or suspect.
Johnny Doe:
Proprietary algorithm?
Every major version of the UAH algorithm has been peer-reviewed and published… here’s the latest:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
The code has been archived for anyone to access for many years, at NOAA in Asheville.
Roy, that paper lays out part of the processing, but does not include a description of the method you all used to produce the LT equation which combines the MT, TP and LS products. Presumably, this was the result of working with the weighting curves for the three products in order to minimize the stratospheric component in the resulting equation.
But, those weighting curves must have been created with some assumed atmospheric profile of temperature vs. pressure, probably the US Standard Atmosphere, which is itself a math model of mid-latitude conditions. You have not provided any evidence that your equation is valid for other latitudes and seasons, such as the tropics and especially, the Arctic in winter, when the tropopause occurs at much lower pressure levels than that in the US Standard Atmosphere.
What assurance can we have that your one-size-fits-all LT equation provides a true representation of temperatures for all latitudes and seasons?
USD 39.9
“Does anyone take UAH data seriously anymore? ”
Roy Spencer and John Christy may have fringe political views and a tendency to misrepresent other data, but they haven’t fiddled the UAH dataset which is still professionally run.
Go to Moyhu’s “Latest Ice and Temperature” page. There is a graph showing monthly anomalies from different datasets to a common baseline.
UAH tends to track slightly cooler than RSS, going up and down with it.
Similarly both satellite datasets track the surface datasets.
There is no reason to suggest that UAH is not legitimate. It is telling a similar story to RSS, GISS, Had*CRUT and the others.
Which is ironic because the contrarians here present is as the sceptical dataset which falsifies all the others.
“Fringe political views?”
And then we are supposed to trust your judgment on the rest? You don’t even know what the word “fringe” means yet you use it with equal conviction as everything else you have said.
Did you read Dr Spencer’s rants in his previous two posts?
Did you read John Christy’s misinformation to Congress at the behest of the Republican party?
How far do you have to go from honest politics and the scientific consensus before you qualify as fringe?
I think they’ve both crossed the line, but you may set the line further out into the alt-Right than I do.
Ent, did you mention that you believe passenger jets fly backwards?
While Clint’s fallacy here is ‘poisoning the wells’, it really doesn’t rise above the level of trolling.
What will it take to get you to consistently comment on topic and with substantive remarks, Clint?
barry, Entropic man is a known perverter of reality. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, or maybe you just don’t see things you don’t want to see.
What “substantive remarks” of mine have you missed? Ice cubes can NOT boil water. Did you miss that?
I rarely see substantive remarks from you – folding in old disputes that are nothing to do with the current discussion is typical of you insubstantive contribution to ongoing discussions.
If you like, I will let you know when you make a decent, substantive contribution to a discussion, so that you know what that looks like. Maybe you actually don’t know the difference?
I guess if I’m offering advice I should lead by example. Here is an on-topic comment without snark, only substance, and offering useful information.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1156665
barry, if you missed my substantive comments, does that means they are not there? Did you really miss them, or were you unable to respond?
Did you not see the two physics problems I posed that NONE of the cult idiots could solve?
Did you not see the debunk of adding fluxes?
Maybe I never made such comments?
You get to believe what you want, but reality is still there.
Scary, huh?
Here again you introduce comments that have nothing to do with the current discussion.
I’ll show you other examples of how to do it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1156533
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1156640
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1156340
No snark, just information pertaining to and illuminating the topic under discussion.
I look forward to this kind of posting from you.
So you get to determine the “current discussion”, and reality does not fit.
Typical.
Any person with a normally functioning brain can see what the topic is when they join a technical discussion, and should be able to realize that they have changed the subject when it is pointed out to them.
As I said, I am willing to help you.
Entropic man says:
Roy Spencer and John Christy may have fringe political views and a tendency to misrepresent other data, but they havent fiddled the UAH dataset which is still professionally run.
Did you read Dr Spencers rants in his previous two posts?
Did you read John Christys misinformation to Congress at the behest of the Republican party?
How far do you have to go from honest politics and the scientific consensus before you qualify as fringe?
I think theyve both crossed the line, but you may set the line further out into the alt-Right than I do.
——————————–
Entropic, from the standpoint of somebody educated policy development on issues that science informs a true fringe view is to deem what is honest politics and a scientific consensus when both have been repeatedly shown to be sham by people qualified in their specialties (a list of scientists far to long to list here).
Having read full IPCC reports I tend to think all you do is read the politically edited summaries for policy makers.
Democrats are beginning to panic as the pseudo-scientific/expert advice they have been relying on (on topics actually coming to a determined resolution, unlike climate change) are vividly demonstrating the ignorance and adverse outcomes arising from post normal science principles where experts are relied upon by political powers without any reward nor punishment for faulty and dangerous advice.
there seems to be some stupid idea that has gained traction in the Democrat party that normal processes of human adaptation should be government directed via input from voices of very narrow and special interests.
As a lot of that comes to bite them on their arse, Democrat leaders are beginning to panic over the prospects of backlash and the impact that could have on their own favorite gooses that lay golden eggs.
You didn’t even bother to respond to what I said. You went on an entirely unrelated rant. All you did was further demonstrate you have no idea what the word “fringe” means. I imagine that the reason for the misbegotten irrelevant statements you chose to fill your reply with is that you similarly have no idea what the words “honest” or “scientific” mean, either.
But, I’m very curious, what is your definition of the word “fringe”?
> You went on an entirely unrelated rant.
In fairness, Matt, that’s what Bill does best.
Matt says:
You didnt even bother to respond to what I said.
——————————
Perhaps because I wasn’t responding to you?
Matt says:
But, Im very curious, what is your definition of the word fringe?
——————————–
Well that would depend upon how you define the middle. Overall the broad issues of climate change are drawn very much in the center one third. One cannot truly measure a fringe opinion by those who speak up in a hostile environment.
The true status is only revealed when the hostiles overstep that which cannot be any longer ignored.
Roy is a scientist who has has taken a strong political stance on climate change. And when your science is used for your political advocacy, it really is a conflict of interest.
You will have difficulty avoiding the appearance that your science is biased to support your political goals.
And the papers that he has done aside from the UAH record, also seem to find that climate sensitivity must be lower than what many others find.
Same goes for James Hansen on the other side.
Bill Hunter, I was responding to Entropic man who was quite clearly responding to me. Ironically, you jumped into the thread I started and accused me of doing what you yourself have now done.
Nate, climate policy is, by its very nature, a matter of politics. That that policy should be informed by science requires scientists to take “political stances” when what they see scientifically is at odds with the policy being taken. You are obviously trying to poison the well here, Nate. And the severity of the debate is transparently initially coming from the side of the debate that says the world is close to ending because people are pumping CO2 in the atmosphere. So you are failing.
Nate says:
Roy is a scientist who has has taken a strong political stance on climate change. And when your science is used for your political advocacy, it really is a conflict of interest.
—————–
Strong political stance? I have no idea what you are talking about.
========
========
========
========
Nate says:
And the papers that he has done aside from the UAH record, also seem to find that climate sensitivity must be lower than what many others find.
Same goes for James Hansen on the other side.
————————
But thats not fringe.
That is the nature of the beast when so much uncertainty exists. You have to keep in mind the difference in approaches. Roy’s method of estimating sensitivity was by directly observing it when there was an observed forcing of short enough duration to watch the whole process unfold.
Just about everybody else uses observational temperature data and attributed all the recent warming to CO2 despite knowing of long term temperature excursions that are not explained by climate models. They then calculated a sensitivity from that.
Then the climate models ignore all the above and do it with a computer program that claims to cover all the climate variables, except that we know they aren’t catching all the variables.
One cannot limit the length of long term temperature excursions without knowing the source of them. The entire instrument record is a long term excursion that cannot be eliminated as having occurred in the past and that is compounded when you know with certainty unaccounted for variables exist.
And the IPCC of course uses the highest number that comes from the weakest method. . . .unvalidated climate models. One might surmise that indeed is political.
As I said I cut my teeth on longterm models dealing with many variables and some unknown causes. These were economic models and today they remain in the same state and outputs vary in a similar range of outcomes as do individual climate models. I continue to work with models (not economic anymore but with natural systems) that have time scales of multiple years to a decade. These have sufficiently short durations to somewhat validate them by actually testing them via changing a controllable variable.
As a result these models have gone from high rates of failure to acceptable rates over less than 4 decades. Climate models have been around now for slightly more than 4 decades and have shown no improvement in terms of validation. Their predictions continue to not correspond to observation data.
“Strong political stance? I have no idea what you are talking about.”
Bill, whereve you been?
He and partner testify before congessional committees, only when they are chaired by climate deniers. Last year he was involved in the last minute failed attempt by Trump White House staffers to produce one-sided (propaganda) pamphlets. He is an active member of extreme climate denial political advocacy organizations such as Heartland and the Cornwall Alliance, which declared a certainty that the Creator would not let Earth be harmed by use of fossil fuels.
> That that policy should be informed by science requires scientists to take political stances
A implies B, therefore B implies A.
Got to love contrarian logic!
” You will have difficulty avoiding the appearance that your science is biased to support your political goals.”
And that is made worse by statements like this one from 2011. He had just released a book advocating for very limited government.
The commenter had noted that
“the irony of this is amazing.
“Dr. Spencers research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.’
Roy replied:
“I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.
I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.
If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fundanomics-the-free-market-simplified/#comment-17605
Nate says:
He and partner testify before congessional committees, only when they are chaired by climate deniers. Last year he was involved in the last minute failed attempt by Trump White House staffers to produce one-sided (propaganda) pamphlets.
———————
Total BS Nate. Chairmanship belongs to the party in power. If the Democrats are blocking the testimony of scientists on both sides of the issue its because they are trying to con the public into believing there is a consensus on the dangers of climate change.
Nate says:
He is an active member of extreme climate denial political advocacy organizations such as Heartland and the Cornwall Alliance, which declared a certainty that the Creator would not let Earth be harmed by use of fossil fuels.
———————————
That sounds like a political perspective of yours. There is nothing extreme about the Heartland or Cornwall Alliance.
As to the Cornwall Alliance declaration I can’t find a quote that supports your claim regarding what you are saying it says. So is it a lie of yours? Or did your daddy tell you that?
I also couldn’t find Roy on the list of nearly 2,000 signers of the Cornwall Alliance declarations.
Perhaps to allay fears of you appearing like a rabid pariah nutcase ecohead you can provide us your references. . . .this time?
Matt says:
Bill Hunter, I was responding to Entropic man who was quite clearly responding to me. Ironically, you jumped into the thread I started and accused me of doing what you yourself have now done.
—————————–
You are just overlooking the facts Matt. I am not accusing you of thread jumping. These are open threads available to whoever wants to respond. What you missed was everyone of my threads, unlike yours, actually specify whom I am responding to.
https://cornwallalliance.org/2020/02/cornwall-alliances-dr-roy-spencer-speaks-to-managers-of-25-trillion-in-investments/
https://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/protect-the-poor-ten-reasons-to-oppose-harmful-climate-change-policies/
https://cornwallalliance.org/2014/09/signers-of-protect-the-poor-ten-reasons-to-oppose-harmful-climate-change-policies/
Nate says:
” You will have difficulty avoiding the appearance that your science is biased to support your political goals.”
And that is made worse by statements like this one from 2011. He had just released a book advocating for very limited government.
———————-
Now Nate is responding to himself.
As to the rest and Roy’s quote. What Roy is outlining is the mission of the Civil Service. An independent civil service was originally created to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption arising out of an appointment process that was both nepotistic and a reward system to special interests in exchange for political support. So what he describes there is essentially the original intent of creating the civil service.
Folks who are truly independent pursuing their crafts in an unbiased manner. I have worked as a consultant and advisor to civil servants now for over 30 years. They come in all political stripes but what they foremost represent is an unbiased dedication to their craft. Thats why you see them from time to time expressing a political point of view, but if you look deeper into the science they produce you won’t find tricks and deceptions. Those are grounds for firing by another independent civil service member of a slightly higher grade. In environments where independence does not exist such behaviors tend to have double standards as measured by the dollars pouring in. Nothing unusual there at all, its basic human nature. If you are unaware of it you are simply naive.
Nate you are acting exactly like a bullshitter.
I ask for a link that supports your claim that Roy is a member of an organization that believes the ”Creator would not let Earth be harmed by use of fossil fuels”
You provide 3 links that a quick search establishes that none of them say that.
Perhaps it is your opinion that one or more of those discussions implies that, but you need to provide the exact phrases that you object to rather than infer from a large number of statements that that is what they amount to.
I am betting you are a bullshitter.
All this makes the original point that he has a taken a strong political stance and has become a polical advocate supporting the agenda of these organizations, which is the agenda of fossil fuel owners.
People can read for themselves, not going to follow your ever moving goal posts.
Civil service???
No, he stated his job was to protect us “from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.”
As a scientist his job is simply to seek the truth.
Nate says:
All this makes the original point that he has a taken a strong political stance and has become a polical advocate supporting the agenda of these organizations, which is the agenda of fossil fuel owners.
People can read for themselves, not going to follow your ever moving goal posts.
——————
No Nate! Roy is not holding himself out as a defender of fossil fuel organizations. Fossil fuel organizations only exist because people want to buy their products.
Think that is the equivalent of believing that if Roy and his wife were working against some kind of China-like reproduction limitation policy so that they and others could have a baby that they were evil because they were working for baby formula corporations and baby clothing and crib companies?
Of course that would be as much idiotic nonsense as your claim.
========
========
========
========
Nate says:
Civil service???
No, he stated his job was to protect us from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.
As a scientist his job is simply to seek the truth.
—————————-
Being a scientist whose job is simply seek the truth is precisely why the civil service was put in place Nate. They are there to protect the public from special interest corruption.
That is exactly the main source of pride that most civil servants get out of working in the civil service. They aren’t there to line their own pockets, they aren’t there to be a saboteur of the public interest, they are like a citizen army fighting for the best interest of the public.
That is IMHO what motivates a super majority of the hundreds I have had the pleasure to work with. There are a fair share of ladder climbing brown nosers as well but they are a relatively small minority mostly because the civil service is fairly well isolated from politicians and their appointees.
“Fringe”? Did you look out the window lately? The trump won in 2016 albeit by a small margin, and ‘lost’ in 2020 by just as little under a higly dubious circumstances… so yeah, half of your american peple are at least tactically siding with the ‘fring views’ of the party athat dr. spences is as alleged by you associated with. You may not like it and consider those views wrong, but how in world can yu call that ‘fringe’. I’d say it is more like co-mainstream, at least in america, and so calling it ‘fringe’ is really a form of misinformation or perhaps better yer – gaslighting.
Thumbs up!
Temperatures in the U.S. will remain below average in early February.
https://i.ibb.co/FW8Ygg9/gfs-T2ma-us-9.png
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/w6CzYrx/gfs-T2m-us-9.png
Temperature is always below average in February
ha ha
https://i.ibb.co/FW8Ygg9/gfs-T2ma-us-9.png
is an anomaly temperature.
Mighty close to that zero line
Yep, and in ten years the compilers will move the baseline upwards once more, and that anomaly will probably be below the line. Give it 30 years and it will be well below the line. Amazing!
Only if the temperatures keep rising and, no, past history is not a predictor of the future and OLS is not that best statistic to use on cyclic data.
According to physics, and despite hacks on the internet, the temperatures will keep rising with rising GHGs. Unless a major cooling driver comes into play – massive asteroid strike, massive and ongoing volcanic eruptions etc.
No barry, NOTHING in physics indicates CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.
You’ve been brainwashed.
Clint R
Your post is worded incorrectly.
YOU Claim: “No barry, NOTHING in physics indicates CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.”
This is incorrect. Real physics does indicated CO2 will causes surface temperatures to rise or fall depending upon concentration.
A correct statement would be “No barry, NOTHING in my opinions indicates CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.”
Thank me for the correction. You have many stupid thoughtless opinions on many issues. You think Fluxes don’t add (even when you can turn on more lights and get a brighter room), You think a hot surface cannot absorb IR from a colder one, you think the Moon does not rotate because on Earth you see only one side (even though you can take a can and see you have to rotate it once per “orbit” to keep the same face toward a center can), You think IR thermometers can’t measure objects colder them themselves (you must not own an IR temperature measuring device or you would quickly find out how stupid this opinion is). You can’t understand the concept of tidal locking so it is not physics. How many other opinions have you posted that are not science at all. More than this but I really don’t care to find them all.
I like to expose false teachers like you that troll and lurk to find gullible people to manipulate.
Norman, I almost missed this rant. Luckily I just happened onto it. I always enjoy your desperate meltdowns.
All of those “stupid thoughtless opinions” are from physics! Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Then so has Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, and pretty much all ‘skeptics’ who are qualified on atmospheric physics. They all agree with the proposition that more GHGs will raise global temperature. They agree with the mainstream physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Now, the typical response to this fact is that these people are lying to keep their jobs. This is a crank’s argument. And Anthony Watts has nothing to lose by denying the greenhouse effect.
Your view is decades out of date. I’ve read it, processed it, and you have nothing substantive to offer, only rhetoric.
Barry,
Please define mainstream physics.
barry, you said “according to physics”, but when challenged you ducked behind “others”.
Physics is NOT about “others”, it’s about “physics”.
Either you got it, or you don’t.
You’ve been brainwashed. NOTHING in physics indicates CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.
Barry,
Apparently, Dr. Spencer isn’t “mainstream” enough.
You’ve ducked the point that the ‘sketics’ that are experts in atmospheric physics agree with the mainstream view that more GHGs = more surface warming.
I didn’t set the tone here – YOU, Clint decided to use the word ‘brainwashed’, thereby setting the standard for the conversation.
Roy is “brainwashed.” John Christie is “brainwashed.” Anthony Watts is “brainwashed.”
Because they agree with the mainstream view, same as me.
If you want to dodge the point, fine, but don’t pretend you’ve said anything more substantive.
barry, you’re the one “ducking”. You said “according to physics”, but when challenged you ducked behind “others”.
