Home/Blog(Note: I apologize for not posting much in the last several months, as I have been dealing with family health issues. Hopefully, things will gradually be returning to normal soon. I also want to thank those who have stepped up and contributed to keeping this website going since Google has demonetized it…thank you!)
As I continue to see all of the crazy proclamations of how human-caused climate change is disrupting lives around the world (e.g., the Feb. 28 release of the IPCC report from Working Group 2, [Pielke Jr. analysis here]), I can’t help but return to the main reason why human causation for recent warming has not been convincingly established. I have discussed this before, but it is worth repeating.
As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused (and this says nothing about whether the level of human-caused warming is in any way alarming).
But here’s why human causation is mostly a statement of faith…
ALL temperature change in any system is due to an imbalance between the rates of energy gain and energy lost. In the case of the climate system, it is believed the Earth each year absorbs a global average of about 240 Watts per sq. meter of solar energy, and emits about the same amount of infrared energy back to outer space.
If we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
One watt per sq. meter.
That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.
Global energy balance diagrams you have seen have the numbers massaged based upon the assumption all of the imbalance is due to humans.
I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter…compared to the ocean warming-based imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter.
What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural…and we would never know it.
But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.
Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.
I think the media play a big part. Most of the journalists talking about “the Science” and “the scientists” have no clue about any scientific principles. It has become very popular to blame any kind of unusual weather on human caused climate change.
“But the Press” is indeed connected:
https://climateball.net/but-the-press/
Not sure how it’s connected to “But Science,” however:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Pointers would be appreciated.
But: but Willard
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-50) 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/
The so called ournalists rarely write or talk about science.
They are not really journalists when they just repeat government press releases, like trained parrots and, censor opposing data, opinions and the sorry track record of climate predictions in the past 40+ years.
Hack writers (“journalists”) do quote scientists, especially government bureaucata scientists, but just because someone has a science degree does not mean everything they do and say is science.
Arbitrary attribution of bad weather on climate change is not science.
Always wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis is not science.
Presenting data that have been arbitrarily “adjusted” is not science.
For one example:
The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, originally reported in 1974 as close to -0.5 degrees C., has since been “adjusted” away to no global cooling at all. That arbitrary “adjustment” was obviously done to better support the rising CO2 always causes global warming narrative. Arbitrary “adjustments” for political reasons are not science.
Well said.
Still wrong:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Willard the Dullard is wrong as usual — completely detached from reality.
The biggest “adjustment”, by far, was deleting the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, reported in 1975 as almost -0.5 degrees C. That eliminated an inconvenient period when more CPO2 did not cause global warming.
Most other “adjustments” are too cool the past, increasing the reporting warming rate. In the US the 1930s were “cooled” so that 1998 became the hottest year on record.
The biggest “adjustments” of all are the wild guessed numbers, conveniently called “infilling” which had to account for a majority of surface grid temperatures prior to 1900. Because there were so few land weather stations outside of the US, Europe and eastern Australia. The ocean coverage was even worse, with haphazard measurements everywhere, and few measurements outside of Northern hemisphere shipping lanes.
There is still too much infilling, far more than needed for uAH compilations for the area over both poles.
The bottom line is only a fool would trust surface temperature compilations. An intelligent person may trust UAH compilations, mainly because the people in charge have a reputation for trying to be accurate and honest. They do not start with a prediction of climate doom and then fit the data to support their prediction. which is exactly what smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists” do/ Thy even program their computers to make scary climate predictions. Which is exactly what they are paid to do by governments.
AS usual, WILLARD THE DULLARD has no idea what he is talking about, or how the world works!
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Here are lots of charts showing the difference between raw temperature data and what is “sold” to the public !
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/raw-temperature-data-versus-adjusted.html
Nice fabrications, RG.
Rare to see GIF artists among cranks!
It is stupid to try to get ‘science’ from denialist blogs with an agenda that isnt science.
Nobody is peer reviewing it. Nobody is checking it for accuracy or completeness.
Junk science.
“The biggest adjustment, by far, was deleting the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, reported in 1975 as almost -0.5 degrees C.”
Richard, when one day you provide a source for this claim, we will discover that the data was meagre, barely covering the NH, and not a global representation at all.
There were no global temperature data sets until the 1980s.
So you’re already wrong with the claim of ‘global’. But you never provide a source for this (Tony Heller is my best bet), no doubt aware that it would quickly be debunked.
“Here are lots of charts showing the difference between raw temperature data”
The US has a strong time of observation bias, which has to be corrected for. Anthony Watts discovered he had to do it when he published his paper on US temps (Fall et al 2011).
Anthony Watts knows the correction is needed, but more ignorant skeptics don’t.
@Willard
Aren’t you bored of trotting out the same old catastrophic predictions for the last 40 years?
I have lost count of the number of predicted ‘imminent’ disasters over the years, which have all failed to materialise. Meanwhile, crop production continues to rise and extreme poverty fall.
Sea’s haven’t engulfed cities and ‘extreme’ weather is no worse now that it ever was.
We live in a unique time in Earth’s history. The world has never been as cold, with coincidentally as low levels of atmospheric CO2, without being in a full blown ice age. But warming is a bad thing.
All this is evidence of a cult, a belief system operated by soothsayers that simply ignores its own litany of historic failure in favour of the next catastrophe.
You’re begging an interesting question, HotScot, but my comment was more about “But Adjustment” than “But CAGW” and “But Predictions”:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Nice try, tho.
Thanks
Complements are so rare online that I first wonder if they are satire. I should have mentioned I live in Michigan and love global warming. Want it to continue. So I may be biased.
I also don’t make climate predictions and don’t listen to climate predictions. Well, I did make one climate prediction back in 1997, and it proved to be the most accurate climate prediction in the history of climate predictions. I deserved a Nobel Prize, or at least a Nobel Prize participation trophy. Without further ado:
1997: Bingham Farms, Michigan:
“The Climate will get warmer,
unless it gets colder”
Now if I can only learn to type without so many typos, I will die a happy man.
I have a climate science and energy blog where I share the best articles, by various authors, that I find online every day. My blog has had over 294,000 page views. Hopefully the articles have convinced some people the “coming climate crisis” is nothing more than a fig newton of over active leftist imaginations!
Of course I strongly prefer the UAH temperature compilation — Mr. Spencer and Mr. Christy are climate scientist heroes in my book — they are the check and balance for the surface temperature measurements, arbitrary “adjustments” and impossible to verify infilling.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
My compliment was intended. We share similar if not the exact same views.
@Willard
Your link is summed up beautifully by a single example, thank you:
“Ehrlich. Climate predictions bring to mind unenlightened futurists as Ehrlich—
☞ Not sure how your analogy works exactly. The possibility to be wrong is the hallmark of the empirical sciences.”
Empirical science cannot possibly be wrong 100% of the time without discrediting science as a whole, which climate science has undoubtedly achieved.
As for Zeke – Produce enough climate models and one of them is, eventually, bound to be right.
Like enough monkeys with typewriter’s eventually reproducing the entire works of Shakespeare.
“That arbitrary ‘adjustment’ was obviously done… ”
More conspiracy theories presented as facts, courtesy RG.
There is no other logical reason for the nearly -0.6 degree C. peak to trough decline of the global average temperature originally reported by NCAR in 1975 for the years from approximately 1940 to 1974, that has been “disappeared”.
Having significant global cooling while CO2 was increasing did not fit the preferred CO2 causes warming narrative. The original excuse to explain that — air pollution aerosols, was so stupid that it fell apart faster than a cheap suitcase. I will explain why if you are interested.
So the next step was to make that global cooling disappear. And the smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists gradually did that.
I realize I should not use the words “logical” and “reason” when talking to you, but you can always look them up. In a prior comment here, I posted a link to lots of charts showing how “adjustments” to raw data consistently cause a steeper warming curve, miraculously change cooling into warming, or make an inconvenient cooling disappear.
Because I assume you have never taken a science course, I want you to know adjusted data are no longer data — they are personal opinions of what the would have been if measured correctly in the first place. And infilled wild guesses are not data to begin with.
I tried to explain this simply, knowing your “needs”, so even a 10 year old child could understand it. So go out to a playground and find a 10 year old child to explain it to you.
“There is no other logical reason for the nearly -0.6 degree C. peak to trough decline of the global average temperature originally reported by NCAR in 1975 for the years from approximately 1940 to 1974, that has been ‘disappeared’.
Our resident conspiracy theorist is reading the denialist blogosphere again.
As far as I can tell the NCAR -0.6 degrees was in degrees F, not C, and was only for the Northern Hemisphere. Its ‘disappearance’ has been highly exaggerated.
In any case, does he think our understanding of the global temperature record reached a peak of perfection in the mid 70s?
Along with men’s fashion? And our discovery of the healthiest diet?
Rock and roll? And muscle cars? Well, actually, those yes.
Nasty Nate, you are wrong again !
The NCAR temperature was in Centigrade degrees.
YOU ARE WRONG.
And NCAR reported global temperatures after 1920
YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN
Prior to 1920, the NCAR temperature was called “Northern Hemisphere Only”: because it was. That fact is lied about today.
There is a chart verifying what I have just claimed, among the many charts at the link below, which I had in a prior comment, that you conveniently ignored:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/raw-temperature-data-versus-adjusted.html
Our resident doofus — Nasty Nate — was wrong again.
His mental deficiencies are worse than we thought, to borrow a phrase from climate “scientists”. And his mother wears
army boots. Next time I write a comment, hire a ten year old child to explain it to you.
Oh. Then what Im seeing in this graph published in Newsweek, from NCAR, with degrees F, is wrong?
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
Stop getting ‘science’ from the denialist blogosphere.
And, btw, in YOUR source, in the 7th graph, we see the NCAR drop is 0.35 C, (not 0.6 C) in the Northern Hemisphere only!
0.6 F in C is 5/9*0.6 = 0.33 C.
Sorry RG. You got it wrong. Oh well.
And as you can clearly see, the current version of GISS still has a comparable drop in the NH from 1940-1970.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Click on Hemisphere graphs.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
You mean like the above?
The dingbat and chronic liar Nasty Nate proves what we have always known about horrible leftists like him:
They will lie to make their point and double down on the lies , never admitting a mistake, ever,
Anyone who takes the comments of Nast Nate seriously must have their heads examined. Hopefully, nothing will be found, just like the interior of Nasy Naye’s head.
In 1975 NCAR reported a peak to trough temperature decline of almost -0.6 degrees C. within the 1940 to 1975 period
That is a fact, no matter how many times horse’s ass Nasty Nate claims I am lying.
The current global average temperature compilations claim that large decline in the average temperature never happened.
Again, that is a fact, no natter how many times horse’s ass Nasty Nate claims I am lying.
Such a large “adjustment” is evidence of science fraud.
Having a large temperature decline as CO2 levels were rising, did not support the CO2 causes global warming narrative.
Once, again that is a fact — there is no other logical explanation for such a large “adjustment”.
And there is no other logical explanation for Nasty Nate to repeatedly lie and claim my comments are false.
I don’t come here to post false comments, like Nasty Nate, but I do strike back when my integrity, developed over my 68 years of life, is challenged by a climate alarmist buffoon trained parrot who lies to support his beloved fears — the imaginary coming global warming disaster — imagined since 1957, that never shows up.
Nasty Nate is so mentally challenged that after claiming NCAR never reported global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period, trying to rewrite history for his far left agenda,he falsely claimed the chart was in F. degrees when it was clearly labelled as C. degrees.
Then he claimed the numbers were Northern Hemisphere only, not global, when the chart clearly showed Northern Hemisphere Only applied ONLY to numbers in the early 1880s (dotted line on chart) and earlier.
Anyone familiar with climate science (not Nasty Nate, of course) would have known that Northern Hemisphere Only was never applied to averages in the 20th century — certainly not in the 1940 to 1975 period. But Nasty Nate did not know that. Or much else about climate science.
It is very easy to catch Nasty Nate lying to discredit an accurate comments, but he will never change his false claims.
Because truth is NOT a leftist value.
Apparently RG thinks quoting numbers and units correctly is Leftist!
He looked at the plot in F and saw 0.6 degree drop, and thought it was centigrade.
But it wasnt!
The very first chart on his own blog clearly shows a drop of 0.34C. Does anybody out there see 0.6C drop after 1940?
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/see-how-nasa-giss-disappeared-almost-06.html
What can RG do? Admit he made a simple numerical error??
No! Never! Double down, triple down, quintuple down.
Insult the messenger more loudly!
Keep denying an obvious numerical fact and lob more ad-hom grenades, that’ll distract everybody!
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
A link I provided in a prior comment showed the NCAR numbers on a chart. It clearly showed the peak to trough global cooling was almost -0.6 degrees C., and “Northern Hemisphere only” applied only to data presented before the early 1890s.
Global average temperature numbers for after 1940 were never described as Northern Hemisphere only, by anyone in climate science, not that you would know anything about climate science.
You are nasty, Nate, and a proven liar. Or just clueless, with Newsweek magazine as your climate change “bible”
However, you may have been confused because there were so many other charts on the link I previously provided to my climate science blog, which has had over 297,000 visits.
Based on your climate misinformation, you have never visited.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
So, knowing your obvious feeble mental abilities, slipping by the day, I will provide another link, with fewer charts to confuse you. I should say confuse you even more — we already know you are chronically confused about the subject of climate science.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/see-how-nasa-giss-disappeared-almost-06.html
By having only subject at that link, with the same chart, from four different sources (chart from Newsweek was presented in F. degrees, showing almost -1.1 degrees F. global cooling, unlike the other three charts in showing almost 0.6 degrees C.
Perhaps you read the Newsweek chart incorrectly?
I know the use of two different temperature scales can be confusing, especially for someone with your “special needs”CA
With the new link showing only the same NACR chart, from four different sources, hopefully you will not get so confused, leading to your usual incoherent and insulting word salad of climate lies.
I would NEVER insult you! heh heh
That chart at the link above is so simple that a 12 year old child would understand it. So, go out and find a 12 year-old child to explain it to you.
You were previously provided a link to many charts showing the difference between raw temperature numbers and very different numbers presented to the general public. Sometimes the adjusted numbers are significantly re-adjusted, as in the 1970 to 1975 period.
You deliberately ignored the link, and lied repeatedly in your bloviating reply comments, as usual.
Spouting climate misinformation and lying are your only obvious skills, although perhaps you have other skills, such as the ability to do tricks with a yo-yo.
Lying is your primary skill, other than being a trained parrot of climate alarmism.
Use of Newsweek as a source of climate science is hilarious.
Newsweek is infamous for publishing the coming global cooling scaremongering in 1975, with no context.
Newsweek made mo mention that a large majority of scientists were predicting global warming in their science papers, not global cooling, and often predicting a global warming crisis in the future.
To make Newsweek look like a fool, Mother Nature began a global warming trend that year — 1975 — which continued through 2020, and may still be in progress.
“By having only subject at that link, with the same chart, from four different sources (chart from Newsweek was presented in F. degrees, showing almost -1.1 degrees F. global cooling, unlike the other three charts in showing almost 0.6 degrees C.”
There is something seriously wrong with your eyes RG. Or your ability to do a simple arithmetic!
None of the charts you are now showing have 0.6 C cooling from 1940- 1970.
The first three clearly show an identical chart with a drop from 0.47 C to 0.13 C from 1942 to 1970.
A drop of 0.34 C!
The Newsweek article is also shown and it has a 0.6 numerical drop, but it is clearly labeled as degrees Fahrenheit!
Nasty Nate still does not get that I have been repeatedly talking about the the change from the peak to the trough temperature within the 1940 to 1975 time period.
NOT from 1940 to 1975.
The peak was actually in the early 1940s.
It is simpler to describe the period as 1940 to 1975,
rather than to list the specific month of the peak, and specific month of the trough, of the GLOBAL average temperature, in C. degrees, within that 1940 to 1975 period.
It is very obvious what I was talking about from just a quick glance at the simple chart.
You, however, chose to ignore the obvious, preferring to be a nitpicker. When I say “th obvious”, I mean obvious to a normal human being, which may not apply to a person like yourself with “special needs”.
You have dug a hole of misinformation and it is getting deeper and deeper, as you babble on, trying to defend your ineptitude. And your mother wears Army boots.
” the change from the peak to the trough temperature within the 1940 to 1975 time period.”
Sorry I see no such change of 0.6 C in any of your plots. You are still blind and confused, RG.
Ask a neutral party to take a look.
No matter how many childish ad-hom grenades you lob at me, it won’t change the fact that the peak and trough between 1940 and 1970 are separated by 0.34 C!
“The first three clearly show an identical chart with a drop from 0.47 C to 0.13 C from 1942 to 1970.”
And you can clearly see by my quote above that I was aware of the peak being in the early 1940s.
Lets face it, RG. You looked at the plot in F and saw 0.6 degree drop, and thought it was centigrade.
Now you cannot possibly admit the error was YOURS. Hence you need to double down, triple down, on and on.
Especially after loudly calling me everything but a child molester.
Greene
You are an incompetent, impolite and lying person.
Here is, for the sake of completeness, a comment posted by ‘Mouse’:
” Case in point:. Richard Greene, Nate was actually correct. In your link to elonion, the post with only three charts, the first two charts were indeed labeled as ‘Degrees Centigrade’, however in the Newsweek chart it was clearly labeled ‘Degrees Fahrenheit’ and the Newsweek chart is indeed the one showing the .6 degree drop while the two in Centigrade only show a .3 drop. Details matter, and either you weren’t paying attention to the details of the charts you posted or you chose to ignore them. “
@Bindidon says
So it’s only half a lie then?
Whereas lying about a 0.6C drop in temperatures is unacceptable, lying about 0.3C is just fine.
Whether by C or F it’s still a lie.
It is however, consistent with all the ridiculous fantasies and lies about disappearing Arctic se ice by 2013, 2016, or whatever the latest wild prediction is.
All these failed predictions fall into the collective memory hole of climate alarmists as they move, cult like, onto the next claim of disaster.
Just where are those sea level rises that were going to engulf cities, consistently predicted over decades.
I find some of the climate predictions to be rather interesting. For example, cooling of the upper atmosphere that leads to more frequent and more intense thunder storms may actually have a net cooling effect on the earth overall, or it could be a very minor effect. It seems like an open question, but it is one that will not be presented by the media that are looking to sensationalize the news. My concern is that predictions which are scientifically “possible” are presented as if they are certain to happen. My biggest complaint is the very tired line that climate change is already happening. Of course it is. The question is how to separate natural variation from human induced effects, and the dumb news anchors do not seem to understand that problem.
I was concerned about one item in your very intelligent comment.
You find climate predictions to be interesting. Predictions are interesting to most people. But this was the first thing you mentioned/
I prefer to ignore all predictions — for every subject — they are too often wrong.
Every prediction of environmental doom since the 1960s, for example, was wrong
Every prediction of climate doom since the 1960s was wrong.
Almost every shorter term climate prediction was wrong.
I believe progress in learning climate science starts with ignoring predictions, other than noting how inaccurate they have always been.
Always remember that real science requires data.
Predictions are for the future.
There are no data for the future.
Therefore predictions are just speculation.
Consistently correct predictions might be good science, or just lucky guessing. Whether they are science or lucky guessing would be a good subject for debate.
But we have never had consistently accurate climate predictions.
We have only had consistently inaccurate climate predictions, and wrong climate predictions are never science.
They are climate astrology.
When someone says, “Follow the science!”, what they are really saying is, “Follow only the scientists that I follow!”. With all of the politicized, and therefore controversial, issues of the day (for example climate change, covid mitigation, fat in our diet, carbs in our diet, salt in out diet, cholesterol in our blood, etc.) there are well credentialed scientists to be found on all sides of these issues. The question becomes, “Who do I trust?”.
Scientific work, and the studies that get published are funded by someone. All people and organizations have agendas. I’m not saying that all of science is corrupt but the profit motive must be factored in when considering what ‘experts’ you decide to trust. Scientists are people that want to advance their careers and organizations just as corporations want to further their own interests. You have to research and ask “Who is making this claim?”, “What is their agenda?” and, “Who funded this and what is their agenda?” Otherwise you are more likely be led around with incomplete, sometimes false, often biased information. This is the “follow the money” method.
Look no further than the pandemic and how everyone is claiming to follow the science. Yet look at the all the conflicting data and opinions. Who’s correct? Likely it’s the entity with noting to sell, no profit motive.
“Is someone gaining political power and/or control over our lives by advocating this?”, is another question that anyone not willing to be blindly manipulated should ask. However, even this question is just a less condensed form of “follow the money”. Opportunists are waiting for the gullible and uniformed every step of the way. Buyer beware!
Follow the science means follow the leftist government bureaucrats with science degrees who are paid to predict a coming climate crisis.
That’s all “climate change” means to leftists — predictions of a global warming crisis at some point in the future. Those prediction began in late 1950s science papers. They became very public in the 1980s, and hysterical a few years ago.
Predictions are not reality
Always wrong climate predictions are not science
Predictions can not be based on data — there are no data for the future.
They are based on unproven theories and speculation, with a 65 year track record of 100% wrong climate predictions.
Actually 100% wrong predictions of ALL environmental catastrophes, from climate to peak oil.
“Climate change is a house of cards, supported by the appeal to authority logical fallacy, and the natural leftist inclination to worship government “experts” (who are only experts in their own minds).
Actually, peak oil probably did happen for conventionally extracted crude oil. Fracking changed the game and made it possible to obtain shale oil without strip mining. That is why fracking has such strong opposition from the green folks.
Peak oil meant peak oil production.
Type of production not specified.
Has not happened.
The green dreamers would like peak oil to happen by making investments unprofitable or too risky. They are doing a good (bad) job of that. Fossil fuel (including coal) capital investments have significantly declined in the past 8 years.
But so many products are derived from petroleum, and economic growth in Asia, Africa and South American will increase oil demand … suggest peak oil production won’t happen in our lifetimes.
I did some research, and you are correct. Shale is considered tight oil, so the only real question was how to get it, not whether it existed. Fracking simply made it possible to obtain it more easily without doing environmental damage caused by other methods such as strip mining. The only current environmental concern is how to dispose of the used drilling mud, and that is mostly a matter of spending the money to do it safely.
Huhhh…??
Fracking for gas has been opposed because it has sometimes resulted in polluted drinking water and land.
That is completely false and again shows the ignorance with the subject matter. Like all of the “woke again” flock that worships the government all they have is the gospel they have been preached by government clergy.
And I suppose you’d like to explain why wind and solar power are so environmentally friendly.
Oh wait! They’re not! Solar and wind both require rare earth mining. Cadmium runoff? Graphene pollution? It turns out that only a small percent of these power plants require the bulldozing of massive stretches of forests as well.
Suppose you’re right (though I suspect you got this idea from the propaganda film Promised Land). Suppose that these companies never take ANY precautions, and suppose they aren’t able to clean up any messes. What do you think will happen to the economies of small towns that have no industry? What about the farmers that get foreclosed on because they were told that fracking is evil, and said no to money because they heard horror stories? Yeah. Year after year of subsidies, until the government paycheck runs out. Farmers get terrible deals for their work. Meanwhile, what the fracking industry offers is a major boost in independence. Should the technology be made safer? Yes. Is it as bad as is sold by the left? No.
Texas has oil and natural gas, but quite a bit of farms and ranches. The land does in fact bounce back provided the people involved in harvesting the natural gas are scrupulous. Meanwhile fracking is blamed for everything from water pollution to earthquakes. But these environment types won’t offer any real solutions. What? Coal? Coal blots out the sun. Oil? You wanna get caught in another fight with the Middle East? Nuclear? Chernobyl ring any bells? Solar and wind look clean until you know that they have sketchy upfront manufacturing pollution, and sketchy runoff pollution.
I forgot to mention the March 7
R. Hayes comment was excellent.
The only problem was those unusual symbols that slipped into the text — at least that ;s what I see on my old computer.
After a week of investigation, I have determined that they are secret alien commands from another planet. heh heh
Or maybe something else. I could be wrong.
What causes them to show up?
I’ve noticed that servers also significantly change comments while they are bring posted. My own comments, for example, when typed, are brilliant post-PhD level comments.
Then I submit the comment, and read it.
I am shocked to discover it has been completely revised into the rantings and ravings of a deranged child. And I can’t go back to edit what showed up. Perhaps also caused by those aliens?
Richard Greene
1997 Participation Trophy Winner
Rodney Dangerfield Comedy Academy
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Sofia
Is that $26,000 to $38,00 a month net, after deducting taxes, legal expenses, and your sending for hooker clothing?
Or your gross earnings?
And I would think some prior experience would be useful.
Sofia
Is that $26,000 to $38,00 a month net, after deducting taxes, legal expenses, and your sending for hooker clothing?
Or your gross earnings?
Hi
I found the NASA atmospheric transmission data in Appendices E&F of NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM # 103957, where it has been hidden since 1991.
It shows that no energy leaving the earth is in the 14to16 micron band, which is the only area where CO2 has effect.
Thus all the models are built on a false assumption and must be junked.
Also the war on coal and oil is shown to be without basis.
So, what is the real cause of global warming/climate change, if significant?
Bobhisey PhD
Uhh… there is something wrong with your ‘hidden’ source, then.
Can you show it to us?
Of course, “no energy leaving the earth is in the 14to16 micron band” because NASA therein reports from computer analysis on a 45-degree zenith angle the atm. transmittance is zero in that band thus the terrestrial IR band of interest radiance is all absorbed in the standard midtropical humid atm. looking up from the surface.
This is very close to true along a vertical (zenith) path there also.
Whew, Robert, the models don’t have to be junked after all.
Roy, I have been trying to send you an email for months. I am getting a permanent error each time.
Dr. Spencer,
I love you doc, but why do you throw these fascist imbeciles a bone like this that they will run with and vilify you with in the same breath. In a moment of weakness, years ago, you called these climate religionists Nazis and I suppose your colleagues had their shorts bunched up over that, but you were right and this junk “science” has become nothing more than a cult and a religion.
The only thing now is to see how much damage these clowns-of-science will be willing to do for their religion, their grant whoring and their hubris. I fear we are in for a rough ride which I probably will not live to see.
Good luck!
Roy,
There are some things that we do know – from ice cores, we know that the earth’s climate has altered abruptly in a matter of decades – two dozen times in the last 100,00 years. The idea that the earth’s climate is in a “long-term harmonious balance” is plain nuts.
I agree – and Ice Cores are a smoothed average of temperature, so true changes in temp are even more dramatic than ice core data would suggest.
Thanks Roy – great post and all the best for a speedy resolution of your health issues.
On a personal note, I left climate related science because I couldn’t see how we would ever get global agreement to drastic reductions in fossil fuel use. Even then I was a luke warmer, and that was the late 1990s.
Since then I am more convinced than ever that we as a species should have spent a lot more time thinking about governance and the rule of law at a global level, and far less on modelling global climate. We need resilience to global disasters of whatever cause and better mechanisms to work together on common agreed purposes (belief if you will!). If we can’t do that, we’re doomed to conflict and understanding climate and environmentalism becomes utterly irrelevant in the fight for survival.
Dixon,
I disagree with you completely and whole heartedly about global governance.
The best government is local. The farther you get from local the more authoritarian and abusive of the people government becomes.
Examples abound. If you need some, look at how the SWAMP treats those who disagree, better yet, Trudeau of the peaceful truckers.
Lewis, you may have misunderstood me. I didn’t specify a quantum – just more time on global governance, and a lot less time on modelling.
I actually agree that local government is vital too. I’m not sure that it’s the best – not least because in a crisis small and local has to link to bigger just to survive – that’s the basis of human civilizations since dot. I don’t subscribe to the no-government economic view of the world, it creates too much inequality, and inequality all too easily results in terror.
My point was not just aimed at Russia-Ukraine – those eyeing the colonisation of space will need some kind of justice system. There are also many examples of global earthly problems that need global cooperation, law and governance and in which local government by itself can have no relevance at all (fish stocks being one). I don’t care how those global systems work, but work they must, and be seen to work by all rational people, or we will end up being held to ransom by the nutters who will always have a ready supply of ruthless thugs ready to do their bidding and inflict misery and suffering on the unfortunate. That world works too, but having lived in countries where it’s practiced, it’s far less pleasant than western style democracy, which is still far from perfect.
But as for limiting over-government, I’m with you – government all so quickly can become lazy and self-serving – which is why it needs good governance.
Dixon,
At least you ended on a good note. However,
“I don’t care how those global systems work, but work they must, and be seen to work by all rational people, or we will end up being held to ransom by the nutters….”
We somewhat/largely already are. We need to care enough to promote freedom in our conversations and especially at the ballot box.