Physics is NOT about “others”, it’s about “physics”. Physics is NOT about people. (The three you mentioned would describe themselves as “Lukewarmers”, not “Skeptics”, anyway. You can’t even get the people right!)
You’ve been brainwashed. You don’t understand any of this. NOTHING in physics indicates CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.
“‘according to physics’, but when challenged you ducked behind ‘others'”
Say it aint so! This from Clint?!
Reminds me how Clint cited ‘physics’ as his answer the other day.
But when challenged to show how his ‘physics’ explained things, he had nothing to offer.
He ducked, dodged and made flimsy excuses:
“I wont respond to irresponsible nonsense.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/the-snow-hits-the-fan-on-saturday-global-warming-alarmism-to-follow/#comment-1156058
I guess barry isn’t coming back.
Maybe he learned something, maybe not….
hehe, love this
I mean, i must have read it before already but re-reading it so much later really puts this in a context:
“””Please stop the no greenhouse effect stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad. Ive blogged on this numerous timesmaybe start here.
“””
Yeah, that is why all these people such as Clint R, Swenson, DREMT and others not present here (like jo postma) are not skeptics. they are probably crisis actors, trolls that are purposefully put here to to make the real skeptics look bad. All other explanations just don’t make any sense. No people can sincerely be that ignorant and still be able to legibly type tonnes upon tonnes of flooding spam in the comments.
coturnix, as usual you have NO science.
Your inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinions identify you as immature and uneducated. You’re just another kid with a keyboard.
@clint r
there is no science in anything and everything you say, only nonsense. Gratifying anything you say with a on-topic reply would be a waste of time, you warmist stooge.
coturnix, as usual you have NO science and you ignore reality.
Your inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinions identify you as immature and uneducated. You’re just another kid with a keyboard.
@clint r
says warmist stooge
Clint, you have a crank’s view of the physics, which we have discussed to death and your views were revealed to be no less cranky. Do you expect me to summarize our discussion history here? Fat chance. You need no invitation to push your erroneous views in this discussion, so why haven’t you? Why pick such low-hanging fruit as making a fuss over my referring to expertise when you can roll up your sleeves and wade back in with the *cough* substance you have on it?
Because you are sick of arguing about it, too, and now have to settle for being just argumentative.
There is no reason to give your contribution here any weight whatsoever, though I expect you will still keep piping up.
Back to the point, of which your interruption has provided no illumination, just noise, physics is the reason I expect the globe will continue to warm.
RLH, continues with the strawman argument that expectations of continued global warming are based on extrapolating a linear regrerssion.
This is a tiresome bit of fiction that he continues to peddle and I’ve addressed it. Your distraction doesn’t speak to the point at all.
By all means start a new threads on why you think AGW is a bust. I’m sure you’ll get many takers.
Clint, further to the just-above…
Do you REALLY think the prominent and qualified skeptics, like Roy and John Christie and A Watts, who agree that more GHGs = more surface warming… are cranks?
You didn’t seem to want to answer the question. Why not?
barry, I have NEVER used the word “crank”, in describing a real scientist. That’s your term.
And I answered your attempted “gotcha” here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1157319
I don’t have time to search this entire post, looking for your nonsense. If you have something relevant and responsible, comment at the bottom where I often check. I won’t be back up here.
No, Clint, you used the word ‘brainwashed’ to describe those agreeing that the GHE is real. Do you REALLY think Roy Spencer, John Christie and Anthony Watts are brainwashed?
Or do you think Anthony lies about it to keep his ‘job’ posting articles on his own blog?
The ‘greenhouse’ has very leaky tops and sides. Almost like someone left some of the panes out.
Want to earn dollars easily? this online job gave you thousands of dollars every month. start receiving every month this income just by working 1 or 2 hrs a day using mobile or any kind of PC. i have made $16429 last month by using this online job. just go to this website for more info.
=-=-=-> http://Www.WORKJOIN1.com
What? Only $16429 ???
Oh dear…
Theresa Hall had it way better than you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/more-snow-hits-the-fan-this-week-climate-change-alarmists-still-want-it-both-ways/#comment-1154718
Do we have to be a hooker like you?
My sister’s daughter’s teacher’s cousin’s aunt’s brother-in-law’s doctor’s friend made $16430 last month selling videos of Three Minute Abs…so get outta here with that 4 minute abs crap!
Pretty much as expected with the current La Nina. However, not going to stay down long given the reduction in clouds seen in the CERES data. More solar energy will keep the planet warm and has already warmed the oceans.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
Would be nice if some climate scientist subtracted out the effect of the added solar energy and associated water vapor feedback and told us what the base climate did these past 20 years.
Wait for the polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png
WV increase is about twice what is possible from just feedback https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCyMkvRWvBVGT-7Eu6SRgJjY8XKG9qpV/view?usp=sharing
Is the power system in Texas prepared for icy rain, snow and frost (in that order)?
https://i.ibb.co/8BCFKtN/Screenshot-1.png
+0.03 C on the 1991-2020 baseline is +0.17 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. We still have a long way to go to get the -0.3 C predictions we’ve seen posted for this La Nina cycle. Will the troposphere cool another 0.47 C?
So the baseline is rising by 0.17C/decade.
That is 0.3C larger than the 0.14C/decade long term trend since 1979.
The troposphere warming measured by UAH is accelerating.
Why would you use an OLS trend to measure a quasi cyclic time series?
There is no quasi cyclic time series.
The yearly cycle is for sure and that is by far the dominant of the various quasi sinusoidal patterns.
Everything that we measure has a cycle of some sort attached to it.
EM,
That would be 1.7 C per century. Or 170 C after 10,000 years.
Seems a bit excessive to me, but I suppose you have some reason for your prediction.
I don’t expect you to reveal your secret, but you may if you wish.
I’m describing the last trend shown by the UAH data.
The future trend is your work rather than mine.
1.7C per century is actually reasonable.
170C in 10,000 years is just your fantasy.
EM,
I agree that 170 C in 10,000 years is fantasy.
How about 85 C in 5,000 years? Fantasy or not?
Or 1.7 C in 100 years? “Actually reasonable” is meaningless in practical terms. The sort of thing climate crackpots utter, hoping nobody will ask them to explain themselves.
You can’t predict the future any better than I can!
Trying to predict future temperatures by examining the past is completely stupid.
Follow trends all you like, but realise that the longer you do it, the closer you are getting to the point where the trend will change. When will that be? Your guess is as good as mine.
bdgwx and Ent, your figures are wrong, but you’re so confused I don’t know how to correct you.
Wouldn’t 0.03 be 0.15, for example?
No. 0.17C is the difference between the two baselines.
0.03 on the new baseline would be 0.17+0.03=0.2 on the old baseline.
Whatever happened to 0.12C being the difference between the two baselines?
It’s different for every month. The anomaly difference for Januarys old/new baseline is 0.14.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-605751
So the Jan 2022 anomaly on the old baseline would be 0.17.
In case you don’t know, the baseline is calculated for each individual month over 30 years. When changing the baseline period, the offset is very likely to be different for each month’s baseline.
The effect of these changes on long term global trends is miniscule – only some ten thousandths of a degree per decade.
The 1981-2010 baseline is 0.14 C lower in January as compared to the 1991-2020 baseline. Therefore the +0.03 C anomaly on the 1991-2020 baseline is the same as +0.17 C on the 1981-2010 baseline. The predictions that were posted here for -0.3 C were made based on the 1981-2010 baseline. Therefore to reach -0.3 C on the 1981-2010 baseline the TLT temperature needs to drop another 0.47 C for those predictions to come true.
Oops. My mistake.
“The predictions that were posted here for -0.3 C were made based on the 1981-2010 baseline”
Url/Post?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548129
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664707
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1041161
I’ve no doubt someone predicted -0.3 on this blog somewhere. Here is a prediction for -0.2 by 2024.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-384097
So you just made it up.
what did I make up?
The -0.3 was made up.
Maybe – but don’t attribute the categorical statement to me, thanks.
Same prediction by 2020:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-383583
‘Skeptics’ are always posting this kind of thing. It’s actually good that they commit to a prediction, allowing us to check. Unfortunately, repeated failures don’t seem to shift their understanding one bit.
So you made up -0.3.
Nope. Not me.
So the -0.3 was made up.
I have no idea. The value is typical of the kinds of predictions that have long been posted here.
I provided the -0.2 C prediction corroboration thinking you’d accept that such low-balls exist. Apparently not interesting to you.
I suggest going through every post over the last 5 or 6 years and word-searching -0.3, to make absolutely sure. It’s too tedious for me, but if that’s the point that’s snared your interest, go for it!
What the heck was here made up?
Here is a comment written in 2020 by top GSM Coolista SAMURAI:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-548129
Here is the text:
” The current La Nina NINO3.4 SST is already below -1.5C, and may likely hit -2.5C at its lowest point early next year. It could even rival the 1974~1976 La Nina cycle which was the strongest on record.
Global SST are falling globally, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, and the North Atlantic is also cooling:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png — [CAUTION: current 2022 data shown here!]
The Northern Hemisphere will be brutally cold this winter and likely next winter, too.
Given the above, UAH 6.0 will rapidly start falling from next month and will likely hit -0.2C ~ -0.3C by around April of next year.
Once the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles and global temp trends start falling for 30 years, CAGW wackos will have some explaining to do…
Regardless, the insane CAGW dire predictions are completely devoid from reality. ”
Yeah.
+0.03C. Cold is the new hot.
With such a thin troposphere, it is impossible to predict winter temperatures.
https://i.ibb.co/9V6fGYM/zt-nh.gif
You wouldn’t think from that graph that from 0 degrees to 30 degrees North is 50% of the surface area of the Northern Hemisphere.
let’s be fair
as Roy points out, this month may be way below the 1979-present trendlines of every IPCC model, but it probably still fits on the graph somewhere
Below all the models.
Someone please show me the model or the prediction that for no particular reason, January of 2022 would have a troposphere temperature no higher than all the way back in 1983, nearly 40 years ago.
And with a downwards trend as well.
Thanks in advance.
” And with a downwards trend as well. ”
Can you show me that? With real numbers?
In my UAH LT spreadsheet, I see for Jan 1983 till now a trend of:
0.141 +- 0.008 C / decade.
Maybe you have some secret information?
pick any IPCC model since AR1
find a monthly plot
now try to draw a horizontal line between any points in 1983 and 2022
or 1980 and 2021
comical
this is basis for multi-trillion-dollar reorganization of the global economy
> find a monthly plot
Y tho
Willard, please stop trolling.
One of the largest snowstorms in the United States is developing.
https://i.ibb.co/WcbF4ZQ/Screenshot-1.png
The Arctic front will be further strengthened after a strong geomagnetic storm occurs in a few hours.
Lots of storm activity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60221521
The ocean surface temperature in the tropics is limited by the mass of the troposphere and does not exceed 31 degrees C in the open ocean.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_global_current.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
johnny doe…”Does anyone take UAH data seriously anymore? Their proprietary algorithm seems to be creating temperatures which diverge significantly from surface observations”.
***
You have it exactly backwards Mr. Doe, or is that Mr. Duh!!! or a Homer Simpson Mr. Doh!!!?
The surface record is corrupt after years of fudging by NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had-crut.
One example, following the 2013 admission by the IPCC that there had been no warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012, NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to show a warming trend.
Another, NOAA and GISS declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a 48% and 38% probability respectively. Only blatant cheating alarmists would attempt such an obfuscation.
This site is chock full of examples of fudging of the surface record by NOAA and GISS in particular.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
11940 to 975 was originally reported at almost a -0.5 degree C. global cooling by NCAR.
NASA-GISS has changed that global cooling
to no global cooling at all.
Science fraud.
It was inconvenient to have global cooling
while CO2 levels were increasing.
NASA tried the air pollution aerosols
blocking the sun excuse for a while.
That nonsense excuse fell apart
faster than a cheap suitcase.
If aerosols were blocking the sun from 1940 to 1975, causing more cooling than the warming caused by CO2, then what happened in 1975 when global cooling reversed to global warming?
Did all the air pollution
suddenly fall out of the sky in 1975?
Of course not.
Air pollution actually increased in the 1970s, and was still high in 2000, 25 years after a global warming trend began.
Anyone who trusts the government bureaucrats
at NASA-GISS is a gullible fool.
Anyone who distrusts the UAH compilation
is also a fool.
Ha ha haaah!
Look at this ridiculous guy who keeps gullibly sucking what one of the most incompetent ‘climate blogger’s of all times told us long time ago.
I recall a chiefio thread
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
in which E.M. Smith aka chiefio told us about GHCN Arctic stations having suddenly disappeared!
That was exactly the moment in which NOAA was transferring all station data from V2 to V3. Smith manifestly wrote his genial thread as the V2 directory became nearly empty.
More stoopid you die.
*
Robertson claims all the time on this blog about all people ‘appealing to authority’, but is unable to understand that he does exactly the same.
With, however, the little difference that while some accept the authority of worldwide renowned scientists like e.g. Lagrange and Laplace, Robertson appeals to the ‘authority’ of dumb ignoramuses.
I asked Richard to provide some verification for his claim here, figuring that he’s either wrong, or that the metric was not global temps.
He didn’t furnish any information to corroborate last month. I assumed because he realized it wasn’t global temps.
But here is again with the same claim and no link to corroborate.
Richard? Where are you getting this information from?
Strike 2 for Richard’s claim.
It could be a tough night for Texas residents.
https://i.ibb.co/sCHwGcD/Screenshot-1.png
February 2021 had nine consecutive days below freezing in Texas.
This February 2022 cold weather is likely to be below freezing for only two or three days in a row. Big difference.
if one didn’t know better one might think this supports the interpretations of CERES data suggesting there is no 21st century spike in LWR
but that would mean we’ve wasted trillions of dollars of economic dislocation on… nothing at all
haha of course that can’t be true
As bdgwx pointed out above.
The UAH baseline for 1991-2020 is 0.17C warmer than the 1981-2010 baseline.
That is 0.3C larger than the 0.14C/decade UAH long term trend since 1979 and warming at very close to the GISS 0.18C/decade.
If UAH and GISS agree on the warming rate it’s probably real. We aren’t mitigating for no reason.
We are mitigating for no reason if we don’t know the cause of the warming.
Certes that warming would be more beneficial than cooling. Still no reason for mitigating.
I note the warming trend is 0.13 per decade. It was recently up to 0.14 per decade. That is a significant change.
“We are mitigating for no reason if we dont know the cause of the warming. ”
The current rate of warming matches what we would expect from the physics of increased CO2.
“We don’t know” is a minority view. If you have a better alternative explanation than CO2 AGW, then now is the time, but until then most people will default to CO2 AGW.
“I note the warming trend is 0.13 per decade. It was recently up to 0.14 per decade. ”
That indicates that the rate of warming has increased since 1979. That the 30 year baseline is increasing faster than the 42 year trend confirms the acceleration in UAH.
Only if the increased CO2 is causing an amplified H2O which in turn causes that warming.
You mean climate sensitivity, the amplification of forcing by feedbacks.
Thus at the end of the last ice age orbital changes forced a temperature increased of 1.2C which was amplified by feedbacks such as increased water vapour to 5C.
Whatever has increased temperatures by 1.2C since 1880 (CO2 or your preferred alternative) has produced about 0.4C of forced warming and another 0.8C of feedback warming, of which increased water vapour is the most important.
EM,
You wrote –
“You mean climate sensitivity, the amplification of forcing by feedbacks.”
There are a few peculiar words in that sentence – climate, sensitivity, amplification, forcing, feedback.
You haven’t really got the faintest idea what you are talking about, have you?
I believe that climate is the statistics of past weather, but the rest of the words are nonsensical if you are thinking they have any relationship to climate!
CO2 has no heating properties at all. If you are looking for an explanation of increased temperatures, you could do worse than look for increased heat sources. if you believe that a hundredfold increase in energy use can be achieved without generating additional heat, then you are a moron.
“Thus at the end of the last ice age…”
I see where you are going wrong.
There was no “end of the last ice age”!
Because we are still in the darn ice age.
Is your mind able to absorb that information?
Our planet is in AN ICE AGE!
Right now.
It is not too warm and getting warmer.
It is too cold, and not getting warmer anywhere close to fast enough to avoid big problems when we have some much colder that average years.
We have a jackass crisis, and there is no “climate crisis”.
Nicholas
I will be more precise if you prefer. We entered the present Ice Age about 2 million years ago. This has alternated between glacial periods with ice sheets down to New York, and interglacial periods similar to the present. The alternation has recently followed a 100,000 year cycle.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
The current interglacial began about 15,000 years ago and we began cooling towards the next glacial period 6000 years ago.
For some reason that cooling was interrupted 140 years ago and we are now warming rapidly.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Hey, the Fake-Graphs-R-Us Wedenesday Blue Light Special!
It’s a fine graph…for a fake.
No, but seriously…did you see the top of the page we are on?
Entropic man
I agree that when looking at the monthly time series, there is indeed a quadratic factor in it.
Over a period of 100 years, the warming then would be 1.9 C instead of 1.4 C.
I wouldn’t say it’s not significant (40 % more is not zero), but…
Entropic Man claims the warming we’ve seen matches what would be expected from increased CO2, but does not correct for all the extra solar energy found by CERES. As a result, the warming expected from CO2 must be significantly higher than reality.
IOW, all the models are wrong.
Richard M
Do you have numbers, or a link to the CERES data? It should be possible to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of its effect.
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/atmosphere-12-01297-v3.pdf
> IOW, all the models are wrong.
Don’t forget the next part of Box’ saying, RM.
Whacky Wee Willy,
All climate models are wrong.
None are useful.
From the Dubal/Vahrenholt paper.
“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.
I believe the CO2 forcing over this same period would compute to around 0.75 W/m2. Or, about half the increased solar forcing. If the claim I’ve heard many times, that the CO2 forcing matches the warming we have seen, is true, then this would mean something else is cooling the planet by that 1.42 W/m2 of solar forcing.
OK, there was additional LWIR radiated out so this explains some of the energy imbalance. In fact, it just about works out that the solar energy and LWIR combined explain all the warming with no need for any CO2 forcing.
> it just about works out that the solar energy and LWIR combined
Speaking of useless modulz.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Speaking of people who try to appear clever by writing “modulz” . . .
How are you going with finding a Greenhouse Theory, moron?
I already did, Mike Flynn, but you’re too dumb to realize it.
Have you done your homework yet?
Alternatively, you could explain how definitions can replace scientific theories.
Witless Wee Willy,
The contents of your fantasy don’t count.
There is no Greenhouse Theory, you idiot.
Claiming you have one, but you are not going to show anyone, just makes you look stupid.
A cynic like myself might wonder why a paper trying to minimise the effect of CO2 was published by MDPI.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
Beautiful:
As Feynman might say, you’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man.
No coherent rebuttal, then.
DREMT
” No coherent rebuttal? ”
Nothing coherent to rebut.
I read the paper and decided not to bother. I’ve already wasted time on Berry’s bridge troll and see no point in wasting time on another.
Well, you asked Richard M for numbers, or a link to the CERES data. The Dubal & Vahrenholt paper is simply an analysis of the CERES data. I happened to know (from a previous discussion) that this was what Richard M was referring to. So, you’re welcome, I guess.
Ken
” I note the warming trend is 0.13 per decade. It was recently up to 0.14 per decade. That is a significant change. ”
How is it possible that a person like you, who follows this blog since some more time, nonetheless still ignores or forgets simplest facts?
That is disappointing, to say the least.
*
Trends for UAH6.0 LT
— period: Dec 1978 – Dec 2021
– 4 digits atdp: 0.1351 C / decade (I spare us the SE)
– rounding to 2: 0.14
— period: Dec 1978 – Jan 2022
– 4 digits atdp: 0.1346 C / decade
– rounding to 2: 0.13
Months ago, there was a discussion on the blog about this permanent trend switch problem, with as solution a move from 2 to 3 digits atdp in the threads, but unfortunately, nothing changed.
“The current rate of warming matches what we would expect from the physics of increased CO2.”
it certainly does, there’s no arguing that
reminds me of the stories from tokamak research in the 1990s
theory always matched experiment, but for some reason both changed every few years
but hey it’s not like there’s one set of equations that everyone agrees on for orbital mechanics or the standard model
and don’t even get me started on the dozens of competing versions of the Schrodinger wavefunction published every year
” The UAH baseline for 1991-2020 is 0.17C warmer than the 1981-2010 baseline. ”
This is not wrong by much but… is not correct.
The correct number is: 0.14 C.
The baseline has no bearing even as it was changed to better show the data.
The correct number is 0.13C. I’m sure no one will notice the difference except if you try to quote 0.14C to some pedantic troll that checks the statement made by the collector of the data.
Ken
You did not understand any of my two comments.
1. February 2, 2022 at 5:56 PM
I tried to explain you something very simple, namely that the trend change from 0.14 down to 0.13 C /decade is not significant at all.
It has only to do with rounding of values.
From December 2021 to January, the trend moved down from 0.1351 to 0.1346, i.e. by a huge amount of 0.0005 (!!!) C / decade.
Through the rounding mechanism, this led to a decrease of 0.01 C, what is 20 times higher than the original change.
And that is, according to you, supposedly significant?
2. February 2, 2022 at 6:57 PM
These 0.14 C have here nothing to do with the trend.
It is simply the difference between two 30 year means of absolute values.
*
And, by the way: since when is somebody a troll just because he checks data?
There are indeed a few trolls infesting this blog; but I never see any comment from your side about that.
Yes, my mistake.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> http://Www.GOWORK24.com
Liar.
“If UAH and GISS agree on the warming rate it’s probably real.”
tigers are real
tigers are dangerous
therefore my $10M tiger-proof bunker is self-evidently a bargain
pretty obvious really, given the number of tigers around here — millions, according to some estimates
now some nitpickers may argue we’ve actually mistaken harmless domestic cats for tigers but to those people I say again: tigers are real!
First I was like
Warm Subsurface Kelvin Wave Plows into Cool East Pacific Waters Weakening La Nina
A strong subsurface warm anomaly known as a Kelvin Wave continues to shift eastward in the equatorial Pacific eroding cool waters needed to sustain La Nina. The 2021-22 La Nina is definitely weakening!
But then I was like
Madden Julian Oscillation Regains Strength in East Indian Ocean/Indonesia Early February
MJO is forecast to regain strength in the East Indian Ocean/Western Indonesia sector during the first half of February. In this position, trade winds increase likely to cause La Nina to regain strength lost in January.
Anyway here is the new ENSO model ensemble
https://i.postimg.cc/3wcJYRRM/Clipboard01.jpg
Its certainly worthwhile to try modeling ENSO.
Its not worthwhile to derive any information when the models are in such wide disagreement with each other and haven’t any track record when compared to empirical data.
Telling us the existing projections have any basis in forming a reliable forecast is pseudo science.
ENSO before Spring for after Spring is notoriously difficult to forecast.
RLH,
If you guess that observations of ENSO will be warmer, colder, or the same, at three different times, you will always be right.
Or just CYA with words like might, may, should, or include phrases like”probability distribution function”, “modal analysis superposition nodes”, and you will be OK.
There are still lots of fools who think that future atmospheric states can be calculated to any useful degree.
I’ve yet to see anything of use to anyone come from all this incredible waste of time, money, and effort.
The ENSO Spring barrier is well known and acknowledged.
RLH,
Are you agreeing that it is not possible to predict the ENSO in any useful way?
You seem to be saying nothing at all of use.
Have you not heard of the ENSO SPRING barrier?
https://www.world*climate*service.com/2021/05/14/enso-spring-barrier/
Animation shows how a mass of dry Arctic air descends southward over the US forming a low over Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/t8M1DZ6/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Yes, there’s been more of that in recent years. Hope Teaxas has become more resilient since last time.
There was more of it in past years too.
As far back as I have been studying these subjects.
The textbook from which I first read about “Frontogenesis in the Gulf of Mexico” was already decades old when I read it for the first time back in 1984.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/16Meso/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper274474/AMS%20Mesocale%20Paper%20Final.pdf
“References
Eliassen, A., 1962: On the vertical
circulation in frontal zones. Geofys.
Publik., 24, 147 160”
The cold air dropping south did not/does not “form a low”.
What happens first is a digging trough in the jet stream over the central US.
The low forms in the Gulf of Mexico and draws energy from the combination of the upper level flow, the return flow of warm moist air from the deep tropics on the backside of the departing High, and the cold air mass filling in behind the dip in the jet.
The low then rides NE along the front in this particular case.
Additional waves of low pressure will continue to form and ride NE along the now stalled frontal system.
By itself, a cold High dropping southward does not form in low pressure.
My preferred view about ENSO:
https://www.climate.gov/media/13953
Wait and see.
https://imgur.com/a/BJXAoPm
SST Outlook CFS.v2 published by NOAA
La Nina to continue to Autumn 2022
Here you go again, RLH, posting highly selective pictures references. Why don’t you post the whole forecast? Why do you cherry-pick from the main report like that? Even just for scientific fair-mindedness, rather than backing one horse?
Says the report that contains that graphic:
"La Nina is likely to continue into the Northern Hemisphere spring (67% chance during March-May 2022) and then transition to ENSO-neutral (51% chance during April-June 2022)."
Here is a link to the document. Dunno why you just don’t link it for everyone to get the robustest view.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
And once again I’ll present other ENSO monitoring groups’ outlooks.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
“Latest oceanic observations, along with most model outlooks, suggest this La Nina event is at or near its peak, with a return to neutral El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions forecast early in the southern hemisphere autumn. This is consistent with the typical ENSO event life cycle.”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
"In conclusion, the La Niña conditions are likely to continue at least until the end of boreal winter (80%) (Fig.1 and Fig.2), and transfer to ENSO-neutral by the end of spring (80%)."
I guess we will find out if the single modelling group you adhere to predicts correctly for the second time against other groups.
Bindidong reveals his secret to making the worst forecast
According to the average global temperature variances published on this site, the past five years since January 2015, has shown a decrease in temperature of 0.1 deg C. from +0.4 to +0.3.
I don’t know much about climate but is that a cooling pattern, or no?
I hope you will admit that when you start a trend calculation for a time series in front of its highest value since beginning, your trend result hardly could be high.
I’m rather wondering that is is not significantly negative…
-0.006 +- 0.085 C / decade
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13KpI7jIDaxluo3i6BNvwFPj358WzF-1V/view
But in the sum you are right: UAH LT is certainly not in a warming phase.
Jan 2022 was missing in the graph, added.
you must be new to climate science
the rules are very, very clear
if you detect a cooling trend over any period, you need to pick a different period
Those new to anti climate science must learn to pick cooling trends and claim that anthropogenic global warming is therefore a hoax.
I am listening to Scott Adams [who is a global warming believer]
And says: “more energy = more better, all the time”
Since he is economist, he understands more energy is cheaper energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJ71J9kMMo
Anyhow, why I am interested in space exploration is to get more
energy.
And energy in space is too expensive, right now, so whatever will
cause more energy use, whatever needs energy, will lead to cheaper
energy in space. And once get to point [or before this point] electrical power on the Moon or Mars is as cheap as on Earth, would the beginning of cheap energy from Earth orbit to Earth surface.
Or it’s important to know if there is mineable water on the Moon, or
if there is, one can get an energy market on the Moon and energy market in space, in general. And one also need to explore Mars to determine if one have viable human settlements on Mars {which also
a energy market thing].
And evenually, electrical power in space will be actually cheaper in space as compared to Earth. And getting anything from Space to Earth is a lot easier than getting into Earth orbit. But also will mean leaving Earth surface will about 1/1000th of present costs. Or when 1/1000th cost to leave Earth it will be even cheaper get stuff to earth surface from space {cause always cheaper going down, than up]. So one have “silly stuff” like building houses in space and landing them on Earth somewhere.
Though wood probably would be cheaper on Earth- if want house made of wood, probably they will continue to made on Earth.
I don’t think energy will be the problem in space. I think water will be the issue. With water, you can make oxygen, produce CO2, and grow stuff. Water is the key.
Space has heaps of energy and heaps of water. That breaks a lot of conventional wisdom, but that’s what science does when it gets better data.
The water is mostly very cold and mixed with a lot of dust. We know enough to colonise Space now if we wanted, but the risks to the individuals will be pretty high. Based on the comments on this blog, and the sabre rattling going on around the world, the real problem is not resources, it’s living with other humans without killing them.
Our machines are far too unreliable in comparison to the value of the lives that would be continuously under extreme risk.
The value we place on such lives, that is, subjectively speaking.
There is nothing subjective about how unreliable our machines are though.
And until the average person can readily repair the average machine, it will remain far too dangerous for everyday ordinary life.
“Dawn** found Ceres’s surface to be a mixture of water ice and hydrated minerals such as carbonates and clay. Gravity data suggest Ceres to be partially differentiated into a muddy (ice-rock) mantle/core and a less-dense but stronger crust that is at most 30% ice by volume. Ceres’s small size means that any internal ocean of liquid water it may once have possessed has likely frozen by now. It is not completely frozen, however: brines still flow through the outer mantle and reach the surface, allowing cryovolcanoes such as Ahuna Mons to form at the rate of about one every 50 million years. This makes Ceres the closest known cryovolcanic body to the Sun, and the brines provide a potential habitat for microbial life.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)
**”Dawn launched in 2007 on a journey that put about 4.3 billion miles (6.9 billion kilometers) on its odometer. Propelled by ion engines, the spacecraft achieved many firsts until its extended mission concluded on Oct. 31, 2018.”
Ceres has a [famous] large frozen mountain of ice at it’s surface and below surface has some kind of frozen ocean with more water than humans have ever used.
US draws about 600 billion tonnes of water per year, and larger countries such China and India each draw [use in some fashion] about 1 trillion tons of per year.
In Africa, fairly recently, they are mining fossil water at about 2.4 billion tons per year:
Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System
The Great Man-made River Project (GMMR) in Libya makes use of the system, extracting substantial amounts of water from this aquifer, removing an estimated 2.4 km3 of fresh water for consumption and agriculture per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Sandstone_Aquifer_System
For Mars settlements one would also have mine billions of water per year.
Though we lack information of whether Mars can have human settlements. We don’t have any idea of the effects of 1/3rd of Earth gravity has on living creatures [including humans or plants]. We “know” Mars has trillion of tons of water, though it’s possible it’s largely polluted and/or is saltwater- and we don’t know where there is mineable water on Mars [water which we can use and cheap enough to mine].
With our Moon, we need something around 100,000 tons of water, and water which costs around $500 per kg or $500,000 per cubic meters. And so gross worth: 50 billion dollars of water.
More water and cheaper water is, of course, better.
We thinks there is billion of tons of water on each lunar polar region surface areas, of which million of tons may be minable.
But for one company, 100,000 tons within a 1 km radius area, and more companies mining the better. But one would tend to start with one, which has good chance of going bankrupt {as is typical with any company doing anything on Earth} but idea would be to become say a trillion dollar company within a few decades.
We don’t know where or if their mineable water on the Moon, but 10,000 tons would enough for many lunar bases, and lots of countries want lunar bases. But water would used to most make rocket fuel. There also could mineable CO2 and other volatiles- methane, H2, Helium, etc. If there is mineable lunar water, mining iron seems likely, there is a lot iron dust on the Moon- more iron then humans have ever mined. About 25% of iron is “iron rust” which one get oxygen from, in earlier stage iron rust could “worth more” than pure iron, Oxygen is worth about $1000 per kg or 1 million per ton. And you not going to ship lunar iron back to Earth {maybe never}. Anything on the moon at the moment is worth price of gold, would be nice if can lower to price of silver within a decade. Or anyone could buy “lunar samples” for price of silver per oz. Good to have them available in all schools for example.
The moon surface is billion of years old, and has record of our solar system, on it.
The Moon is going to need water.
The moon is just a way to start a water market in Space.
Or if one has the least demand of water, the Moon is best place [assuming it has mineable water]
Or I used to be against lunar exploration, until 1998.
Where the Moon gets water is from “space rocks” and Ceres is a big space rock, which might be not in a good location, in the near term.
So you get most water from space rocks. Or problem with space rocks is there not a market for 1 million tons of water in high earth orbit, but if mining lunar water, you make that market big enough.
And then with lunar space elevator you import water to Moon [billion of tons] and get electrical power by slowing the drop of water to lunar surface.
Or it seems the moon will first place to put a space elevator.
Then you talk about the Moon as being place for human settlements- towns, and a good place to put the UN.
“Space has heaps of energy and heaps of water.”
but not heaps of money, or anything useful enough to offset the transport expense and time
remember, the Antarctic interior has more water and energy than space, or Mars, or the Moon, and is far closer, yet is nevertheless thoroughly uninhabitable except at such great expense that no one even seriously considers it
“the real problem is not resources, its living with other humans without killing them.”
yes, this is the factor that potentially outweighs all the others, and the only real impetus for colonization
freedom is often worth almost any price
–TallDave says:
February 10, 2022 at 11:14 AM
Space has heaps of energy and heaps of water.
but not heaps of money, or anything useful enough to offset the transport expense and time–
Earth orbit is 400 billion dollar per year industry and fairly soon
should be a 1 trillion dollar industry.
And not too long ago, a zero dollar industry.
The significant of water in space, is making a market for water in space.
If the moon has mineable water, it would be a good starting point
in terms of having a market for water in space.
If one can have towns on Mars. Towns are market places.
Or towns on Earth are market places.
Water on the Moon would be mostly bought to make rocket fuel.
Water on Mars would be mostly bought on Mars, for same reason water is bought on Earth. Humans with indoor plumbing use a lot of water. Farming uses a lot of water. Energy plants use a lot of water. And Mars water will used to make rocket fuel, which we don’t do on Earth- because Earth uses oxygen in our atmosphere make most of the mass of rocket fuel we use. And if Martian can get a cheaper source of oxygen on Mars, then maybe use less water to make rocket fuel.
NOAA is now an outlier in predicting much longer LaNina than most, You can save this for future reference to see if NOAA knows something others don’t
https://i.postimg.cc/cLC9LrKh/20220201-nino-summary-6.png
Eben shows us an interesting comparison of various ENSO forecasts compiled by BoM, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, but unfortunately has not posted the origin of the chart.
Here it is:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#region=NINO34&tabs=Pacific-Ocean
Click on ‘June’ to obtain the info he posted above.
Even that bar is a subgroup of models used by NOAA for their official ENSO forecast. It’s also the one the RLH relies on to the exclusion of all others.
Feel free to compete for the worst forecast with Bindidork
No thanks, I leave that to the experts.
–WASHINGTON — Launch companies Relativity Space and SpaceX were among the companies that submitted proposals last year to NASA for initial development of commercial space stations.
NASA selected proposals led by Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman Dec. 2 for funded Space Act Agreements as part of the Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations, or CLD, program. The three companies will get more than $400 million combined through 2025 to mature the designs of commercial space stations that could succeed the International Space Station by the end of the decade.
At the time of the awards, NASA would only say that it received 11 proposals, but did not disclose who the other bidders were. “Almost all of the proposals represented viable concepts for commercial LEO destinations,” said Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight at NASA Headquarters, in a call with reporters the day of the announcement.–
Relativity and SpaceX bid on NASA commercial space station competition
by Jeff Foust — February 1, 2022
https://spacenews.com/relativity-and-spacex-bid-on-nasa-commercial-space-station-competition/
Thru to 2025, 3 companies out 11, and totals 400 million dollars, doesn’t seem like much money. Hardly worth the paperwork and will be mostly about paperwork.
I think {as said before} SpaceX, should launch an artificial gravity “station”. One thing, it would better than wasting time submitting proposals to NASA.