Get a copy of James L Payne’s “The Big Government We Love to Hate.”
“We should have spent a lot more time thinking about governance and the rule of law at a global level, and far less on modelling global climate.”
The two things are hardly mutually exclusive!
And done by different people.
To cease doing the science would be foolish.
Nate parades out of his favorite strawmen. . . .again!
Forgetting about climate modeling is hardly a call to cease doing science.
Modeling actually isn’t science. Modeling may selectively utilize science but in and of itself it as much real science as an entertaining film is real life. Modeling is half art, half science.
Climate modeling has as its most infamous ancestor. . . .Soviet Five Year Plans which did nothing but lead to disaster due to the corruption it fed.
Any expert modeler will tell you that models should not be believed too much until validated.
Here we have an entire cadre of corrupted officials and scientists who will lie to us about the validity of climate modeling. Almost all of whom currently have their current jobs dependent upon believing them. World wide expenditures on this nonsense is in the realm of three trillion of dollars. That buys a lot of lies.
If models make wrong predictions, they are not science.
Every climate model makes wrong predictions.
They are programmed to predict what the governments funding the model wants predicted — rapid dangerous global warming.
That’s what was predicted before there were models, and that’s what will be predicted if all the models are scrapped.
Wrong predictions are not science.
Sure, so if Hurricane models were poor at predicting the paths in the 1970s you would have said the models in the 1970s were ‘not science’
Then today, we have hurricane models based on the same principles predicting hurricane paths much better and are quite useful, so these you would call ‘science’?
Hmmm, interesting. How did we get from the 70s models to today’s? The models evolved and computers got better.
Short-sighted people like you would have defunded that ‘not science’ effort long ago.
Nate says:
Sure, so if Hurricane models were poor at predicting the paths in the 1970s you would have said the models in the 1970s were not science
Then today, we have hurricane models based on the same principles predicting hurricane paths much better and are quite useful, so these you would call science?
Hmmm, interesting. How did we get from the 70s models to todays? The models evolved and computers got better.
Short-sighted people like you would have defunded that not science effort long ago.
—————————
Its a poor analogy. You are effectively claiming it was work on the models that improved the prediction success rate. Where is your evidence. I would suggest it instead arose from greatly improved observation of weather phenomena combined with progress in both the affordability and computing power of the machines that run models.
I have a long history of working with large models with multiple variables. The early models of the early 80’s I worked with are fundamentally the same as the ones I work with today. What has improved is the quality of data being put into the models that has made them more successful. And in fact the same problem we had with those early models are identical to the problems with current climate models. . . .namely identifying the difference between natural and anthropogenic variable changes. If today we could not do any of that our models would continue to provide information of very limited value.
Dr. Syun Akasofu strongly pointed out this shortcoming well over a decade ago (2009). The sea level study provided by Bindidon has the same problem that is acknowledged by the author.
If you have wild uncontrolled naturally occurring influences in phenomena you are studying for which you have no explanation for why it still is a factor of variation on any scale it poses the risk of failure for the entire modeling enterprise. Sure you can still pump piles of money into the modeling exercise but the results are like when an offroad racing vehicle bogs down in the mud or sand. . . .pushing on the accelerator merely bogs you down more, digs you deeper into the problem. Instead you need to get out and figure out what you need to do to increase traction.
the modeling enterprise is very much over funded. Its stealing money from approaches that have greater promise to solving the problem, if it is a problem.
that is especially true of climate models because of politics. Dr. Curry complains that after 43 years of pouring money into modeling. . . .no change has resulted.
That certainly does not mean that eventually models will be useful, they certainly will but pouring money into modeling isn’t moving the needle. And it wasn’t pouring money into hurricane models that moved the needle either.
“Its a poor analogy. You are effectively claiming it was work on the models that improved the prediction success rate. Where is your evidence. I would suggest it instead arose from greatly improved observation of weather phenomena combined with progress in both the affordability and computing power of the machines that run models.”
So developing the very effective hurricane models that we now have required no science?
Nate says:
So developing the very effective hurricane models that we now have required no science?
———————————
Stop being such a blockhead! I clearly said modeling is not science. Modeling is but a tool of the scientific enterprise that makes data processing more efficient. But people that don’t understand that tend to also use a computer like an inflatable doll of the other sex for sex that can be delivered more efficiently, like very cheap, doesn’t hardly bitch, and with very extremely little drama.
Looks like Nate is confusing two different things climate modeling vs hurricane path modeling one can be greatly infected with political biased belief and the other is more about better data and computing.
Thats correct. The hurricane success is primarily in the 2 week forecast window that is about the limit of validated weather/climate modeling. And even then the paths of hurricanes can vary by hundreds of miles because beyond a couple of days the chaotic nature of weather/climate is relentlessly unpredictable.
To me its not clear climate models can predict anything. They quite simply are not accurately predicting climate events like ENSO, haven’t even gotten it together enough to even recognize multi-decadal events that is heavily documented in the sciences of oceanography and we remain without the models that have any hope of solving climate questions until the models become full fledged hydrosphere models that begins to parse out course of the life of CO2 and water in our climate system.
Of course there is a reason for that and it doesn’t have anything to do with modeling skills or computing power.
“I clearly said modeling is not science.”
OK no science required then? No physics equations needed, no fluid dynamics, heat transfer calculations needed? No observational inputs. No testing theory against observation.
None of that qualifies as science in your view?
“Modeling is but a tool of the scientific enterprise that makes data processing more efficient.”
If youd said computers and algorithms are tools that make data processing more efficient, I could agree with that. Is that what you meant?
Modeling is not that. Modeling is figuring out what equations to use and what data to use, then programming them into the computer. Then testing against observations and making subsequent adjustments to the model.
That is science.
Nate says:
”I clearly said modeling is not science.”
OK no science required then? No physics equations needed, no fluid dynamics, heat transfer calculations needed? No observational inputs. No testing theory against observation.
None of that qualifies as science in your view?
—————————–
Obviously if you develop a model the equations of science are input into the model. But that isn’t a scientific enterprise its a computing enterprise. Pure science is about investigation and the only thing on your list that corresponds to investigation is ”testing theory against observation”.
But climate modeling doesn’t qualify as doing that. Now for 42 years climate modeling has shown a deviation from observation and nobody in the modeling world appears ready to recognize it. This is Dr. Curry’s primary complaint.
And of course we know the refusal to recognize it is politically motivated. Thus the entire enterprise has nothing whatsoever to do with science. And I am not blaming the modelers for this. The modelers have their marching orders.
“. But that isnt a scientific enterprise its a computing enterprise. ”
You impressively combine ignorance and arrogance.
LOL! Nate acknowledges defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science.
Go troll someone who still takes you seriously. Bill. Maybe try your dog.
LOL! Nate acknowledges defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science. #2
“Nate acknowledges defeat”
Yep. I acknowledge that I can’t fix your stupidity.
Go troll in traffic.
bill hunter says:
LOL! Nate triple downs on acknowledging defeat by saying absolutely nothing in defense of the notion that computer modeling is science.
What a waste. A whole bunch of self styled experts who can do nothing nor say anything beyond parroting political slogans.
They are mutually exclusive when both are funded from a limited budget supplied by taxpayers.
The climate debate has shown how acutely horrible a world run by scientists would be. Of course, any climate modeller is welcome to run for office…but strangely few seem keen to be held accountable for their decisions.
It always amuses me how often climate scientists stray into the realms of politics yet decry those outside climate science who make proclamations about climate. At least lawyers will listen to people who represent themselves!
And anyway – isn’t the science settled? Stupid to waste more money on a solved problem.
To get back on topic, for those who advocate ruinous abandon of fossil fuels in favour of unreliables, why is the temp this month so low? Surely natural variability cannot overcome the all-powerful CO2?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1196993
What the public really needs to understand is that private enterprise is heavily regulated and held to account for their actions that affect the public both for actual damages and for misrepresentation.
Academia and government have legal protections against liability and accountability for either. Its even becoming questionable as to whether we should even allow them to teach our kids.
And I say that while realizing there are a lot of good people involved in academia and government as well. Its more a matter of settling for ‘sort of good’ vs demanding excellence. Nate is just a proponent for ‘what is good for me’ so his opinions are about as irrelevant as they can be.
From ice cores we have a proxy for the past climate in Antarctica and Greenland.
All climate reconstructions are local approximations, not accurate real time measurements.
It is only an assumption that a local proxy represents a global average climate.
And the margin of error is only an approximation.
There is no reason to assume a local proxy in Antarctica provides an accurate global average for our planet.
In fact, looking at the past 50 years, the temperature records for Antarctica DO NOT REPRESENT the global average temperature — they show no warming, in spite of the fact that our planet has warmed in the past 50 years.
If the temperature in Antarctica in the past 50 years does not correlate with the global average temperature, how can anyone say the ice core proxy-derived temperatures for Antarctica correlate with the global average temperature in the past?
From ice cores we have a very rough estimate of the past temperature in Antarctica.
All climate reconstructions / proxies are local.
It is only an assumption that estimates from a local proxy would correlate with an accurate real time global average measurement, and not a very good assumption.
“from ice cores, we know that the earths climate has altered abruptly in a matter of decades”
From a global perspective, or from one ice core, representing local temperatures (ie, Greenland)?
I’ve seen a similar claim before, and it was from one ice core in Greenland, and not matched by cores in Antarctica.
Would it be too much trouble to get some specifics?
More than 7 billion humans generating heat as hard as they can, producing and using energy.
Why is anyone surprised that thermometers react to increased heat?
That’s what thermometers are designed to do.
Of course, burning hydrocarbons produces at a minimum, CO2 and H2O. If the concentration of these matches (more or less) the increases in temperature – there you go!
No, not there you go. There you go isn’t science.
spa,
Observation – thermometer shows temperature increase.
Observation – burning hydrocarbons creates high temperature heat.
Observation – work of all types is eventually converted to heat of various temperatures.
Observation – population has increased markedly over the last century.
Observation – per capita energy consumption has increased markedly over the last century.
Speculation – thermometers are reacting to increased heat from energy production and use.
Experimental support – thermometers are designed to respond to temperature. Energy production and use creates additional heat at temperatures above the natural environment, particularly noticeable in the absence of sunlight.
On the other hand, you believe thermometers show increased temperatures because . . . ?
Swen.
That’s one way to look at things.
spa,
What’s another way that fits with the laws of physics?
And doesn’t involve magic at one step or other, of course.
You’ll need to tell me what law you’re talking about. Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws of Gravity? How about Conservation of Mass and Energy? How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
spa,
You wrote –
“Youll need to tell me what law youre talking about. Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws of Gravity? How about Conservation of Mass and Energy? How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
I said laws of physics – plural. All of them. Which ones do you you think contradict what I wrote? None? That would be right, I suppose.
What do mean by How does your Carbon Cycle conform to Conservation of Mass?
I havent mentioned a Carbon Cycle, so I dont understand your question. If you think anything I wrote contravenes any laws of physics, including the conservation laws, you are wrong. You cant do it, so why try to intimate that you can?
OK, I’ll make it a little simpler for you.
>Thermometer shows temperature increase.
>Burning hydrocarbons creates high temperatures.
>Work of all types is eventually converted to heat of all types.
So, what Law of Physics are you indicating and how does it show, There You Go!?
spa,
I responded to your silly gotcha before, when I wrote “I said laws of physics plural. All of them. Which ones do you you think contradict what I wrote? None? That would be right, I suppose.
If you really dont know the laws of physics (nobody knows all of them, fairly obviously), then why do you value my opinion so highly that you feel compelled to ask me for a list?
Hopefully, you do not dispute that thermometers are designed to respond to heat, or that energy production and use generates heat?
Once again, what laws of physics do you believe are being broken – or are you agreeing with what I wrote, but dont like, so you are just trying on a moronic diversion? Your attempt to ascribe a Carbon Cycle to me didnt work, did it? What next – claim that back radiation” can magically transfer energy from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, raising the temperature of the surface without the atmosphere changing its temperature one bit!
A miracle! The magical free energy generator – brought to you by the GHE!
Oh, so you agree that a colder object cannot spontaneously transfer energy to a warmer, then? It looks like the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation laws remain unbroken.
Luckily, you probably agree that the GHE concept is nonsensical. If you dont, you might like to provide the accepted definition of the Greenhouse Effect, so we examine the reproducible experimental support it claims to have.
Only joking – the GHE doesnt exist.
Carry on.
“Observation.., observation.. observation.., etc”
Swenson bizarrely thinks useful science is done by declaring and wildly waving hands around.
No numbers, measuring or calculating required to test his assertions!
Nate says:
”Observation.., observation.. observation.., etc”
No numbers, measuring or calculating required to test his assertions!
———————–
Nate gives accurate description of how ‘climate risk’ is estimated except that even observation isn’t used.
“Swenson bizarrely thinks useful science is done by declaring and wildly waving hands around”.
That’s EXACTLY how modern climate science is done — always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.
Accompanied by declaring a coming crisis with 105% confidence (95% is for losers) … and wildly waving hands around.
But you forgot the 2022 climate chant:
“It’s worse than worse than we thought”
(“Worse then we thought” was the 2021 chant)
“That’s EXACTLY how modern climate science is done — always wrong wild guesses of the future climate.”
Really? You think they just declare things without showing any numbers, math, or calculations, as Swenson just demonstrated?
Guessing does not generally get you a science publication.
Come on Nate thats what they get paid for. . . .matching numbers and mathematics to the rant.
You provided us a prime example of estimating error bars for sealevel rise at 1,320 times the accuracy of the measuring system.
Its not a matter of using the wrong math, its a matter of having enough artistic skills to realize your data isn’t representative of the what you wish to portray.
Determinations about suitability of data entails more art than science and most desk bound academics are artless.
Then you have the more artfully trained scientists like Lonnie Thompson who was knowledgeable enough to know when to stop making artless predictions on the demise of Qori Kalis.
“You provided us a prime example of estimating error bars for sealevel rise at 1,320 times the accuracy of the measuring system.”
I explained the concept it at a 5th grade level to you, Bill. Obviously that was aiming too high.
Nate says:
I explained the concept it at a 5th grade level to you, Bill. Obviously that was aiming too high.
——————————–
Now you are just lying.
But thanks to Bindidon the debate is over.
All you need to do is read the conclusions and you will find that the scientists have 1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments and 2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.
But what does Nate do? What he always does! He parades it out as settled science. Morons get it better than Nate does.
“Its not a matter of using the wrong math,”
Yep its a matter of it not agreeing with Bill’s feelings about what the answer should be. Thus, as usual, the math must be rejected.
“But thanks to Bindidon the debate is over.”
Yep, his source is absolutely clear that Bill is full of sh*t.
“Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.350.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.120.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is IN AGREEMENT (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online”
Nate this is the second occurrence of your most recent specific claim in this comment section. I responded to this here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200753
“All you need to do is read the conclusions and you will find that the scientists have 1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments and 2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
And BTW I see NOTHING in the paper’s conclusions that resembles #1 or #2.
Yet more very strange fantasy from Bill.
As long as you don’t want to see it Nate, I think you will continue not seeing it.
Perfect opportunity for you to have provided a quote to back up your claims.
But no, you didnt. You cannot.
Thus, your claims are completely fictional, made-up, imagined.
Readers take note.
Nate its basically the entire conclusion. But perhaps the most telling comment is:
”Here we only considered the uncertainty in the GMSL due to the satellite altimeter instrument. In a future study, it would be interesting to consider the partitioning of the GMSL into the forced response to anthropogenic forcing and the natural response to natural forcing and to the internal variability. Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models) and considering it to be an additional residual time-correlated error would allow us to calculate the GMSL trend and acceleration representing the long-term evolution of GMSL in relation to anthropogenic climate change.”
If the scientists feel they aren’t touching on the topic of anthropogenic climate change. . . .what is the purpose of the study? Obviously, since they are not, one cannot project anything from the study.
“Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models)”
Oh you guys would love that! Not.
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
“1) low confidence in the results due to accuracy issues of the instruments”
Nothing whatsoever in there about that
“2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
Is it their goal in this paper?
“The objective of this paper is to estimate the error variancecovariance matrix of the GMSL (on a 10 d basis) from satellite altimetry measurements. This error variancecovariance matrix provides a comprehensive description of the uncertainties in the GMSL to users. It covers all timescales that are included in the 25-year long satellite altimetry record: from 10 d (the time resolution of the GMSL time series) to multidecadal timescales. It also enables us to estimate the uncertainty in any metric derived from GMSL measurements such as trend, acceleration or other moments of higher order in a consistent way.”
No.
Nate says:
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
—————————
I doubt you have any modeling experience. Increased accuracy of measurement is probably the number one factor in identifying the source of variance. With perfect accuracy one could actually detect acceleration and deceleration of sea level rise concert with changes in individual variables. Without that you are left with efforts to smooth out variations which results in essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
=============
=============
=============
=============
Nate says:
”2) they were able to achieve anything toward one of the goals of separating natural sea level rise from anthropogenic causes.”
Is it their goal in this paper?
———————-
Yes very much one of the purposes of their work.
”Estimating a realistic uncertainty in the GMSL record is of crucial importance for climate studies, such as assessing precisely the current rate and acceleration of sea level, analysing the closure of the sea-level budget, understanding the causes of sea-level rise, detecting and attributing the response of sea level to anthropogenic activity, or calculating the Earth’s energy imbalance.”
As a result in the conclusion they indicated a lack of precision toward a precise rate and acceleration; and specifically pointed out the need for more precision to begin to separate natural from anthropogenic change.
It might have helped with energy imbalance and some evidence other efforts to close the sea-level budget are not out of range. But what good does that serve if the problem isn’t largely or completely due to anthropogenic perturbation? Certainly it does fit in with typical academic curiosities like the sex life of a bumblebee.
“As a result in the conclusion they indicated a lack of precision toward a precise rate and acceleration; and specifically pointed out the need for more precision to begin to separate natural from anthropogenic change.”
Nope. Not at all! Quote that, liar.
Nate says:
”Estimating the natural GMSL variability (e.g. using models)”
Oh you guys would love that! Not.
—————————–
wrong! Quite to the contrary, I would love it if they could find some good modelers that could develop models and get their ability to predict validated.
============
============
============
============
Nate says:
In any case, nothing whatsover to do with the error in the measurement or the validity of the measurements.
———————
Hmmm are you just stupid and can’t understand what I was saying when I said there was no error in their work and that all I was questioning was the usefulness of what they did?
That comment was in the context of my criticism of your use of the a single graph that arose out of the study to refute Swenson and Denny.
Perhaps if that straightens out your understanding perhaps you could defend the graphic in that context. Maybe?
If the data in the study was perfect despite your denial that would improve anything. . . .one in fact would be able to detect the change in sealevel as the sun crossed the continents every day, among much other stuff.
Observations indicate Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows.
No discernable signal in the noise.
Quite discernable.
A 1% change in global average temperature would be bad.
2% would be catastrophic.
We should try and stop before the first.
Your mileage will vary.
b,
A 500% increase in your mental acuity would be a start.
I suppose that would still leave you in the 50% of the population who are below average intelligence, by definition.
Maybe you could respond with some more obscenities to demonstrate how clever you are?
Human influences on the climate in cities, where lots of humans live, significantly affects their local climate.
All the cement, asphalt, brick buildings, heat escaping from buildings and automobiles, lack of trees, etc. cause significant warming compared with surrounding rural areas.
The climate im areas where there is lots of food production is very important too.
But the climate measured at the ocean surfaces mainly affects only those people on the decks of cruise ships !
There are many causes of climate change, both natural and man made. No one knows the percentage of change caused by any one of them. One might speculate that the warming since 1975 was faster than expected from natural causes alone, but that’s just a reasonable speculation. not a proven fact. It is expected that more greenhouse gases will reduce Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount. The amount is unknown.
You could assume a worst case — all warming since 1975 was caused ONLY by CO2, and extrapolate that trend. That worst case guess leads me to the conclusion that another 47 years of similar warming would be just as harmless as the past 47 years of warming since 1975 — and that’s a WORST CASE ESTIMATE.
Observation – burning hydrocarbons creates high temperature heat.
…
Speculation – thermometers are reacting to increased heat from energy production and use.
Why not do some calculations, rather than speculations?
Quick and dirty using numbers I know/can find easily …
* the total annual US petroleum use is about 300 “Quads” or about 30 x 1e18 J = 3e19 J
* There are 3e7 sec per year, so that is 3e19/3e7 = 1e12 W
* The surface area of the US is about 1e7 km^2 or 1e13 m^2.
* So petroleum is about 0.1 W/m^2.
Small, but not completely negligible. But that is the US only. The US has a high per capita energy use, so the world average is presumably much smaller. maybe 0.03 W/m^2. And 2/3 of the world is water, so that pushes the average down to the order of 0.01 W/m^2 of heating from the burning of petroleum (which I just confirmed as 0.014 W/m^2 using total petroleum and total surface area). We might triple that if we add in natural gas and coal, so back up to 0.03 W/m^2.
This could easily be off by a factor of 2 or even 5. But even 0.15 W/m^2 from the direct heat of fossil fuels would be ‘noise’ in the overall signal.
The unsubstantiated ‘speculation’ is disproven. Fossil fuels do not produce nearly enough heat to be directly warming the earth.
That fact might help explain why UAH shows a 50% greater warming rate over land, where people live, than over the oceans, where fish live.
Dr Roy, Now that the ban on travel due to the COVID pandemic is pretty much over, has there been any calculations done as to the net benefit or not of the reduction in CO2 emissions for that period?
The last I looked at it, the decrease in emissions was similar to natural fluctuations in Atmospheric CO2. So there wasn’t a noticeable decrease in the rate of CO2 rise.
They are mutually exclusive when both are funded from a limited budget supplied by taxpayers.
The climate debate has shown how acutely horrible a world run by scientists would be. Of course, any climate modeller is welcome to run for office…but strangely few seem keen to be held accountable for their decisions.
It always amuses me how often climate scientists stray into the realms of politics yet decry those outside climate science who make proclamations about climate. At least lawyers will listen to people who represent themselves!
And anyway – isn’t the science settled? Stupid to waste more money on a solved problem.
To get back on topic, for those who advocate ruinous abandon of fossil fuels in favour of unreliables, why is the temp this month so low? Surely natural variability cannot overcome the all-powerful CO2?
Science + politics = politics
Kind of like how a positive X negative = negative
Joe Biden + Kamala Harris = a nothingburger
Michael Mann + James Hansen = a nothingburger
Willard the Dullard + Nasty Nate = Two Big Whoppers
Sorry for that duplicate post, can the mods delete it?
I wanted to ask Dr Spencer if there was any cloudiness data that suggested the Covid interlude in global aviation may have had an impact on cloudiness.
Pulleez..
Science is a tiny fraction of the budget. Climate modeling is a tiny fraction of that.
This is science that actually impacts policy.
And you are saying: ‘I dont need to know’.
“This is science that actually impacts policy.”
Yes, negatively, in many of our views.
Yep, thus the need to deny the science.
Nate,
You are a moron. You cant name a single person who denies science, can you?
Assertions unsupported by reproducible experiment are just speculation – fantasy if you prefer.
Nothing to deny, you idiot.
That’s easy. Swenson denies science constantly while tossing pointless ad-homs.
Nate says:
”Yep, thus the need to deny the science.”
———————————
LMAO! In the science and modeling I have been involved with the consistency of the deviation of the models from actual climate performance would cause us to get laughed off the stage.
You come off as such a total Dolt (capitalized) it seems you actually believe the nonsense you spout.
Models are not science at all until they have been validated. Climate modeling today seems to be an endless exercise in dogma rather than a genuine effort to actually model climate change. That viewpoint has been expressed by many eminent climate scientists and you are so stupid you actually believe they are deniers as well.
As I pointed out above many eminent climate scientists believe the climate modeling effort has been a complete failure and should be abandoned.
Politics has interfered into this process making it a near useless enterprise. Discontinuance would seem to be the wise alternative.
I am not completely in agreement with that. Ever the optimist and with extensive investigatory modeling experience (with an almost naive belief that politics can efficiently be defeated) I would recommend the following.
Assign the process to oversight by the civil service and mandate a renewal program that weeds out the non-performing teams with prejudice toward the sponsoring institutions (attack the politics).
Modeling budgeting should reward performance of correctly predicting both the direction and magnitude of climate change.
Then compromise with a 50% budget cut after washing out 70 to 80% of the non-performers. Use the extra budget to award grants to a variety of institutions based upon careful review by the civil service of proposals cutting into new territory to repair the almost universal non-performance seen to date. Civil service employees are no doubt the most suited for this duty as the current system is wholly nepotistic in that the institutions that currently control the budgets are fully compromised by the politics.
If you have researchers who will tell the “system” anything it wants to hear to get more research funding then that is a system that is designed to fail. Social Security is designed to fail. Your typically social security worker isn’t going to deny claims. Handing out checks ensures their own security. That’s a system designed to fail.
Its been destined to fail for the last 85 years? Any day now.
Obviously Nate is pleased with regressive taxation policies. It won’t fail because the design saves the elite class a lot of money. Perhaps though SPA considers that a failure in and of itself.
There was a significant decline in the burning of gasoline and jet fuel for a few months in 2020. That no effect was seen in global CO2 measurements suggests burning gasoline and jet fuel may have a smaller effect on CO2 levels than many people claim.
Another case of waving hands around without a single calculation, number, or notion of how big the effect should have been compared to natural variation. And coming to an erroneous ‘conclusion’ as a result.
That aint science.
Says the King of Obfuscation who makes a habit of aint sciencing.
Chic wants me to stop responding to his posts:
“Then why dont you just ignore me? I wont mind or miss you one bit.”
I said:
“This from the guy that follows me around tossing ad-hom grenades after most of my posts? That’s rich!”
Good example here.
Nate,
I’ll make you a deal. If you stop following everybody else around making obfuscationary and misleading posts, I won’t have to keep pointing them out.
Nasty Nate, the Blog Bloviator in Chief
“we are to believe the last ~15 years of Argo float measurements of the ocean (to 2000 m depth), there has been a slight warming equivalent to an imbalance of 1 Watt per sq. meter, suggesting a very slight imbalance in those energy flows.
One watt per sq. meter.
That tiny imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system. We do not know those flows that accurately. Our satellite measurement systems do not have that level of absolute accuracy.”
The CERES may not have that level of absolute accuracy. But its stability over time is good enough to track CHANGES in the imbalance to less than 0.5 W/m2 over a couple of decades
loeb et. al. in grl 10/2021.
And put it together with Argo, can’t we determine that there is no consistent 5-10 W offset to the imbalance?
Still not sure what the issue is here.
NATE: You are missing my point. Yes, the Argo float data (if believed) tells us how much imbalance there has been. My point is that since we don’t know the natural energy flows to anywhere near that level of accuracy, warming could be (say), half natural and half human-caused. If that was the case, the climate sensitivity is automatically reduced by one-half. -Roy
We’ve been over this time and time again. Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors. Maybe humans are contributing some to the natural factors. So what. Do you want to wipe out humankind to solve a non-problem?
Despite Dr. Spencer’s “no evidence to the contrary,” there is no DEFINITIVE evidence of any AGW.
“but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors. ”
I don’t think you bothered to read it. It was able to discern the contribution of GHG, as well as others.
First off, in Fig 1, you can clearly see that the TOA energy imbalance and the ocean measured imbalance tracked each other closely, within 0.5 W/m^2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/66fc7cde-9556-48e4-b224-1d827f4e9805/grl62546-fig-0001-m.png
The ‘other contributing factors’ are playing a role. Mostly ENSO and Ice-Albedo feedback. In this period there was a shift from a La Nina dominated period 2008-2012 to an El Nino dominated period 2015-2020.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/982cfcbf-43f4-49dd-be20-2ab9758e2b95/grl62546-fig-0002-m.png
The paper is able to measure the CHANGES in energy flows from various contributors: Clouds, water vapor temperature, albedo, GHG, to better than 0.35 W/m^2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5655c3cb-e0d2-4f20-aadd-b26cb466ae36/grl62546-fig-0003-m.png
So when Dr. Roy says “I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
This is highly misleading. The most important thing to know is how much these flows are changing. And we do know how much each of the flows are CHANGING to better than 0.5 W/m^2.
And we can even get a handle on what is causing them to change.