Musk could get station in orbit within a month time period, maybe it takes 2 months, but the faster the better.
You’d be surprised what can be hard to find in space.
For example, you are 3% nitrogen and so is your food supply.
It is widely available on planets, but much less so outside gravity wells.
Where are you going to get it?
Mine Mars sky.
You want to make CO2 cheap, like liquid air is cheap on Earth [liquid air about 10 cents per kg, or bought by ton, $100 per ton]. So liquid N2 is cheap on Earth, one see can large trucks carrying it everywhere.
Everything starts expensive on Mars, but want cheap liquid CO2 for many things, one could make roads of frozen CO2 for example. And water also a construction material on Mars.
“Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.1% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.59%
Argon (Ar) – 1.94%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.16%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.06%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08”
So want to billions of tons of water and tens billions of tons of CO2 per year.
Of course, I would use liquid air, to launch rockets from Earth’s tropical ocean, with what call a pipelauncher.
Which is roughly a large diameter pipe [made of titanium {which very resistance against sea water corrosion] and also use something like a pipelauncher [and made of titanium} but much smaller to make floating breakwaters from ocean settlements.
So around about 10 meter diameter and + 100 meter tall with one end capped.
Put it in water, water enters, and makes it float vertical.
Remove more air from it so capped end is near waterline. Put rocket on it, add liquid air inside it, liquid quickly become air the same temperature as water when pour into sea water in the pipe, up goes pipe and rocket, launch rocket. Repeat.
g,
Won’t work.
You like a good calculation, so given escape velocity of around 11 km/s at the surface (no atmosphere), and taking into account that an atmosphere actually exists, calculate the velocity you rocket needs exiting the tube to punch through the atmosphere and still retain sufficient velocity to overcome Earth’s gravity.
If your brain hasn’t exploded after this, figure the g forces generated to reach muzzle velocity within 100 meters. Of course, your rocket has mass, so will be able to calculate the force required to bring your rocket to the required velocity.
Liquid air won’t do it. Nor will anything else which comes to mind, and your rocket will probably need to be constructed of unobtainium to cope with the stresses and temperatures involved.
Good thought, though.
–Swenson says:
February 3, 2022 at 8:20 PM
g,
Wont work.–
What won’t work?
The main thing is a cheap ocean “launch pad”.
So, if just an oceanic launch pad, it works.
“You like a good calculation, so given escape velocity of around 11 km/s at the surface (no atmosphere), and taking into account that an atmosphere actually exists, calculate the velocity you rocket needs exiting the tube to punch through the atmosphere and still retain sufficient velocity to overcome Earths gravity.”
A pipelauncher is rocket assist.
And what mainly does is reduce gravity loss that one gets going to orbit or escape velocity. Gravity loss to orbit is about 1 km/sec and air drag loss is about .1 km/sec. And one gets orbital velocity of about 7.8 km/sec. But rocket delta-v gives about 9.5 to 10 km/sec depending on rocket. So 10 – 7.8 = 2.2 of gravity, atmospheric drag, and about .1 Km sec in steering losses.
Wiki, gravity loss:
“In astrodynamics and rocketry, gravity loss is a measure of the loss in the net performance of a rocket while it is thrusting in a gravitational field. In other words, it is the cost of having to hold the rocket up in a gravity field.” And:
For example, to reach a speed of 7.8 km/s in low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of between 9 and 10 km/s. The additional 1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v is due to gravity losses, steering losses and atmospheric drag.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_loss
And not mention there is Max Q, wiki:
“The max q condition is the point when an aerospace vehicle’s atmospheric flight reaches maximum dynamic pressure. This is a significant factor in the design of such vehicles because the aerodynamic structural load on them is proportional to dynamic pressure. This may impose limits on the vehicle’s flight envelope.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_q
So, pipelauncher is a cheap ocean launch pad and it accelerates
a rocket which land launch pads don’t do “much” or not at all.
It reduces Max Q “losses” and gravity loss.
Say rocket has 1.5 Km/sec gravity loss [some rockets have less, such as falcon-9 {due to it’s 9 powerful kerosene rockets in it’s first stage]. 1.5 km/sec = 3,348 mph
A pipelauncher could attempt to reduce it by .5 km/sec [1,116 mph] or more. And get rocket to higher elevation, before rocket can gain much velocity- or rocket doesn’t have lower it’s thrust when going thru Max Q, or it gets less maximum dynamic pressure.
Or in short, pipelauncher only adds about 100 mph or .45 km/sec to rocket velocity before it lights it’s engines. It also about 50 meter above ocean surface, making less noise, easier/safer to have crew abort mode, and rocket does not need to start at max engine thrust [even less noise].
[Or people might not like rocket noise in terms annoying whales or something. But also less noise for people living ocean settlements, nearby.]
b,
Many apologies.
I didn’t realise you were launching a fuelled rocket with payload, rather than an unfuelled rocket with payload.
Oh well. I have obviously spent too much time examining “perpetual motion” contrivances in the past.
Sorry again.
Or launching the largest rocket ever made, Starship superheavy, is a bit complicated (or hard, though falcon 9 is a lot easier with pipelauncher- I would use what I call a staged pipelauncher, mainly to reduce the amount liquid air needed, for a Starship launch}.
Also sub-orbital travel has much higher portion of the delta-v loss from gravity loss, or really easy for pipelauncher, and maybe add about 200 mph for smaller rockets. Though 200 mph is possible with the Starship, also.
Now, let’s look at basics, 10 meter diameter circle has 78.53975 square meter. Or 1 meter tall section has 78.53975 cubic meter.
1 meter tall 10 meter diameter pipe which which has air pressure pushing water 1 meter below waterline has displacement weight
of 78.5 tons and requires air pressure of 1.47 psig
10 meter is 785 tons and 14.7 psi.
30 meter is 2,355 tons and 44.1 psi
if total mass is 2355 / 2 = 1,177.5 kg, then making air push water 30 meters below waterline, gives 9.8 m/s/s as long as water is pushed 30 meters below water waterline or same thing if air is kept at 44.1 psi. Or need to add air, as it goes up.
And 3 seconds is 29.4 m/s and goes up 44.1 meters, up.
And if all want is a launch pad, this more than enough.
But reducing more gravity loss and etc. Require more distance up
or more acceleration, more acceleration is easier, but it could “break the rocket”. And one might argue 9.8 m/s/s acceleration is
too much for most rockets, and so could instead add 1/2 gee of acceleration, which should not be a problem.
What pipelauncher is better for is Blue Orgins rockets which
“make the mistake” of using LH2/LOX rockets for it’s first stage rocket.
Or if use a pipelauncher, it’s not a mistake.
And if don’t count making the LH2, it’s a zero CO2 emission rocket launch.
Not that I believe the cargo cult religion- but Bezos seems to be a believer.
But it helps Musk because it saves rocket fuel use, and/or offset the delta-v cost of reusable rockets.
By your way of thinking then all bodies rotate about their centre – as they orbit the Sun, or the Milky Way, for that matter.
A better way to picture and decide things is to imagine what would happen if if we did a Space-1999 on the moon – would the moon ‘turn on its axis’ if freed from the Earth?
Without the Earth to keep it tidally locked, the Moon would travel without rotation.
If Earth lost the Sun (stolen by aliens, of course), it however would continue to rotate daily as it hurled though space.
” Without the Earth to keep it tidally locked, the Moon would travel without rotation. ”
Oh, what an interesting “theory” …
Tell me, which of Newton’s 3 laws do you disagree with?
Correct PCman999, Earth is rotating, Moon is NOT rotating.
The Moon orbits the Moon/Earth barycenter. The Moon also rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
Notice the distinction between orbit and rotates.
Incorrect RLH.
If Moon were rotating we would see all sides of it from inside its orbit. But, we don’t. That’s why we know it’s NOT rotating.
… as observed rom “inside of it orbit” as Clint pointed out several posts ago.
Something ate my f.
B,
It ate your s, too, while you weren’t looking!
Be afraid, be very afraid! Who knows what unsuspecting letter is next to o?
In quotations is clipped from Clint R comment pointing out where DREMT is wrong about ref. frames.
“If Moon were rotating we would see all sides of it from inside its orbit”
As the Moon is rotating on its axis once per orbit around the Earth, we see only one side of it. As everybody else agrees.
You can never debunk the idiocies of trolls who are privy to secret knowledge about life and the universe
The animation shows in real time how stratospheric intrusion reaches Mexico creating a front that breaks over Texas. The collapse results in intense precipitation as frigid air mixes with moisture from over the Gulf of Mexico. The jet stream has moved further south than models predicted. The animation should be renewed after one hour.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Brief Introduction to Stratospheric Intrusions
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Maybe this is related to depletion of Ozone layer.
Thunderstorms front on in Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/rHXdyMP/Screenshot-1.png
This will be a very long winter storm.
” If I owned both Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell. ”
Philip Sheridan
It would be interesting to know if those believing the CO2 warming fraud are the same ones believing there has been a pandemic? Wearing masks doesn’t help either with your mental health as you breathe in CO2 and damage your mental health.
So all surgeons are idiots for wearing masks in theaters for so long.
From my observations Tim, the correlation is quite high. For some reason, some people prefer nonsense over reality.
Tim Wells
” … the same ones believing there has been a pandemic? ”
1. Where do you live?
2. How many inhabitants/km^2 do live in your corner?
3. Did you ever visit any hospital during the last two years? Did you speak with any surgeon or nurse in any ICU?
4. Why, do you think, did a lot of surgeons and nurses die at the beginning of the pandemic, e.g. in China, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, India? Some idea, Sir?
How is it possible to be so ignorant?
How many surgeon’s and nurses died at the start of the pandemic in China, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, India?
No numbers? Argument is non-sequitur.
162 deaths on Vancouver Island attributed to COVID out of population 860k. I do not find any other region to have markedly different ratios. Conclusion: not a pandemic.
Incoherent posts are incoherent.
162 deaths of… surgeons and nurses, inhabitants?
On Vancouver Island? You assume this location faithfully represents what is happening in the whole world.
What protective gear are people/doctors and nurses using in this location?
So many questions. Coherent posts can reduce that number.
Meanwhile, numbers from all over the world provide clear and compelling evidence that this is a real pandemic with real and fatal consequences.
Excess deaths in any country with high COVID tolls is what you need to investigate and understand.
It seems to me that there are many opinions concerning the monthly differences in UAH anomalies between the old mean wrt 1981-2020 and the new one wrt 1991-2020.
Here is the correct data:
Jan: 0.14
Feb: 0.16
Mar: 0.13
Apr: 0.12
May: 0.12
Jun: 0.13
Jul: 0.13
Aug: 0.12
Sep: 0.17
Oct: 0.16
Nov: 0.13
Dec: 0.12
Difference mean of the 12 months: 0.14
Yep. That means all of the predictions for UAH posted prior to Jan. 2021 were made a baseline that was 0.14 C lower than the current baseline. In other words the predictions that we will see UAH TLT drop below 0 made prior to Jan. 2021 is equivalent to a prediction that it will drop below -0.14 C on today’s baseline. That is certainly possible and maybe even likely, but -0.3 C is unlikely unless we have a significant volcanic eruption.
” unless we have a significant volcanic eruption. ”
If you stroke the lion on the chin, don’t be surprised if it bites your hand off.
Means: don’t talk too much about these damned eruptions.
If the magma chamber below Yellowstone explodes (and it’s time for it to do it again after 600,000 years), then we’ll move throughout into a long volcanic winter for the next 50 years.
With, I admit, the interesting effect that then no one will bore anymore with ‘no warming’. /sarc
Binnny,
You wrote –
“With, I admit, the interesting effect that then no one will bore anymore with ‘no warming’. /sarc”
What about people like myself who claim that any observed increases in temperature are due to additional heat resulting from increased anthropogenic energy use?
Do you not believe that thermometers respond to heat?
Why is that?
Why? Because thermometers respond to local avg. particle KE at the measurement site.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Why? Because thermometers respond to local avg. particle KE at the measurement site.”
What do you mean by “why?”?
My question was “Do you not believe that thermometers respond to heat?”
A fairly simple question, I thought. If the answer is “yes”, then, given that anthropogenic heat generation has increased enormously over the last century, no “greenhouse effect” involving CO2 is necessary. Just increased heat.
What do you think?
ball4…”Because thermometers respond to local avg. particle KE at the measurement site”.
***
That mysterious KE in this case is called heat.
Total constituent particle KE is a measure of the object’s heat content as defined by Clausius.
Average constituent particle KE at the local measurement site is the temperature, Gordon.
Temperature is not heat.
Ball4!
You wrote –
” . . . thermometers respond to local avg. particle KE at the measurement site.”
Actually, they don’t. You will observe that the thermometer is responding to the temperature of the enclosure which contains it, which is hopefully much the same as the air inside.
Maybe you should read some textbooks which relate to reality, rather than 19th century notions.
It is exceptionally difficult to measure the temperature of a volume of air. For example, you may have experienced the blazing heat from a fire, whilst the air temperature is actually below zero, as evidenced by water literally freezing when thrown into the air. Try and measure the air temperature of the air (below freezing) whilst remaining in the vicinity of the fire. Shielding will work for a while, until it heats up due to radiation, and you cannot be sure whether the air is warming, or your thermometer is being affected by the rising shielding temperature.
Maybe you might wish to change your statement about particle KE, or maybe you wish to continue propagating nonsense.
Either way, the facts don’t change. No mythical Greenhouse Effect necessary to cause thermometers to show higher temperatures. Just heat.
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/4sb5PgF/Screenshot-1.png
One more time I got a big laugh when looking at a comment reporting a ‘significant’ decrease of the trend from 0.14 C down to 0.13 C / decade.
I perfectly recall that in September 2021, another guy mentioned something similar.
To explain why I laugh at such claims, here is a list of consecutive monthly trends for UAH Global since January 2019, together with the difference between trend for month[i] and month[i – 1], displayed
– with 4 digits after the decimal point;
– after a rounding to 2 digits after the decimal point.
https://tinyurl.com/4z9b9dm8 – (D C syndrome)
In column 3 of the bold faced lines, you see the real difference which led to these ‘significant’ changes shown in column 4.
*
By the way, I conversely can’t recall any of these specialists having ever mentioned a ‘significant’ increase (see May 2020 and September 2021).
Especially ‘spicy’ was that in October 2021, the ‘significant’ decrease was immediately replaced by an ‘insignificant’ increase of the same amount :- )
Yeah. Hello Coolistas!
Your calculations are wrong because you don’t account for the precision of the instrument.
Ken
Could you try to produce a technically meaningful output, instead of keeping vague and insinuating?
My calculations are correct.
You manifestly still did not (want to?) understand why the decrease by 0.01 C is absolutely insignificant.
And above all: what exactly do you mean with ‘the instrument’, Ken?
Do you have an idea about how much data processing happens between
– the data produced by various O2 microwave emission sounding instruments onboard of various satellites
and
– the numbers you see at the top of the thread?
Even UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data, that you can see in these strange
files named “tltmonamg.1978_6.0” till “tltmonamg.2021_6.0” in the UAH directory (2022 coming soon)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
is a final result of a long series of processing steps.
You don’t believe that my arguments and my numbers are correct?
What about having some courage, Ken, and asking Roy Spencer himself? His email address is at the thread’s bottom.
These are not instantaneous temperatures (C) in Texas.
https://i.ibb.co/y60Dy45/Screenshot-2.png
Glad to help!
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220204&daytime=night&iid=TX
Ridiculous predictions.
Here’s a prediction.
https://i.ibb.co/Gs3Yd5G/gfs-T2m-contour-scus-4.png
Ridiculous?
So what, ren.
Interesting NOVA program on Arctic craters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKpnaXYUPU
Compelling evidence that the recent arctic warming is well beyond normal variation, and may provide a strong positive GW feedback.
Video not available in the UK.
rlh…”Video not available in the UK”.
***
Try using the free Tor browser and see if it will connect. Remember, YouTube is owned by Google and they are busy censoring legitimate information. Bless their Nazi hearts.
I don’t use Tor to get round copyright restrictions. Nor should you.
” Bless their Nazi hearts. ”
Be happy, Robertson, that no Nazi – I mean REAL, ultra-right Nazis, and not normal people you take the coward freedom to insult that way – will ever catch you.
We still have a lot of REAL Nazis here in Germany, in France. And the US manifestly are full of them too.
You know: those with a shaved head, SS runes on their necks, bomber jackets, paratrooper boots, baseball bats etc etc.
You know: those who currently call for killing cops on the crypted Telegram stream in Germany …
I guess they would love you, Robertson.
Nate,
Please define normal climate.
Normal variation. In normal variation there was not previously widespread melting of permafrost, sinking land, and dozens of methane explosion craters suddenly appearing.
How far back do you have evidence of this?
The deep explosion craters are a new phenomenon. They have not been seen historically.
The Inuit Village was built on permafrost many generations ago. It is sinking.
The Inuit traditionally stored whale meat in permafrost vaults for many generations. It no longer stays cold enough to keep the whale meat from spoiling.
Methane from decaying organic matter and CO2 leaking out from lakes and warming permafrost that has likely been trapped for millenia.
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however YTGR one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> http://Www.GOWORK24.com
What a dumb bullshit.
binny…”What a dumb bullshit”.
***
Don’t feed the trolls.
That is exactly the reason why I do my very best not to feed trolls like you, Robertson.
Severe thunderstorms on a cold front over Alabama.
https://i.ibb.co/kHbD7Xb/Screenshot-1.png
To follow lightning in real time, a good tool is:
https://tinyurl.com/5aszabd5
North Dakota, you did it again! The lowest temperature in the lower 48 this morning.
https://i.ibb.co/2ZVk6Zc/273034754-611827263492415-4791875908198119827-n.jpg
Will there be snowfall records?
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/us/indianapolis/46204/weather-radar/348323
I remember Cot.ton, Minnesota, three years ago:
USC00211840 54-35 2019 1 27 -48.9 (C)
USC00211840 54-35 2019 1 31 -47.2
USC00211840 54-35 1965 1 14 -45.6
USC00211840 54-35 1996 1 20 -45.6
USC00211840 54-35 1982 1 17 -45.0
USC00211840 54-35 1967 1 18 -44.4
USC00211840 54-35 1972 1 15 -44.4
USC00211840 54-35 1996 1 31 -44.4
USC00211840 54-35 1965 1 29 -43.3
USC00211840 54-35 1996 1 21 -43.3
This year:
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 3 -39.4
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 2 -37.8
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 24 -36.7
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 8 -36.7
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 23 -36.1
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 26 -36.1
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 1 -35.0
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 21 -34.4
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 7 -34.4
USC00211840 54-35 2022 1 25 -32.8
USC00211840 54-35 2022 2 1 -12.2
ren…”North Dakota, you did it again! The lowest temperature in the lower 48 this morning”.
***
Just North of Minot, N. Dakota, is Regina, Canada. February 3rd, at about 6 PM Regina time, it is -23C. They are further north, but warmer. Go figure.
US temps are often given in degrees F and your chart does not say which. The -23C for Regina would be -30.5 F. Both F and C are equal at -40.
rlh…So all surgeons are idiots for wearing masks in theaters for so long”.
***
Ingenuous argument, Richard. Surgeons don’t wear masks to block viruses, they wear them so they won’t drool in the victim’s wound. A surgical mask is useless at blocking a virus.
Gordon Robertson
Is your conclusion based upon anything? There are experiments that have been constructed to determine the effectiveness of masks in reducing disease infections.
I would not say that your are correct when you use the term “useless”
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20
There are actual scientists that devise experiments to test things. Far better to do this and get results over making up unsupported conjectures.
I wonder what percent of people that make up stuff also believe made up stuff. We have you, and Clint R. Both of you make up lots of crap and you believe any crap you hear as long as it goes against established science.
Clint R believes all Covid counts are fake because of one or two cases of someone wrongly attributing a death to Covid that should not have been. For him, he concludes that all 900,000 US citizens who have died from Covid are frauds. Maybe 90% of them died in motorcycle accidents.
Thanks for mentioning me Norman. Even in your meltdown, you think about me.
Did you ever find that “real 255K surface”?
Clint R
No just seeing how stupid your response would be. A reality check. You don’t think very deep. You repeat the same stupid things over and over and over and over and over and over and over…
Not sure why you think you are a troll master with such simplistic tactics.
There’s no progress on finding that “real 255K surface” then?
Keep looking.
Clint R
I need to correct you. Ball4 uses the term “real” I prefer 255 K radiating surface. The difference is to prevent confusion. Generally when speaking of the Earth’s surface most consider it the water and land surfaces. It will tend to confuse when not clearly specified. That is when you keep saying the “real” surface I state real radiating surface (which would be the boundary layer of Earth’s radiant IR into space…again it comes from multiple locations within the Earth system but there is a definite layer which distinguishes Earth radiant energy from the space around it).
Again:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/30/7951541/timelapse-of-the-earth-infrared-light
So now you’re backing away from the “real 255K surface”?
You went for a long time trying to support it. You even had several of your meltdowns over it. Instead of blaming Ball4 for sucking you in, you attempted to blame me. Ball4 makes you an idiot, I try to get you out of your cult.
Earth doesn’t have a “real 255K surface”. It’s all nonsense.
Clint R continues to admit not being able to understand there is a globally measured earthen real 255K emitting surface and a ~288K surface for a measured GHE of ~33K. Clint has zero atm. science credibility but obviously plenty of entertainment credentials.
At least Clint R was helpful to explain and show that DREMT is wrong about lunar ref. frames when observed per Clint from “inside of it orbit”.
The real data shows global earthen instrumentally measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, rounded.
Clint R
Outside of trolling you seem to lack reading skills. I have said there is a “real” radiating surface. I have always added the radiating surface in my posts. I can’t help that you do not understand how a non-solid object can have a surface. I don’t think reposting the definition will help you at all.
Water is not solid yet it has a surface. It is the boundary layer between the liquid and the gas above. You don’t understand what a boundary is.
In your limited use of words a “surface” must be a solid object. I can’t help you, sorry.
Troll some more. That is what you do.
norman…”There are actual scientists that devise experiments to test things. Far better to do this and get results over making up unsupported conjectures”.
***
They are using aerosols and presuming they behave like a virus in free air. No one has ever seen a virus in free air hence no one has any idea how they behave. In other words, it is not possible to physically isolate a virus and handle it, only a very thin slice of the virus can be viewed on an electron microscope.
Masks were intended to prevent droplets of saliva from being expelled when a person talks, sneezes, or coughs. Obviously, masks are useful in such a context. Or, to prevent droplets of saliva from entering one’s body.
What happens if the viral theory is correct re masks? A virus or any bacteria can collect on the surface of a mask and pass through the mask as the mask gets moist with one’s own breath. People tend to handle masks, adjusting them or whatever, then the infectious material gets transferred to the hands. The person inadvertently rubs his/her eyes and the infectious material is transmitted via tears into the body.
Personally, I think it’s far safer to watch one’s interaction with others. A person who is sick with an infection has obvious symptoms. Although that method has it’s flaws, I think it is one step a person can take.
Another is to maintain distance between oneself and a person in local proximity. It has always annoyed me that certain people have the need to stands right next to another person to talk. I have encountered people who are almost in my face before they speak. Must have seen it in an old movie and thought it was cool.
Social distancing of 6 feet is a theory that has never been proved. Neither has any research on masks with regard to a real virus. Social distancing is based on an opinion of one doctor some 120 years ago.
Many people who are vaccinated believe they are protected against covid infection and that they cannot infect others. That’s a myth. Dr. Robert Malone, an expert on the mRNA used in the Pfizer covid vaccine claims mRNA cannot kill a virus.
As I posted recently, for BC, Canada, “Between Jan. 7-20, of the 1,256 people admitted to hospital suffering from COVID-19 26 per cent were unvaccinated and 70 per cent were fully vaccinated”.
Gordon Robertson
I do think your reasoning is not correct when you say: “They are using aerosols and presuming they behave like a virus in free air. No one has ever seen a virus in free air hence no one has any idea how they behave. In other words, it is not possible to physically isolate a virus and handle it, only a very thin slice of the virus can be viewed on an electron microscope.”
You do not have to see a virus to get an understanding of behavior. The science of Chemistry was created long before tunneling microscopes could see them. Logic and rational thought allowed scientists to develop theories about how atoms behave and react all without seeing any of them. Logic and understanding of water surface tension can explain why aerosols work to model virus spread. The virus cannot dry out and float free at this time. They are bound by surface tension to droplets.
Handling masks will get virus on hands but hat is why they encourage the alcohol based hand cleaners to kill viruses that get on the hands.
The larger logic based reasoning is that masks seem to work because when numbers of cases were rising, mask mandates were implemented and the cases dropped. This was done in many locations over periods of time.
If masks were not effective at all then cases would not change when mandates to wear were put in place.
Bacteria are 1000 times larger than a virus.
Masks are worn to protect against air born droplets, not viruses directly.
tim welles…”It would be interesting to know if those believing the CO2 warming fraud are the same ones believing there has been a pandemic?”
***
Interest point Tim, which I have touched on before. Believers in the CO2 warming fraud and the covid alleged pandemic are of the politically-correct persuasion, which involved a deep appeal to authority. The P-C gods lay down the propaganda/rhetoric and the believers drink the Kool-Aid.
A Dutch clinical psychologist has likened the process to totalitarianism. He explained that in a dictatorship, people go along out of fear of being killed/assaulted. In a totalitarian state, people simply believe, free of coercion.
The psychologist likened the totalitarian process to the French revolution and Nazi Germany. The believers freely joined in on persecuting the non-believers.
He also pointed out that only about 30% are true believers in such a movement and that even the hard-core can be reached at times by an appeal to their morality/ethics.
What is going on right now with the persecution of the unvaccinated is both immoral and unethical, yet the believers hold no punches when it comes to denouncing the unvaccinated. They are enabled by much of the media who some claim is the real virus.
Gordon Robertson
The biggest problem is not what you allege. It is irrational stupid thought process. You choose to believe one set of unsupported nonsense from evil people like Lanka. Others blindly accept all stupid ideas linked to Climate Change.
The reality is there is real evidence of some warming. That does not follow every severe weather event is caused by global warming.
Covid is a real pandemic by the very definition of the term. Your low level of thinking will not change this reality.
Maybe before you continue on idiot track, look at these accepted definitions.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2726986
Your psychological BS about people is also on the idiot track.
You are one who cannot accept evidence or facts so you come up with hair-brained stupid conspiracy notions about the motives of people.
So our species will remain in turmoil because of the irrational thinking of both the right and the left and the lunatic conspiracy idiots.
They closed down a butterfly sanctuary in Texas because of idiot irrational conspiracy lunatics (like you Gordon) that believe ever lie by every evil person out their. Some liar claims their is child rape and murder at the sanctuary and idiots like you blindly believe these evil liars and threaten to harm people running the sanctuary so they are forced to close it.
Your thought process, if it spreads, would lead to the resurgence of many diseases held at bay like measles, smallpox, polio and others. You would bring death and disease to many with your idiot irrational conspiracy thoughts.
Hi Norman. I know you’re busy with your meltdown and chasing butterflies, but you still haven’t identified that “real 255K surface”, yet.
You need to do that, otherwise people are going to know you’re just a braindead cult idiot, with NOTHING.
Clint R
You aren’t even amusing anymore. You are stuck in some simple minded loop where you just repeat things over and over. Why do you think this is an intelligent thing to do?
Norman, you swallowed that “real 255K nonsense”. No one made you do it. Now, you’re stuck with it until you admit you were wrong. And, we know you can’t do that.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Opsimathy ability, the capacity to grasp new ideas in old age, varies from individual to individual. Some minds freeze solid at eighteen, never to have a new thought. Some geniuses remain creative almost until death – eg Paul Dira, Leonardo Da Vinci. But most scientists do their best work before thirty-five and people capable of grasping a completely new concept after fifty are exceptional. ~Pursuit of the Pankara, RA Heinlein.
The description reminds me of you. You’re clearly unable to grasp the concept of 255K. You’re version of ‘Physics’ is weirdly different from any ‘Physics’ as understood by anyone else who posts on this page, some of whom actually do know something about ‘Physics’.
I would kindly suggest you stop making a fool of yourself here and attribute your inability to grasp new concepts to advancing age.
Not only is Norman confused about 255K, he can’t understand basic physics or thermodynamics. He just swallows whatever his cult puts out. Then he goes into meltdown when he’s corrected.
He’s just another braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
You are not able to correct anyone on actual physics since you don’t know the real material. Yes you have your opinions on how you think thermodynamics works, but they are all wrong. Just fantasies generated in your mind.
The facts are I have explained to you several times what is meant by a radiating surface. I can’t do more than that.
The truth is you are the one who swallows cult swill. I prefer textbook physics. It is something beyond your level. Anyway you will keep trolling. Nothing has made you stop yet. So continue to troll various posters with your redundant and simplistic troll tactics. You use the same devices on most posters. You are not the most original troll around.
I would think if trolling is your craft you might show a little skill at it.
I think the creative Mark B could tabulate the words you use in each post to most people who post here and the repetition of words would be incredible.
Norman, you have ZERO credibility. To start building credibility, you need to stop misrepresenting, insulting, and falsely accusing. You can’t point to even ONE example where I have gotten physics or thermodynamics wrong. The truth is you don’t understand basic physics when you can’t add simple vectors. If you can’t find something on the Internet, to you, it doesn’t exist! And the stuff you do find you usually don’t understand. You’re a mess.
I’m not the one making things up and perverting reality. YOU are the one perverting reality with nonsense such as Earth has a “real 255K surface”.
Like Ken comments, entertainers such as Clint R do succeed by continuously making fools of themselves as circus entertainers on a climate blog.
It’s best just to knowingly grin at some of the blog laughing stock Clint’s comments. Consulting a text book or a research report to understand measured earthen Te = 255K would be far too serious work for an entertainer like Clint. The knowing grins will just keep on coming.
Clint R
Yes I have proven your wrong many times with textbook material, data evidence. You simply ignore it all an remain in your cult thinking pretending. You will make a claim “a link Norman does not understand”. Very meaningless statement. It is the way you fool yourself (and keep trolling which you are here to do).
The reality is I prove you wrong often. In your cult world you ignore all evidence. Anyway you won’t change, data won’t change your cult mind. Facts will not alter your course. You will troll today, tomorrow and as long as you are on this blog. Nothing else matters to you except trolling posters. If not me, than others.
norman…” It is irrational stupid thought process. You choose to believe one set of unsupported nonsense from evil people like Lanka…”
***
Norman…I don’t believe anything. A belief is a waste of space, when you believe something, you are saying ‘I cannot prove this premise, but I think it is correct’. I prefer to live with the question than jump to unwarranted beliefs.
I have no need for beliefs. When I pass on information from Stefan Lanka I do so with the full awareness that what he is saying makes sense to me but that I have no way of proving it.
On the other hand, when I examine the current paradigms about covid or global warming, I can see many obvious flaws in the arguments presented and rather than trying to explain the flaws, the alarmists resort to appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, red-herring arguments, or moving the goalposts. Not only that, the alarmists try to ostracize those who oppose them, proof positive to me that they lack confidence in their theories.
An example. When the Pfizer vaccine (gene therapy) was first introduced, Pfizer claimed it was 95% effective at preventing a covid infection. I did not know at the time that Pfizer had been fined 5 billion dollars to that point for lying about their products and bribing doctors to front for them.
I did know that only 3.5% of Canadians had tested positive for covid therefore Pfizer was lying to us by claiming all people were protected by their vaccine. It was plain that only a small fraction of Canadians were being infected and that their immune systems were handling the virus. Today, there have been over 50 million tests administered in Canada and the number of positives remains in the neighbourhood of 3.5%.
You don’t need a belief system to see the flies in that ointment. When Linus Pauling was once asked why he had not run a double-blind study for a claim he had made, Linus replied that the outcome was so obvious that a blind-study was not required. When 50 million tests are performed and only 3.5% test positive, that outcome is totally obvious.
Today, as it becomes obvious that the vaccines are ineffective at preventing a covid infection, or passing it to others, the alarmists have moved the goalposts. Some are claiming no vaccine is perfect while others claim it was expected that more vaccinated people would be hospitalized because they make up a far larger percent than the unvaccinated.
Both arguments are full of holes and are outright lies. We were assured by Pfizer that 95% of vaccinated people would be protected from the virus. Here in BC, out of 1265 people hospitalized, 70% were fully vaccinated. When 885 people who are fully vaccinated make up a population of 1265 hospitalized people, someone lied.
Then the alarmists began blaming the unvaccinated for keeping the pandemic alive. Another blatant lie. In the beginning it was claimed that 80% of hospitalized people were unvaccinated. The alarmists got to cluck away like a load of chickens. When the numbers suddenly reversed, they coud not come out with excuses fast enough.
Lanka doesn’t mess with this pseudo-science. He uses a lifetime of experience with viruses to cut through the bs. He has come out and claimed that covid has not been physically isolated and that there is no spike protein upon which to base the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
For me, it’s not about believing him, it’s about the evidence that supports him. If they have the virus, why can they not use the RNA from the virus rather than focusing on an unlikely spike protein? Why does the test involve a convoluted method using the PCR method?
Too many questions, Norman, not enough answers.
He claims that researchers have carelessly allowed their laboratory cell cultures to become contaminated with RNA from natural body processes. Some have even introduced RNA in yeast in an attempt to replicate conditions in the human respiratory system. The spike protein comes from natural sources in the human body.
Gordon Robertson
I can agree with you that the current vaccines against Covid are not as good as they should be. That is about all I will agree with.
I think Lanka is an evil person with evil intent. I will not agree with anything this clown has to say. He does not convince you with evidence or fact. He distorts reality to prey upon gullible people.
If Lanka makes claims on anything I would consider it a lie. I have read papers you linked to from him and he seems completely dishonest. He might convince you but he is not one to follow.
Covid vaccines do not prevent the infection and illness. They still seem to help prevent death from the disease so one would need to weigh the cost benefit analysis. There are some side effects to deal with. I had both Moderna vaccines. The second one made me sick for a day. So far I have not had any other noticeable negative health affects from the vaccine. I had a nasty covid infection in the summer of 2020. Having not missed any work for 25 years from illness I was sick for 3 weeks with this one. I have a healthy respect for Covid. You can choose to believe the nasty Lanka about this but I am quite convinced it is a virus and infectious. I would get a vaccine to prevent giving it to others if for no other reason. I would not want to get anyone I know to get what I got. I have not been sick since the 2020 illness. Vitamin C may work for you and good that it does. That would not be my consideration for vaccination. It would be mostly to minimize the spread of this to others. I wish the vaccine were better but at this time it is the best they could come up with in short order. Maybe they will continue to research and come up with a more effective vaccine that will work longer and actually prevent infection so the disease can be eradicated.
It will fall on deaf ears Norman. Gordo will beat the virus by sucking on oranges.
Norman, have you noticed any changes in your mental stability since getting the vaccinations? For example, do you ramble more? Do you rant and rave more? Are you in constant meltdown, after all the jabs?
Clint R
What a troll post. Keep trolling it is what you do, it is the only thing you know how to do. You would be lost if you did not troll blogs on the Internet. It is what you live for, you crave the reactions you get from posters. Some wisely ignore you when the realize you are a troll (Don’t feed the Troll).
It does not matter what is posted to you. You will troll away.
Ball4 seems to attempt reverse trolling on you. It does not seem to alter you trolling ways.
Someday you will grow up. I probably won’t see that happen.
Clint R
You have the opportunity to advance your trolling skills and get real good at it. You should read the long interactions between Willard and Swenson. The two troll masters. They can troll each other 100 posts at a shot. Neither says anything of value, but they go on and on in endless trolling each others posts. Go and learn, if you must troll at least do a better job of it.