“Following the shift in the sign of the PDO index in 2014, the Nio3.4 index peaked during the winter of 2015/2016, reflecting a major El Nio event (Figure 4b). SSTs started to rise in 2012 and have remained above average through 2020 (Figure 4c). Variations in SST closely track both the PDO and Nio3.4 indices, with correlation coefficients 0.80 and 0.72, respectively. In the positive phase of the PDO, SST increases are pronounced over the eastern Pacific Ocean, which causes a decrease in low cloud amount and an increase in ASR along the eastern Pacific Ocean (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018). After 2014, the ASR trend shows a factor of 4 increase over that prior to 2014. An increase in thermal infrared emission to space slightly offsets the increase in ASR, so that the trend in net flux after 2014 is reduced to 2.5 times that prior to 2014.”
Nate claims: “First off, in Fig 1, you can clearly see that the TOA energy imbalance and the ocean measured imbalance tracked each other closely, within 0.5 W/m^2.”
Nate, did you find another link you can’t understand?
That Fig. 1 is complete nonsense. How was TOA measured? Are they subtracting fluxes? Can you count the number of violations of physics?
Just look at graphs ain’t science. You need to understand what’s happening.
” How was TOA measured? ”
Maybe read the paper. First time for everything.
“Can you count the number of violations of physics?”
Yes. Zero.
It is rather revealing when Clint declares that a measurement is ‘complete nonsense’, then informs us he doesnt know how they did the measurement!
Couldn’t support your nonsense, as usual.
Nate,
The main problem you have is what you criticize me for, not being skeptical enough of your own biases. How did Loeb 2021 measure the effects of “other?” Even if I agreed with you that humans are responsible for some portion of all the contributions to global warming, how do you differentiate the fossil fuel contributions from the natural causes? That is the subject of this post.
Next you seem to be asserting that no matter how inaccurate your measurement is, if you subtract those measurements to calculate a change, then suddenly you get an accurate value. That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate.
The reason I accuse you of obfuscation is clearly demonstrated in that last part. What does ENSO, etc. have to do with human caused IR gases? Or for that matter, distinguishing between the contributions to global warming?
First off, Loeb and his team are highly respected on this topic, CERES measurements, as Im sure Roy will agree. The results are amazing.
The main point of my post is that paper shows that Roy’s emphasis that on the large uncertainty 5-10 W/m^2 in the energy flows is misleading, because it is the changes that are of interest, and these are measured with high precession.
“Next you seem to be asserting that no matter how inaccurate your measurement is, if you subtract those measurements to calculate a change, then suddenly you get an accurate value. That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate.”
Yes the measurement of change can be very accurate, and precise.
As I said to Bill elsewhere, my clock is inaccurate, its running 5 minutes ahead of the true time. But it can accurately resolve the time between events to 1 second resolution.
“What does ENSO, etc. have to do with human caused IR gases? Or for that matter, distinguishing between the contributions to global warming?”
Because you and others complain that ASR is the dominant change during this period. It is, during this period. So, the story goes, how can GHG be important?
And that is explained in the paper as due to the natural variation of ENSO and PDO during this period. And GHG are still increasing and contributing.
During other periods the ENSO/PDO and resultant ASR will not have the same pattern. This cannot explain the last 50 y of GW.
Obfuscation: the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
In your original thread opening, you challenged Dr. Spencer’s point that the imbalance cannot definitively be attributed to human causes. You countered with a measurement accuracy red herring. Even if the accuracy difference is as you say, it doesn’t make the human contribution to the imbalance clear. That’s obfuscation #1.
Then you make the arguably incorrect statement implying that “stability over time” will reduce the error of measurement changes and you cite Loeb et alia 2021 as evidence. They wrote, “Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small [0.5 W/m2] difference in an absolute sense.” That’s obfuscation #2.
This was my opening response to you, “Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.” To which you respond with statements about imbalance, ‘other contributing factors,’ CHANGES in energy flows calculated by an algorythm and somehow conclude that makes Dr. Spencer’s claim wrong. Where was the rebuttal to my statement about the attribution of AGW? That’s obfuscation #3.
The respectability of Leob is an appeal to authority. That’s obfuscation #4.
“The main point of my post is that paper shows that Roys emphasis that on the large uncertainty 5-10 W/m^2 in the energy flows is misleading, because it is the changes that are of interest, and these are measured with high precision.”
You are confusing the energy flows attributed to clouds, water vapor, albedo, temperature, etc. with the satellite measurements. Regardless of the measurements’ precision, they don’t differentiate the contributing flows to the accuracy you claim. That’s obfuscation #5.
“Yes the measurement of change can be very accurate, and precise.” The clock analogy is the extreme case of absolute accuracy, hardly proof that differences reduce error. Error propagates. That’s obfuscation #6.
“During other periods the ENSO/PDO and resultant ASR will not have the same pattern. This cannot explain the last 50 y of GW.”
That explanation is even less understandable than Loeb et al. Are you saying ASR results from ENSO/PDO? That’s obFuscation #7.
“You countered with a measurement accuracy red herring.”
Not a red herring at all.
“Then you make the arguably incorrect statement implying that ‘stability over time’ will reduce the error of measurement changes and you cite Loeb et alia 2021 as evidence. They wrote, ‘Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small [0.5 W/m2] difference in an absolute sense.’
Exactly, in ‘absolute sense’. IOW NOT relevant to measurement of change. Roy agreed with this!
As I simply explained with the clock.
Any 5th grader could have understood this. Are you dumber than a 5th grader?
Let’s face it. No matter how simple, straightforward, logical my arguments, you are locked and loaded to fire off a rejection of it and label it ‘obfuscation’.
There is no way to rationally debate with someone like you.
So go troll in traffic somewhere.
“You are confusing the energy flows attributed to clouds, water vapor, albedo, temperature, etc. with the satellite measurements. Regardless of the measurements precision, they dont differentiate the contributing flows to the accuracy you claim. Thats obfuscation #5.”
FALSE.
When Loeb et. al report the trend in energy flows due to say, clouds, those are coming from the CERES EBAF Ed4.1 satellite cloud radiation observations, and other satellite measurements. And they state their error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.
And they note:
“To determine cloud contributions, the approach of Soden et al. (2008) is used:……is the anomaly in cloud radiative effect (CRE) from EBAF Ed4.1 observations…we estimate the trend uncertainty in CRE due to instrument drift to be <0.085 W m−2 decade−1, which is a factor of 5 smaller than the trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability."
"That is not good science. Seems unlikely you have done much. Errors propagate."
Yes, and you need to know how the errors propagate, and Loeb et al 2021 certainly do.
This is not just me saying these things.
When Loeb et. al report the trend in energy flows due to say, clouds, they report error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.
You seem to be suggesting that given the absolute inaccuracy of the overall flux, then this small error is not possible.
You are seemingly suggesting, without evidence, that they don't know how errors propagate!
Big talk, but you don't know any such thing.
“As I simply explained with the clock. ”
Nate and 5th graders have not learned enough and done enough science to know that errors propagate. Only clocks are close to 100% accurate. Normal instruments have an accuracy variability which propagates when used in math operations.
“And they state their error bar on the flux trends, for clouds +- 0.18 W/m^2/dec.”
Can you explain how that cloud variability is better than “the [0.4 W/m2/dec] trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability?”
“You seem to be suggesting that given the absolute inaccuracy of the overall flux, then this small error is not possible. You are seemingly suggesting, without evidence, that they don’t know how errors propagate!”
I can see how you would credit those words to me given your propensity to obfuscate. I suggest neither of those. I do suggest that the errors reported may be whatever their statistical analysis from their algorithm comes out as (GIGO) and that they don’t reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis. IOW, I can do an experiment and report the standard deviations, the standard error, the error of the estimate, etc. None of that reveals what my true variability could be if I included all possible error propagation from my experiment.
For what it is worth, I think that their cloud attribution is probably realistic. But I am not familiar with partial radiative perturbation enough to know how well the process can separate the contributions of factors as different as albedo and an IR absorbing gas. Is it similar to principle component analysis? If CO2 was omitted would the results be significantly different?
One final point. As elegant as the Loeb 2021 analysis is, the individual contributions to the CERES data do not necessarily translate proportionally into temperature changes. More to the point, the impact of human influence can only be divined from the results.
“Nate and 5th graders have not learned enough and done enough science to know that errors propagate.”
AGAIN, a 5th graders watch is off by 5 minutes from the true time. They certainly know enough to use their watch to accurately measure the time elapsed between a start and finish of the 1 mile race. They know their timing of this race will not be 5 minutes off!
Why don’t you? That 5 minute ‘absolute accuracy’ of the watch matters NOT A BIT to measurement of the time difference between events. The 5 minutes DOES NOT PROPAGATE.
“Normal instruments have an accuracy variability which propagates when used in math operations.”
What is accuracy variabilty?
Like the watch, the CERES satellite may have level of ‘absolute accuracy’ > 1 W/m^2 in its measurement of total flux. But its stability over time is good enough to track CHANGES in flux to less than 0.5 W/m2 over a couple of decades.
Thus, their quoted error bars on trends are quite possible, contrary to your uninformed assertions that “they dont reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis.”
“Can you explain how that cloud variability is better than ‘the [0.4 W/m2/dec] trend uncertainty associated with CRE internal variability?’
No. Other than the fact that the calculation involves more than just the CRE (eq 3) and perhaps the other stuff partly cancels CRE. Maybe look at the cited reference.
” But I am not familiar with partial radiative perturbation enough to know how well the process can separate the contributions of factors as different as albedo and an IR absorbing gas. ”
Nor am I. But there is track record of papers on this. You could go read them.
Or not, and make the reasonable assumption that these guys probably know what they are doing.
“What is accuracy variability? ”
If you weren’t so interested in obfuscation and could just concentrate on good science, an explanation wouldn’t be necessary. A satellite is not a clock. A good clock is 100% accurate if it does not lose or gain any time with respect to a standard. A clock doesn’t have precision variability, because it doesn’t measure anything over and over. If you set it 5 minutes slow or fast, it will remain precisely inaccurate by 5 minutes. The degree to which it is set slow or fast or drifts with time is accuracy variability.
Somewhere I read that CERES satellites were accurate to about 1 W/m2, IIRC. In addition to that inherent built-in inaccuracy, there will be a certain variability due to the precision variability. In other words, unlike a clock, a satellite measures radiation values with respect to both time and space. Traversing the same path under the exact same conditions would indicate the degree of precision, if that were even possible. All I read from the Loeb 2021 paper is that the satellites are “stable,” but the details of drift and precision are not provided. Perhaps you will be motivated to track down the details of radiation measurement standards, drift in space, and combined error propagated from accuracy drift and measurement precision. Absent that, no, “their quoted error bars on trends” do not “reflect a rigorous error propagation analysis.
“…make the reasonable assumption that these guys probably know what they are doing.”
That’s lame. As I previously wrote, it is impressive work designating attributions from presumably all possible contributions to energy flows to and from the Earth. Questions still remain as to whether the errors reflect the true magnitude of the trend errors and whether their attributions are correct.
Above all, the paper’s conclusions fail to show that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG leads to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space, as claimed in its introduction. They don’t even venture a guess.
To paraphrase Dr. Spencer, “What this means is that recent warming could be mostly natural. Climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans, and this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.”
“All I read from the Loeb 2021 paper is that the satellites are “stable,” but the details of drift and precision are not provided. …”
Those details are provided in earlier CERES instrumental calibration papers by Loeb et. al. that Chic has yet to read. Warning: the details are “daunting” to use one of their own words but will teach Chic that Loeb 2021 95% significance level is “rigorous”.
“…that Chic has yet to read.”
And break my string of ignoring your requests I look for evidence to back up your assertions? Not a chance.
Explain “rigorous.”
Not looking for detail evidence will not improve Chic’s credibility.
Hint: the noted detail papers may even be in the references of the paper Chic was spoon fed by Nate & the ref.s in those papers may be important in improving Chic’s credibility. .
I’m not concerned about my credibility. Why should I? Unlike you, I’m not regularly making unfounded assertions. I’m too busy challenging yours and Nate’s.
… with unfounded Chic assertions. Unfortunately for Chic, mine are supported by experimental evidence Dr. Spencer developed. I can already observe Chic is not concerned with Chic’s credibility.
I asserted down thread that you were wrong about Dr. Spencer showing that CO2 could warm like clouds. Are you claiming that is an unfounded assertion? Do you want to continue to obfuscate?
No obfuscation from me Chic, I rely on the experimental evidence from Dr. Spencer and other published measurements with data showing 95% significance levels not assertions. You could too.
Chic,
“Perhaps you will be motivated to track down the details of radiation measurement standards, drift in space, and combined error propagated from accuracy drift and measurement precision.”
Given that YOU have a strong motivation to raise doubts about the evidence, YOU will be motivated to track down the details. Not my job or desire.
I don’t have a-priori doubts, as you do, about this paper’s results because this group has strong track record of excellence. Roy and Kristian feel the same way.
Same if I go to a renowned doctor at the Mayo clinic for cancer-treatment. I don’t need to check all her stated facts and figures. Though I might get a second expert opinion.
“Somewhere I read that CERES satellites were accurate to about 1 W/m2, IIRC. In addition to that inherent built-in inaccuracy, there will be a certain variability due to the precision variability.”
Good. They are not the same. The ‘absolute accuracy’ will not propagate into a measurement of CHANGE, as you had claimed. That is the point of the clock example.
BTW ‘precision variability’ is another non-science term.
“Above all, the papers conclusions fail to show that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG leads to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space, as claimed in its introduction.”
It is a strawman to assign to this one paper the job of proving AGW to you.
There has been 5 or 6 decades of evidence built up prior to this paper. And this paper is looking back only to 2005.
Again, no one, certainly not I, doubts that natural variability is present in the temperature record.
And over a short period of time, like this study, natural can be the larger contributor to variability.
Thus it is well understood that ENSO played a big role in the temperature flatness from 2005-2013, and the subsequent rapid rise from 2013-2020.
So it should be no surprise that ENSO-driven natural variability should appear in the energy flows during this period.
But, again, over a long period of 50 y, ENSO is oscillatory cannot explain the 50 y warming trend.
Roy is a scientist and skeptic. When even he expresses the opinion that likely most of the warming is anthro, he is basing that on his knowledge of all the evidence (certainly not his faith). And he is basing it on the lack of evidence for an alternative mechanism.
Nate wrote, “[Accuracy and precision] are not the same.”
That’s obfuscation #8 in this thread. I never said they were and I tried to explain to you the difference between them and how both are involved in error propagation. This is from Wikipedia:
“Accuracy and precision are two measures of observational error. Accuracy is how close or far off a given set of measurements (observations or readings) are to their true value, while precision is how close or dispersed the measurements are to each other.
In other words, precision is a description of random errors, a measure of statistical variability. Accuracy has two definitions:
1. More commonly, it is a description of only systematic errors, a measure of statistical bias of a given measure of central tendency; low accuracy causes a difference between a result and a true value; ISO calls this trueness.
2. Alternatively, ISO defines accuracy as describing a combination of both types of observational error (random and systematic), so high accuracy requires both high precision and high trueness.”
Caveat: Wikipedia states,”This article may be too technical for Nate to understand.”
“BTW ‘precision variability’ is another non-science term.”
Precision is…a measure of statistical variability. I don’t know how more scientific it can be. Obfuscation #9.
“It is a strawman to assign to this one paper the job of proving AGW to you.”
That’s obfuscation #10. I did not expect or request a proof of AGW from this paper despite your attempt to do so. I wrote, “Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged [energy flux] imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.” This was in response to you missing Dr. Spencer’s point that the degree of AGW cannot be known to the level of accuracy implied by measurements of ocean heat content and my view that Loeb 2021 does not prove otherwise.
The rest of your last comment seems rather benign. Who said that ENSO is responsible for explaining 50 years of warming? Obfuscation #11. The point is that CO2 or human influence can only be claimed to explain it. But not DEFINITIVELY. The best you have is a gross correlation.
“Thats obfuscation #10. I did not expect or request a proof of AGW from this paper despite your attempt to do so. I wrote”
Then why are you complaining that the paper doesnt do just that?
?Loeb 2021 may confirm the alleged [energy flux] imbalance, but it does not indicate that human produced IR gases are responsible due to too many other contributing factors.”
Again complaining about what the paper was not ever intended to do.
“This was in response to you missing Dr. Spencers point that the degree of AGW cannot be known to the level of accuracy implied by measurements of ocean heat content and my view that Loeb 2021 does not prove otherwise.”
As usual the original point for bringing up a paper is long lost in the morass of the discussion.
The original point for bringing it up was ONLY to address Roy’s statements like
“I repeat: NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
The paper, I believe, shows that this statement is at least MISLEADING.
The paper is clearly showing that we can measure the CHANGES in these energy flows to much better than 5-10 W/m^2! And the changes are what we need to know when dealing with Climate CHANGE.
“Caveat: Wikipedia states,’This article may be too technical for Nate to understand.’
FYI, I teach this subject to students. I regularly use it in my work. I don’t need Wikipedia to explain it to me.
Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE. The clock was an example of that. Loeb’s own statements confirm this. And finally the small error bars on his measurements of trend he reported, that you seemingly accepted, confirm this.
So not sure why we still need to argue about this?
I think this part of Loeb explains it well:
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable. We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an OFFSET to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value. Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does NOT AFFECT THE TRENDS of either time series nor the correlation between them.”
“Then why are you complaining that the paper doesnt do just that?”
I am not complaining. Obfuscation #12. I object to you arguing trends reduce variability. You tried to get Dr. Spencer to agree that the trend reduces the 5 to 10 W/m2 energy flow variability down to 0.5 W/m2.
“Again complaining about what the paper was not ever intended to do.”
I am not complaining about that either. Obfuscation #13. The paper only suggests that anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG are partially responsible for any EEI. I’m only concerned with opposing your claim that the paper does show human influence. I understand why you think that it does and I disagree. If we agree on that disagreement, then we are done here unless you want to defend this:
“The paper is clearly showing that we can measure the CHANGES in these energy flows to much better than 5-10 W/m^2!”
We can do this in a new thread and it should be enlightening, at least for me anyway.
“Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE.”
This is your first mention of absolute uncertainty (obfuscation #13) and it is simply another name for measurement error. Absolute uncertainty does indeed propagate when measuring a change (obfuscation #14). If your first measurement is low by the maximum error and the second was high by the same error, the difference is off by twice the maximum error.
“Loeb’s own statements confirm this.”
Where? (obfuscation #15)
“And finally the small error bars on his measurements of trend he reported, that you seemingly accepted, confirm this.”
How? (obfuscation #16)
Your last comment at 8:28 AM is worth pursuing in the context of 0.5 W/m2 variability versus 5 to 10 W/m2. How applying an “offset to the satellite EEI” justifies your variability argument is another matter. I’ll have to give some thought to the appropriateness of offsetting towards correlating the trends. I took that for granted previously.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1203118
I started that new thread to discuss the satellite error question at the heart of the original post.
“(obfuscation #15)”
It is interesting that many of these things that you have labelled obfuscations are things that you eventually understood (or claimed to) or agreed with.
So clearly they are things that were not obfuscation at all, just things that YOU had not (yet) understood.
Quite lame!
“This is your first mention of absolute uncertainty (obfuscation #13) and it is simply another name for measurement error. Absolute uncertainty does indeed propagate when measuring a change (obfuscation #14). If your first measurement is low by the maximum error and the second was high by the same error, the difference is off by twice the maximum error.’
Correction the term we we using is ‘absolute accuracy’
Loebs own statements confirm this.
Where? (obfuscation #15)
The statement above. DID you not read it?”
he says “level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE”
IOW ‘absolute accuracy’
“So clearly they are things that were not obfuscation at all, just things that YOU had not (yet) understood.”
Unbelievable. Obfuscation #15 had to do with you writing this, “Ive tried to explain to you about ‘absolute uncertainty’ not propagating into a measurement of CHANGE. The clock was an example of that. Loeb’s own statements confirm this.” That’s obfuscation of yours #17, which I tried to clear up after obfuscation #14 and will be happy to revisit in the new thread. But, leave your clocks behind. They have nothing to do with measurement error.
Loeb never mentions ‘absolute accuracy.’ Obfuscation #18.
Absolute accuracy is the closeness of an estimated, measured, or computed value to a standard, accepted, or true value of a particular quantity. I didn’t see any reference in Loeb to a standard. Now I am not sure who to assign obfuscation #19 to, you or Loeb.
“Loeb never mentions absolute accuracy. Obfuscation #18.”
Loeb”the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE.”
Chic is a clueless troll #18
There is no standard energy flow to determine the accuracy uncertainty. So you get obfuscation #19.
“Loeb never mentions absolute accuracy.”
“There is no standard energy flow…”
I guess he did mention it then.
Chic tries to move the goalposts.
Clueless troll #19
“I dont think you bothered to read it. It was able to discern the contribution of GHG, as well as others.”
If that’s what was claimed, there is no reason to read the paper. Because it is baloney.
That’s where we recognize a True Scientist!
Yep he is a gem.
“given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused”
This statement must be based your knowledge of the available evidence.
That “given the lack of evidence” statement is so anti-science that the fact it came from a person with a science degree is s
The “lack of evidence” and “I provisionally side with the view” are anti-science, whether they come from a Ph.D. scientist, or from a bathroom attendant.
That statement represents everything wrong with modern climate science.
It is extremely disappointing that it was made by a person who has a science degree and works in the field of science.
On the other hand that statement is contradicted by the rest of the article, which is also puzzling.
Your pontifications on science are not science, RG.
Your comments are a waste of bandwidth,
Willard the Dullard.
I have a page just for you, RG, and the main message is this one:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Search for “inference to the best explanation” on the Internet to see how wrong you are.
“On the other hand that statement is contradicted by the rest of the article, which is also puzzling.”
I agree with that part.
What he is leaving out is the fact that he is familiar with lots of other evidence in favor of AGW.
All science theories are provisional. Never proven. A better theory can always come along and replace it. As has happened with Newtons law of gravity.
When he says ‘given the lack of evidence to the contrary’ he is correct that there is little evidence for any alternative mechanism at this time.
The thing about temperature data sets like UAH is that it will be decades or more likely centuries before it tells us anything. Right now, it is a good data set. Hopefully, the data set will keep its integrity a century from now.
Baloney
UAH tells us the global average temperature varies.
UAH tells us the surface temperature compilations, with much more infilling, seem to be biased to show more warming.
UAH is a check and balance for surface measurements, adjustments and infilling — they’d probably show even faster warming if UAH did not exist to “keep them in line”.
The huge difference in the UAH derived warming rate over the oceans, compared with the warming rate over the land, tells us something important too — I’m not sure what, but someone else may know.
Except that the two main analyses of the lower troposphere data disagree on the trend, by A LOT. RSS is > or ~ trend of the surface measurements.
Therefore they are not a reliable check and balance for surface measurements”
And UAH doesnt “tells us the surface temperature compilations, with much more infilling, seem to be biased to show more warming.”
Several years ago a paper on global sea level rise said the acceleration in the rate was
0.0042+-0.0092mm/yr
My point is not to say it was correct or incorrect, but rather the level of uncertainty in some cases is very large. A layman’s interpretation might be that they are just guessing. Some authors have been open about the lack of certainty and said “our best guess is….”.
Many of the top neuro scientists have willingly admitted they have so much more to learn. For some reason it appears that in climate science no one wants to say the obvious, there is a lot to learn and a lot they still don’t know.
“
Denny,
Someone was obviously joking. 0.0042 mm I just measured the thickness of a piece of paper – about 0.1 mm.
0.004 mm? I can repeatably measure to about 0.01 mm, with a handheld micrometer.
Someone is dreaming. Measuring global sea level remotely with an accuracy of one twenty-fifth of the thickness of a sheet of printer paper?
I just dont believe it.
That’s assuming you know the difference between acceleration and thickness.
I’m assuming you don’t.
b,
You can assume whatever you wish.
I assume you are a moron of the climate crackpot variety.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Some people might be able to measure things to the thickness of a human hair or even finer.
You are just incredulous.
Not joking. But I have thought to myself after reading a lot of these papers youve got to be kidding.
Much of the SLR area is beyond believability. There are so many estimates that are all over the map, depending on their tidal gauges used and methodology, etc.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009900
I just look back at all the failed predictions such as the one made by EPA in 1983 that SLR would be 10 feet in several decades. How did that turnout?
I dont believe any of the catastrophic predictions. Primarily because many studies show insignificant acceleration.
This was intended for here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1198557
When rich folks like the Obama’s stop buying oceanfront mansions near sea level, and start selling them, that would be a better indicator than tide gauges! Obama promised to stop the rise of the seas, and bought two mansions near sea level after he retired. That man was always thinking of himself
“A layman’s interpretation might be that they are just guessing.”
There is less and less respect for expertise these days. Layman, who havent bothered to learn how science is done, think that if they dont know or understand something then science must not know it either.
Pathetic..
Nate,
Here’s a little quote from Richard Feynman –
“When someone says “science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.”
I agree. Am I as clever as Feynman, or was he as clever as me? [LOL]
He also said that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”, which, in the absence of experimental support for expert opinion, I also agree with.
Carry on playing the “science” card. Don’t expect any sorrow or sympathy from me if you discover that Nature has about much regard for the opinions of a moron like you, as I do.
Carry on.
Currently the acceleration is
.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Error is well below the measurement.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Yep works out to about half the average rate of sealevel rise over the past 20,000 years of approximately 6mm/yr
Yes we should expect it to slow as peak natural warming occurs and we should expect that since in during the LIA sea level actually decreased that there should be increases currently. And we should expect that since climate varies naturally the rate will not always be the same.
Ice was observed to decline a great deal in the first half of the 20th Century after which it recovered.
Its rather silly to fret over short term changes in sea level. Heck even Obama spent millions on seaside homes after gaining his new found wealth. He obviously isn’t worried.
Nate says:
Currently the acceleration is
.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Error is well below the measurement.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
———————-
Of course that is a really odd graphic Nate. Measurements are based upon the following:
Satellite Program – – – – Accuracy – – – – Service Window
Topex – – – – – – – – – – 3.3 cm – – – – 1992-2005
Jason-1 – – – – – – – – – 2.5 cm – – – – 2001-2013
Jason-2 – – – – – – – – – 2.5 cm – – – – 2008-2019
Jason-3 – – – – – – – – – 3.3 cm – – – – 2016-
Perhaps you can explain to us cretins why the error margin is 1,320 times more precise than the devices doing the measuring?
hunter
You are here, one more time, boasting with superficial numbers.
This time, concerning the accuracy of satellite-borne sea level measurements, without having a bit of a clue of how to correctly interpret them.
What about moving to a technically deeper level, and reading for example:
Uncertainty in satellite estimates of global mean sea-level changes, trend and acceleration
Michaël Ablain, Benoît Meyssignac, Lionel Zawadzki, Rémi Jugier, Aurélien Ribes, Giorgio Spada, Jerôme Benveniste, Anny Cazenave, and Nicolas Picot (2019)
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1189/2019/
*
Will you discredit that paper as well, as you did for Steven Wepster’s perfectly understandable decription of how Tobias Mayer computed the position of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic – because you weren’t able to understand anything of what Wepster wrote?
Bindidon, I understand thoroughly that both are what could be considered. . . .academic exercises.
It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. Nothing untoward about dissembling a real motion into accurate conceptual motions by simply changing frames of reference.
What the debate here has been about isn’t that fact. It is a debate regarding the actual axis of rotation which is always associated with both an angular momentum and a physical cause for that momentum to exist.
Spinners such as yourself simply fail completely to even understand what the debate is about and thus we are bogged down with a lot of conceptual mapping exercises. At least Willard as far as I know was the first to characterize it as a mapping exercise. . . .but he still seems to not understand what the argument is that arises from physical reality as opposed to the conceptual tools we use to breakdown reality into manageable bits and pieces.
I have build an entire career out of understanding that distinction. It started in an industry where conceptually dissembling more often than not leads to the wrong answer and failure. And that is true even in the face of the multitude of cases of their being industries where the tools lead to correct answers. It is all a matter of correctly identifying if the object you are planning on hitting with a hammer is actually a nail or if that object is instead a stud.
As to my comments on the sea level data. You are being ridiculous!
My response was to Nate who was complaining about the uncertainty expressed by Denny and First one should look at the objective and understand the issues there.
You offered a study on the uncertainty. Did you even read it Bindidon? Why not look at the conclusions?
The study does nothing but reinforce Denny and Swenson and discredit Nate for offering up a single graph as evidence of a lack of uncertainty.
hunter
” It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. ”
No: one cannot.
And no: what Mayer did was by no means an “academic exercise”.
You discredit Mayer’s work without being able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict it.
*
Thus:
(1) You are not only an absolute ignorant, but also a fundamental denier of facts.
*
(2) Of course I read the article, and as with the lunar spin, you confirm (1).
Were you not a simple bank employee?