Your current trolling is very repetitive and unoriginal. You look for some trigger words to generate your desired effect.
Currently with my posts you endlessly repeat the word “meltdown”. I guess you think it will keep the reaction going.
I think you might get a couple posts going with your junior troll tactics. If you want to be a troll master look at the experts. Hundreds of posts. Go an learn. Maybe if you keep trying hard enough you might get to Willard/Swenson trolling levels.
Entropic man says:
January 31, 2022 at 6:58 AM
“Causation.
What mechanism changed the Earth from glacial 20,000 years ago to interglacial 10,000 years ago?
Why did the average temperature rise from 9C to 14C?
The modern interpretation of Milankovitchs work is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65N latitude in Summer to melt the snow. Without the snow albedo drops and enough heat is retained to keep it warm.
A glacial period starts when too little heat reaches 65N in Summer to melt the snow. Over years the snow builds up into ice sheets and the increased ice albedo keeps it cold.”
What really happens is that you get an interglacial when enough energy reaches 65 SOUTH latitude in Southern Hemisphere Summer to accumulate the solar energy in the oceanic waters.
In our times the South Hemisphere’s summer COINCIDES with the earth’s PERIHELION.
That is why Earth is in a WARMING TREND PHASE now.
Milankovitch had calculated his cycle in high preciseness. Milankovitch Cycle should be read REVERSED.
Please visit:
The Reversed Cycle
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
Milankovitch Reverse
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444467896
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) seems to cause a lot of confusion. Maybe a simple analogy will help.
“Four wheels cannot go up a hill by themselves.”
Most adults would easily agree with that statement. It’s a simple analogy to 2LoT. Now, let’s add some emphasis:
“Four wheels cannot go up a hill by themselves“.
Again, most adults would easily agree, and would understand the emphasis. The wheels could be carried up a hill, for example. Or the wheels could be put on a car, with gas and a driver, that would go up a hill. There are any number of ways the four wheels could go up a hill, but NOT by themselves.
Now, consider the statement from Clausius, over 150 years ago:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Or, we could clarify and add emphasis:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body by itself.“
And that’s why ice cubes cannot boil water — 2LoT.
Simple analogies help, unless you’re a braindead cult idiot.
The stupid thing is, with the GHE, they will say the Sun is the car…
Yes, they can’t wait to pervert reality. They’re effectively trying to claim that the wheels are helping move the car uphill because the wheels are turning!
Ice cubes can boil water (read and understand Dr. Spencer’s experiment on the real atm.) and four wheels on a car can go up a hill by themselves. Clint R and DREMT just aren’t accomplished in science enough to know how just like they cannot understand the measured earthen GHE, Te = 255K, & lunar rotation.
Both are, however, enormously accomplished entertainers on a science blog.
B4,
You’re a propagandist. There is no measured earthen GHE, Te=255k. It is either a gross conceptual error on your part or part of your group’s propaganda campaign. How does CO2 at 193K heat surface at 255K? Have you ever taken a course in quantum mechanics?
Stephen,
The CO2 is not at that temperature, unless you are above about 80 km.
Better get out your little red book by McQuarrie, if that’s the one they used for torture.
Better that than taking Physics lessons from Clint R.
Ball4 perverts reality, again.
This technique is called the “big lie”. It’s a tactic used in propaganda. You tell a huge lie, so big the sheep get confused. They can’t believe someone could tell such a bold lie, so it must be true!
To try for some credibility, Ball4 uses Dr. Spencer’s name — openly misrepresenting him.
Not one of the cult idiots will challenge Ball4. That’s their loyalty to their cult. Not one will stand for truth. Norman and braindead bob have already swallowed all of Ball4’s spew.
Clint R (with recent complete meltdown) & stephen (no propaganda just experimental evidence), the physics reality is Dr. Spencer’s experimental data/results on the atm. You two show just are not accomplished to understand atm. thermodynamic reality. The entertainment you two provide though is real.
>Stephen,
The CO2 is not at that temperature, unless you are above about 80 km.
Better get out your little red book by McQuarrie, if that’s the one they used for torture.
Better that than taking Physics lessons from Clint R.
Bob, yes, 80km sounds about right. If it isn’t at that temperature then it isn’t absorbing IR.
Bob,
Here’s Wein’s Displacement Law. 15uM band occurs at 193K.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html
Stephen,
Now you have gone and done it.
Stephen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
This is an atmospheric temperature profile.
Note the temperature minimum between 12km an 20km where most of the atmospheric emission to space takes place.
>Stephen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
This is an atmospheric temperature profile.
Note the temperature minimum between 12km an 20km where most of the atmospheric emission to space takes place.
Completely irrelevant.
“If the temperature is =
-80.14999999999998
C =
193
K, then the wavelength at which the radiation curve peaks is:
λpeak =
1.5015544041450781
x10^
-5
m =
15015.54404145078
nm =
15.015544041450779
microns. ”
Note “the wavelength at which the radiation curve peaks”.
You have not calculated the temperature at which CO2 emits in the atmosphere. You have calculated that the emission curve of a grey body at 193K peaks at a wavelength of 15 micrometres.
Not the same thing at all.
For those of you who insist on applying black-body equations to atmospheric gases that have very low emissivity.
You are doing it wrong.
>Not the same thing at all.
It is the same thing.
bob, looking up from the humid tropics the clear sky natural atm. gases are measured with an emissivity of around 0.95. Looking up from the dry polar regions, emissivity is closer to 0.65. On a global avg., the atm. constituents are around 0.80 emissivity. That is not very low.
This leads to an atm. LW window of about 20 out of 240 W/m^2 at near 0.98 emissivity in the relevant IR bands.
You may be referring to Hottel’s gas emissivity measurements that were done for combustion processes at an optical depth the length of a furnace flue around 1bar.
>For those of you who insist on applying black-body equations to atmospheric gases that have very low emissivity.
You are doing it wrong.
So you can apply a blackbody equation to the Earth with is solid or liquid but it can’t be applied to a gas? Please explain.
Ball4,
Yes, high emissivity at specific wavelengths, but low at most, that’s why you can see through it.
Something to think about, from a sceptic site.
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-14-emission-layers-which-pipe-is-the-biggest/
From JoNova.
“The hotter a thing is, the more energy it radiates, so in this graph the higher amounts of OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) are coming off the warmer surface or air closer to it. Turn things upside down in your mind, the high readings come from low-altitude places which are warm (like the surface), and as the readings get lower in radiance, they must be coming from colder spots at higher altitudes. The lowest part of the CO2 absor*ption band in the graph is in the stratosphere, where its very cold. The highest parts of the CO2 band in the graph are from CO2 low in the atmosphere. ”
Note that she isn’t talking about one emission surface. Different wavelengths are emitted from different altitudes.
The atmospheric window is allowing radiation from the ground or ocean at 290K out to space. The middle of the CO2 band is radiating from 10km altitude at 220K.
The 255K under discussion is the emission temperature averaged over the whole planet, what you would get if Earth was a uniform 255K grey body.
“Note that she isn’t talking about one emission surface.”
That’s because there is no “real 255K surface”.
What ‘surface’ in fog produces the white color?
ClintR
“Thats because there is no real 255K surface. ”
Yes, we all know that.
The real 255K surface is a straw man you’ve made up.
Wrong again, Ent!
Ball4 made it up: “…it is better for Clint R to discover the real 255K surface…
Nice effort to pervert reality, however. It goes well with your “passenger jets that fly backwards”.
“What ‘surface’ in fog produces the white color?”
Presuming your fog is illuminated by sunlight, the surface of your retinas & your brain. Though it is more accurate to write, say, fog bows are nearly colorless.
An interesting note is droplet size of fog or cloud; raindrops being 100x or so larger on avg. than cloud droplets & we can see through many kilometers of intense rain whereas a small patch of fog on a well traveled highway can result in carnage.
The point is that thin fog is almost transparent, but the same fog in depth horizontally is not.
Oh, ok then thin fog or thin cloud droplets can have scattering properties that our brains interpret as non-white in color.
Sunlight or moonlight seen through a thin cloud of intermediate size droplets would be bluish or greenish. This requires droplets of the right size, and hence it is a rare event, so rare that it occurs once in a blue moon.
Most fog of any density, with uniform illumination, is seen as white ‘smoke’.
Here’s some uniform illumination yellow fog:
https://www.caranddriver.com/car-accessories/a38451079/yellow-fog-lights/
Does RLH agree with the author: “In addition, yellow fog lights penetrate foggy weather better than other light colors.”?
NB: This is actually an interesting fog question since RLH brought up the subject & being fascinated by color, I’ve done some detail investigation on the subject.
Ever wondered why far mountains appear to be white/grey when compared to nearer ones?
Ever wondered why white headlights reflect so well from fog?
Wondered only until I was curious, investigated, & read up on each of those.
If anyone wants to investigate yellow fog lamps try google string: yellow fog bohren
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body by itself”
But a body will retain/reject heat if surrounded by insulation.
…and radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not ab.sorp.tion/emission.
"Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than ab.sorbed by the lower-temperature body."
Reflected rather than ab.sorbed.
Insulation works both ways. To retain/reject heat.
Sure, and radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.
So if a mirror/car reflects light/radar, does it impart a measure of its own motion on the reflection? Or do radar guns not work?
You are clearly confused about what I am arguing.
No I’m not.
Tell me what you think I am arguing, then.
RLH,
You’re full of crap. Insulation doesn’t retain heat or re-emit heat. Who’s lying?
“..re-emit heat.”
stephen, EMR is not heat.
“Insulation doesnt retain heat or re-emit heat”
Is does stop any heat penetrating it. Thus keeping things inside hot or cold.
“Tell me what you think I am arguing”
You think that insulation does not stop heat penetrating it. Keeping the ‘inside’ either hot or cold.
Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong, moron.
I think that insulation does "stop heat penetrating it". What I am arguing is that radiative insulation works via reflectivity. Not absorp.tion/emission.
Here’s how the conversation went, idiot.
Clint R wrote a comment on 2LoT, and clearly that was related to the GHE. He made it clear that heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot, by its own means. You responded that a body will retain/reject heat if surrounded by insulation. Which I don’t disagree with. But radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission. So CO2 is not planetary insulation. It does not "reflect".
If CO2 does not insulate, and CO2 cannot send heat to the surface by its own means, then there is no GHE.
That was my argument.
Ahh, but CO2 DOES reflect light & scatter light like all gases (see Rayleigh effect) and CO2 does insulate (see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5160769A/en).
Whew, the earthen ~33K GHE is preserved yet again.
Home insulation I use does have a thin metallic layer for increased reflectivity.
“Ahh, but CO2 DOES reflect light & scatter light like all gases (see Rayleigh effect)”
Like all gases…whoops. Nothing special about CO2 then…
“and CO2 does insulate (see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5160769A/en).”
Here is what your patent says:
“A pipeline has an inner surface which comes into contact with cryogenic fluid at a temperature of 70° K. The outer surface of the pipeline carries a coating of foamed polyurethane having closed cells containing carbon dioxide. The pipeline is located in an outer sleeve. The annular space defined between the pipe and the sleeve is filled with perlite powder and is able to be purged with dry nitrogen gas. In operation with the inner surface of the pipelines subjected to a temperature of 70° K., the carbon dioxide in the cells of the polyurethane solidifies creating a vacuum therein. This increases the temperature difference across the polyurethane coating and enables the perlite powder to be maintained at a temperature above 77° K. so that the nitrogen purgant does not condense. A relatively simple alternative to conventional vacuum insulation is thereby provided.”
Hardly CO2 insulation via absorp.tion/emission, is it!?
“Home insulation I use does have a thin metallic layer for increased reflectivity.”
Yes, as I said…radiative insulation works via reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.
“If CO2 does not insulate”
But you do agree that CO2 a*b*s*o*r*b*s IR therefore acts as an insulator by preventing IR from penetrating it. Idiot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1159302
Idiot and liar.
Sure, RLH. Wikipedia is an idiot and a liar.
Sometimes.
Need to understand when it is and isn’t. The ref.s at the bottom of each page sometimes help.
“But radiative insulation works via reflectivity”
And ALSO works with materials that abs*orb and re-radiate, as Tyndall showed over 150 y ago.
This is repeated logical error made by some people here who do not understand the fundamental science.
They find an example of a phenomena, and erroneously generalize from the one example.
They do that with circular orbits with synchronous rotation, which can be described as rotation around a fixed axis.
They then erroneously generalize this description to all orbits. All orbits must be rotations around a fixed axis! Which is of course FALSE, since not all orbits are circular, nor synchronous.
And orbits with synchronous rotation are one type of ORBIT. But again, this one example is erroneously generalized, to falsely claim that the word ORBIT means ORBIT with synchronous rotation.
No such definition of ORBIT exists.
Although they are made aware of their faulty logic many times, they continue to use it again and again.
This is how we recognize trolling.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
pups, Radiation shields also work with high emissivity surfaces, though not as efficiently in terms of the warming temperature above that for an unshielded, heated body. That’s the Green Plate Effect, in the event you’ve forgotten.
B4,
That’s news to thermodynamics.
That EMR is not heat is apparently news to stephen 4:52pm, already well known in the field of thermodynamics.
Sorry, Swanson, radiative insulation works via reflectivity, as your own experiments demonstrate.
Going back 150 y, Tyndall saw that putting IR abs*orbing gases in front of a heat source, REDUCED the flow of heat through the gas.
The gas was acting as an insulator!
Are people denying this basic effect?
pups, My green plate demos did not use reflective surfaces, while one case in the ice plate did. The ice plate demo showed that a thin layer of ice, which exhibited high emissiviey, did produce a warming result, as did other materials with high emissivities.
Sure, Swanson. Ice is not reflective. Got it.
pups is confused again. Ice is a good absorber/emitter of thermal IR radiation, as is liquid water. Learn some physics and please stop trolling.
Sure, Swanson, ice is a perfect blackbody.
pups, The emissivity of ice at ~0.96 to 0.99 is quite close to a black body. That’s why it works as a radiation shield and warms the metal plate when compared to the nearly transparent plastic film in my demo.
I’m only pulling your leg. I’m sure you’re right.
Is pups now agreeing that back radiation (aka, the Green Plate Effect) actually works to warm a heated body?
No, of course not. The GPE was theoretically debunked on here years ago, now, and experimentally debunked a while later.
The GPE was not debunked, and various experiments came up with various results, suggesting at the very least that other factors aside from the ones of interest affected at least one or some of the experiments.
Just putting it out there that denying the greenhouse effect is a very remote fringe view in the published literature (like, exceedingly fringe), and has attracted a proportional fringe group of laypeople, who are, like, totally NOT motivated to hold this view.
That’s wrong DREMT 8:07 pm.
The GPE was debunked, barry.
pups claims that the GPE “has been debunked”. Perhaps pups is confused, thinking that the G. Hughes experiments dis-prove the GPE, which is not so. Radiation shields (the GPE) work, which is why engineers use them.
That’s also wrong DREMT 8:39 pm.
Does Swanson mean:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection
or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_barrier
or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield
?
pups, My reply is
1-No,
2-No,
3-Maybe. Note: high emissivity, automotive, steel.
So Swanson says, “Radiation shields (the GPE) work, which is why engineers use them.”
Yet he can’t even clearly indicate what he means by “radiation shields”! And no, perfectly conducting blackbody plates are not “heat shields”!
pups states:
Thermal IR radiation shields work, even when high emissivity materials like steel are used. Try reading a text book on Radiation Heat Transfer.
You cannot even clearly indicate what you are referring to, so your claims about “radiation shields” are eternally dismissed with derision. Now wait another couple of days and try to sneak a last word in again.
“are eternally dismissed with derision.”
Basic heat transfer principles at work here.
Dismissing them with derision is how we recognize trolling.
DREMT and othershas seen this many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Anyone who understands the equations, specifically the 3rd equation, can clearly see that even for emissivity = 1 (a black body), the multi-layer insulation works well as an insulator. The more layers the more insulating it becomes.
This is well understood technology.
It has been on more than one occasion ‘dismissed with derision’ by ignorant people who dont understand basic heat transfer physics.
That is not debunking. Quite the opposite.
Claims that this has been debunked are how we recognize trolling.
Surely Swanson isn’t going to pretend that he meant MLI by “radiation shields”!?
MLI is analyzed with the equation mentioned above.
Surely people here are not so ignorant as to not recognize that the MLI equation with e = 1 and N = 2 is exactly the GPE. And it insulates.
That’s how we recognize ignorant trolling.
…and surely Swanson is not going to pretend that there is anything on the MLI wikipedia page that supports the idea that MLI, without highly reflective surfaces, can actually raise the temperature of the insulated body, like the green plate supposedly warming the blue plate by 18 K!? We all know the theory behind the GPE, after all. We all know that it was thoroughly debunked on here. We all know that Geraint Hughes conducted some experiments and could find no such effect. We are all aware of the Seim and Olsen experiment, showing negligible warming from increased back-radiation. We all know that even Vaughan Pratt commented on here that the back-radiation version of the GHE was false. So why do some people continue to defend it?
“We all know that it was thoroughly debunked on here.”
We all know that some very ignorant people insist the Earth is flat.
Their declarations of this are not evidence.
‘Experiments’ demonstrating the Earth is flat can be found on the internet.
Of course we all, except the truly ignorant, know that one such ‘experiment’ cannot undo centuries of scientific observations.
MLI, without highly reflective surfaces, identical to the GP, can insulate, as the physics-based standard MLI equations on the MLI wikipedia page show.
Some ignorant people here seem to believe that any science that they do not understand must be wrong.
…he will probably leave it a couple more days before trying to sneak another last word in.
The GPE’s debunked.
🙂
Some people have made it clear they are not after the truth.
They are here only to score imaginary points by inflicting on others their imagined victories that no one else recognizes.
And in the process, they invite ridicule.
Then the play the victim and whine about receiving ridicule.