And you want to discuss such points here?
Bindidon says:
” It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object. ”
No: one cannot.
———————————
LOL! Bindidon you probably ought to do your homework before making such unsupportable conclusions.
Check out Madhavi’s Section 6 of the introductory course on The Dynamics of Rigid Bodies entitled ‘Instantaneous Center’.
Bindidon says:
March 5, 2022 at 2:02 PM
hunter
It is a well known fact that for any object rotating on an external axis one can compute academically a spin axis of the object.
No: one cannot.
——————————-
Bindidon you should do a little homework before making such unsupportable claims.
Check out Madhavi’s section 6 on Instantaneous Center.
”If the directions of velocity of two
points on a rigid body are known, the instantaneous centre can be located.”
The Spinners around here have been endlessly arguing for a frame of reference that doesn’t include the orbit and therefore the ‘instantaneous center’ will instantaneously appear to be the spin axis. If you include the orbit and the gravity that produces the rotation will instantaneously be able to identify the COM of the earth as the fixed axis of the moon. And if you widen the study to include dynamics you will find the dynamics to confirm that is the real fixed axis.
———-
———-
———-
———-
Bindidon says:
And no: what Mayer did was by no means an academic exercise.
You discredit Mayers work without being able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict it.
*
Thus:
(1) You are not only an absolute ignorant, but also a fundamental denier of facts.
*
(2) Of course I read the article, and as with the lunar spin, you confirm (1).
————————
Is that all they taught you in school Bindidon. No education at all on how to use your own brain? All that theoreticians do are academic exercises.
———-
———-
———-
———-
Bindidon says:
Were you not a simple bank employee?
———————–
Never worked at a bank in my life Bindidon. Where did you get that idea?
You really can’t read a room, Binny, can you?
One simply cannot have a rational debate with Bill. Here he makes hash out of rate of rise and acceleration in that.
Utterly hopeless.
Thanks Nate for acknowledging you don’t have clue one as to how one can create an error margin 1,320 times less than the accuracy of the device doing the measuring.
“create an error margin 1,320 times less than the accuracy of the”
There is no such 1320 times less factor.
You are mixing up different quantities with different units.
As I said, it is hopeless with you.
The error on the measurement of TREND is 0.4 mm/year
Your quoted accuracy (where is it from?) is 2.5 cm.
So that is a ratio of 60x. Nowhere near 1320x.
As far has how can they know the trend to better than 0.4 mm/y with accuracy of 2.5 cm?
Hint: Trend is a measure of CHANGES in sea level over a period of time. A long time.
The uncertainty in that has more to do with the RESOLUTION of the measurement and less to do with the accuracy of it.
My clock is inaccurate. It is reading 5 minutes ahead of the true time.
But it can resolve CHANGES in time of 1 second.
Nate perhaps you should read Bindidon’s reference to the uncertainty of satellite sealevel measurements. Obviously you have no understanding of what that graphic you presented represents and does not represent.
Attempted rational discussion with Bill fails, again..
Obviously because Nate can’t read.
I don’t think Bill comprehends what he reads.
Bindidon’s reference clearly sez
“Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.35+-0.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.12+-0.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is in agreement (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online:”
Nate says:
”Over 19932017, we have found a GMSL trend of 3.35+-0.4 mm yr−1 within a 90 % confidence level (CL) and a GMSL acceleration of 0.12+-0.07 mm yr−2 (90 % CL). This is in agreement (within error bars) with previous studies. The full GMSL error variancecovariance matrix is freely available online:”
LMAO!!
this is a perfect example of why Nate is such a dolt.
I said I was perfectly aware of the math used to create the above statement. What seems to be totally lacking in your science education is why somebody would attempt to estimate the acceleration of warming to an error level 1,320 times the accuracy of the actual instrument providing the raw data.
And of course that question just flew over your head because you actually believe that that question was scientifically answered by the study.
But to be doltish enough to believe that one has to completely ignore the majority of the conclusion of the study and focus on one sentence in the conclusion that does nothing to answer the overall objectives of the study, the specifics of which were only discussed as caveats to the results found.
But the sites biggest Dolt on this site ignores all that and offers the math as a response to Denny and Swenson.
Obviously you don’t have the scientific experience to understand when mathematics should be used to and when it shouldn’t. The math is next to irrelevant within the goals and objectives of the study.
We can conclude from the study that sea level is rising. . . .as it has been for some 20,000 years. Some 120 meters it has risen. that’s about 6mm per year. But we know that hasn’t been anywhere near a constant rate as it has actually gone down a few times during that 20,000 years. The actual range of sea level rise on a year by year basis is unknown. And yes I do believe in recent decades sea level has been rising at an accelerated pace because in 1980 temperatures again began to accelerate. But that is a normal occurrence over the entire sea level record.
So why did the authors do this study? They got paid to do it. Assumptions about sea level rise have been dependent upon data that the validity of which could not be confirmed (assumptions about continental uplift being applied to sea levels not rising fast enough to fit with some assumptions being made on heat content increases in the ocean that are beyond our ability to measure). But there is no specific conclusions arising from the study that actually aids in closing the sea level budget.
We have a satellite that had promise of narrowing that deficit. But the study did not accomplish that goal and and no explicit statement was made that asserted such a claim. The reasons why are provided in the conclusion.
They did include information about the mathematical variability of satellite measures (which is what you posted). But they provided unresolved caveats by commenting on the overall accuracy of those measurements, how they had no way to assess those uncertainties, and did not include any conclusions on anthropogenic vs natural causes.
So what the study accomplishes in fact, is essentially something that wasn’t in contention, namely that currently sea level continues to rise and is likely to even be accelerating. But a thinking person would realize that it was likely to be accelerating in early 20th century, slowing in the mid 20th century, and accelerating again in the late 20th century into the 21st century. That perhaps may be a pattern repeated perhaps a few hundred times in the last 20 millennia.
So how in the world, in the face of the author’s comments, can you offer up that graph as a response to Denny and Swenson? The only conclusion I can draw is you are a total science dolt in the mold of that cartoonist over on SS.
If you actually believe you disputed anything perhaps you could make a specific claim on that rather than being just another incarnation of a cluster bomber.
Bill’s claims about the errors on satellite GMSL trend measurements are proven to be nonsense… by his own source.
What to do?
Express his feelings again in another gish gallop, that the measurement to that level of uncertainty doesnt make sense….to Bill, because the math, for some reason, is just not good enough. Only a dolt would use math without taking into account Bill’s feelings…. or something. Who knows?
It is all rather disturbing. Then change the subject to another line of nonsense.
I will not be participating.
Nate says:
Bill’s claims about the errors on satellite GMSL trend measurements are proven to be nonsense… by his own source.
———————-
thats a completely vacuous claim Nate. And it is actually a lie! I made no claims of errors in the measurements. I only pointed to the fact about the reliability of the measurements. You are supposed to provide the argument why reliability of the measurements doesn’t matter. You haven’t done that.
You have offered no argument to support your case. I would think you would notice that shortcoming. But perhaps you think you are a God and you don’t need to support your case.
============
============
============
============
Nate says:
What to do?
Express his feelings again in another gish gallop, that the measurement to that level of uncertainty doesnt make sense….to Bill, because the math, for some reason, is just not good enough. Only a dolt would use math without taking into account Bill’s feelings…. or something. Who knows?
It is all rather disturbing. Then change the subject to another line of nonsense.
I will not be participating.
————————-
So your argument is limited to a claim that the reliability of the numbers in a statistical database is irrelevant to what someone can assert as a fact after computing the trend and acceleration of the trend found in the data?
i.e. Do you actually believe that the statement ”. . . .with a level of confidence equal to 90%” is identical to saying that that it is 90% certain the analysis is representative of the real world and one can ignore the unreliability of the data?
A simple yes or no will best suffice. Trying to beat around the bush won’t suffice.
Nate says:
The uncertainty in that has more to do with the RESOLUTION of the measurement and less to do with the accuracy of it.
My clock is inaccurate. It is reading 5 minutes ahead of the true time.
But it can resolve CHANGES in time of 1 second.
—————————
thats gibberish. the satellite altimetry inaccuracy cannot in any way be compared to a watch that you can match up to the world clock.
Total adjustments to ocean topography from the satellite raw data can exceed 2.5 meters. ”The sum of all these corrections can make a difference on the order of 2.5 meters in the measured ocean topography. That can be resolved down to an estimated 3.3 centimeters.”
A fast watch typically stays fast if it wasn’t fast because of incorrect calibration. In the case of the ocean altimetry the required corrections such as the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere slowing down the echo has to be estimated as part of several variables.
So if you want to make a case that the instruments have better than 3.3 centimeter resolution – as you are in fact admitting here is necessary – you need to provide a source that a finer resolution is in fact known.
Fact is that the error margin of .025mm in the acceleration estimate could be compared to not 25mm accuracy which would be a 1,320 times improvement for which you have provided no evidence of being resolvable. Whereas the project itself reports it started with raw data off by up to approximately 2.5 meters (25,000 millimeters) and resolved that down to 33mm.
I am accepting the claim of the scientists 758 times improvement in resolution why holding some degree of skepticism about it (i.e. if I were to audit it I would have to delve much deeper)
I will leave it to you to produce evidence of a .025 resolution (an improvement of one million times the accuracy of the raw data).
As I see it you are confounding statistical ”confidence level” with resolved accuracy. All that CL tells you is . . . .if the data is perfect resolution and perfectly representative, then the confidence level is 90% the resolved error bars are perfectly correct. One must add on the lack of instrument resolution. As I said you seem to be as misinformed as that cartoonist over at SS.
“Fact is that the error margin of .025mm in the acceleration estimate could be compared to not 25mm accuracy which would be a 1,320 times improvement”
It is not my job to assuage your feelings of discomfort with the stated error in a paper. Particularly when you are making hash of the math, and cannot clearly state what your issue actually is, and
I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.
The time interval is 30 y. Just consider that (30y)^2 = 900 y^2
If YOU still think they have it got it wrong then YOU need to investigate and show how. Your uninformed feelings are not sufficient.
Nate says:
I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.
The time interval is 30 y. Just consider that (30y)^2 = 900 y^2
If YOU still think they have it got it wrong then YOU need to investigate and show how. Your uninformed feelings are not sufficient.
Oops keyboard acting up!
Nate if you don’t know how to calculate the uncertainty of the acceleration there is no way you can begin to understand what uncertainty might be missing.
So if you can’t recall how to calculate a rate of acceleration from a data set you need to brush up on that.
Once you get it then we can have a conversation about what is missing and that conversation will become apparent to you.
And for the record I am not saying the calculation that was done was in error. So stop asking me to prove the guy wrong. I am only looking at uncertainty that isn’t part of the statistical calculation and you won’t accept that until you are comfortable with exactly what is in the calculation.
“Nate if you don’t know how to calculate the uncertainty of the acceleration there is no way you can begin to understand what”
Please show us how to do it properly Bill!
Bill, lets face it. You were sure there was a problem with it, but were just being ignorant.
I explain why. But you never learn. Just toss insults.
Bye.
sorry nate if you have no background in statistics, this forum is hardly the place to give you one.
Ha!
Borrowing that trick from Clint! No one believes him either.
Nate to be more clear. . . .by background in statistics I mean not just University courses in statistics but also real world out of school experience in statistics. Thats where you learn when the use of statistics in appropriate. The most popular meme on that was the headlines, ‘Dewey Won!’
As I have repeatedly pointed out. . . .your sea level statisticians didn’t make any mathematical errors. Neither did the Dewey Won statisticians. The question instead resolves around to the question as to whether the use of statistics based upon available datasets provides anything of value in solving the issues at hand. It is truly a case of garbage in, garbage out. And that remains true no matter how you redesign your models, increase the granularity, or anything at all to do with the modeling enterprise. Garbage in will always result in garbage out.
Without a full fledged background in the use of statistics there is little hope of convincing a noob in possession of nothing but an academic background.
And by course of study in that. . . .there are many books. Following the work of Steve McIntyre and understanding what he is doing is viewing statistics from the standpoint of its own usefulness as a solution to the enterprise. McIntyre isn’t even a skeptic. He is merely an expert at real world statistics. He doesn’t solve the problem, he merely highlights that changing the model changes the results but doesn’t increase or decrease certainty in the process.
I see little hope of educating an ideologue such as yourself without going through extensive effort. Instead you fancy yourself as an educator who in reality is merely serving to misinform the public. A little knowledge can be the most dangerous condition of all.
” University courses in statistics but also real world out of school experience in statistics.”
Oh ok.
Then why are you finding a ratio of things with different units? And not realizing why that matters…a lot!
To begin with Nate its not different units it is different factors of the same units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
Not the same, unless one is on acid.
Are you?
Nate you can be such a moron. the study derives statistically mm/y2 from a data set of mm.
Why not issue this complaint to the author of the study?
I have no complaints with the study. I do have complaints with your endless idiocy.
It seems pretty idiotic to me for you to complain about the author fuking up and mixing different units. I for sure wasn’t talking about anything the author didn’t do.
Nate said: ”I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense.”
—————————
LOL! Nate I am not the one that calculated .025mm/year^2 from a data set of ocean sealevel rise in millimeters. The author you offered up as some kind of alleged meaningful response to Swenson and Denny is the guy that did that.
I am not disputing what the author did at all. Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.
The only thing I am disputing is the meaningfulness of what he did. In statistical analysis the ‘art’ is in selecting a representative population. If you lack the art you end up with ‘Dewey Wins’ and a terrible embarrassment!
What the author did was take a way too short period of sealevel rise during a 20000 year period of sealevel rise that on average almost doubles that of the short period, using a measurement platform with errors of unknown causes that create an estimated 33millimeters of error.
Is the author an idiot? Nope! He got paid to do it. Some ignoramus politician or political scientist ordered the study.
What you have is something totally unremarkable as far as conveying information is concerned with unidentified sources of error that is 1,320 times larger than the millimeters per year.
The only thing we can deduce from this is 1) sea level is rising as the total sealevel rise over the 28 years of the study ~100mm is about 3 times the estimated error of the measuring device and that in those 3 error intervals there is a slight indication of acceleration.
But we should expect sealevel to be rising because its warming and we had a major El Nino cycle recently so it should also be slightly accelerating.
So the question is what is the value of this study that our politicians wasted money on? It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. And why did you parade this out in response to Swenson and Denny?
“I am not disputing what the author did at all.”
Oh, Ok. Then there has been no point to your endless rants.
“Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.”
Nope, never did that, liar-troll.
Have the last word. Im sure it will be illuminating.
.
Nate says:
I am not disputing what the author did at all.
Oh, Ok. Then there has been no point to your endless rants.
Seems you are the only one claiming what he did was mixup different units.
Nope, never did that, liar-troll.
Have the last word. Im sure it will be illuminating.
——————————–
Yes indeed its illuminating!!!!
You said:
”I have already explained that you are mixing up quantities with different units.
The 0.025 has units of mm/year^2. The 25 has units of mm.
You cannot take ratios of quantities with different units and expect these to make sense..”
Are you in denial that the authors calculated the mm/year^2 from a database of units of mm?
And you are objecting to my objections about the relevance of the author’s doing that and your response is one unit cannot be compared to another??????? Yet its calculated from the other????
Obviously you did that and your only real response is to call me a liar-troll.
More on the topic:
And by the way I made no ”ratios” anywhere. What we are talking about is certainty. You maintain you can take any database of minute by minute measurements with extreme variations, smooth it to 10 day averages then run a statistical study on that smoothed data and proclaim a higher level of certainty because you smoothed the data and removed the variability to a mean variability of 33mm for which you are totally lacking in being able to characterize!!
You can do that if your measurements are accurate and the variability is due to the local piling up of water over a period of time. But you have to continue to wear the uncertainty when you don’t know if your measurements are correct to 33 millimeters.
In this case, the only thing going on is a rather feeble attempt to close sealevel rise budgets that rely upon pure guesses of continental rebound that get used to adjust heat content estimates of the ocean. When you get to the 3.3mm per year you can then claim the budget is closed and the basis for adjusting instrument temperature records has been better established. It isn’t science though, its political gamemanship.
More important I am not saying its wrong. I am merely pointing out that the process of estimating total certainty is being manipulated on a case by case basis. Detecting it requires independent expertise which obviously you don’t possess. Your response here of of claiming uncertainty cannot be detected across different units when in fact certainty is being estimated across that gap. . . .by the author that you are trying to incompetently support. Its laughable that you fancy yourself an expert. ROTFLMAO!
How bout you read the papers of this team at UC before delaring they have done it wrong.
Nate,
How about you learn how to accept physical reality, and stop being such a gullible moron?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to believe in a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Nate says:
How bout you read the papers of this team at UC before delaring they have done it wrong.
———————-
Nate I didn’t say what they did was wrong.
Its just mathematics without any art. You know like practicing for the day they actually have devices of sufficient accuracy. Sort like how they drill you in the military when there is no war.
Gee they probably can even match it up to other sources of sealevel rise. . . .like when they fudge tidal gauge data with guestimates of continental uplift.
After all they are spending OP money. And the OP have no choice but to pay them. So why not waste OP money for propaganda purposes? Oh thats right, its a drill!
The truly amazing part is how many dolts they can find to spread it around believing it amounts to something.
Swenson’s inability to comprehend science or use basic math is getting him increasingly agitated. His rate-of-insults is accelerating.
Nate I don’t agree with everything Swenson says but on the points you replied to he is dead correct.
Nate I don’t agree with everything Swenson says. But on the point he is making above he is absolutely correct and no amount of your ad hominems against him even begins to address that issue.
Swenson
“Someone is dreaming. Measuring global sea level remotely with an accuracy of one twenty-fifth of the thickness of a sheet of printer paper?”
–
You are confusing accuracy of actual measurements with averages of large numbers.
A 1 mm difference in measurements summed up over millions of repeated measurements has an average value which is real for that calculation but the range of error will always bi in the mm range.
–
It is an easy but unfair comparison.
Which you know.
angech,
Yes. I suppose I should have pointed out that “climate scientists” use the “miracle of averaging” to pretend that deceptive practices represent reality and good scientific practice.
About as stupid as averaging temperatures in Stevenson screens taken with thermometers probably accurate within plus or minus 0.5 C. Additionally, according to the WMO, “For routine meteorological observations there is no advantage in using thermometers with a very short time constant or lag coefficient, since the temperature of the air continually fluctuates up to one or two degrees within a few seconds.”
Averaging might make you feel good, but doesn’t really achieve much.
As far as sea level goes, there is not even a universally accepted definition for the geoid, so measuring it is completely pointless – if you can convince yourself you are measuring it.
Additionally, given the erratic nature of tidal movement (varying from zero per day – amphidromic points – to more than four per day, and varying up to 10 m difference between high and low tides, measuring global sea levels is nonsensical. By the way, tide time predictions are not as accurate as many people believe, so adjustments to actual measurements may be no more than guesses.
To sum up, my view is that averaging nonsense gives you more scientific looking nonsense – that’s about all.
Maybe I’m a bit cynical?
“averaging might make you feel good, but doesnt really achieve much.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Saya the King of Obfuscation.
Nate,
If you can’t name at least one person who denies that science exists, then you are a lying moron.
Science denier? Is that like a climate denier? I bet you can’t name one person who denies that climate exists either.
That would make you a doubly lying moron, wouldn’t you agree?
To sum up, my view is that averaging nonsense gives you more scientific looking nonsense thats about all.
Maybe Im a bit cynical?
–
Maybe a bit tired or disillusioned?
Data has to be collected. Averaging is just a very useful tool.
The interpretations are the problem.
–
Many myths keep floating on or growing when their hulls have obvious large holes blown in them.
–
The flaw in Climate Change due to human fossil fuel use increasing global warming is simple.
When it cools enough the adherents will all evaporate.
Anti scientific but a fact.
–
If it keeps warming there is no way to convince people that the theory is wrong, especially when it appears to be right.
–
Now that is cynicism.
angech,
You wrote –
“If it keeps warming there is no way to convince people that the theory is wrong, especially when it appears to be right.
This would the theory of what, precisely?
Claiming that you know about a theory which you have to keep hidden from view because nobody can understand it (or for some equally stupid reason), just makes you look like a moron trying to make fact out of fiction.
ha ha ha
You think the accuracy of temperature measurements matters!
Not when the people who make and compile the measurements, adjustments and infilling have no integrity.
They have no problem deleting all the global cooling measured from 1940 to 1975, almost -0.5 degrees C. cooling has been reported in 1975.
They have no problem cooling the 1930s, so that 1998 was the hottest year in the US temperature records.
In fact, there are NO DATA in surface temperature compilations.
No raw data.
Only “adjusted” data (no longer data — just a personal opinion of what the data would have been if measured correctly in the first place)
And homogenized “adjusted” data (to obscure the “adjustments”, and
Wild guessed data (infilling), which can never be verified.
Meaning the global average temperature compilations are whatever government bureaucrats tell you they are, and there is no way for you to verify if they are correct, or to determine an honest likely margin of error.
Fortunately, that shoddy global temperature numbers are not very important.
Temperature history has no relationship to predictions of FUTURE global warming.
Future global warming predictions are NOT extrapolations of past global warming trends — if they were, historical temperature data would be very important.
,
In reality temperature predictions are for 2x to 3x faster warming than in the fastest warming period in the era of burning fossil fuels since 1880 — the 1975 through 2020 period.
The temperature predictions have no correlation with temperature history.
Nor are the predictions based on data — there are no data for the future climate.
They are just climate astrology, done by people with a horrible track record for long term temperature predictions.
So even if historical temperature numbers were perfectly accurate, we’d still get scary climate predictions unrelated to this historical climate numbers.
Shorter RG –
http://climateball.net/but-data
One day he will find all the bingo squares!
Will try to raise 2 issues here as it should be a quieter thread and the topic raised suits them.
–
The first is the TOA and energy imbalance.
I have addressed this at Climate etc with little helpful response.
–
The TOA and energy balance are two different concepts that cannot gel.
People move from a TOA to a totally different idea of energy storage in the ocean and atmosphere due to forcings.
Unfortunately the science is broke so they pretend that you can have both.
–
I admit that the concept of an energy imbalance looks as if it exists.
The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.
The molecules seem to move around faster ( note they do move faster to our perception)
The TOA goes further out which implies an increase in energy in the system.
–
Yet physics imposes one seemingly immutable law.
Entropy.
The energy going into an open system without energy production of its own must come straight back out again or go through it.-
–
This is trivially easy to prove.
Apply a steady constant known pathway of energy to a small enough object that receives that energy and note that it reaches a set immutable emission of energy equal exactly to that coming in hence has a temperature corresponding to that emission wavelength.
This can only happen if the energy in is equaling the energy out all the time.
–
There is no storage of energy.
The object will always be at exactly that temperature and emit exactly the right amount of radiation for ever under those circumstances. No rise of temperature of half a degree, or fall for that matter.
When the source is turned off the temperature starts falling the moment the last emmisions hit the object.
There is no steady state while the setup posed stored energy leaks out at the same temperature and then drops down.
–
Physics runs the same way forwards and back in time.
There cannot be a storage bump one way but not the other.
–
Yet there is apparently an increase in energy in the components of the irradiated system .
If the components have more energy and the outgoing energy is constant is there not energy retained, stored, demonstrable in the system?
–
This is the quandary that physics puts us in.
Physics of energy dictate that there is no extra energy in the system
Physics of mass say hold on , yes there is, I can see it.
–
This is an Einstein v Newton problem with the same solution.
Time space warping.
The earth and sun pursue straight lines through time space.
In our reference frame one appears to orbit the other.
It is real in one context but not the other and vice versa.
–
In the universe energy travels in it is all straight lines with no stopping .
Energy going into the earth must come out at the same rate it goes in .
So a TOA is seen by us where although the energy all comes out at the same time,
Its pathway is of different lengths due to its interactions and warping by mass,
But the time is also altered in the opposite direction , longer pathway shorter time.
–
In the universe mass sits in the presence of energy leads to a warping of time and position as well leading to mass appearing to move in relation to other masses.
This is the universe our sense and instruments work in.
–
Ok, its a pretty big ask and imaginative on my part, but this is the only way I can reconcile two totally contradictory and obviously contradictory facts.
–
I would like to opine a definition of TOA.
TOA is an energy measurement of the amount of energy received by a circle the diameter of the earth at 1 solar unit ( midpoint of the earth from the sun) transcribed to the surface of a sphere around the earth.
This is an unsatisfactory definition as it misses some of the energy that misses the earth but is absorbed by the atmosphere.
It is the one commonly used.
–
By definition TOA is where the incoming and outgoing radiation exactly balance.
Even though the wavelength frequencies in and out do not.
More SW in More IR out.
But exactly the same amount of energy.
–
If the sun gets hotter or colder, if clouds get in the way (albedo) then the TOA changes as the energy that would hit the earth changes.
–
Note that changing the GHG does not change the TOA technically .
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same and the TOA does not move.
–
Thanks for this opportunity.
“The TOA and energy balance are two different concepts that cannot gel.”
Not that I am interested in global climate.
We living in Ice Age. And any Ice Age is called an icehouse global
climate.
And the state of the icehouse global climate is solely about the average temperature of the oceans on Earth.
Or NASA is correct when they say:
“Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
https://tinyurl.com/yc273wem
Now Top of the Atmosphere {TOA} is mostly about energy from the sun entering Earth atmosphere.
And I wouldn’t refer to TOA as where energy is leaving Earth. It goes thru TOA, obviously.
TOA is vague term. 100 or 200 km above earth surface could be called TOA. One even talking about from L-1 [1.5 million km from Earth surface- where “AL Gore’s satellite” is]
I think I am going to start saying, that we have now, recovered from the Little Ice Age. Instead of saying we are recovering from the LIA.
But I not what we are going be entering into after this recovery.
We might be in transition which leads to leveling and then cooling, or more warming, or leveling and more warming.
I am not sure what caused the Little Ice Age. I would imagine if you interested in Global climate, that might be something to find an answer, to.
Angech,
That’s a lot of conjecture. Do you have any real evidence (data) of the following:
“The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.”
“The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.”
“The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.”
Hmm. The cult believes GHG forcing is whatever increases water vapor
as water vapor is main greenhouse gas.
But as everyone knows warming of the ocean causes a higher global air temperature.
Or our cold ocean is why we have a low air temperature.
Or the only reason we in icehouse climate is because our ocean is cold, it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.
The cult thinks the presence of CO2 trace gas causes more water vapor.
But they are clueless of where this increase of water vapor is.
Most might imagine it’s in the tropics, which is of course silly.
And though evidence is staring them in the face, they don’t know what warmer world looks like.
This unknown scares them.
Note that changing the GHG does not change the TOA technically .
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same and the TOA does not move.
Is this true?
People say a hotter surface moves the TOA out but what they really mean is that the amount of energy getting in is changing for it to be hotter.
Back radiation is not more energy coming in.
“But since the light hitting the surface is unchanged the energy going out is the same … ”
That can not be true.
The solar energy is not constant but is close.
A change in cloyds could change the solar energy reaching the surface, but I don’t know of any meaningful change assuming such a change can be measured.
We know our planet is always warming or cooling.
If the incoming energy is nearly constant, then there must be changes in the outgoing energy to cause those warming and cooling trends.
If there is global warming, it is because there has been a decline in outgoing energy.
A change in greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and CO2, would be the first suspects.
The only alternative would be some factor that is gradually increasing the amount of incoming solar energy.
You better not go back in history because you would have to change most of the borders in Europe. That’s just silly. The Russians of Kharkiv want to live in a democratic state. They fight for Ukraine and die together with Ukrainians. This is a war of attrition. Is this the 21st century?
What has the climate fraud led to? To Western Europe’s total dependence on Russian gas. Why do the Germans need so much gas if they have such an attitude towards fossil fuels? How many more gas pipes do they need?
“climate fraud”
No. Anti-nuke stupidity.
If you shut down coal plants and nuclear plants, and oppose fracking, then you will have to use more natural gas for electricity. Especially at night and during low wind conditions. What other choice is there?
if Germany did not buy natural gas from Russia, they’d have to buy the same amount from somewhere else. i think of Germany as the canary in the coal mine for green energy. Although, based on the harm they have done to their electric grid so far, that’s insulting to canaries. So lets say Germany is the energy dingbat in the coal mine !
Suddenly, gas was “clean energy” in Europe. What is produced by burning gas?
Can’t coal also be “clean” if the right filters are used to catch sulphur oxides and dust?
IP,
Yup.
From an old US adertising campaign –
“Says Phoebe Snow
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo
“My gown stays white
from morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite””
Pretty clean.