This is a very strong indicator of trolling, and narcissism.
The GPE’s debunked.
🙂
Following the simple analogy if we must…
The car will roll down the hill.
Now if the hill is steep the car will roll down faster. If the hill is not steep the car will roll down slower.
How can the hill be made steeper? We could raise the height of top of the hill, OR we could lower the height of the bottom of the hill.
OTOH to make the hill less steep we can lower height of the top of the hill or raise height of the bottom of the hill.
The Earths surface temperature is like the height of top of the hill. The TOA atmosphere temperature is like the height of the bottom of the hill.
The radiative heat flux out from the surface is like the speed of the car rolling down the hill.
We can reduce the heat flux out by lowering the surface temperature OR by raising the TOA atmosphere temperature.
With the GHE the TOA atmosphere temperature is being raised. The heat flux out is reduced.
Over time the Earths surface temperature rises and the heat flux out is reduced to its original value.
Thus the GHE results in the surface temperature rising.
A terrible analogy even if you correct your misstatements in “OR by raising the TOA atmosphere temperature.” and “With the GHE the TOA atmosphere temperature is being raised. The heat flux out is reduced.”
Not my analogy, Clint’s.
“With the GHE the TOA atmosphere temperature is being raised. The heat flux out is reduced.”
True, that is not quite how it happens.
The TOA (highest emitting layer) rises with increased GHG. The temperature at the new TOA is initially lower, which lowers the heat flow out, in time the T rises to reach the same original equilibrium T.
As a result the T at the initial TOA altitude is raised.
A better analogy for added GHG, is adding an extra layer of insulation to the attic insulation.
The heat flow is reduced until the house T rises.
Has anyone ever done any experimentation indicating this is anything more than wishful thinking?
The search for a rising TOA altitude is the Holy Grail of the climate cult religion.
“The search for a rising TOA altitude is the Holy Grail of the climate cult religion.”
Standard optics is religion?
With more CO2, the atmosphere will be opaque to these wavelengths up to a higher altitude. Basic.
Lots of verification of the enhancement of the GHE have been done. Im pretty sure youve been shown them several times.
Heres yet another one.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
What are the specific flaws that you can identify in the theory or the tests?
The classic study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Ken
You wrote above:
” 162 deaths on Vancouver Island attributed to COVID out of population 860k. I do not find any other region to have markedly different ratios. Conclusion: not a pandemic. ”
*
This is very probably one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read about COVID19.
*
Vancouver Island ???
Are you really so stubborn?
That’s a corner with no more than about 25 inhabs/km^2, with hardly more than three little towns – Saanich, Victoria, Nanaimo – having about 100,000 people!
How can you compare that with the rest of the world?
*
” 162 deaths on Vancouver Island attributed to COVID out of population 860k. ”
Oho! Then you are blind on the right eye, aren’t you?
That is 188 deaths per million. Even Canada as a whole has no more than about 900 these days, despite some great cities.
What about comparing that with the sorted list of all countries having these days more than 1,000 dpm?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n2n9N7jjYfLvFK3YqCehUBBwYjyjkXLD/view
Yeah! No pandemic at all /sarc.
Oh I imagine that you will say, like would very probably do a few other COVID deniers like Robertson, Clint R, Anderson, Wells etc etc:
” This is all propaganda made by a pack of liars. ”
or something similar.
Good for you, Ken.
*
And, last not least: when you write:
” No numbers? Argument is non-sequitur. ”
you become really 100 % disingenuous and dishonest.
Is it my problem that you avoid informing yourself about what happens all around the world but you deliberately want to ignore?
I have read newspapers in French, German and English about all that since February 2020.
And no: I didn’t bookmark all these hundreds of articles I read since then.
Canada 34378/38 million = 905
Vancouver Island 162/ 860k = 188
Global 5712489/7.8 billion = 732
The numbers are not significantly different in the statistical sense.
The only ‘pandemic’ is pig ignorant people demanding everyone else participate in their useless COVID mandates.
The basic human right to live life in peace with human dignity was affirmed in the Nuremberg Trials. Those basic human rights have been trampled.
The numbers start reflecting the pig ignorance when you consider how many deaths affected people who didn’t already have one foot in the grave. Average age is ~ 82, well above statistical expected life span. 75% of people who died over 65 had 4 or more co-morbidities. Etc.
Contrast the numbers with Spanish Flu when there was really a pandemic.
Its not hard to understand anymore the same pig ignorance behind the burning of witches as a remedy to black plague.
And, last not least: when you write:
No numbers? Argument is non-sequitur.
you become really 100 % disingenuous and dishonest.
Is it my problem that you avoid informing yourself about what happens all around the world but you deliberately want to ignore?
———————
The problem with news is there is an agenda. Here in Canuckstan there is almost no media that does not owe dear leader Trudeau for his largesse of some 600 million dollars.
Yeah, I’ve seen the story. Young doctor age 35 dies of COVID in Victoria (one of the 162) after stating COVID measures are useless and refusing the vaccine.
The problem is in conflating that one story on the edges of reality with the actual situation where most people who actually get infected also recover and usually without hospitalization or intensive care.
You have to read those French, German and English newspapers with a very large grain of salt. Same as with the climate change claptrap.
Ken
You are simply as much a denier concerning COVID19 as are Robertson, Clint R and some others.
It is the same denial attitude as this attitude wrt Moon’s spin.
I am not Norman, and won’t lose my time with useless discussions.
My impression is that you are a very privileged, highly protected person who is by no means affected by the pandemic.
So it is easy to deny it.
I suspect you all to be vaccinated since quite a while, and to rant against COVID only because it affects your pathetic addiction to unbridled freedom.
Exactly like so many people rant against those who want to curb free gun ownership so there are fewer killings by reckless, insane people.
I’ll keep away from you comments right now, also concerning simple technical details you are not sufficiently educated to discuss about.
Trump’s vaccinate probably saved millions of lives.
The effectiveness of Trump’s vaccination is not the issue.
Unless you want compare it to natural immunity- but vaccination
is was about not just waiting for herd immunity. It’s purpose
was to save lives and probably saved about 1 million American lives,
and then got the rest of world to consider.
The issue mandating any kind of drug/medicine.
One also the foolish mask mandates.
And evil of not protecting people who most likely to die who getting
governmental care. The general lack of protecting most those people with weakest immunity response to the virus. And suppression of treatments for the disease.
I enjoy this page, but why is every post hijacked every bloody time by the moon discussions. Can you find some other place or get on?
Well done, Daniel. Thank you for starting a new sub-thread on this issue rather than polluting the moon sub-thread at the top of the page. In answer to your question, it is because most of the regular contributors to this blog have involved themselves in the moon discussion. Since 95% of the total comments on this blog come from these regular contributors, you are just going to have to put up with it, I’m afraid. I, personally, would happily stop participating in the moon discussions permanently if the “Spinners” would just concede a few issues (they don’t even have to concede that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, just concede a few related sub-topics).
Just because DREMT is a troll who regularly hijacks this web site to spread his misinformed fake science as real and which only he and his little band agrees upon doesn’t make him anything less than a troll.
If I’m a troll, you’re a troll.
I don’t spread misinformation.
Me neither.
Liar.
No, I am not a liar.
Yes you are.
F*ck you and the horse you ride in on.
Oh lookie, pups has found a new school yard taunt.
DREMT is as sensible as usual.
Anybody that calls me a liar can go f*ck themselves. No anger, just why should I put up with it!? F*ck you and the horse you rode in on.
DREMT is even more sensible as usual.
I don’t have to put up with you calling me a liar. It is perfectly "sensible" that I tell you to gfy. You can keep going all night and all day tomorrow if you want to. You will just repeatedly be told to gfy.
I don’t have to put up with you being an idiot and a liar without mentioning those facts.
Gfy.
Idiot. And liar.
#2
Gfy.
#2
Idiot. And liar.
#3
Gfy.
#3
Idiot. And liar.
Good For You?
#4
Gfy.
Daniel
Oh! By the Moon discussions only?
So you don’t feel disturbed by people denying the existence of e.g. viruses, and endlessly posting their utter nonsense about that?
Aha.
The Arctic air mass is cut off in the southern US and will remain there longer.
https://i.ibb.co/8sx0Pdf/Screenshot-1.png
Curious to see the lower stratosphere anomalies these next couple months. Hunga Tonga eruption should have an effect to some degree in the S Hemisphere.
Brian D
I’m curious too, though I’m not sure we will see very much because Tonga’s eruption emitted a lot less of SO2 than did Pinatubo in 1991.
The next problem is that even when you learned how to process UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data, you still have the problem of how to understand what the grid output tells in relation to the eruption itself.
Pinatubo for example erupted on Jun 12, 1991.
Coordinates: 15.14N, 120.35E.
Here is a graph showing UAH’s data comparing the lower stratosphere (LS)and the lower troposphere (LT):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
The (latitude weighted) anomaly peak is in October 1991, and the maximum average for the raw, unweighted LS data is in November.
In the subcomments below you see some graphs showing monthly grids for July, August, September, October and November (it’s nearly impossible to post comments with more than 4 links).
LS grid for July 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tco5M7YRsa6sL8dd75C965QbOGjS7GA6/view
LS grid for August 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hS_OxBRHPl2XB5kJsVgWkocCxn6LZpFr/view
LS grid for September 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nEq_Wv11z3yz41S2uqLgsBtNW-02_iwR/view
LS grid for October 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FT2S-ozWAlZxOaeSXVubiuSXDX7-DnVf/view
LS grid for November 1991
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
Why do you persist with Mercator type projections which are well acknowledged to make the Poles seem more important visually than they really are?
Roy uses Mollweide projections (equal area) to prevent that distortion.
30 North to 30 South is 50% of the Earth’s surface.
Oh oh oooh, look…
The elementary school teacher behaves for the umpteenth time stubborn and bossy.
First of all, as you in fact perfectly know, I don’t have anything in mind with your Mercator-based insinuations, which you are pushing on me so that I can be accused of something wrong again.
I simply do not more than to output a grid of 9,504 cells in what I find to be the simplest, most inexpensive, least laborious form: a rectangular grid.
Your claim, I would ignore, let alone intentionally exaggerate, the polar regions at the expense of the Tropics, is simply ridiculous.
Moreover, your endless babble against this simple rectangular grid output is especially nonsensical, because what I want to show here in the lower stratosphere is unnecessarily difficult to see at the poles in a Mollweide projection.
Just look at what the polar regions look like in UAH’s trend grid
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
compared to this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
– of course! – geometrically incorrect, but clear and legible form!
*
Did you in between understand how nonsensical it is
– on the on hand, to request for a geometrically correct Globe representation
but
– on the other hand, to keep silent about the lack of weighting in the data shown in that same representation?
*
Did you in between understand how nonsensical it is to apply, for the temperature data, the same, raw cosine based weighting mechanism as that used for the Mollweide projection, what would, for UAH Global, lead to a trend of 0.09 C / decade instead of currently 0.13/0.14 C?
Why, do you think, does UAH’s trend grid not look like this (following you: based on allegedly ‘concocted’ data, thank you btw for insulting)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrPMzDj49kjoHRif6a2DbmVM0mbPqZpC/view
of course in Mollweide form?
*
If you had some courage, you would – instead of ranting against me – ask Roy Spencer about his meaning.
You certainly won’t, because you anticipate his answer.
*
Stop ranting against others’ work, RLH, and start doing your own UAH grid evaluation, of course embellished by a perfect Mollweide output. We’ll enjoy, for sure.
But… I think you are afraid of failing in the synthesis of data processing and representation.
That namely is a huge work compared with your minijobs superposing UAH’s ready-to-use data with all the time one and the same group of filters, isn’t it?
*
I know: this reply is useless. Simply because you NEVER ADMIT being wrong.
“I simply do not more than to output a grid of 9,504 cells”
What are the surface area of those grids? On Earth and on the paper? Are they in the same ratio all over the representation?
“ask Roy Spencer about his meaning”
Why would I ask Roy about equal area representation when that is what he uses (but you don’t).
Do you accept that 30 North to 30 South is 50% of the Earths surface? How do you represent that?
“Tongas eruption emitted a lot less of SO2 than did Pinatubo in 1991”
As Tonga was an ocean eruption it may well be that most of its SO2 is in the water rather than the atmosphere.
I haven’t yet been able to get a precise summation whether the top of the volcano was above sea level prior to eruption, if ejecta had a clear path to the surface, or how much water was between the eruption and the surface. Photos prior to eruption seem to show a rim above sea level:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/17/tonga-volcano-a-visual-guide-to-the-eruption-and-its-aftermath
If that was permeable and full of sea-water, don’t know.
I also wondered how much of the output to atmosphere had been muted by the overlying waters.
Global Temperature Time Series
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb2525.png
Dust absorbs sunlight. You can see a slight increase in temperature in the lower stratosphere in the tropics.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
At the same time, there was a record temperature drop above the 65th parallel in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however jhyn one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>>
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however QAZaq one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> http://paywork24.blogspot.com
I am receiving $88 every hour to work on-net. Ive never believed like it can be achievable however TR68JH one of my greatest pal got $27,000 just in three weeks just working this simple project & she influenced me to availView
Visiting this web page >>> https://webwork242.blogspot.com/
norman…”I think Lanka is an evil person with evil intent. I will not agree with anything this clown has to say. He does not convince you with evidence or fact. He distorts reality to prey upon gullible people”.
***
You sound somewhat demented to make such claims against a scientist who discovered the first virus in the oceans. When you add the fact that Lanka put together a scientific argument so strong and convincing that two German higher courts agreed with him, that no scientific papers exist to prove their is a measles virus, you appear to be even more demented.
Lanka is so confident that no such papers exist that he has offered a 100,000 Euro award to anyone who can produce such evidence. He has that confidence because he has researched ALL papers related to the alleged measles virus and he understands them.
Anyone wishing to see the depths of Norman’s venom can read for themselves…
scroll down to English version….
https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
Lanka is a fraud.
https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=pathogenic-viruses-do-not-exist-as-the-german-biologist-stefan-lanka-proved-in-front-of-a-court
“Fact-checked by: Animal Poltico
2020/05/21 | Mexico
FALSE Claim: Pathogenic viruses do not exist, as the German biologist Stefan Lanka proved in front of a court.
Explanation: Viruses do exist and no, no lawsuit denied their existence.”
norman…”You do not have to see a virus to get an understanding of behavior. The science of Chemistry was created long before tunneling microscopes could see them. Logic and rational thought allowed scientists to develop theories about how atoms behave and react all without seeing any of them”.
***
The logic and rational thought to which you refer has lead to many erroneous conclusions over the centuries that were completely wrong. That is the basic argument of Lanka about viruses and germ theory. We are still reliant today on such theories that were never proved in the first place.
Koch’s Postulate was developed in the late 1800s as the basis for identifying an infectious agent. Circa 1935, one scientists lamented that no known virus could meet the criterion of Koch’s Postulate. Today, in 2022, we know little more about a virus physically than we did in 1935. Much of what we regard as viral theory today has been put together by speculation, assertion, and consensus.
The field of retrovirology was not developed till the early 1970s. Viruses like HIV and SARS are regarded as retroviruses.
The current basis for viral theory is that alleged infectious agents introduced into a neutral cell culture will kill the normal cells. Lanka has recently proved that the cells will die on their own due to their treatment in the lab.
Enders, circa 1954, made much the same claim but he also formed the basis of the current method. Since Enders, no one has used a control experiment to verify it is an infectious agent killing normal cells, even though Enders indicated that normal cells could die on their own.
When Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, tried to view it on an electron microscope, he could see no virus. So, he developed a new theory based on INFERENCE and claimed to have isolated HIV. Based on the definition of isolation, which means to separate physically, he did no such thing.
The irony is that a member of his team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on a panel at the Louis Pasteur Institute, where they laid down a protocol for identifying a virus. That protocol required seeing the virus on an EM. Montagnier admitted to following the protocol but could see no virus on the EM.
Since then, all viral theory is based on the pseudo-theory developed ad hoc by Montagnier, therefore it is fraudulent science. The covid tests and vaccines are based on his theory, and they too are fraudulent.
You claimed that theories have been developed about atoms, much smaller particles than viruses, but atoms are never detected directly. No on has ever seen an atom directly. However, atoms can be identified in elemental form by weighing them en masse. The relative atomic weights are known and documented. You can also identify molecules by weight and shape using other means.
No one knows what to look for with a virus in free air. For one, such an entity cannot be viewed in free air and there is no means of detecting it. A virus cannot be detected directly without preparing a multitude of viruses in a specimen as a thin slice no larger than about 100 nanometers.
The problem is that it’s often hard to tell a real virus from a virus particle, or an exosome. Lanka has argued that most photos of viruses are not viruses at all, but cell material or material from dead cells. He has the expertise to tell one from the other.
Lanka claims he has never found evidence of an infectious virus. He is not claiming there is no such thing as an infectious virus, he is cautioning us to examine the theories and come up with better observations.
Frankly, I find it scary that we are so reliant on such pseudo-science for covid. The Louis Pasteur protocol is still available, why is it not being used? Why can they not physically isolate covid using the LPI protocol and why are we so reliant on inferred method and unvalidated computer models to deal with covid?
Lanka is well acknowledged as a fraud.
rlh…”Lanka is well acknowledged as a fraud”.
***
Why don’t you put that in writing in Germany and get your ass sued off? I’d love to see you in court trying to justify your slander.
Your comments are becoming more stupid the longer you post.
I post a lot shorter than you do and Lanka is still a fraud. In Germany or anywhere else.
clint r…”The Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) seems to cause a lot of confusion. Maybe a simple analogy will help.
Four wheels cannot go up a hill by themselves.”
***
I might add, that your wheel analogy is a general rule for all energy, not just heat as per the 2nd law.
No body can be moved by it’s own means from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy. With heat, the lower state is the cooler state. With mechanical energy, the lower state for a boulder would be the base of a cliff. For water, it would be the base of a hill.