Here is indicator of the dystopia that is coming like a freight train. Environment Canada is putting together a plan to reach 40% cut in fossil fuels by 2030 under the auspices of Net Zero Policy.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
Roy,
You played “but religion” and a variation on “but trace gas” in one post:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Well played!
Earth scientists have long believed that the present is the key to the past and vice versa. Since Vail and Mitchum released their seminal paper in 1977 this has included an expectation of virtually continuous global climate change, albeit at varying rates, throughout geologic time. Eighteenth century geologists studying the rock record recognized the cyclic nature of transitions between erosion and deposition; stasis and deformation. Later refinements of the geologic timescale clearly reflect decreasing uncertainty in understanding the rock record. Quite the opposite philosophy of that suggested in this post.
Tom,
You wrote –
. . . an expectation of virtually continuous global climate change, albeit at varying rates, throughout geologic time.
Since climate is the statistics of weather, and weather is constantly changing, I assume Vail and Mitchum were funded by some government or other, to say what any reasonably intelligent child could have told them – without charge!
If your philosophy doesnt accord with fact, it wont do you much good, will it?
Before Vail and Mitchum’s paper a reasonably intelligent child had no reason to think the climate in Siberia would change the same way the climate was changing in South America.
{Dr Spencer, hoping a quick return to good health for all your family. And thanks for being a Champion for Science.}
“But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.”
And it has now grown into a cult that openly seeks to shut down real science, as you have seen. Here, on this blog, the cult has even claimed that ice cubes can boil water. They have an equation for such nonsense. And believers vehemently reject anything even close to reality.
We live in interesting times.
I was wondering about other people’s opinion on how much warming is needed to cause the Sahara desert become mostly grassland, again?
Though rather than give some number of degrees in Celsius, one could give some number for amount of increase in global water vapor.
Or could describe in other ways, like, if we have polar sea ice which was completely ice free in the summer, how much greening effect of Sahara desert would there be?
One reason I ask questions is that due to my impatience it encourages me to look.
So, far:
“The green Sahara is an example of extreme environmental change, which highlights the regions extraordinary sensitivity and the need to better understand its hydroclimatic variability. Current explanations for the greening of the Sahara point to the Earths orbital changes during the Early Holocene, leading to increased boreal summer (JJA) insolation, which drove the intensification and northward expansion of the JJA monsoon over northern Africa (15, 18), aided by strong positive feedbacks from the land surface (1922). Reproducing the green Sahara has posed a lasting challenge for climate modelers. ”
https://tinyurl.com/3rzcaw2e
“Despite intense human land use, the Sahel has been re-greening in recent decades as precipitation has recovered from the dry period of the 1970s and 1980s. Whether vegetation expands further into the Sahel and Sahara depends in part on the complex interplay among vegetation, climate, and environmental changes.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220301007
Chic Bowdrie says.
Angech,
Thats a lot of conjecture. Do you have any real evidence (data) of the following:
The temperature in the atmosphere goes up with an increase in GHG forcing.
The planet surface is warmer due to back radiation.
–
The evidence is everywhere you look, Chris, but if you do not want to accept it you will force yourself not to see it.
The problem with trying to refute CO2 as a cause of surface and atmospheric warming
( note this is different to planetary warming)
is that it is scientifically wrong and mendacious to do so by saying –
GHG do not cause a temperature rise
Back radiation does not occur
Or if back radiation does occur it has no effect.
–
If you wish to discuss temperature, (science), CO2, (science) and radiation, (science) you are using concepts which are agreed on and you cannot mark arbitrary demands to alter them
–
When the science leads to fundamental conflicts the you could argue the science instead.
–
Your comments indicate strongly a mindset trained to ignore back radiation and GHG forcing.
How could anyone offer you real evidence when you believe there is none?
I did not make the terms up.
Roy Spencer has written an eloquent discourse on back radiation and why it is real you could find if you bothered.
But it might as well be hieroglyphics or Braille if you refuse to think or see.
–
angech,
You wrote –
“it is scientifically wrong and mendacious to do so by saying
GHG do not cause a temperature rise
Back radiation does not occur
Or if back radiation does occur it has no effect.
Well, nobody has ever demonstrated that increasing the amount of a gas of any sort between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
In fact, as Professor John Tyndall demonstrated by meticulous reproducible experimentation more than 150 years ago, exactly the opposite occurs. And of course, this explains why around 35% of solar radiation never gets to the surface, why the maximum terrestrial temperature is about 40 K less than the airless Moon, and the reverse for minimum temperatures, why temperature extremes are less, and a raft of other easily observable phenomena.
If you wish to deny reality and experiment, by all means do so.
However, as Richard Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Unless you can come up with experiment to support your fantasy, youre wrong.
Swenson
“Unless you can come up with experiment to support your fantasy, youre wrong. ”
Something like this?
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1184283-observational-determination-surface-radiative-forcing-co2-from
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Ent, this nonsense is just another example that you don’t understand any of this.
These old “papers” are claiming that infrared from the atmosphere is “radiative forcing”. They believe that, so their beliefs become fact, to them. That ain’t science.
Here again, they ignore reality. CO2 15μ photons can NOT heat a surface at 288K. It ain’t going to happen. That’s like boiling water with ice cubes. It ain’t going to happen.
Eman post links to 8th-grade science projects all the time. Must be some of his old students.
EM,
No. A reproducible scientific experiment, not a bundle of unsupported assertions, based on wishful thinking and straight out lies.
For example (from one link) –
“These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, . . . ”
There is no “greenhouse theory” arising from an indescribable “greenhouse effect”.
Nor has the effect of unquantified “emissions” on weather ever been documented. Climate, of course, is just the statistics of weather, so your authors are even more delusional than you!
Climate crackpots preaching to other climate crackpots.
This mob of dills wouldnt be qualified to sweep the floor for a real scientist – Professor John Tyndall, for example.
Try again if you want to waste your time and look like an idiot again,
“Well, nobody has ever demonstrated that increasing the amount of a gas of any sort between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!”
Absolutely brilliant. Bravo.
Brilliantly dumb strawman. I guess there is no reason to wear a coat on a sunny but cold winter day, eh CO2L!
Totally ignores the fact that the increasing amount of gas is also between the warm Earth surface and extreme cold of space.
Then he cites Tyndall of all people!
The very one who showed why some gases act as an insulator between the Earth’s surface and the dead cold of space, while being transparent to the warming rays of sunlight.
angech, you seem to be confusing “back-radiation” with “GHG forcing”. Back-radiation is nothing more than the infrared from the atmosphere directed back to the surface. It’s real and it can be measured. “GHG forcing” is NOT real. It can’t be measured.
GHG Forcing is the fudge factor entered into the models to produce the desired answer. It is like Einstein’s Cosmological Constant. When “scientists” think they know more than the data, they twist things to prove they are right.
Completely false. CO2 is represented in the models as the physics of spectroscopy. There is no value given to the compound, except what it does to radiation in the atmosphere per the HITRAN database of spectral analysis, an EMPIRICAL database.
Angech,
Conjecture 2, Data 0. You lose.
Any data to back up that ruling, Chic?
Weepy Wee Willy,
Any data to dispute it, dummy?
Have you ever needed any data for your disputations, Mike?
No data is needed to dispute when there are violations of the Laws of physics, Dud.
Are you suggesting that Chic’s criteria is a dud, Pup?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Are you suggesting that anyone should take notice of your opinion, moron?
Dud, if you can’t properly understand my comments, just remember: Willard is an uneducated worthless troll.
Try to memorize that. If you can’t memorize, you can tattoo it on your forehead.
Your if is wrong, Pup.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Angtech,
What Chic is asking is he wants you to provide evidence that greenhouse gases cause the planet to warm by approximately 33C. Dr. Spencer, nor anyone else, has shown any evidence that it happens. (Or, by any amount of C for that matter.)
Planet Earth is not warmed by 33 C.
Earth average temperature of it’s ocean is about 3.5 C.
Is Planet Earth atmosphere warmed by 33 C by greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse gases are small portion of Earth atmosphere, without
most of Earth atmosphere, Earth average would have a lower average temperature.
Earth’s average surface temperature is about 17 C over ocean and 10 C over land.
Earth ocean warms Europe land temperature by about 10 C.
And average temperature of Earth ocean is about 3.5 C and it’s this average temperature which controls Earth’s global icehouse climate.
More than 90% of “global warming” warms this average ocean temperature of 3.5 C {by a very small amount}.
One must answer whether such warming of ocean is important or insignificant. If you falsely assume it’s insignificant, then you are dismissing more than 90% of all “global warming”.
The religious problem with allowing that warming the 3.5 C ocean is significant is that it very long term effect. Or doesn’t support the “end of the world story” of your religion.
Or in terms of immediate issues there are far more important matters to address. And war against CO2, interferes with solving other important matters. Or it’s immoral.
When the ocean has been warmer than 3.5 C, we are still in an icehouse global climate, but it been a much warmer average global air temperature than 15 C, and the Sahara desert was mostly grasslands.
Having Sahara deserts being grasslands, actually helps solve many of worlds problems.
And having Sahara desert being mostly grassland, would result in lowering CO2 levels.
The problem with your emphasis on the cold bulk of the ocean is that it doesnt prevent the surface from being warm.
After all, even in the tropics, where the surface is 30 C, the ocean bottom is still near 0 C.
So we can certainly have a warmer Earth, with a warmer near-surface ocean, without the deep ocean bottom warming much at all.
The cold ocean has little effect on the tropical ocean. As very warm ocean of say 18 C has little effect on the tropical ocean.
Because the tropical ocean has large slabs of warm water, but the rest of the ocean is different matter.
Land area quickly warms up, and it also quickly cools down, but if have a higher global surface air temperature, land night temperature is higher [doesn’t cool down as much at night or winter].
The global surface air temperature is controlled by 70% of the ocean surface. The global average ocean temperature is about 17 C and global average land temperature is about 10 C, giving the global average of about 15 C. Or ocean surface has doesn’t heat up much during the daytime, but also doesn’t cool down much at night.
What is most significant about warmer cold ocean is one get less polar sea ice. And thick polar ice is similar to a land surface, it can quickly cool during the night, and polar sea ice one have the surface air temperature at say -40 C, whereas liquid surface maintains the air above it above 0 C.
One can be easily said is if average ocean temperature was say 6 C, then you never get polar sea ice, but ocean of 6 C is still in an icehouse global climate. 6 C ocean is still a cold ocean. And land can still get cold enough to snow- you could get even more snow, as very cold dry air, doesn’t snow much.
But 6 C ocean within 1000 or million years is not going to happen, and we looking ocean which has warmed to 4 C, or has been .5 C warmer within our interglacial period. And warmest times in last couple million years has been interglacial peak temperature with ocean of 4 C.
A 4 C ocean will result in ice free polar sea ice in the summer, which means less polar sea ice in the winter. Germany or Canada is a lot warmer in the winter.
Thanks to the pattern change developing a powerful high-pressure system over northern Europe, an early March Arctic cold blast with temperatures around -15 C is forecast to spread into eastern Europe in the coming days. The favorable flipped pattern delivers extremely cold weather and snow also farther west into central and southern Europe next week. This is due to the Polar Vortex southern lobe turning towards Russia and Europe after being parked over the United States and Canada for most of the Winter Season 2021/22.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-2022-arctic-extreme-cold-snow-russia-ukraine-eastern-europe-mk/?fbclid=IwAR1pBgr9aFFeAj6NYWzn27vh0XIfcUVNnhEM52dAWGoxdsVQnaNdGEN0OlE
A sneak peak at snow totals into mid-March show that influx of snow for many areas.
https://andysweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/nbm-conus-west-total_snow_10to1-7086400.png
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/03/02/march-snowf-forecast-ski/?fbclid=IwAR1Vx2LulEcaEqKHvkf1BM3TeQ-76Ti3j3ZtAAxnpdL0E8OKdV68ClLouck
There is no “energy imbalance”. Earth’s energy in/out is continually balancing. The idea that there is an “imbalance” comes from the AGW nonsense. It ain’t science.
It gets worse. They don’t even know how to calculate an energy balance. They attempt to balance flux. But, flux doesn’t balance. They simply don’t know what they’re doing. It’s called “climate science”.
The energy balance is a bunch of hand waving and assumptions. How can they do energy balance when their mass balance is ridiculous?
spa,
The Earth seems to have cooled from a much hotter state.
The interior radiogenic resources are severely depleted after four and a half billion years or so, all the resultant heat arising from matter being converted to energy having fled to space.
The Sun is unable to provide enough energy to maintain the Earth’s present temperature, which geophysicists generally estimate to be falling at between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Slow cooling is not heating. No GHE. No magical CO2 heating.
Just a ragtag bunch of self appointed “climate experts” attempting to present fiction as fact.
Swenson says:
“The Earth seems to have cooled from a much hotter state.”
–
“The Sun seems to have heated up from a much cooler state”
–
Provided one accepts a space dust to planets and stars theory.
–
angech,
I didn’t write “The Sun seems to have heated up from a much cooler state, did I?
Why do you need to make stuff up?
Reality not enough for you?
By the way, space dust to planets and stars is not even a theory. At best, it’s a hypothesis. Speculation. If you have a speculation that better fits present day observed reality, feel free to trot it out, and defend it.
I don’t think you can, without needlessly complicating things, or invoking magic.
Baloney.
there is always an “energy imbalance”
That is a description of a planet that is always warming or cooling — not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
“There is no ‘energy imbalance’. Earths energy in/out is continually balancing. The idea that there is an ‘imbalance’ comes from the AGW nonsense. It aint science.”
If Earth’s energy was never imbalanced, it wouldn’t change temperature.
You’ve just literally denied global climate change even occurs, ever.
Thus, you would be correctly labelled a climate change denier.
For Man to be responsible for Climate Change since the beginning of the Industrial Age requires ignoring all the catastrophic climate change that preceded it. Claiming that we are experiencing a statistically significant difference in Climate requires an ignorance of climate history of biblical proportions.
You are confusing long term natural climate changes with short term man made climate changes. The two exist at the same time.
There is no such thing as “man made climate change”, RG.
You just swallow the AGW nonsense without understanding the relevant physics.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
No offense.
Cities built by humans are much warmer than surrounding areas
Strike one for you
Man made air pollution blocks some sunlight
Strike 2 for you
Man made CO2 emissions reduce Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount
Strike 3 for you
Three strikes and you are out.
Conclusion:
You are an anti-science dingbat Clint R.
RG, and you differentiate the two how? The only way I know to demonstrate that would be to prove that the variability of the temperature during the industrial age differs from the previous 10,000 years of the Holocene by a statistically significant amount. That is an easily testable hypothesis using any Ice Core Data Set. I’ve done it, and if anything, the Industrial age has LOWERED the variability of temperature, and we are well below numerous peaks in the data set earlier in the Holocene.
Why don’t you do that experiment and publish the results? Remember this is a science. Simply apply the scientific method to the data that is widely available.
You are stating personal “conclusions” that can not be proven.
(1)
Ice core proxies are local approximations, not accurate real time global average measurements.
(2)
The fact that there are many variables affecting the climate, and it is impossible to specify exactly what CO2 does, does not prove man made causes of climate change do not exist
(3) Your claim about lower variability of the climate in the “industrial age” has to be based on the rough estimates from local climate proxies, not accurate real time temperature measurements combines into a global average. Reasonably accurate real time measurements and global averages have existed only since 1979 (UAH) Industrial age temperatures and CO2 levels are only rough estimates from proxies. There were very land based few weather station before 1900 and sea surface measurements were even worse.
(4) Climate estimates for the past 10,000 years are based on local proxies. Combining local proxies in an attempt to create a global average tends to smooth variations. The resulting smoothed variations tend to be so small that it is impossible to prove any average temperatures (estimates) in the past 10,000 years were warmer than the global average temperatures in the past ten years.
For example it can be assumed that the Holocene Climate Optimum, from 5000 to 9000 years ago, was slightly warmer than the past 10 years, but that is an assumption, not a fact.
Similarly, climate proxies and anecdotes suggest there have been colder and warmer centuries in the past few thousand years. And people greatly preferred warmer climates.
But proxies and anecdotes do not provide an accurate real time global average temperature to compare with the real time global average temperatures in the past 10 years (from UAH)
Conclusions:
Climate always varies
People prefer warmer centuries over colder centuries
CO2 is the staff of most life on our planet, not pollution
The climate in 100 years is unknown (even in one year)
The future climate will be warmer, unless it gets colder.
Everything predicted about the future climate is speculation with no data — there are no data for the future — and there ia 50 year track record of inaccurate climate predictions.
The measured temperature in any 50 year period can not be used to predict the measured temperature in the next 50 year period.
For example, the global cooling from 1940 to 1975 (later “adjusted” away) did not predict the global warming from 1975 through 2020.
And the global warming from 1910 to 1940, assuming the measurements are accurate, did not predict the global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as originally reported in 1975.
It is impossible to predict the future climate, but also difficult to “predict” the past climate, because the numbers keep changing !
Little Amelia from Kiev livens up people’s time in one of Kiev’s air-raid shelters with her singing
https://youtu.be/g2BHRt9jSXY
This isn’t facebook, ren.
Russian frost in a few days in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/sJbV6wt/Screenshot-2.png
ren
Bookmarked!
Our forecast for the coldest night between 06.03.22 and 19.03.22:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?daytime=night&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220310&iid=euro&pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram
Russian frost you said?
Hmmmmh.
You can comfort yourself, but you’ll be cold at night. Do you see SSW in the lower stratosphere? That will do it.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
The fact that CO2’s ability to warm was saturated long ago should be enough to convince anyone that the warming is natural. It simply cannot be due to CO2.
http://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm
There have been a couple of claimed refutations of this saturation science, but they don’t respond directly to this article by Dr. Heinz Hug. The reason is he actually refutes the refutations in this article.
I have no idea why Dr. Spencer believes that CO2 causes any warming at all.
Richard M
I have seen that paper before. He is discussing how far IR emitted from surface at 15 microns can travel before it is absorbed. A few meters. In his thought process he concludes, since it is already at saturation is cannot do anything.
The flaw in his reasoning is he is limiting his thought process to just one aspect of the situation. The increase in warming comes because the increase in CO2 increases the emission height for the CO2 band emission to space. It emits at a cooler part of the atmosphere (because of lapse rate). As you add more CO2 the CO2 to space emission height continues to increase. The solar heating of the surface will result in the surface needing to reach a higher temperature to get the same amount of heat to leave the Earth.
An analogous situation is to just keep increasing the layers of insulation around a house. If it is super cold outside the more layers of insulation, the less heat that ends up leaving the heated home.
I do not object to Heinz Hug’s math. I am sure his calculations are good. His conclusions are what I would reconsider on your part.
Norman, your nonsense is creative, but it ain’t science.
You are claiming an increase in CO2 increases its emission height. But CO2 does not know where it is, idiot.
Your next perversion of reality, please….
If it is nonsense, then it is not creative, just wrong.
Norman, the ERL, aka emission height, is a fixed constant for well mixed gases. It is based on density changes as one moves through the atmosphere. Doubling CO2 will double the energy loss at every altitude. Hence, there is no change in the emission temperature. However, since more energy involved, there has to be a cooling effect.
To understand how this really works imagine the atmosphere is many concentric layers where energy is absorbed and radiated randomly based on the number of CO2 molecules within a layer.
At any lower layer you are radiating upward more energy than there are CO2 molecules in the next layer above to absorb. This energy is immediately lost to space because the same process applies to all layers as you go up.
Doubling CO2 increases the number of molecules at every layer proportionally. The difference between layers will be proportional to the change in density.
I realize this is not intuitive at first. Took me years to catch on.
Richard M
The doubling of CO2 would double the energy lost per layer not not to space. In your hypothesis you need to consider that, at a given temperature, the CO2 radiates away energy in both directions…Up and Down so while the layer is losing twice the energy the upward emission is only half of this and from middle layers it does not reach space. The emission to space only takes place when the layer above is so thin that it no longer absorbs the upwelling longwave radiation.
The MODTRAN model shows how increased CO2 lowers the outward emission of IR at the same surface temperature. The surface would have to warm to reach the same level of outward emission.
You can put in the numbers in the mode. Change the atmosphere to Standard and go from 400 PPM CO2 to 800 and look at the change to the Outward emission with the same 288 K surface temp.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The real atmosphere has clouds, which close an IR window considerably but I use no clouds to see just the effect of CO2. It is a difference of minus 2.98 W/m^2. More CO2 lowers the emission to space and the surface will heat until the radiant loss is the same.
Real world dynamics with clouds make the situation extremely complex which some have pointed out that it is not clear cut. There is no simplistic answer for how much warming there will be. Mostly speculation and guesswork.
Norman, if you look at the atmosphere as a set of concentric layers it helps to understand that the layers above will NOT absorb any extra radiation from below. Look at two adjacent layers.
The layer above radiates X amount of energy downward and all of it can be absorbed since there are more CO2 molecules. The lower layer radiates X+Y amount of upward energy due to having the extra CO2 molecules.
The higher layer can only absorb X amount of that energy based on its number of CO2 molecules. The extra Y energy has nowhere to go. It’s kind of like musical chairs where the higher layer has fewer chairs. Only a subset of the people looking for chairs will find them.
Note that the higher layer was completely saturated by the X energy radiated to it from the lower layer. It has no capability to absorb energy from any other layer further below. Think of musical chairs again. The chairs keep getting removed as you go up. The higher layer can’t provide a seat for all the people moving up from the previous layer let alone anyone who didn’t make it there.
Richard M
Maybe this example will help you understand my point.
1
2
4
8
16
Say that each layer of air has 1/2 the CO2 of the layer below it.
Okay so the lowest level will radiate an equivalent of 8 units up and down. So the next layer up will receive all the 8 units and then warm and emit its own 4 units each way. The layer above this will receive all 4 and radiate 2 both ways. This process continues until there is not enough CO2 above to radiate anything back and all goes to space.
When you do the UP and DOWN of your concentric circles you will see the lower layer radiates only X+Y/2 since the amount of radiation goes both ways.
In the real atmosphere it is cooling as you go up so each layer is radiating less and less IR. IR emission from CO2 is based upon the temperature of the level and its emissivity.
If you want an analogy that helps, consider insulating a heated object. The first insulation you put around the object will be powerful R32. You find it needs more so you put another layer of R20. It is not as effective as R32 but it does decrease the amount of heat leaving the heated object and its temperature rises. You continue to provide new layers of less effective insulation but each one has an effect. So adding more CO2 will increase the emission layer which will take place at a colder temperature and even with more CO2 the lower temperature (because the addition is linear but the radiant loss is to the 4th power so a change in temperature has more effect).
Norman, that’s some really creative keyboarding, but it ain’t science. Unfortunately, you don’t understand any of this.
You’re confusing CO2 with insulation. The non IR radiative gases serve as insulation, but CO2 is constantly emitting energy to space.
You don’t understand any of this, and you refuse learning. You haven’t learned one thing in the last two years. You’re braindead.
Clint R
I do understand it quite well.
Watch this video. It might help you out. If you are a bot it won’t help. If human, it might.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFL5NoM9GVE
If you are human it explains both your stupid posts and your arrogance.
There is nothing anyone can do to inform you or correct all your errors. The best solution would be for you to read more physics textbooks. Since you won’t do this I guess you will continue to post stupid unsupported ideas that you think are brilliant and you will think everyone else are idiots.
Clint R
Yes CO2 continuously emits to space but at a lot lower rate than the Earth’s surface would if there were NO GHG present. O2 and N2 don’t insulate since the next layer above is space and heat does not conduct or convect through space. So it is not insulating the surface from space. You might think it does but that thinking is flawed.
With no GHG the Surface would emit average of 390 W/m^2 directly to space (until it cooled the the lower temperatures that solar input could sustain). With GHG the energy leaving the Earth averages 240 W/m^2. Much lower so I am stunned at your stupid post. I can’t help you with your ignorance. I have already linked you to dozens of measured values. You ignore evidence so it is a hopeless task to debate in any rational way.
Basically you are a cult minded idiot who hates science and evidence based reality in favor of your own created reality based upon your own opinions on how you think Nature should work. You have no desire to understand or learn how it actually works.
Wrong again, braindead Norman.
The insulation occurs between layers of insulating gases, and Earth’s surface. You forgot about the lapse rate. You don’t understand any of this.
You make a lot of false accusations, but you forget you couldn’t solve the simple physics problems, and you know NOTHING about thermodynamics. You make big claims, but you can never back them up. Trolling is more important to you than learning. That’s why you haven’t learned anything in the two years I’ve been here.
Where’s that “real 255K surface”. How’s that experiment to boil water with ice cubes going? How did the “hammer/hand” experiment work out? Do you understand that a bicycle pedal rotates on an axle? See what a braindead cult idiot you are? (And I didn’t even mention all the links you find but can’t understand.)
Clint R
I can’t do anything about your ignorance, denial of evidence, your anti-scientific mentality. Those issues cannot be fixed. You are too stupid and arrogant (as the YouTube video points out) to alter your path.
However I will not accept your lies and dishonesty. That goes too far. A boastful ignorant person like you is one thing. The lies are another.
YOUR BLATANT LIE: “You make big claims, but you can never back them up.”
I back up all my claims with supporting evidence. You don’t accept the evidence but you lie when you claim I do not back up my claims.
Be an ignorant fool, that is your choice. But do you also have to be a dishonest liar? Why?
Norman, all your false accusations about me are more examples that you “make big claims, but you can never back them up.”
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”? That’s another big claim you can’t back up.
You need to display some honesty before you start calling other people “liars”.
Clint R
I think I need a barf bag to continue with you.
You are a sickening blatant liar. Dishonest as one can get.
I have said over and over that I said there is a real RADIATING surface. Ball4 brought up the confusing term you attribute to me. I have corrected you enough that now you are just lying.
It seems you are not a human as you possess no memory.
I can explain it again here so you can lie some more or put out some garbage you are programmed to do. More likely you are a bot than human or you would correct your lies.
The longwave emission from the Earth to space averages around 240 W/m^2. I have linked you various articles that discuss this, how the data was obtained etc. I can’t help your program can’t process the data. That flaw is with your programming group.
With this amount of radiant energy the Brightness temperature (if the Earth were a blackbody) would be 255 K.
The radiant surface of Earth (the boundary from which the radiation leaves the Earth and travels in space) is emitting 240 W/m^2 with a brightness temperature of 255 K.
Trying the same nonsense over and over, hoping for different results, is insanity, Norman.
I can understand that you want to change the term, but you’re stuck with it. So where is this “real 255K surface”? If you claim it’s somewhere in the atmosphere, what is its altitude?
You’re in over your head. You bit off more than you can chew. You swallowed Ball4’s crap, you’re stuck with it, and you’re trying to blame me.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
Norman, you claimed
“the lowest level will radiate an equivalent of 8 units up and down. So the next layer up will receive all the 8 units and then warm and emit its own 4 units each way. The layer above this will receive all 4 and radiate 2 both ways. This process continues until there is not enough CO2 above to radiate anything back and all goes to space.”
How can “the layer above” absorb all the units from the lower layer (8) as well as units from the layer above it (2)? Doesn’t add up.
I think all you did was lower the amount of lost radiation at each level (2 units instead of 4). The basic idea I laid out is the same.
Your insulation analogy also fails. The insulation layers are not set by a fixed size as it is with the atmosphere. When you add CO2 you aren’t adding another layer. The energy loss at each layer is a function of the changing density. That doesn’t change. You get 100% loss at the same altitude.
Clint R the bot,
No I am not stuck with a term Ball4 claimed and you attribute to me. I have always claimed a radiant surface and I have gone into detail to explain the term.
Does the Sun have a surface? I have given you this as an example as well as multiple images of Earth’s outgoing longwave radiant energy.
There is NO specific altitude where the IR emanates from. Some comes from the TOA, other comes from the actual Earth’s surface and some from clouds and water vapor. All kinds of different altitudes but the boundary layer is fixed. It is the point from which no more longwave radiant energy is being emitted by the Earth.
NOTE to Clint R bot programmers. Your bot is malfunctioning. Can you recall and tweak out the flaws. Shows no signs of awareness, just repeats old points over and over. This bot will not pass the Turning Test.
Norman, here’s the reality — Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
Ball4 claimed it did, and you fell for his nonsense. Now, you’ve realized you got tricked, so you’re trying to weasel out. And you’re trying to blame me!
Your cult beliefs made you look like an incompetent boob, again.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“what is its altitude?”
What is the surface of a fog bank? What is the altitude of a clouds surface?
I doubt Norman will come back. When his lack of education is exposed, he typically runs.
But something in the atmosphere with a “real” surface would have an altitude. With clouds, there is even an instrument to measure the altitude. It’s called a “ceilometer”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceilometer
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
Planet Earth does have a “real 255K surface” since it has been instrumentally measured!
Norman,
In your example which I corrected you have 8 units emitted by the lower layer and 6 units absorbed by the next layer up. This results in a loss of 2 units or 25% of the available energy.
Now consider what happens with 2xCO2. You now have 16 units emitted by the lower layer and 12 units absorbed by the next layer up. This is a loss of 4 units which is again 25% of the available energy.
This is why the emission height does not change. The percent of energy loss is independent of the amount of energy. The loss rate is proportional to the change in density.
“This is why the emission height does not change.”
Richard M, you are incorrect, the emission height in an atm. does change with atm. optical depth.
The radiation emitted to space from Earth will mostly originate at some level above the surface. To make it simpler than Norman’s writing, most of the outgoing radiation to space comes from an emission level that is in the neighborhood of 1 optical thickness unit below planetary TOA.
Norman is explaining why that optical thickness varies to, in a roundabout way, show you are incorrect. The effective emission level height changes as the optical thickness of an atm changes. For more detail on that, crack open a meteorological text book and learn about the Chapman layer.
Physically, that emission height corresponds to a trade-off between high density (which gives high emissivity) and little overlying atmosphere to permit that height’s emitted radiation to escape to deep space.
No Balls,
At exactly what height(s) does radiation emitted to space from Earth mostly originate at and where are those measurements reported?
The exact height radiation emitted to space from Earth mostly originates is in the neighborhood of a level 1 optical thickness unit below the top of the earthen atmosphere as reported by measurements in the literature Chic has yet to read.
That optical thickness varies with the total mass path of absorbers, nonuniform absorber specific density, and pressure broadening among others. Thus the emission height does change.
Pitifully pointless platitudes. You won’t provide the sources of your alleged measurements, because you know they won’t provide the evidence of specific heights and temperatures.
Don’t your arms get tired with all that hand waving?
My arms get tired mostly from carrying around thick text books. As I advised Richard M, Chic should check out a reliable meteorological text book and learn about the Chapman layer. I am not a library nor librarian.
Ball4, I’ve heard it all before. Sorry, unless you have some new information, the claim you are repeating is false.
I showed exactly why it is false above. Energy is lost continually as you rise through the atmosphere and at a fixed rate based on the change in density. There is no magic layer of emission.
This is likely why Miskolczi got the result he published more than a decade ago.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
All I’ve done is shown the reasons behind those results. So, let’s hear your refutation of the math/physics I laid out.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi: “Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.”
This has not happened in the time after this paper or perhaps Richard M can point out where. There was simply no need to do so as more measurements accumulated after this paper demonstrate.
And FMM: “The present paper has restricted its attention to the empirical observational testing of the quasi-all-sky model, and has avoided theoretical analysis. These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.”
Sure, Richard M, you are relying on the FMM ~2009 quasi-all-sky model, sparse data in FMM, & avoiding theoretical analysis.
Those FMM empirical results have been challenged by the longer term real all sky empirical data of CERES instruments now that was not available to FMM at the time of this paper to check his assumptions. The FMM paper has thus been successfully challenged by better empirical methods showing the results of added ppm IR active gas, changes in clouds, albedo et. al. changing atm. optical thickness thus effective emission level.
Richard,
You are arguing with someone who believes a theoretical concept like average emission height can be measured. You are arguing with a fool.
Chapman layer altitude neighborhood is actually measured Chic. At each frequency in the IR band of interest in the view of the instrument. The measurements are not hard to find for an informed commenter.
Ball4,
Stop playing the fool.
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Chapman_layer
“The idealized height distribution of ionization as a function of height produced solely by absorp.tion of solar radiation.”
Note the word absorp_tion Chic. More ppm CO2 et. al. IR active gas the more solar absorp_tion and the layer neighborhood height is raised with increased optical depth. You should also reference a decent meteorlogical text book for even more details on the atm. effective emission level.
Foolish No Balls is now eligible for Queen of Obfuscation expecting to find a measured difference in some imaginary emission heights in textbooks. Where, from one edition to the next!?
Norman, you wrote,
“The increase in warming comes because the increase in CO2 increases the emission height for the CO2 band emission to space. It emits at a cooler part of the atmosphere (because of lapse rate).”
Why do you continue to regurgitate the same unproven assertions with no substantive evidence to back it up? Where are these emission height and cooler parts of the atmosphere ever measured?
Chic Bowdrir
Maybe look at this. I only read the abstract as I already accept this issue. Since you need more evidence I am sure if you read through this article you will have what you request.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
“Global measurements under nighttime, clear-sky conditions reveal
0.3600.026 Wm−2 of CO2-induced longwave radiative forcing, or 755% of model predictions”
Another way of saying that the models are 35-25% inaccurate.
RLH
Yes it is as Roy Spencer points out, the models run hot. They need to evaluate and find out why the models are running hot and work to make them more in line with real measurements.
Chic Bowdrie was asking for measured evidence and this article should provide it.
Norman,
You only have to read the following from the abstract to know there will be no measurements of emission height and cooler parts of the atmosphere in that paper.
“The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) multi-model ensemble average predicts 0.477 Wm−2 clear-sky longwave effective radiative forcing from this increase.”
Just because the modeling predicts a temperature increase and coincidentally a temperature increase occurs, that doesn’t indicate what caused the increase. The confounding variables have to be ruled out.
I feel compelled to argue against the dogma because we need to use fossil fuels here in the US and not buy them from Russia.
Why are you compelled to defend the dogma which may be wasting a lot of resources solving a non-problem?
Chic Bowdrie
They have a modeled amount and then they give the measured amount.
I am not defending dogma. I am looking at it with a scientific lens. Not a political one. I am looking for evidence either way.
The problem is all your evidence is circumstantial. Did you read the paper yet? What was measured? Was a temperature measured in response to a change in CO2? Was there any consideration for conduction, convection, wind, thermalization?
Continually explaining what you think is happening without any scientific data to back it up is not following the science. It is promoting a political agenda based on AGW dogma. That in itself is not terrible. Denying it is.
Chic, added ppm CO2 produces additional downward radiation same as added cirrus clouds produces additional downward radiation in our atm.
A surface temperature change was measured in response to a change in cirrus clouds by Dr. Spencer overnight in the presence of natural conduction, convection, wind and thermalization.
Maybe you can repeat the experiment on a clear night and release some CO2 above the apparatus to prove your assertion.
Sure, same answer, Chic. 1LOT will still work with whatever icy source provided the additional downward absorbed nighttime radiation even refrigerator ice cubes would work if they equal the radiation from the icy cirrus as Dr. Spencer already explained for you.
I’m serious. CO2 is not clouds or ice cubes. They don’t thermalize or convect.
What you claim must be proven or you are just making idle assertions. You are a just an empty suit.
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved what I claim, Chic. I have no pressing need to replicate his experiments as I can read them for myself. You should too. You can even replicate them if needed as enough of the details are provided.
Dr. Spencer did not prove CO2 warms anything or behaves like clouds. Are you trying to displace Nate as King of Obfuscation?
Norman, I read the paper and was disappointed they didn’t cover all the OLR frequencies. That could have verified/falsified my analysis previously. All they did is look at the wings and, as expected, see a reduction in OLR. Tells us nothing.
“Dr. Spencer did not prove CO2 warms anything or behaves like clouds.”
Actually Dr. Spencer did so experimentally on our real atm. and also theoretically with simple analysis. There is no obfuscation needed. Chic just hasn’t read and understood Dr. Spencer’s past postings on the subject.
Chic, Why are you obsessed with ’emission height’ as definite height that can be observed?
Yet another strawman in the never ending quest to find ‘the one easy trick’ that proves climate science has it all wrong.
There has never been single height from which all IR to space is emitted. It has always been an average.
Why does it need to be observed, what matters is that its predicted optical effect on the IR emission from Earth has been observed from space?
Youve seen the papers.
Nate,
If it can’t be observed and measured, it is imaginary. Obfuscation #1 on this thread.
You have referred to Kristian’s explanation of the GHE hypothesis as a cartoon. Note its emphasis on emission height and the expected change due to CO2 rise.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1190758
Where do you and your Queen of Obfuscation, Ball4, show any change in emission height measured?
“If it cant be observed and measured, it is imaginary. Obfuscation #1 on this thread.”
If I measure the IR spectra transmitted thru a material, I can infer what molecules are in there, and how many.
Standard technique.
DO you think they are imaginary?
How is that relevant to measuring differences in emission heights due to increases in IR absorbing gases? Obfuscation #2 on this thread.
An effective radiation level (ERL) is a concept describing an emission height where 50% of the radiation to space comes from below that level and 50% comes from above. It’s an entirely conceptual height, IOW, imaginary.
Here is what you said elsewhere
“The reverse kinetics, emissions exceeding collisions, only occurs in the upper atmosphere where the air density is sufficiently thin”
At what level? Has this level been observed? Then it must be just imaginary….
You ought to be able understand, then, that when in the upper atmosphere the CO2 density thins enough it is no longer opaque, and it emits to space. Basic optics. And that if CO2 density increases, the level at which this occurs must rise. Basic physics.
Neither phenomena is imaginary.
“At what level?”
The ratio of collisions to emissions continues dropping from greater than 1 at the surface to approaching zero at the TOA. So there is no specific level. Anyone trying to observe a specific level or height is imagining things.
OTOH, people write on drroyspencer.com a lot about ERL and how it is increasing to colder levels without ever identifying a contour or a measured change in it. I think we both understand the concept, but the imaginary claim stands until the measurement change has been documented.
That’s your obfuscation #3 on this thread.
“The ratio of collisions to emissions continues dropping from greater than 1 at the surface to approaching zero at the TOA. So there is no specific level.”
And has this so-called drop you describe been directly measured? Where is the data? How do you know this is happening? If you can’t produce a direct observation of it, then it is imaginary.
Just obfuscation.
“I think we both understand the concept,”
But Im Chic, so Im going build a strawman that this average level that radiation is emitted from the atmosphere needs to be directly observed. If not, then GHE aint happening and is imaginary.
Obfuscation #4.
Go pound sand. I’m bored and done with you.
Until your next obfuscation….
To have your foolishness continually exposed surely must be frustrating…
“You have referred to Kristians explanation of the GHE hypothesis as a cartoon. Note its emphasis on emission height and the expected change due to CO2 rise.”
Exactly, to try to pretend that a cartoon version of the theory is ‘the GHE theory’ and than rejecting ‘the GHE theory’ by showing that the cartoon model is not observable, is a standard tactic by the strawman specialists here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1206161
Richard M
Please try to obtain a translation of this paper in English:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
French is my native tongue, but I’m too lazy to do the job; the main problem is the PDF format, which is riddled with newlines, making it extremely difficult for Google’s translators to work.
And then try to digest and understand what Dufresne and Treiner explained in 2011.
Lots of work.
From what I can tell by the abstract the paper simply repeats the real climate arguments which are faulty.
Quite right, RM.
A pity the fact is false:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Willard, I read the real climate rebuttal long ago and it convinced me at the time. Too bad, because it is wrong. There are two parts to the rebuttal. Part one is wrong, Part two is mostly right.
I explained it in my response to Norman.
We end up with a cooling process (part one corrected) and a warming process (part two). So +1 -1 = zero.
Adding clouds would not work if CO2 was saturated, RM.
You cannot do double accounting like that and claim having refuted rock solid stuff.
Willard, you are not understanding what saturation means in this context. It means all the 15 micron surface radiation is absorbed and already warming the atmosphere at 10 m. It says nothing about clouds absorbing IR higher in the atmosphere.
RM, you do not get it – if you go for the saturated argument, you need to go saturated all the way.
Otherwise you’re just special pleading.
Willard, you still don’t understand what is meant by saturation. I guess learning a new concept is beyond you. So be it. I have heard ignorance is bliss.
@ Richard M.
Re “I guess learning a new concept is beyond you. So be it. I have heard ignorance is bliss.”
And I guess YOU still have not learned the falsehood of the “ignorance is bliss’ concept apparently. lol
Ignorance of the reality of lies and deceptions (=most mainstream news and establishment decrees) is bliss because exposing yourself to that is self-propagandization.
Ignorance of truths (especially if theyre upsetting) is not, or only temporarily or rarely, bliss because it is ultimately self-defeating.
The FALSE mantra of “ignorance is bliss”, promoted in the latter sense, is a product of a fake sick culture that has indoctrinated its “dumbed down” (therefore TRULY ignorant, therefore easy to control) people with many such manipulative slogans. You can find the proof that ignorance is never bliss (only superficial fake bliss), and how you get to buy into this lie (and other self-defeating lies), in the article The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid Phenomenon … https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
“Blissful” believers in “ignorance is bliss” — blissfully stupid people — are nearly always self-destructive indifferent immoral ignoramuses and/or members of herd stupidity… speaking of which, with the letters of “omicron” an alleged Covid variant you can spell “moronic”
And further speaking of stupid herd people not getting the glaringly obvious truth/ie not getting the constant onslaught of BIG lies of the official authorities……
“2 weeks to flatten the curve has turned into…3 shots to feed your family!” — Unknown
If ‘ignorance is bliss’ there should be more happy people. — Unknown
Hmmm,
“Willard, you are not understanding what saturation means in this context. It means all the 15 micron surface radiation is absorbed and already warming the atmosphere at 10 m. It says nothing about clouds absorbing IR higher in the atmosphere.”
If all the IR is absorved by 10 meters, how is there any left to get absoved higher in the atmosphere?
Just asking for Swenson and Clint R, and no they are not friends.
bobdroege, there are two parts to the IR question. The first part has to do with absorbing surface radiation in the atmosphere. That is what is saturated. That is what causes warming
The second part relates to how the IR eventually gets to space from the atmosphere. That is what happens (usually) higher in the atmosphere.
It is interesting that both of these processes are accomplished by the same GHGs.
Funny thing is that 10 meter layer that is saturated, is also emitting IR, bot up and down, so it takes the next layer to saturate, and then that layer emits both up and down, and so on and so forth.
So each layer is radiating downward causing warming of the lower layers, which debunks the saturation argument.
See Venus, rising first and shining best.
bobdroege, I believe your response to my saturation claim is pretty much how the entire climate science community views the radiation flow. So, I’m not at all surprised.
The problem is … the view violates Kirchhoff’s Law. This was covered in Miskolczi 2010. Unfortunately, the paper is very complex and covers many issues and this extremely important observation kind of got lost in the forest.
The net of your comment was
“So each layer is radiating downward causing warming of the lower layers, which debunks the saturation argument.”
Sorry, while that is true for specific photons is it not true for the NET radiation flow. There is no net radiation flow downward as that would violate Kirchhoff’s Law.
This is easier to understand when you accept that every virtual layer of the atmosphere is in Radiation Exchange Equilibrium with it’s adjacent layers. This is directly due to Kirchhoff’s Law. It is as solid as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Miskolczi showed the NOAA data adhered to this requirement.
This means any higher layer, which could be sending X units of radiation downward, has all of that radiation absorbed by the next layer (this is a statistical statement). Since the higher layer is not sending down any radiation that cannot be absorbed by the next lower layer and the is zero net energy transfer between layers, the overall downward energy flux is zero.
Again this is not just because of Miskolczi’s analysis of the NOAA data which did show this, it is theoretically demanded by Kirchhoff’s Law.
Dr. Roy wrote about this back in 2010 and unfortunately did not understand this correctly. He did understand this essentially negates the greenhouse effect. On that, he was right.
“The second part relates to how the IR eventually gets to space from the atmosphere. That is what happens (usually) higher in the atmosphere.”
Yep and what happens at TOA doesnt stay at TOA. Because we have a lapse rate, it effects T all the way down. If the top layer warms, the layer below it will be warmer, and layer below that will be warmer, etc.
Sorry Nate, but your claim violates Kirchhoff’s Law. From Miskolczi 2010:
“It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium [REE] between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
If you look at Figure 4 you see 60 years of NOAA data confirm the atmosphere can be viewed as multiple layers each in REE with the adjacent layer.
It is also obvious just thinking about it. The upper layer is colder and less dense so when it radiates X units of radiation, the next lower layer can absorb it completely. Even though the lower layer radiates X+Y radiation upward, only X can be absorbed due to Kirchhoff’s Law. Hence, the exchange between layers is always equal.
So what does REE mean to your claim about downward radiation affecting the surface? Well, we know
1) all downward radiation from a higher layer to a lower layer can be completely absorbed due to the higher density and temperature of the lower layer.
2) there is no net radiation flux between layers due to REE.
That is 0+0 = 0 downward radiation between any two layers. Add up all the layers and you still get exactly 0.0. This is demanded by Kirchhoff’s Law.
It appears Nate thinks physical laws are just an inconvenience.
“the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B”
Richard M, what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B? Kirchhoff’s law does not require such & does not mean what you imply in your 1) and 2). For example, at 11 micron the atm. has about 0.60 transmissivity unlike near zero transmissivity at your 15 micron looking up from the humid tropical surface.
On a global avg. basis, the L&O surface emits at Tse ~ 288K and the planetary TOA emits at Te ~255K so the 33K earthen GHE is well established by instrumentation backed up by 1LOT theory.
Ball4 asks:
“what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B?”
It means it doesn’t participate in radiation exchange. This is key to understanding why REE is important. You need to look at the radiation that is not absorbed separately from the radiation which is absorbed. You then learn two things about it.
1) the upward radiation goes to space and
2) there is no net downward radiation.
As for water vapor, that is another subject. All I am dealing with here is CO2. Only well mixed gases will observe REE. And, since that is the claimed cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect, that is precisely the ONLY thing that matters.
Nate,
“…layer below that will be warmer, etc.”
This is a meaningless descrip.tion of the lapse rate. There is no downward net radiation unless there is an inversion somewhere.
Ball4,
“what of the radiation emitted by A that is NOT absorbed by B?”
Richard’s point, based on temperature and density considerations, is that there is no radiation from A not absorbed by B. Unless you have data to the contrary, you are just making stuff up again like your imaginary “33K earthen GHE.”
“The upper layer is colder and less dense so when it radiates X units of radiation, the next lower layer can absorb it completely. Even though the lower layer radiates X+Y radiation upward, only X can be absorbed due to Kirchhoff’s Law.”
Kirchoff is a requirement on the fractional amount emitted and abs*orbed being the same. The total amounts will not be the same for layers at different temperature and emissivity.
There is no downward net radiation unless there is an inversion somewhere”
Nor did I say there was. But the T will inrease below. The net emitted upward is reduced with warmer layers above
“But the T will inrease below. The net emitted upward is reduced with warmer layers above.”
No way can you provide any data to back up your assertions based only on dogma. Warmer layers emit more period. That doesn’t mean a reduction anywhere. Energy goes where it wants, and that is always from hot to cold and from the atmosphere the net is usually up. The atmosphere is not static. It conducts, convects, emits, absorbs, and is blown around. CO2 and others are only along for the ride. Get used to it.
Nate says “The total amounts will not be the same for layers at different temperature and emissivity.”
Nobody is saying they are the same. The fact you get colder and less dense air as you rise is exactly why you don’t get any net downward IR. No net downward IR and no enhanced greenhouse effect.
While the atmosphere is constantly dealing with turbulence which will temporarily overcome REE, it always returns to the structure where REE is present due to the density differences at different altitudes.
REE is like a frame on a building. It stabilizes the atmosphere. It is all based on the changing density as one moves up through the atmosphere.
Richard M 12:58pm: “It means it doesn’t participate in radiation exchange.”
… which then makes your statement “1) all downward radiation from a higher layer to a lower layer can be completely absorbed” wrong thus your argument fails.
Your 2) is just a definition of radiative equilibrium.
—–
Chic: “Unless you have data to the contrary, you are just making stuff up again like your imaginary “33K earthen GHE.””
The TOA GHE component Te data is continually 24/7 collected by relevant & multiple satellite radiometer instrument, Chic, and the surface GHE component Tse data is daily collected by thermometer fields (GHCN) to find from data over many multi-annual periods:
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE, rounded
Much sparser measured data indicates similarly:
Martian Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K martian GHE, rounded
You keep reporting those theoretical numbers which represent mythical surfaces. You cannot report data from any of the instruments that actually collected the data from any real surfaces.
Who are you defending and why? Do you like paying higher prices for everything and supporting war around the world?
“No net downward IR and no enhanced greenhouse effect.”
No need for net downward IR. It is a sky dragon myth that the GHE requires that.
The GHE is simply reducing the net upward heat transfer.
Ball4: Remember, we are only talking CO2 here. CO2 is well mixed which means higher density, lower layers will contain more CO2.
Clouds and water vapor can cause a greenhouse effect, but since nothing is changing to affect them, the climate stays the same.
Chic 9:22 am: “You cannot report data from any of the instruments that actually collected the data from any real surfaces.”
Just use google string: CERES data
Find the instruments that actually collected the data from real surfaces:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
—-
Richard M 11:17 am: I do remember that. Then lower layers will contain added well mixed ppm CO2 as time goes on resulting in more radiation upwards and downwards from each layer in REE. This process is continually measured now with the radiometer data collected showing surface warming from added ppm CO2. This is data that Miskolczi did not have back in 2010.
In addition, on global basis water vapor and clouds are known to have changed in the CERES & ARGO era increasing each of their surface warming effects during the CERES data collection period with 95% confidence. This era includes measured negligible solar illumination decadal change since about 2000 also with 95% confidence.
In the words of Nate, the King of Obfuscation, don’t play dumb.
CERES data is measured in W/m2. All your interpretation of temperature is just that, interpretation. There is no 288K surface and there is no 255K surface. They are constructs. Stop being childish.
The GHE component surfaces are not constructs, conceptual, or subjective Chic, the surfaces are known. The GHE data is measured not just theoretical since the thermometer and radiometer results do agree with 1LOT theory.
Queen or Court Jester. I can’t make up my mind.
Richard M
Though I’m really not at all a specialist in that corner, the first I would feel wrong in all these CO2 saturation ideas is that
– Earth’s LW radiation intensity is such that no saturation could ever take place, since there are at best about 4 % of water vapor in the Tropics
– CO2’s activity begins where WV’s ends, namely where the latter becomes absent because it has fully precipitated, i.e. above the tropopause.
Just little layman’s saying…
Bindidon, the saturation argument only applies to radiation in the CO2 frequency range (around 15 microns). All of the surface radiation is already absorbed very low in the atmosphere.
What ends up happening is additional concentrations of CO2 create warming up to this saturation level. At that point two complementary processes come into play. One warms and one cools. This keeps the effect of CO2 constant.
As such, more CO2 can no longer produce warming. I believe this starts around 200 ppm, maybe lower.
“…more CO2 can no longer produce warming.”
Although as Richard M writes, it is tempting to think that increasing carbon dioxide can only eventually saturate all lines (above Richard’s 200ppm CO2) with no other effect, resulting in an upper limit on infrared radiation from the atmosphere at 200ppm, this assumes incorrectly that the atm. temperature profile does not change.
When the near surface atm. doesn’t emit radiation to space at Richard M’s choice of 15micron but continues to absorb solar radiation, the near surface atm. temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until the emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity to space is not zero.
“…the near surface atm. temperature rises…”
That is only speculation on your part. The near surface absorp.tion of IR by CO2 is thermalized and convected upward. That’s the cooling effect Richard mentioned.
“…and no equilibrium is possible until the emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity to space is not zero.”
What equilibrium? The net radiation is upward all the way through the atmosphere. Only where there is an inversion can any net radiation be downward. Duh!
Ball4, the near surface (I assume you mean the boundary layer) does not absorb solar energy. It is transparent to SW radiation. It all goes to the surface where it then radiates partially in the LW bands CO2 recognizes (15 microns) and energizes the CO2 in the first 10 meters.
CO2 in the boundary layer does continually get energized and radiates upward. Increases in CO2 will increase that upward radiation slightly. However, since CO2 adheres to REE, there cannot be any NET downward radiation caused by CO2 increases.
“No way can you provide any data to back up your assertions based only on dogma.”
If for you basic thermodynamics is ‘dogma’, no amount of data can fix that.
“Warmer layers emit more period. That doesn’t mean a reduction anywhere.”
Shows your supreme ignorance of heat transfer.
Add a layer of insulation on top, you reduce heat flow from bottom to top. Until the T at bottom and throughout rises and restores original heat flow.
“Energy goes where it wants, and that is always from hot to cold and from the atmosphere the net is usually up.”
As I said. You cant read.
“The atmosphere is not static. It conducts, convects, emits, absorbs, and is blown around.”
Obfuscation.
“CO2 and others are only along for the ride. Get used to it.”
This is not science. Its ideology.
“Add a layer of insulation on top, you reduce heat flow from bottom to top. Until the T at bottom and throughout rises and restores original heat flow.”
You keep repeating this dogma without evidence and completely ignoring the ensemble of processes that obviates any reduction in heat transfer. CO2 cools by thermalization and facilitating convective heat transfer bypassing any blanket-type insulation. The atmosphere is gaseous not solid. Learn it.
“This is not science. Its ideology.”
Look who’s talking. It’s dogma only, no data, Nate, the King of Obfuscation.
“You keep repeating this dogma without evidence and completely ignoring the ensemble of processes that obviates any reduction in heat transfer.”
Labelling basic physics principles ‘dogma’ is simply a tactic to allow you to dismiss it.
If we look inside fiberglass insulation, heat is being transferred by convection, conduction and radiation. But I don’t need to pay attention to these details of the heat transfer to understand the basic principle that it is insulating, and the general rules that apply to insulators.
One of those is if I add another layer of insulation on top, the total insulation R factor increases.
And what does that mean? That means that given a fixed temperature difference, the total heat flow will be reduced.
Or to recover the original heat flow (which is what Earth must do) the T difference must increase.
Richard M: “Ball4, the near surface (I assume you mean the boundary layer) does not absorb solar energy.”
That is true on Earth at night but not during the earthen day at 1bar in the humid tropics.
“there cannot be any NET downward radiation caused by CO2 increases.”
Net of what?
Nate,
Here you go on another trip obfuscating “basic physics principles” implying heat travels downward by longwave IR. Where is your data to back up your claims?
The fiberglass analogy is nonsense. There is no fiberglass or any other solid insulation in the atmosphere. You don’t pay attention to any details of heat transfer or you wouldn’t be quoting from the AGW dogma all the time. I don’t know of any atmospheric process that “adds another layer of insulation on top.” That is your cartoon caricature of what your phony concept of what you think the atmosphere does.
Stop polluting this blog with your tiresome rhetorical propaganda.
Ball4, it does not matter if humid air absorbs solar energy. It always has. That is not changing. The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.
“implying heat travels downward by longwave IR.”
For the 3rd time, I never said any such thing. You are confusing sky dragon myths with my posts.
“Where is your data to back up your claims?”
This is the go-to demand, when Chic is unfamiliar with standard physics.
“The fiberglass analogy is nonsense. There is no fiberglass or any other solid insulation in the atmosphere.”
Ok now youre just playing dumb.
“I dont know of any atmospheric process that ‘adds another layer of insulation on top. That is your cartoon caricature of what your phony concept of what you think the atmosphere does.
I see. So if you dont know something then neither does science. So it can be dismissed!
Cartoons and analogies from your team are fine. Not from mine. The famous Chic double standard!
So the top layer of the trposphere emits radiation more or less directly to space unimpeded. Yes?
Now add more CO2.
As Tyndall showed 150 y ago, when he added CO2 to a chamber filled with air, the radiative heat from a heat source transferred through that space was reduced, because CO2 abs*orbs some of it.
Yes/No?
Reduced heat transfer = increased insulation factor.
Exactly what is happening in the top layer of the troposphere.
“The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.”
Net of what?
Oops:
“The only thing that matters is whether CO2 generates more NET downward energy flow. It doesn’t.”
Net of what?
Basic thermodynamics and standard physics and climate science are not synonymous. You make a mockery of physical science by continuing to support the AGW dogma without supplying the data that supports what you are hyping. OK, I apologize for putting the heat-travels-downward words in your mouth. But don’t accuse me for not understanding physics when all you spew is unverified hypotheses, failed models, and no data to back up your so-called standard physics. Until you have something substantial, my go-to demand is totally appropriate. If you want to stop being labelled King of Obfuscation, put up or shut up.
“I see. So if you dont know something then neither does science.”
I don’t play dumb like you are now, because I want to be taken seriously. Therefore, I will acknowledge making a dumb statement using the turn of phrase “I don’t know of any atmospheric process” instead of simply requesting you to explain an atmospheric process that adds another layer of insulation on top. Convection is not adding insulation on top of insulation. More CO2 is not adding a layer of insulation. Each day has all night to free itself of whatever energy it received that day.