For electrical current, the lower state would be the positive terminal of a power supply. In a power supply or battery, there is an accumulation of negative charges at the negative terminal and it becomes the high potential region. Negative charges cannot move from the positive terminal, by their own means, to the negative terminal.
I am sure this applies to all forms of energy.
Unfortunately for Gordon’s general rules and Clint R’s simple analogy, a body by it’s own means can move from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy in full compliance with 1LOT and 2LOT.
You reference LOT routinely yet you have no understanding. How does a microwave heat food?
B4,
How does heat transfer in a steam generator?
B4,
How does all that heat energy get from the Sun to the Earth through all that empty space?
stephen, there is no heat* in a steam generator nor any other object, in reality there is the total KE of the constituent particles in the object which KE can transfer by the usual 3 means: convective, conductive, and radiative when transformed into EMR.
*Just like there is no cold in water ice.
5:25pm: the total KE of the sun’s constituent particles reduces being transformed and emitted as EMR to travel thru space.
4:56 pm: the mw magnetron generates EMR which travels thru space & is absorbed by the constituent particles of the food raising a measure of their total KE in such food.
ball4…”stephen, there is no heat* in a steam generator nor any other object, in reality there is the total KE of the constituent particles in the object which KE can transfer by the usual 3 means: convective, conductive, and radiative when transformed into EMR”.
***
Still being obtuse, are we? KE is a generic name for any energy in motion. In this case, the energy in motion is heat and heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms.
There is no such phenomenon as internal energy or kinetic energy, per se. They are merely names to describe the energy in a body or energy in motion. You must name that energy before internal energy or KE makes any sense.
I just named it for you, the KE is heat.
“the energy in motion is heat”
No Gordon, a baseball pitcher throws heat (energy in motion) but in thermodynamics heat is a measure of the total KE of the baseball’s constituent particles. The temperature of the baseball is the average KE of its particles at the measurement location.
The thermodynamic definition of “heat” requires two things — 1) movement of energy, AND 2) from “hot” to “cold”.
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is “internal energy.” The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Gordo,
They have to be obtuse. Straightforward thermodynamics or quantum mechanics won’t work for them. Propaganda used to change the laws of nature is how they advance their agenda.
Proper physics does seem like propaganda to stephen & those who avoid learning the subject matter from a reliable text book and also doing the lab work.
ball4…”a body by its own means can move from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy”
***
Example???
Set the PE zero datum height on a straight, level road with a hill ahead on a calm day; a Chevrolet Blazer coasting at 50mph on that level surface in N slowing down due to friction on the straight road starts up the hill. The original KE is transformed into frictional heating and increasing PE on the hill. When the speedometer reads zero, all the original KE has been transformed into frictional heating, air drag and PE (mgh).
The Chevrolet Blazer moved by its own means from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy.
The Blazer required energy to get to 50 mph.
The Blazer could be stationary with the hill going at 50 mph. All motion is relative as Newton observed.
Sure Clint 9:04am, unless the road was given the energy as RLH points out.
The example still debunks Gordon’s silly physics since it shows: “a body by its own means can move from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy.”
Gordon would do better stating the 1LOT and 2LOT as in a reliable text book but Gordon doesn’t do text books similar to Clint R.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Earlier, RLH wrote –
“So if a mirror/car reflects light/radar, does it impart a measure of its own motion on the reflection? Or do radar guns not work?”
His attempted zinger is a damp squib.
The speed of light is invariant. Your frame of reference makes no difference whatsoever.
Anybody thinking about light, and its interaction with matter, can throw intuition and common sense out the window. For example, special relativity seems to make no sense at all, but experiments show that its theoretical predictions accord with observed reality.
As does quantum electrodynamics.
No GHE. Slowed cooling from better insulation is not heating.
So using your argument radar guns do not work. Doppler regardless.
RLH,
The fact that they do work just makes you look like an ignorant sarcastic idiot.
Presumably, you are hoping that idiotic sarcasm will make people overlook the fact that you can’t actually produce any facts to contradict what I said.
Don’t be such a moron, unless you prefer to be that way. If you prefer to be a moron, don’t blame me if people laugh at your antics.
rlh…”So if a mirror/car reflects light/radar, does it impart a measure of its own motion on the reflection? Or do radar guns not work?”
***
Radar detectors using Doppler due measure the addition/subtraction of a vehicles speed to detect the speed of the car. Doppler is even used to detect whether a star is moving away from us or toward us. However, the techniques are different.
A distant star emitting light of a known wavelength will have a shift in its wavelength/frequency toward the red end of the spectrum (red shift) or toward the blue end (blue-shift) of the spectrum, depending on whether the star is moving toward us or away from us.
This creates a conundrum. The speed of light is supposed to be constant and should not be affected by the speed of a star. Of course, we are not bouncing a radar signal off the star and comparing the transmitted frequency with the frequency received.
The relationship between the speed of light, c, its frequency, f and it wavelength, lambda is…
c = f.lambda.
If c is to remain constant, the frequency and wavelength must vary. However, the frequency and wavelength is set by the electrons on the emitting body. So, how do we get this Doppler shift, which is one of the bases for the Big Bang theory?
The only way that can happen is if the star’s velocity is affecting the light waves.
Swenson: GR: You are both idiots.
Isn’t Swenson, Clint R, Gordon Robertson and DREMT – the same person? I honestly have trouble telling them apart.
cot,
Gordo is in Vancouver, Kiddo is in Suffolk, Mike Flynn in Australia perhaps around Brisbane, and Pup is in North America somewhere in the West. Either they’re different people, or they have lots of Air Miles to spend.
Only Gordo does not wear a sock.
>>Slowed cooling from better insulation is not heating.
Whether the ‘Slowed cooling from better insulation is not heating; is not a question of science, but rather entirely the question of terminology. But, what it is, it is the GreenHouseEffect.
If the GHE were only about insulation, there wouldn’t be a violation of physics. But the bogus concept involves INCREASING Earth temperatures.
@clint r
and what does insulation do?? It increases temperature of one thing with respect to the other! in this case, of the earth surface with respect to the cold outer space
Earth’s atmosphere “modulates” Earth temperatures. Too cold, it emits less to space, and albedo decreases. Too hot, it emits more to space, and albedo increases. You can see the difference by comparing to Moon, which receives the same average solar as Earth. Earth’s temperatures do not get nearly as cold or hot as Moon.
It’s more complicated than that, but that much will start your learning. If you have the capacity to learn….
> Earth’s atmosphere “modulates”
Is that how Sky Dragon Cranks explain their Insulation Effect, Pup?
@clint r
modulates? thats a bs term. The earth atmosphere *moderates* the temperatures, by (1) adding extra heat capacity to the surface thus decreasing the amplitude of the diurnal swings of the temperature, and (2) moving heat around the globe fairly efficiently, thus decreasing the spatial swings if the temperature. but it still needs GHE to be able to do that efficiently.
@willard
that’s what they use to call GHE without actually mentioning it ^-^
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, E Swanson wrote –
“pups, Radiation shields also work with high emissivity surfaces, though not as efficiently in terms of the warming temperature above that for an unshielded, heated body. That’s the Green Plate Effect, in the event you’ve forgotten.”
There is no Green Plate Effect which causes the temperature of a body without an internal heat source to rise.
There is no Greenhouse Effect which causes the temperature of a body without an internal heat source to rise.
Insulators have no heating effect. In fact, Stevenson screens are specifically designed to keep thermometers cool by insulating them from sunlight or other direct radiation.
Climate crackpots just refuse to accept the reality that thermometers show higher temperatures when exposed to higher amounts of anthropogenic heat. No magic needed.
Earth has an extra companion, a Trojan asteroid that will hang around for 4,000 years
By Chelsea Gohd published 3 days ago
This is the second Earth Trojan asteroid ever spotted and the largest of its kind ever seen.
https://www.space.com/earth-extra-moon-trojan-asteroid-2020-xl5-discovery
“”SOAR’s data allowed us to make a first photometric analysis of the object, revealing that 2020 XL5 is likely a C-type asteroid,” Santana-Ros said in the same statement. The study also revealed that this object is much larger than the first Earth Trojan asteroid found. 2020 XL5 measures about 0.73 miles (1.2 kilometers) across, almost three times longer than 2010 TK7 which stretches just about 0.25 miles (0.4 km) wide.
The team also found that 2020 XL5 won’t be an Earth Trojan asteroid forever. While it will stay in its current position for about 4,000 years, it will eventually escape its gravity-bound location, according to the statement.”
There is suppose to a dumb movie called, Moonfall and about the Moon falling on Earth, causing all kinds of disasters. Well you could call this Earth Trojan {Earth/Sun L-4} a Earth moon and unlike our Moon this rock could fall on Earth. But no says it. But it’s 1 km diameter rock, we spend decade or more looking for all 1 km diameters rocks that could hit Earth, and this sitting on our shoulder all that time. But they it’s easier to get to than our Moon or if hit earth, it hit earth at slowest velocity that space rock could hit earth. And it would kind of be like dumbass movie, Moonfall, Moon hitting Earth, weeks of seeing it approaching Earth. Or very unlike typical impactors we could worry about. And something stupid as sending the Shuttle to it, is not so crazy if you confuse Starship with the Shuttle or SLS with the Shuttle.
ken…”Canada 34378/38 million = 905
Vancouver Island 162/ 860k = 188
Global 5712489/7.8 billion = 732″
***
Going with your figures, 34378/38,000,000 = 9.05 x 10^-4
From 10^-4, the 4 tells you to move the decimal on 9.05 four times to the left.
So you have 0.000905 x 100% = 0.09%.
162/860.000 = 1.88 x 10^-4 = 0.00019 = 0.02%
5712489/7,800,000.000 = 7.32 x 10^-4 = 0.000732 = 0.073%
Whereas it’s sad that all those people have died, the number of deaths per population is a tiny fraction of 1%, measurable in the one-hundredths of 1%. This problem is endemic and by no means pandemic.
Even at that, it is beginning to come to light that not nearly all of those people died from pneumonia related to covid.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-reading-military-tells-ottawa-to-find-someone-else-to-evict-the-truckers/wcm/adf671fb-758d-4958-a1a7-c8ab4ddb8f8d/amp/
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-09-27-covid-19-pandemic-has-caused-biggest-decrease-life-expectancy-world-war-ii
“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the biggest decrease in life expectancy since World War II”
As the cult’s meltdown continues, we find Ball4 wallowing in complete perversion of reality:
“Ice cubes can boil water (read and understand Dr. Spencer’s experiment on the real atm.) and four wheels on a car can go up a hill by themselves. Clint R and DREMT just aren’t accomplished in science enough to know how just like they cannot understand the measured earthen GHE, Te = 255K, & lunar rotation.”
And, as anticipated, not ONE of the braindead cult idiots objects to anything Ball4 spews. In fact, several even fervently support it.
Their meltdown started with this slow La Niña, then got worse when their ignorance of basic physics was revealed, including the JWST engineering that debunks most of their false religion, and now continues with January UAH Global anomaly of 0.03C!
It never a good time to be a braindead cult idiot. They have NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
The problem is you don’t understand the physics that ball4 is talking about. So instead of calling him braindead why don’t you go read up on the science and when you understand what ball4 is talking about you can come back and tell us why he is wrong (if you still think he is wrong).
Ken, you can NOT boil water with ice cubes. Supporting Ball4’s nonsense makes you a braindead cult idiot.
>> you can NOT boil water with ice cubes.
Actually, you can. In fact it is easy enough that the experiment may be amenable to be conducted at home.
How yu do it? Basically you take a heating element and stick it inside the ice cube, and stick the ice cube inside the freezer. If you match the ehating capacity of the boiler, the cooling capacity f the freezer and the size of the cube, you may reach the steady state where water would be boiling inside the cube while the cube on average would not melt. If you carefully match all the relevant powers and conductivities, it can be theoretically fathomed that adding more cubes would make the water inside the central cube to boil while removing them would cool it down.
The system should be refined of course, it is just a fleeting first thought, but the principle is interesting.
“Basically you take a heating element…”
It seems the heating element is doing the heating.
@gbaike
exactly! That’s how GHE works. Noone, including the most vehement warmista of those who understand how physics works, would ever claim that the GHE somehow warms the climate on its own.
In this setup, the heating element corresponds to the heating power of the sun, the ice cube to the GHE aka the insulating effect of the atmosphere, and the cold walls of the freezer t the cold outer space.
@gbaikie
it is only (1)the people who don’t understand how the GHE works or (2)the people like clint-r, swenson and such who (pretend to?) refuse to understand it, ever claimed that the ice cube aka the atmosphere would boil the water/heat the surface ‘on their own. The ice cube is always part of the setup with a heater and a cooler. It is basically a deeply strawman argument to claim what the aforementioned usernames claim.
As for why they claim so.. the (1) type of people are often mislead by the inferior didactic quality of the ‘trenberth diagram’, which while physically correct is highly confusing to people who don’t already have an understanding the physics involved. As for the type (2) people, I do believe that they are either simply trolls or the warmist crisis actors hired (or volunteered) to portray the insane deniers and thus paint all other ‘climate skeptics’ by association.
coturnix,
Don’t be a moron. Your heating element is melting the ice. Have your heating element at 270 K, and see how you go.
You wrote “Thats how GHE works.”
In your fantasy, of course. You can’t even describe this mythical “Greenhouse Effect”, can you?
Come on, give it a try. If you wind up looking like an idiot, don’t blame me. It will be all your own work.
Dimwit.
“In this setup, the heating element corresponds to the heating power of the sun, the ice cube to the GHE aka the insulating effect of the atmosphere, and the cold walls of the freezer t the cold outer space.”
In your icehouse global climate the insulation of polar sea ice, is what stops us from being snowball global climate, though Ocean geothermal heat is also another factor preventing this.
@sweneson
is the sun at 270K? Not, the sun is at approx 6000K, that is 5730K hotter than the 270K. The kind of temperature that is even hard to achieve in out earthly setup unless one uses electricity – the source of very pure thermodynamically free energy.
—coturnix says:
February 5, 2022 at 3:04 AM
@gbaikie
it is only (1)the people who don’t understand how the GHE works or (2)the people like clint-r, swenson and such who (pretend to?) refuse to understand it, ever claimed that the ice cube aka the atmosphere would boil the water/heat the surface ‘on their own. The ice cube is always part of the setup with a heater and a cooler. It is basically a deeply strawman argument to claim what the aforementioned usernames claim.—
Our atmosphere has never boiled water.
As outside observer, no one seems to understand how GHE works.
Most can’t even give fairly good guesses.
It seems a fair amount of people know we are in an Ice Age- as this is something taught in elementary schools. Or can say that
this brainwashing was enough for many to remember it.
But they probably weren’t taught in their schooling that our global climate is called an icehouse global climate.
I think there is more than 1 or 2. There is third which care much much about it, for instance. A fourth who don’t want to know anything about it. A large group of people who don’t want a government to spend much money trying to do something about global climate.
I would say the government is incapable and doesn’t even want to do anything about global climate. And probably the large number of people are mostly aware of this.
We have a politician who thinks islands float and can flip over.
And we certainly have zero politicians which has even vague clue about GHE. And probably none are even dimly aware that we are living in an Ice Age. So politicians can be fifth group, which mostly, only interested in remaining in power. And probably others.
–As for why they claim so.. the (1) type of people are often mislead by the inferior didactic quality of the ‘trenberth diagram’, which while physically correct is highly confusing to people who don’t already have an understanding the physics involved. As for the type (2) people, I do believe that they are either simply trolls or the warmist crisis actors hired (or volunteered) to portray the insane deniers and thus paint all other ‘climate skeptics’ by association.–
The ‘trenberth diagram’ might be counted as fairly close, but it’s obviously a simple cartoon of something quite complicated.
And a cartoon of tropics by itself might useful. Cartoon of ocean vs land might be useful. And etc.
coturnix claims ice cubes can boil water by using a heating element! The issue is ice cubes can NOT boil water by themselves.
The poor guy understands none of this. He’s just another kid on a keyboard.
What is the boiling point of water in a vacuum?
RLH,
What is the point of boiling water in a vacuum?
See below.
@clint r
>>>The issue is ice cubes can NOT boil water by themselves.<<<
That's not the issue, no 'warmist' even believes this nonsense. The only issue is that you think this is the issue. You keep misrepresenting what your 'opponents' say on and on, which makes you a liar
It seems you all are arguing about definition of surface.
Surface generally refers to solid and liquids. Example:
Does the atmosphere have a surface?
“The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. The atmosphere becomes thinner with increasing altitude, with no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space.”
So surface being land or ocean surface.
Surface air, means air near a surface [land surface, ocean surface]
Now a cloud has droplets and/or particles, which have surfaces.
Or if said a cloud surface, you would talking visible droplets and/or particles at outer boundary of a cloud.
One could have imaginary and/or arbitrary layers and boundary of such layers could be call surface. Or analogous to a “surface”.
And we have vague boundaries of troposphere, tropopause, and etc but they don’t really a surface, in physics definition of a surface which has do the boundary of liquid or a solid- though clouds are liquids and solids with countless small surfaces.
[And with gases there is interaction very small droplets and/or particles which is related to topic of climate.]
“you can NOT boil water with ice cubes.”
Well I can. So why not, Clint? Dr. Spencer already showed competent readers the 2LOT is not a barrier to doing so & proving the basic physics.
Do what Ken suggested and use basic physics to tell us exactly why not & what experiment you did to prove the basic physics thus disproving Dr. Spencer’s work. Do try not to have yet another Clint R meltdown or entertaining but no substance comment.
B,
You wrote –
“Well I can. So why not, Clint? Dr. Spencer already showed competent readers the 2LOT is not a barrier to doing so & proving the basic physics..
Nonsense. Why not?
Because it’s physically impossible. The contents of your fantasy are not reality. Nobody has ever boiled water using the energy from ice cubes.
You are deranged.
Try putting water at any temperature into a vacuum.
Ken, RLH, and the rest of the braindead cult idiots, dont understand any o