Your team can use whatever cartoons and analogies you want. Just be prepared to back them up. You have yet to explain why Kristian’s version of “your side’s AGW hypothesis” is incorrect.
Yes/No. CO2 absorbs and emits. I have described the process many times for you. All the radiation capable of being absorbed is absorbed and thermalized into the bulk air which rises. When the time comes at higher altitudes, radiation from the rising air goes to space. For 35 years in the satellite era, as Ball4 likes to say, the process has been observed. No quantifiable radiation is being reduced that can be discriminately identified as due to CO2.
Reduced heat transfer does not equal increased insulation factor. You have no data to document that. Think hare and the tortoise.
Actually, reduced heat transfer does equal increased insulation factor in fiberglass. But the atmosphere is not made of fiberglass.
“No quantifiable radiation is being reduced that can be discriminately identified as due to CO2.”
Uhhh… we have the spectra you know.
So you are denying IR optics going all the way back to Tyndall?
If you believe Tyndall and all subsequent work on IR, you cannot deny that increased CO2 in a layer anywhere, but especially at TOA, will reduce radiative heat transfer.
“Actually, reduced heat transfer does equal increased insulation factor in fiberglass.”
Good. Now, simply realize that Insulation R factors are assigned to many materials, even air spaces. And certainly part of that factor includes radiation.
“Uhhh we have the spectra you know.”
You don’t have any spectra that translates into a measured change in OLR, let alone a temperature change. To do that, you would need to simulate a controlled experiment providing enough of a change in CO2 and all the atmospheric variables normally in play. If it was easy, a school teacher could do it. Or someone not spending all his spare time obfuscating on Dr. Spencer’s blog.
I find it hard to refrain from calling you anything more insulting than King of Obfuscation which is all I’ve come to expect from you now. Unless you acknowledge that air can mix and move unlike solid materials, you indict yourself as a either a con or a fool. Thermalization and convection make the atmosphere do what surfaces can’t.
Unless you can provide empirical data to back up your claim, you are just a tiresome big mouth empty suit.
“You dont have any spectra that translates into a measured change in OLR, let alone a temperature change. To do that, you would need to simulate a controlled experiment providing enough of a change in CO2 and all the atmospheric variables normally in play.”
Ugggh
You’ve seen the papers several times in which spectra in CO2 bands are measured from space, or from the surface, and show an increase consistent with CO2 rise.
It seems that you just dont understand or refuse to understand the implications of the data.
“I find it hard to refrain from calling you anything more insulting than King of Obfuscation”
Sure, when you have no answers, no facts on your side, and no interest in trying to understand your opponent’s argument, what’s left?
Insults.
“Unless you acknowledge that air can mix and move unlike solid materials, you indict yourself as a either a con or a fool. Thermalization and convection make the atmosphere do what surfaces cant.”
As I noted, and you ignored, air layers have an R factor. They can insulate.
We all know that convection plays a role in moving heat upward in the atmosphere. As does radiation.
What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is not significant.
And I notice you have not addressed Tyndall’s work at all. Did Tyndall, and all who came after after him, get it wrong when they found that increased CO2 in an air layer REDUCES the radiative transfer of heat across this layer?
Or are you lacking the ability to apply this simple principle to a layer of air at the TOA?
And BTW, you dont have to believe me. Modtran calculates the radiative flux through the atmosphere using standard optics.
It is not a cartoon model.
You can try it yourself to see that increasing CO2 decreases the total upward flux above the atmosphere, as expected.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
select the full spectral range 0.4 – 20 microns. Hit Run.
See the Flux Totals at bottom. Pay attention to
Upward Diffuse (100 km) This is the OLR in W/cm^2. Multiply by 10,000 to get W/m^2.
Then try again with a different amount of CO2.
Nate says,
“So the top layer of the troposphere emits radiation more or less directly to space unimpeded. Yes?”
The correct statement is the Troposphere emits radiation more less directly to space unimpeded from all layers. Starts right at the boundary layer.
“Now you add more CO2?”
The Troposphere still emits radiation to space from all layers unimpeded and at the same proportion it did before adding more CO2.
The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.
You either accept physics or you don’t. This is key to what Miskolczi 2010 shows.
Richard,
“The correct statement is the Troposphere emits radiation more less directly to space unimpeded from all layers. Starts right at the boundary layer.”
“The Troposphere still emits radiation to space from all layers unimpeded and at the same proportion it did before adding more CO2.”
Uhhh…No.
So you are denying Tyndall and standard IR optics?
“The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.”
So you declare. But based on what physics?
Then Modtran does it wrong? How?
“You’ve seen the papers….”
That is broken-record obfuscation. Of course the spectra show CO2 increases, because it has. But they don’t show the movement of the energy throughout the thousands of days in between where the OLR continues to increase, not decrease. That is what you don’t get. You either lie about the truth or are too stupid to understand its implications. Lying or stupid, which is it?
“…air layers have an R factor. They can insulate.”
What is the R factor of the air between the surface and the TOA? How does the R factor change as a function of altitude and time of day? Where has an R factor ever been used in any AGW or GHE theoretical derivations?
“What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is not significant.”
That’s what YOU talk about, because it obfuscates thermalization and convection processes that bring energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where reverse thermalization and more CO2 will do all the cooling that needs to be done on a daily basis.
You keep bringing up Tyndall as if he carried out experiments on layers of air convecting up through the atmosphere. That strawman red-herring drivel is incessantly pedantic.
Modtran doesn’t calculate the change in OLR over a 24 hour period. Can’t you see that your references to spectra, Tyndall, and Modtran are simply repetitions of the same cartoon-type expressions of the AGW/GHE hypothesis that has never been verified with actual data? The atmosphere is not static. It moves. Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation. Otherwise any ad homs or insults directed to you are warranted.
Nate says:
“Uhhh…No.
So you are denying Tyndall and standard IR optics?
“The average emission height is unchanged by the quantity of CO2.”
So you declare. But based on what physics?”
Tyndall did not radiate energy through a changing gravitational field. Of course his results will differ. The reason is REE as shown clearly by Miskolczi 2010.
When any layer of the atmosphere emits IR upward only a subset (X) of that radiation can be absorbed by the next layer up due to temperature/density differences. This layer will use 100% of its ability of absorb IR just to handle a subset (X) of IR from the lower layer. Statistically, it can’t absorb IR from any other lower layers. Therefore, the extra IR (Y) emitted from the lower layer down and not absorbed in the next higher layer cannot be absorbed by any other higher layer either. It goes to space.
Of course, the higher layer here doesn’t know whether the IR came from the next lower layer or from other layers below, so occasionally it will replace one photon from the subset(X) with one of those lower layer photons. This changes the distribution of energy a little bit. Instead to a geometric series we end up with a fixed emission rate from every layer of the atmosphere.
This fixed amount of radiation is based on CO2 concentration but stays at a fixed percentage of the CO2 concentration. Thus, the average emission height never changes.
Richard M: “This is key to what Miskolczi 2010 shows…This fixed amount of radiation is based on CO2 concentration but stays at a fixed percentage of the CO2 concentration. Thus, the average emission height never changes.”
No. That is not what Miskolczi 2010 shows. Obviously, Richard M does not understand what Miskolczi 2010 does show.
“emission height” not found in the paper.
“troposphere” not found in the paper.
Miskolczi 2010:
“Calculations here show that an equivalent amount of increase (in optical thickness) can be caused by 2.77 per cent increase in H2O”
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
Miskolczi 2010 concludes: 1) there was both an empirical change in “NOAA NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data” AND a theoretical change “based on a slightly modified version of HARTCODE” in atm. optical properties in the 61 years of the NOAA reanalysis data though they are not of the same amounts:
“The results show that the theoretical CO2-induced virtual increase in true greenhouse gas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year (reanalysis) dataset.”
Richard M should note the word “reanalysis” in NOAA dataset was the “empirical” source.
Miskolczi 2010 finally concludes 2): “These empirical results could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method.”
Richard M should now realize in 2022 there is a better “comparable empirical method” with more and better (not reanalysis) measured data updating and, in part, refuting the Miskolczi 2010 paper now using calibrated satellite data showing the surface warming effect of decadal trends in changes in each of CO2, water vapor, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, temperature, and sunlight.
Chic 8:38 am: “Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation.”
The calibrated satellite data does include all of those naturally occurring processes (and more, e.g. sea ice amount change) to report the surface warming effects of decadal trends of changes in each of ppm CO2, water vapor, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo, temperature, and sunlight.
Ball4, this is the part of the Miskolczi 2010 paper I was referring to;
“The concept of radiative exchange was the discovery of Prevost [17]. It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
“Figure 3. The law of radiative exchange equilibrium. The ED = SU A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer”
My description is just another way of looking at what REE demands. Water vapor does not come into play here.
Richard M – You don’t yet understand how the entire LBLRTM (line by line radiative transfer method) is used in the paper. See Clough et. al. 1995 and previous papers.
Miskolczi in that passage is just informing you each thin layer during LBLTRM is in REE meaning that thin layer is at the same temperature through its thickness considering only radiative input and output.
That’s the way the radiative transfer method works since it balances each thin layer iteratively at different temperatures per layer up through the atm. until a hydrostatic atm. is achieved. See Clough et. al. 1995.
Since WMG CO2 affects radiation in each layer differently at each total pressure level, the program uses that info. to balance the whole column T profile. Radiosondes have shown the method works well (0.1K off from measurements at each altitude) when column balance is achieved & how cloud effects change the T profile radically from clear sky.
Richard M has a lot to learn about this field of physics but seems interested enough to do the work.
Oops missed some tags but RM et. al. should understand anyway.
Ball4: “Miskolczi in that passage is just informing you each thin layer during LBLTRM is in REE meaning that thin layer is at the same temperature”
While that may be true, that is NOT what was stated in the passage I quoted. The statement is referring to the EXCHANGE of energy between two layers. It is two separate layers which exist in REE.
It is what goes on as radiation flows between layers that is important. Miskolczi’s statement is what leads to what I stated previously and the implications of my statements.
“Thats what YOU talk about, because it obfuscates thermalization and convection processes that bring energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere”
No, What happens at the TOA was what the recent discussion was all about. The ability of the top layer of air to transfer heat to space is reduced with the addition of CO2 is what we were discussing. I claimed that this is equivalent to adding a layer of insulation on top.
You disputed this. Did you forget all about that?
“where CO2 will do all the cooling that needs to be done on a daily basis.”
Huh? WTF does this mean?
“You keep bringing up Tyndall as if he carried out experiments on layers of air convecting up through the atmosphere. That strawman red-herring drivel is incessantly pedantic.”
Not a red herring at all. No I made it absolutely clear I was talking about the layer of air at the TOA and its ability to transfer heat by radiation to space. It is extremely relevant to that discussion.
You seem unable or unwilling to follow the discussion.
“Modtran doesnt calculate the change in OLR over a 24 hour period.”
Why do you bring time into it? That makes no sense.
So you do not have any scientific rebuttal to what Modtran finds.
“Cant you see that your references to spectra, Tyndall, and Modtran are simply repetitions of the same cartoon-type expressions of the AGW/GHE hypothesis that has never been verified with actual data?”
Again you return to an ideological argument, while I am trying to keep this about science.
“The atmosphere is not static. It moves. Your argument that more CO2 causes warming has to include evaporation, conduction, convection, and wind along with radiation.”
I have already explained this quite clearly. You don’t bother to read.
‘We all know that convection plays a role in moving heat upward in the atmosphere. As does radiation.
What we are talking about here is radiant heat transfer to space at the TOA where convection is NOT SIGNIFICANT.’
You seem stuck in an ideological rut/ You need to let go of that in order to follow a logical discussion of the science.
Richard, read it again:: “A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer“
“https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268182965_Rebuttal_of_Miskolczi’s_alternative_greenhouse_theory”
Miskolczi rebuttal. There is a pdf.
You should read Richard. Tell us what you think.
You really can’t just read only contrarian papers and assume they must be correct.
Nate once again makes the claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation is invalid –
“What happens at the TOA was what the recent discussion was all about. The ability of the top layer of air to transfer heat to space is reduced with the addition of CO2 is what we were discussing. I claimed that this is equivalent to adding a layer of insulation on top.”
Sorry, but as Miskolczi found out, and you could also understand if you put your mind to it, the atmospheric CO2 based radiation of energy to space is a fixed process defined by the structure of the atmosphere. More CO2 will end up causing more energy to radiate to space at all altitudes.
Nate, I’ve read the rebuttal. It is based on water vapor and has nothing to do with CO2. That’s why I keep telling people to ignore that part of the paper.
The small section on REE and Figure 3 is all you need to know to realize how CO2 operates. This is what DEMANDS that energy be radiated at all layers of the atmosphere proportional to the overall CO2 concentration. More CO2, more radiation to space. It isn’t optional unless Kirchhoff’s law isn’t an actual law.
This also forces a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.
This science is indisputable. It’s difficult at first but anyone can understand it. The big problem is tossing away your previous misconceptions.
Richard writes: “The small section on REE and Figure 3 is all you need to know to realize how CO2 operates.”
and I’ve already shown Richard M how Miskolczi 2010 shows CO2 operates:
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
which means Miskolczi 2010 proves there is NOT “a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.” as Richard M incorrectly claims about the Miskolczi 2010 paper.
Ball4 obviously made no attempt to understand the sections of the paper I referenced. I’ve been trying to keep this simple. That’s why I have kept the discussion to the atmosphere above the boundary layer only. What Miskolczi is doing with the following quote:
“CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
is looking up from the surface. This brings into play the downward radiation from CO2 in the boundary layer. All of the increase in optical thickness occurs in the boundary layer (and then some). You could figure this out for yourself if you took the time to see what I have already shown you for the atmosphere only is valid.
This also means all of my previous claims are true. Emission height is fixed and CO2 radiation cools.
Once you do understand it, then we can address the boundary layer. I’ll give you a hint …. thermal equilibrium.
“Nate once again makes the claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation is invalid –”
Nope, never did. If you think I did, then I dont think you understand the law.
But pls do show me where I did that.
“This science is indisputable. It’s difficult at first but anyone can understand it. The big problem is tossing away your previous misconceptions.”
Its highly disputable. What you guys tend to do is read one recent contrarian paper, and assume it must be right, while, as you admit, not fully understanding it.
And all the thousands of previous atmospheric physics papers would need to be wrong? The ones used to build weather models that actually work?
C’mon.
And you still ignore Modtran, which was developed for the Air Force, is trusted and used by many scientists including skeptics.
Richard M: “All of the increase in optical thickness occurs in the boundary layer..”
No Richard. That is not in the Miskolczi 2010 paper, this is what is in there: “fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance.”
The boundary layer (Richard M defined 10m AGL) is not even discernable in Fig. 3 or Fig 4 shown in kilometers! It is the layers above that 10m shown contributing to “CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.” thus emission height is NOT fixed in Miskolczi 2010.
In Fig. 6 there is no abrupt change at 10m proving Richard M is wrong: “Contribution density function to the upward emittance. The significant part of EU comes from the lower 25 km altitude range.” not the lower 10m.
Richard M’s previous claims based on the 1st 10m are shown in the Miskolczi 2010 paper to be untrue.
Nate and Ball4, it appears, will continue to deny science.
“Its highly disputable. What you guys tend to do is read one recent contrarian paper, and assume it must be right, while, as you admit, not fully understanding it.”
Just the opposite. I was looking at the boundary layer and discovered that no warming could occur there. It was then obvious that the warming had to occur above the BL. So, I independently determined what Miskolczi also found 15 years before. It was in looking for some more information I discovered the Miskolczi paper which I had ignored previously due to Dr. Spencer’s statements. I figured it was a good reference.
That’s why I keep telling you to ignore the other details of the paper. Unfortunately, neither Nate nor Ball4 are interested in understanding science.
I will add them my list of child abusers.
Richard M: “So, I independently determined what Miskolczi also found 15 years before.”
No.
Richard M claims: “This also forces a fixed emission height for all well mixed GHGs.”
Miskolczi 2010: “CO2 doubling would virtually, with no feedback, increase the optical thickness by 0.0246.”
Ball4, please tell is again what this quote you provided means:
“A relationship holds because the contribution of a layer to the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation in the same layer“
You highlighted “same layer”.
I’ll help out a little as it refers to this “relationship”.
“It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”
If you still think it is referring to a single layer then all I can do is LOL.
It is simply pointing out that a single layer’s attributes are the reason for the relationship. The definition is still about two layers.
Anyone else think it is funny Ball4 is now quoting from the paper as if it were gospel. As I have said many times, I am only referring to the one small part of the paper that deals with REE.
In addition, the quote you keep repeating comes from data that is only an approximation of theoretical values.
“At these sensitivity runs the 61 year NOAA average atmospheric
profile, (NAV) was used.”
Did you not know that?
I read that, see my 9:12am…and… “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange”
Two layers needed.
“contribution of a layer”
One layer.
Keeping closer track of the actual number of layers being discussed in Miskolczi 2010 will help Richard M understand the paper better.
Ball4 says “two layers”
Yup, just like I told you. All he is saying is the controlling attributes come from one layer, not that there is only one layer involved.
Yes, I can see you are still trying to ignore your blunder but I will ignore it and go on.
The result is the amount of energy transferred from A to B and from B to A is identical. No net energy flows in either direction. Since these are any two layers in the atmosphere, any net energy flow would have to come from outside this exchange. The only energy flow outside the exchange is the extra energy radiated from a lower layer to a higher layer that couldn’t be absorbed.
Do the math. There is no NET downward energy flow. The only downward energy is that taking place as part of the exchange and by definition of the exchange it was met with an equal amount of energy moving upward. Thus, no net downward flow.
There is upward energy flow that is not absorbed. It occurs at every layer when that layer is the lower of the two layers being looked at. The sum of all those losses is the total amount of energy lost to space.
So, what are the key findings here:
1) There is no net downward radiation flow whatsoever.
2) Radiation loss (upward) occurs at every layer.
With no net downward radiation flow there can be no enhanced greenhouse effect created by the atmosphere. However, there is still another kind of flow from the lowest layer to the surface. Since it is known the surface and lowest layer (aka the boundary layer) are in thermal equilibrium, there is also no net flow between them either.
I suspect this is where all the radiation models compute downward radiation. It’s occurring but is canceled out by a reverse flow due to thermal equilibrium. That energy isn’t seen by these models. It could be due to any energy flow mechanism.
With loss of energy at every layer, the emission height becomes static. There was never mention of the concentration of CO2 in this scenario. We get the same flow independent of the CO2 concentration. It’s works similar to the adiabatic lapse rate. There’s a constant loss at all altitudes as you rise through the Troposphere and again in the Mesosphere. Doubling CO2 levels might increase the overall loss, but it occurs proportionally all the way through the atmosphere.
Richard M 10:20 pm: “The result is the amount of energy transferred from A to B and from B to A is identical.”
Miskolczi 2010: “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way…”
Richard M incorrectly turns the paper’s language “rate of flow” into “amount”.
Richard also wrongly drops the term “radiative”. If Richard did mean “radiative” energy in his sentence above, then Richard incorrectly means the two atm. layers are black bodies when Miskolczi 2010 is not treating the two layers as such.
Richard M uses his own wording changing the paper into something it is not thus the rest of Richard’s 10:20 pm comment falls apart accordingly.
Richard: “There is no NET downward energy flow.”
Interestingly, Richard M has not as yet answered my repeated question: net of what?
Richard and Chic,
This is the GHE flyer produced for the Trump administration, by Will Happer, prominent climate skeptic, Princeton physicist and atmospheric optics expert.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210111225611/https://www.ceres-science.com/files/Flyers/Radiation%20Transfer.pdf
As you can see, he is explaining clearly the GHE, why it does increase when CO2 increases, and why it causes a minimum 3W/m^2 reduction of OLR (forcing) with a doubling of CO2.
Apparently you guys think even he gets it all wrong. Maybe you can explain why he’s wrong.
Ball4 appears to have finally realized what I’ve been saying is 100% correct and now is attempting obfuscation:
“Richard M incorrectly turns the papers language rate of flow into amount.”
The amount of energy is always determined by the rate of flow and always in the context of time. The two uses are identical.
“Richard also wrongly drops the term radiative. If Richard did mean radiative energy in his sentence above, then Richard incorrectly means the two atm. layers are black bodies when Miskolczi 2010 is not treating the two layers as such.”
The entire context of this discussion is radiative energy from gases. After all, we are discussing CO2 and Kirchhoff’s Law of radiation. As such it never has had anything to do with blackbodies.
“Richard M uses his own wording changing the paper into something it is not thus the rest of Richards 10:20 pm comment falls apart accordingly.”
Nonsense
“Richard: There is no NET downward energy flow.
Interestingly, Richard M has not as yet answered my repeated question: net of what?”
I am referring to NET radiative energy flows due to CO2 (as you should know from the Miskolczi 2010 quotes I have used).
Also, I added another comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1224440
that discusses the implications of taking this thought experiment to the actual flows in the atmosphere.
Nate says:
“As you can see, he is explaining clearly the GHE, why it does increase when CO2 increases, and why it causes a minimum 3W/m^2 reduction of OLR (forcing) with a doubling of CO2.”
You could also have referred to the H/W 2018 paper that does the same. They are computing measurements of changes in DWIR. They are not dealing with NET energy flows. This is what the Layering thought experiment allows us to see clearly.
What layering does is demonstrate that entire downward energy flow is equivalent to the downward flow from the bottom layer of the thought experiment (boundary layer). That flow is countered with an equivalent upward energy flow to maintain thermal equilibrium of the surface and boundary layer.
We know the downward flow won’t cause warming because the net flow upward increases at an even faster rate as CO2 increases. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.
“Apparently you guys think even he gets it all wrong. Maybe you can explain why hes wrong.”
Yes, he gets it wrong. He is missing the effects of thermal equilibrium in the boundary layer and the increase in the upward flow of energy.
What is really being measured in a radiation model examination? It is the flow of energy from the higher layers to the lower layers that isn’t getting absorbed exactly in those layers. REE is a statistical statement.
Some % of radiation will always bypass the layer where it could have been absorbed. However, the same thing is happening with the upward flows. The Y value I stated earlier, the energy which avoids being absorbed going up from a lower layer to a higher layer, is actually an understatement due to the exact same reasons.
The layer model simplifies the view by ignoring the self canceling flows both upward and downward. In the case of the downward flows that turns out to be ALL the energy right down to the boundary layer.
Richard M 9:54 am: “The amount of energy is always determined by the rate of flow and always in the context of time.”
Richard M again leaves out Miskolczi 2010 is discussing radiative energy of real atm. layers so the amount of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is NOT equal since B is a translucent layer.
Of course, as written in Miskolczi 2010: “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way” which descends from Kirchhoff’s law.
Translucent layer B does NOT absorb the total amount of energy radiated from A as Richard M incorrectly writes so the rest of Richard’s 9:54 am and 8:28 am comments fall apart accordingly.
—-
Richard writes: “I am referring to NET radiative energy flows due to CO2..”
Yet again, net of what?
Ball4 attempts yet another obfuscation:
“Translucent layer B does NOT absorb the total amount of energy radiated from A as Richard M incorrectly writes so the rest of Richard’s 9:54 am and 8:28 am comments fall apart accordingly.”
You are now confusing the layering thought experiment with a non-layered atmosphere. I explained this in my last comment to Nate. The above quote refers to the thought experiment.
In reality B does not absorb to its full potential the energy radiated from A as you stated. In addition, A does not absorb to its full potential all the energy radiated from B, as you left out for some reason.
You get an equal addition to the net downward energy flow and the net upward energy flow. They cancel out.
If you don’t understand what “net energy flow” means you should never have commented.
Indeed, layer A does not absorb all the energy radiated from B since layer A absorbs, reflects & transmits photons as does layer B but not in the same amount as layer B since layer A pressure and temperature is different than layer B, which I left out for brevity as it stands to good reason.
“You get an equal addition to the net downward energy flow..”
Yet again: net of what? Apparently Richard M doesn’t seem to know.
“They are computing measurements of changes in DWIR. They are not dealing with NET energy flows.”
Nor do they need to, Richard!
It is strawman and a sky dragon slayer myth that the GHE requires a NET downward energy flow.
There is always an energy input from the sun. Thus if something causes a small reduction in the energy output (or increase in input), the result is warming. And it occurs throughout the atmosphere and at the surface and mostly in the ocean.
We can see evidence of this in the latest CERES paper, Loeb et al 2021, which showed when the TOA energy imbalance grew over the last 15 y, the ocean heat content grew at an increasing and matching rate.
Nate seems to think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is optional. I got quite a chuckle.
“It is strawman and a sky dragon slayer myth that the GHE requires a NET downward energy flow.”
Wrong, the slayer problem is they claim no radiation can flow from a colder to a hotter item. The 2nd law refers to net energy flow. So, you are the one now making anti-science claims. You just said the net flow of energy isn’t important. LOL.
“Thus if something causes a small reduction in the energy output (or increase in input), the result is warming.”
YES, YES, YES … that’s right. What happens to CO2 based energy flow (from increases in CO2) is an increase in “energy output”.
“When the near surface atm. doesn’t emit radiation to space at Richard M’s choice of 15micron”
But it does, this is what the layering thought experiment makes abundantly clear. Both upward and downward radiation increase. however the upward component increases by a larger amount.
PS. the CERES data clearly shows the increase in energy came from cloud thinning. It had nothing to do with CO2. The solar energy warmed the oceans and the atmosphere. Dubal/Vahrenholt paper was much better than Loeb et al.
Ball4 doubles down on his last attempt at obfuscation:
“layer A does not absorb all the energy radiated from B since layer A absorbs, reflects & transmits photons as does layer B but not in the same amount as layer B since layer A pressure and temperature is different than layer B, which I left out for brevity as it stands to good reason.”
It is true the two layers are not identical. The lower layer, due to being denser and warmer, has a greater ability to “absorbs, reflects & transmits photons” than does the higher layer. As a result, it will interfere with the downward flow to a greater degree than the upper layer will interfere with the upward flow.
What this means is the layering approach understates the upward flow and overstates the downward flow. Glad you brought it up.
“Yet again: net of what? Apparently Richard M doesnt seem to know.”
I’ve answered this question multiple times. Apparently, Ball4 doesn’t know what “energy flow” means. I guess I could specify it in greater detail (flow of kinetically energized, CO2 emitted ~15 micron photons), but I think most people understand my terminology just fine.
“Yes, he gets it wrong. He is missing the effects of thermal equilibrium in the boundary layer and the increase in the upward flow of energy.”
No I doubt very much that he has missed any such thing. You havent made the case, sorry Richard.
“. The 2nd law refers to net energy flow. So, you are the one now making anti-science claims.”
Never said anything about 2LOT.
“You just said the net flow of energy isn’t important. LOL.”
You misunderstood. I am saying there is no need for a net downward LW radiation to have a GHE. There only needs to be a reduction in NET upwards LW.
I am saying warming happens when there is a NET downward total of SW + LW.
Nate says:
“I am saying there is no need for a net downward LW radiation to have a GHE. There only needs to be a reduction in NET upwards LW.”
There is no decrease in “NET upwards LW” associated with CO2. What we see is the amount radiated by every layer as you go up gets smaller and smaller due to its reduced temperature/density. At the same time, the amount of energy lost to space gets larger and larger. The total energy remains constant all the way to the TOA.
“At the same time, the amount of energy lost to space gets larger and larger.”
No not at all, Richard. Why on Earth would it do that?
Just take the top layer. The more CO2, the more is abs*orbed. Then less passes through. As Tyndall found 150 y ago.
Tyndall would think it totally nonsensical that anyone would imagine MORE IR passing through a through a space when it is filled with more abs*orbing gases.
Nate says:
“Why on Earth would it do that?”
The amount headed to space continually increases because of REE. You obviously have made no attempt to understand it. As long as you refuse to educate yourself, you will remain ignorant. Here’s the quick view.
Look at two layers of the atmosphere.
The higher layer can absorb X amount of energy based on its temperature/density. The lower layer is radiating X+Y amount of energy upward because its temperature/density is greater. The Y amount of energy has no place to go. This same situation exists at all higher/lower layer pairs above it. The energy is lost to space.
The layers could have been 0 (boundary layer) and 1 or any layers above. Energy is lost to space everywhere in the atmosphere.
It’s a lot like musical chairs where every upward layer is a new round with one more chair removed. In any round there’s not enough chairs for everyone in that round let alone those who lost out in previous rounds.
“Just take the top layer. The more CO2, the more is abs*orbed”
More CO2 also exists at all layers below. The top layer uses 100% of its ability to absorb energy just to handle what is coming up from the layer immediately below. All the energy lost from layers below it still has no place to go.
“The higher layer can absorb X amount of energy based on its temperature/density.”
X is not the maximum amount of IR band energy the higher layer can absorb on Earth. At some pressure it becomes opaque to IR & absorbs ALL of the IR band energy from below – as does Venus 90bar atm. near the surface but not Earth at any pressure layer including 1bar.
When the higher layer absorbs part of the Y from lower atm., the higher layer internal thermodynamic energy rises and its spectrum shifts to regions from where it can emit.
You have a lot to learn about the details Richard. Spectroscopy is the science of details.
Richard M,
You are arguing with the King and Queen of Obfuscation. They will write whatever they have to to dismiss anything you write explaining any problem with AGW dogma. They will make up stuff like a “measured Earth 255K surface” or “an added layer of insulation” without providing any concrete data supporting it. They are not interested in any scientific resolution of the issues but will accuse you of not following the “science.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1225404
Nate asks:
“what renowned Princeton physicist/skeptic Will Happer has done wrong when he shows that physics requires a reduction in OLR with increasing CO2 . And what Modtran is doing wrong when it calculates exactly that.”
It depends on what OLR you are referring to. The blackbody radiation from the surface around 15 microns is almost completely absorbed within 10 meters. This occurs at less than 100 ppm. Yeah, I’d say that is a “reduction”. The wings are also reduced with added CO2.
What I am referring to is what happens next. If you look at outgoing OLR at 1 km you will see lots of new 15 micron OLR in MODTRAN. This is energy removed from the atmosphere via kinetic collisions of CO2 with other molecules and radiated in all directions. Now follow the upward IR as you rise. You will find it stays the same. No reduction.
If you look at downward IR you find it increases as you move to lower elevations due to lower elevations emitting more of this kind of IR as the temperature/density increases. Dr. Happer appears to be misinterpreting this IR as some kind of flux. We know better because of REE.
If you look back at Dr. Happer’s experience, it was mainly with LASERs. I’m sure he understands radiation at the quantum level very well. However, he has no real experience in atmosphere physics. Guess whose degree was in atmospheric physics? You guessed it, Miskolczi.
Note that what we are discussing here debunks the entire view of the greenhouse effect. If surface energy isn’t absorbed low in the atmosphere, there’s no capability for it to be absorbed higher up due to REE.
The actual warming of the atmosphere and formation of the lapse rate is driven by gases, specially CO2, creating upward radiation and supplying different amounts of energy to different altitudes based on their density.
The reason the surface is 33 C warmer than the S-B value is because of its density. It has nothing to do with downwelling IR. The boundary layer acts like a heater radiating energy outward to provide the warmth.
“That is true but not really a problem. Think of radiation as a background process moving heat away from the surface at a fairly constant rate. When it can’t handle the load, convection kicks in to pick up the slack. They are both needed.
Radiation also maintains the atmosphere’s temperature framework (lapse rate). Convection drives the movement of moisture upward through the atmosphere. They work together. The framework provided by radiation sets the lapse rate which then leads to condensation as convective flows bring up water vapor to higher altitudes.”
Well said. But after that you go off the rails.
“The reason the surface is 33 C warmer than the S-B value is because of its density. It has nothing to do with downwelling IR.”
The near surface atm. is not warmer than the S-B value since S-B is used to determine the global equilibrium surface temperature ~288K from 1LOT.
Also, no, Richard 9:05 am:
Remove the radiatively dominant IR active gases, leaving O2&N2 for reduced atm. opacity, the surface density will be essentially unchanged at 1bar initially but less downwelling terrestrial IR from less atm. emissivity looking up – that will drop the global mean surface energy balance to a lower Tse approaching 255K close to Te when thermodynamic internal energy equilibrium is again established with the sun. Albedo remains same as present albedo from more sea ice and less higher&lower cloud formation in the now cooler surface air.
Richard, again, you are arguing hypothetically with the King and Queen of Obfuscation. You will never come to any point of agreement with either discussing energy flows and SB temperatures on fictitious planets.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“you are arguing hypothetically with the King and Queen of Obfuscation.”
I came to the same conclusion. Always denying facts and bringing up irrelevancies. I already quit responding to its nonsense.
So you cannot refute Happer or the Schwarzschild equation, or the results that Modtran produces. Yet it makes no difference.
You guys are making it crystal clear that facts just don’t matter to you.
Asked and answered.
I think we are done responding to fools.
Nate claims:
“So you cannot refute Happer or the Schwarzschild equation, or the results that Modtran produces. Yet it makes no difference.”
The results Modtran produces are fine. All easily explained. Happer and others are simply finding the changes in density as you move down through the atmosphere.
Miskolczi actually uses a version of the Schwarzschild equation to make his computations.
Anything else?
Anyone else think it’s funny Ball4 is now quoting from the paper as if it were gospel. As I’ve said many times, I’m only referring to the one small part of the paper that deals with REE.
In addition, the quote you keep repeating comes from data that is only an approximation of theoretical values.
“At these sensitivity runs the 61 year NOAA average atmospheric
profile, (NAV) was used.”
You didn’t know that?
As I mentioned previously, there is some downward radiation from the lowest layer to the surface. It’s probably time to mention there is also downward radiation from every layer of the atmosphere to the surface. This breakdown of the atmosphere into layers is essentially a thought experiment to help us understand the overall flows.
In our thought experiment the layer approach forces all the downward radiation into the bottom layer. This allows us to understand the overall net flow of energy is upward. It also allows us to realize the downward flow from the bottom layer can’t produce any warming.
The issue now is does the real flow of the atmosphere lead to any changes in our results? The answer is no. Essentially, what happens is any energy put into this downward flow bucket is also leading to additional energy moving into the upward flow bucket. This is due to REE and is required by Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
The downward energy flow is what is computed in radiation models. The latest value from the IPCC is around 3.7 W/m2. However, it is not real as our thought experiment has shown. It is
1) countered by an increase in the upward flow of energy and
2) part of the thermal equilibrium process right at the surface.
No warming is possible from this energy.
Sure Richard, Will Happer, Modtran, Meteorology, weather models and every atmospheric physics paper going back decades has gotten the GHE all wrong, because none of them understand Kirchhoff’s law and radiative heat transfer…but you do, and this one paper sez stuff.
OK, whatever you say.
Nate complains because I’m basing my view on hard physics (Kirchhoff’s Law) and solid math. He prefers opinions.
It’s easy to understand why people get this wrong. The standard view of opacity doesn’t apply. I assume Modtran would provide the right answer if people would use it correctly.
The problem is none of them are considering upward flow changes. Most assume the upward flow is constant and defined by the surface blackbody view. They only look at the downward flow. Since downward radiation increases with CO2 concentration, they end up with the wrong answer.
BTW, this isn’t the GHE. It’s called the “enhanced GHE”. The mechanism is entirely different.
“hard physics (Kirchhoffs Law) and solid math.’
Tee hee hee.
All the previous work on this subject uses solid math and unlike you, applies Kirchhoffs law correctly.
“Most assume the upward flow is constant and defined by the surface blackbody view. They only look at the downward flow. ”
False, they consider changes in both upward and downward fluxes.
Nate claims:
“All the previous work on this subject uses solid math and unlike you, applies Kirchhoffs law correctly.”
They may do math correctly but they don’t understand what it is telling them. I think I figured out why so many people have been fooled. Look at what a program outputs layer by layer as you go down. Start at 20 km and assume no IR coming down from that point.
We see from REE that the 20 – 19 flow will produce X amount of energy. Since layer 19 is warmer and denser it absorbs all of X, but what does it radiate down to layer 18? It will radiate based on its own temperature/density which will be X + Z (some additional energy due to its increased temperature/density).
What this looks like is an increased downward flow. Of course, the same thing occurs at every layer which gives the appearance of a downward flux of energy growing larger. But, we know better.
In all cases the energy from the previous layer was absorbed and a new, larger amount of new energy emitted. This occurs all the way to the surface. This is simply REE as expected.
Is it any surprise people think there’s a warming signal?
Now look at the opposite flow.
You start at the boundary layer 0. It radiates X energy upward to layer 1. Layer 1 absorbs some subset based on its lower temperature/density, call it X1. This means some energy is not absorbed, call it Y1. We know X = X1+Y1.
So what would a program show? It would show X1+Y1 is moving upwards. Well, that’s exactly the same as X so it sees no increase in upward radiation. The same value would appear at every layer. You always have X amount of energy moving up. What you don’t know is some of that energy is already destined to go to space.
The output of this program would be completely deceiving. A person needs to look closer. If they look at the very top layer they will still see X amount of energy flowing upward. That is, all the original energy is lost to space. There can’t be any downward flux as that would violate conservation of energy.
Now you know why people get fooled. Programs like MODTRAN are working correctly. What people aren’t doing is factoring in the changing temperature/density. When you do that, you clearly see REE exists and no additional energy is flowing down. All they are seeing is the increasing energy generated by warmer/denser layers.
I completely expect Nate to see the error in his thinking as the logic I provided here is irrefutable. 😉
Richard M,
The problem I have with Mickolczi is similar to my problem with Happer’s analysis. Any analysis that relies on MODTRAN/HITRAN or the like ignores the major mechanism for energy transport within the atmosphere, convection. Downward radiative flow will occur in some instances due to temperature inversions. Otherwise the flow is net upward but not always in radiative exchange equilibrium. Perturbations to the later must occur when the surface is heated by the sun. Unless I totally misunderstand, REE can only occur when the lapse rate is constant and energy radiated to space exactly matches that radiated from the surface.
Richard M’s logic is easily refuted just by looking at earthen IR band atm. transmissivity measurements since on Earth thermodynamic internal energy emission occurs primarily though “atmospheric windows” ~2-20 micron of high transmissivity (0.1 to ~1) at Earth’s 1bar surface pressure. Clouds primarily scatter radiation at solar wavelengths, but are strongly absorbing in the IR bands – high clouds contribute to surface warming & low clouds surface shading for daytime cooling.
On Venus at surface 90 bar, there are no true atmospheric windows at IR wavelengths > 3 micron as at that pressure CO2 and other absorbing (grey opacity) gases (SO2, H2O, CO) largely preclude emission from the surface of Venus throughout the infrared.
Optical thickness of the atmosphere cannot be constant. At best, Miskolczi should claim optical thickness varies within a certain range around a constant value averaged over the whole planet.
Caveat, I did not read Miskolczi 2010. I got sidetracked on reading comments at Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread/
Queen Ball,
Your nonsense refutes nothing. It’s what trolls do: Gish gallop.
“Unless I totally misunderstand, REE can only occur when the lapse rate is constant and energy radiated to space exactly matches that radiated from the surface.”
REE is the radiative equilibrium in a single atm. layer at a T where “the downward emittance is equal to the absorbed surface upward radiation”. This how the LBLTRM works (in Miskolczi 2010 High-resolution Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Code, HARTCODE) to solve for T profiles with lapse rate non-constant & TOA radiation balanced with surface radiation for charts in the paper.
A more detailed approach used e.g. at JPL includes all physical processes that include transport of heat and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, radiative heating and cooling rates, vertical convective heat and volatile transport, diffusive heat transport (surface/upper atmosphere), latent heat transport/cloud processes to arrive at T profile consistent with radiosonde data.
Chic, ask questions, read the sources, and learn about the physics of the measured earthen Te 255K and the measurements refuting Richard M. It will take some work and time invested on your part.
“Miskolczi should claim optical thickness varies within a certain range around a constant value averaged over the whole planet.”
Miskolczi 2010: “The measured optical thicknesses tau A, in the Earth’s atmosphere lie mostly in the range 1 to 3.”
What is the altitude of the measured earthen Te 255K and when was is ever measured?
Chic Bowdrie says:
“Any analysis that relies on MODTRAN/HITRAN or the like ignores the major mechanism for energy transport within the atmosphere, convection.”
That is true but not really a problem. Think of radiation as a background process moving heat away from the surface at a fairly constant rate. When it can’t handle the load, convection kicks in to pick up the slack. They are both needed.
Radiation also maintains the atmosphere’s temperature framework (lapse rate). Convection drives the movement of moisture upward through the atmosphere. They work together. The framework provided by radiation sets the lapse rate which then leads to condensation as convective flows bring up water vapor to higher altitudes.
Of course we need to understand both processes. Unfortunately, we don’t yet understand the radiative portion.
For example, the world still thinks the greenhouse effect warms as a top down process to add 33 C to the surface temperature. Once you understand REE, this view is clearly wrong. The atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up.
Richard,
I see convection a bit more involved than what you describe unless by “can’t handle the load” you mean, it kicks in as soon as the surface begins to warm. But even when the surface isn’t warming, evaporation will cause convection.
Also, I think the lapse rate is gravitationally established, and only perturbed by radiation which initiates more convection restoring the “normal” lapse rate.
I think we are more or less on the same page, but I don’t have the conviction you do regarding REE and I try to avoid ambiguous statements like “atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up.”
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I think the lapse rate is gravitationally established, and only perturbed by radiation which initiates more convection restoring the “normal” lapse rate.”
The lapse rate is constantly being reset by radiative gases (aka GHGs). When a gas absorbs energy it almost always shares that energy with surrounding molecules. The gas also radiates away energy based on its temperature.
Since the number of molecules of a gas is determine by it altitude, this explains the amount of energy coming in. If the temperature is not the same as the altitude’s input energy, more/less energy gets radiated away bringing the temperature right back to the correct, lapse rate determined level.
Since the density and number of gas molecules is a result of gravity, the temperature also becomes a result of gravity.
Convection actually tends to throw off the temperature temporarily but the gases then work to reestablish the correct temperature.
“What is the altitude of the measured earthen Te 255K and when was (it) ever measured?”
Very good Chic 8:16 am
The global Te 255K measurement started with the very first relevant satellite high resolution radiometers (NIMBUS 60s,70s) observing at the orbital height of the instrument package, anyone with the pre-req.s & with a modicum of google-fu, can find papers from that early era using that radiometer data to arrive at the earthen global Te of ~255K, rounded (maybe 254K in some iirc).
Those early devices have been replaced with modern instruments. CERES radiometer data is now being measured continuously from a constellation of satellites called the A-Train. Since sunlight and albedo have not varied much since NIMBUS the equilibrium with annualized outgoing radiation (OLR) hasn’t changed enough & modern papers still use the downloaded data to report earthen Te ~255K, rounded.
Richard M 8:17 am: “For example, the world still thinks the greenhouse effect warms as a top down process to add 33 C to the surface temperature.”
No, Richard – that would preclude any surface convection.
The field of meteorology knows about convection in the troposphere atm. being warmed from the surface and accounts for global convection and downdrafts.
The field also observes the lower stratosphere is where the fluid becomes warmed from above thus convection reduces to nil (passenger jets like nil convection so fly in that region) and the fluid becomes isothermal (no lapse, standard atm.). This should inform you the troposphere lapse occurs due to convection enabled (mixing of layers) therein.
Richard,
I think we are still on the same page, but I am not sure which paragraph when you write,
“Since the number of molecules of a gas is determine by it altitude, this explains the amount of energy coming in.”
Also, I cringed when you referred to correct temperature.
Chic Bowdrie says:
“I cringed when you referred to correct temperature.”
By that I mean the temperature determined by the heat capacity of the air at that altitude.
Richard explains to Chic why his appeal to convection is a red herring, but the same srgument by me is called obfuscation.
Meanwhile, Happer is a fool and an obfuscator. Got it. Modtran and Schwarzschild and everybody since Tyndall have done it wrong and shouldnt be believed.
But you guys are certain that you get it all right, and yet dont have Dunning Kruger disorder.
Nate can’t explain why Miskolczi was wrong. The claimed refutation by Rob van Dorland and Piers M. Forster are total nonsense. REE is essentially tied to the lapse rate. They go hand in hand. Yet, denial is all Nate has.
Modtran gets the right answer if you ask it the right question. Just look at the upward flux. It is the same at 2 km as it is at 99 km. How can that be if the GHE turns energy around? That alone invalidates the GHE due to conservation of energy.
“Modtran gets the right answer if you ask it the right question.”
It shows the upward flux at 100 Km decreases by ~ 2.5 W/m^2 when CO2 is doubled and all else is held constant, including clouds, water vapor, surface temperature.
How, Richard, can you say it is getting the right answer when it totally disagrees with your claims?
It is not even considering the feedback effect of water vapor which are know to produce additional reduction in OLR.
“How, Richard, can you say it is getting the right answer when it totally disagrees with your claims?”
Yea, Richard, and when are you going to stop beating your wife?
Never mind me, the King of Obfuscation behind the curtain. I’m going to keep on misdirecting the conversation with AGW dogma hoping nobody catches on to my slight of hand.
“King of Obfuscation behind the curtain. Im going to keep on misdirecting the conversation”
Sounds like we’ve discovered the real obfuscatician here!
Meanwhile you defend contrarians without regard for their rationality.
CO2 does not ’cause warming’ like the sun does.
It inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself,
specially the first 100ppm, along with water vapor.
Wrong again, RG.
Earth cools itself just fine.
If the planet is getting warmer, then earth is not cooling itself just fine. That is a dingbat statement in your comment, Clint R..
RG, how do you know Earth is getting warmer? Do you understand the difference between “beliefs” and reality?
What is Earth’s temperature supposed to be?
This is a response to Clint R’s second (10″28am) dingbat comment.
We know Earth’s surface is warming from UAH measurements since 1979. If you don’t trust those measurements, why waste your time here? That is reality. It is very obvious hre in Michigan where the winters arr not as cold as in the 1970s and there is far less snow.
The question of a normal climate is an unrelated suvbject.
There is no normal climate on a planet not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
My personal opinion is the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants since the cold 1690s during the Maunder Minimum low solar energy period. We are living in an intergalacial period — that’s good news. We are living in a mild warming trend during that interglacial period — that’s more good news. But that reality is not how climate alarmists think.
They think the climate was perfect on June 6, 1850 at 3:06pm, and any change from that perfection, either up or down, is a climate “emergency” !
You don’t know what Earth’s temperature is supposed to be, RG. So you don’t know if the recent 40 year slight warming is within normal variation or not.
The only thing we know with certainty is CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.
Richard,
Some commenters, like me, enjoy getting into the weeds and others remain focused on the big picture. Choose your battles wisely….
That’s the hypothesis, isn’t it? 4% of the atmosphere causes all the warming due to back radiation. Now find evidence.
Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor .
Is that where you got your 4%?.
The greenhouse gases do not “warm” anything, unlike the sun.
The impede cooling. They form a partial barrier between earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space. They keep the planet’s surface roughly 60 degrees F. warmer at night, preventing all outdoor plants from freezing.
I was summing all greenhouse gases, approximately 3.5-4%. It ain’t much. The atmosphere helps the surface cool through conduction and convection. It doesn’t impede anything.
RG,
The Earth seems to have cooled itself pretty well for four and a half billion years or so, every winter, every night, when it is cloudy, where it is cold, covered by water, vegetation, roofs . . .
If you want to deny reality, I suggest you become a climate crackpot, and run about claiming that a GHE exists, while you wave a placard saying “Stop Climate Change!”
Wearing a white coat, and claiming to be a “climate scientist” might help.
Off you go now.
Your (lack of) logic is backwards, and shocking.
Greenhouse gases have kept the temperature high enough so that all outdoor plants do not freeze every night.
You could save typing time, Swenson, by simply posting a photograph of yourself wearing a T-shirt that says:
“I’m as dumb as a rock”
RG,
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, the temperatures on the Earth would approach those of the Moon.
Freezing cold at night (which you point out), and over boiling point during the day (which you refuse to acknowledge).
You seem to be of the opinion that I am “as dumb as a rock”. Good for you!
What form of mental defect leads you to think that I would value your opinion? Or that of anyone who agrees with you?
Maybe you have a higher opinion of your own importance than I do.
I hereby apologize for comparing
Swenson’s brain with a rock.
That was a tremendous insult to rocks,
and I regret writing it.
How much CO2 (or any GHG) absorbs is irrelevant. Equally “back radiation” is irrelevant. What matters it the emission temperature, which decreases with altitude. So if you add GHGs, the emission altitude will gradually increase, and that is where the warming comes from.
The relevant question is how all this works out under real conditions, including overlaps between GHGs and clouds, also allowing for surface emissivity and so on. There is a lot to learn if you do this correctly..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
E. Schaffer, where do you learn this nonsense? If the emission altitude increases, that mean more emission to space, as less layers prevent it.
Not only do you not understand the relevant physics, buy you have no ability to think for yourself.
Clint R
You have it backwards. A higher emission altitude is a colder emission altitude which means less emission to space.
Less emission to space means less emission back to the surface, braindead Ent.
Clint R
Incorrect. You are not considering the lapse rate. The DWIR from the atmosphere reaching the surface comes from very low and warm layers. IR emitted by layers miles high does not make it back to the surface.
If the atmosphere was isothermal then it would not matter how much more CO2 was added after saturation since it would emit the same at TOA as it does at the surface. However that is not the real case on Earth. Atmosphere has a lapse rate and it gets much cooler as you move up (until Stratosphere).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ugo-Tricoli/publication/281470767/figure/fig2/AS:614388029485061@1523492929332/Temperature-profile-of-the-standard-Earth-atmosphere-with-respect-to-altitude-Adapted.png
The IR emitted from CO2 makes it to space in the edge of the Troposphere with temps around 220 K emitting much less IR to space than CO2 near the surface which emits insignificant amounts to space but all toward the surface. It IR emitted by near surface CO2 is absorbed by CO2 in layers above and does not make it to space. All this is based upon actual measurements which I have linked to you more than once. If you are anti-science and a cult-minded idiot who cannot look at evidence (which is the scientific way) that is your problem. You don’t have to be an idiot your whole life, maybe consider evidence over your opinions.
Norman, as usual, you don’t understand any of this.
In the situation Ent describes, the lapse rate is not a factor, as the layer’s temperature is already established. Ent claims that means less emission to space, from that layer. I pointed out that would also mean less emission back to the surface. You pointed that you don’t understand any of it.
But, thanks for another link you can’t understand. If you understood the link, you would realize that there THREE layers that are at 255K. And TOA is about 195K. There is no “real 255K surface”. But, you can’t understand any of this.
@Clint
You sound like a true American! Not just you have no clue what you are talking about, you also insult everyone over it 😉
Schaffer, did you get caught trying to promote nonsense?
E. Schaffer
” What matters it the emission temperature, which decreases with altitude. So if you add GHGs, the emission altitude will gradually increase… ”
Exactly, because remission to space at lower and lower temperatures decreases the energy radiated out, and…
” … that is where the warming comes from. ”
Thanks for the accurate comment, and just don’t let ignoramuses like Clint R, Swenson, Robertson and a few others irritate you, let alone impress you.
Some of them, incredible, still are ranting against this stoopid idea of ‘backradiation’, one of the worst explanations I ever have heard of.
Bindidon, you wrote,
“Exactly, because remission to space at lower and lower temperatures decreases the energy radiated out, and”
There is no actual data that re-emission occurs at a lower temperature or that OLR is decreasing. The GHE dogma is tiresome. What matters is some good data that shows how an increase in CO2 actually shows a measured increase in global temperature.
Notably the IPCC has changed its definition of the GHE and got rid of “back radiation” with AR5.
AR4: Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect
AR5: These substances emit infra-red radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission
Although long overdue, this correction is totally embarrassing. I mean the “settled science” has only just learned how the GHE works. Manabe received a nobel prize for what is the equivalent to a perpetuum mobile. And even Roy Spencer still believes in “back radiation”..
PS. please do not say “re-emission”. It is emission, period.
“…the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.”
Has settled science ever measured a net global weakening of emission due to a decline of temperature with altitude that led to a drop in outgoing longwave radiation or a commensurate increase in global temperatures?
Seems so..
https://greenhousedefect.com/fileadmin/_processed_/a/c/csm_curve_s_0fe159de69.gif
The problems however are in the fine print..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-1
Because you went to the trouble of providing some sort of answer, I read the post and found no measurements of the emissions, temperatures, or altitudes that were shown to be associated with a decrease in OLR or global warming. We have some transitory global warming, but OLR is simultaneously increasing. The data doesn’t seem to follow the hypothesis.
“The fact that CO2s ability to warm was saturated long ago should be enough to convince anyone that the warming is natural.”
It’s not saturated, despite a 25 year old blog post telling you otherwise.
Heh, haven’t been linked to the J Daly website in years. Brought a chuckle. Pages of bad science remain intact!
The paper agrees with others.
“Global mean sea level change since 1900 is found to be 1.77 mm/yr +- 0.38 mm/yr”
Their rate since 1993 is much higher and completely agrees with satellite altimetry data
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/5bbe0d1d-7eee-4ed9-aaca-ad49b59b572a/jgrc20911-fig-0008-m.png
which currently averages 3.3 +- 0.4 mm/year.
That clearly shows a recent increasing rate relative to the last century.
They find the acceleration rate over that WHOLE century is low and stat insignificant.
The acceleration rate from the UC satellite era data 1993-present is statistically significant.
0.098 +- 0.025 mm/y^2.
Hoarding toilet paper again, huh Nate?
Complete nonsense.
A one mm sea level change can not be measured from a satellite.
Ok then. Science will file your ‘expert’ opinion where it belongs.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1381197292728942595?lang=en
Tamino has been looking at tide gauge sea level rise acceleration along the US East coast.
He is reporting rates of 10mm/year, three times the global average.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/02/23/sea-level-denial/
Ent, 17 eastern States are now completely underwater.
And passenger jets are flying backwards as ice cubes are boiling water.
(You won’t get the subtle reminder that you are a braindead cult idiot. Glad to help.)
EM,
I can’t see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.
I hope he would not be so stupid as to be using data from tide gauges attached to land which is moving up and down (more down at present, in many places).
The “global average” is nonsensical garbage promoted by morons at the IPCC who don’t know what they are talking about. Of course, any moron who believes that the chaotic ocean surface can be measured more accurately from space than the fixed land surface is free to do so.
Maybe “climate scientists” have amazing super powers and magical abilities, so they don’t need to concern themselves with reality like the rest of us.
Entropic man says:
Tamino has been looking at tide gauge sea level rise acceleration along the US East coast.
He is reporting rates of 10mm/year, three times the global average.
Swenson says:
I cant see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.
I hope he would not be so stupid as to be using data from tide gauges attached to land which is moving up and down.
–
Tamino only uses data and dates that suit his particular argument at the time.
He is not stupid but he is very motivated to prove global warming hence all his conclusions are not what they seem to be.
EM quoting Tamino is quite amusing.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
Is the same as saying I can get you 3% interest daily compounded in my Ponzi scheme!
Belief in either is absolute as the promise is so desirable.
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
Have a go EM.
EM quoting Tamino is quite amusing.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
–
If you look closely he might have confused sea level rise with tidal level near neap tide.
That would do it.
If you don’t true Tamino try other sources.
https://www.vims.edu/bayinfo/bay_slrc/index.php
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
Whether you like it or not, and whatever the combination of subsidence and rising sea level the tide gauges on the US East Coast are showing high tides rising by 10mm/year or 2 inches every five years. Should the state governments ignore the problem, as North Carolina tried to do, or Should they respond?
Should the Navy ignore the problem or do something about the more frequent flooding at their Norfolk, Virginia yards.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rising-seas-threaten-norfolk-naval-shipyard-raising-fears-catastrophic-damage-n937396
All gauges show both rises and falls, some in quite close proximity.
“I can’t see where he has factored in the US Geological Service measurements of land subsidence in those areas.”
The people he’s criticising didn’t factor it in either. He’s comparing apples to apples. Their claim is wrong. There has been acceleration in the data that they’ve used (PSMSL), despite them announcing there isn’t.
Tamino went further in his next post and DID factor in vertical land movement.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/sea-level-rise-30-year-forecasts-from-noaa/
How much of the *apparent* acceleration is due to changes in the rates of glacial isostatic adjustment as well as ground water evacuation cavity compression? Analyses of coastal apparent mean sea level must include land mass dynamics to be meaningful; otherwise, the measurements only convey half the story.
For example, if heavily populated coastal areas pump up an increasing amount of ground water, the coast compresses faster under its own load, and that may give an inaccurate impression of an accelerated sea level rise when actually the coast may be “sinking” faster on its own.
Additionally, if the coast’s glacial isostatic adjustment is accelerating because of changes in crust elasticity, then that also may give an inaccurate impression if an accelerating sea level rise when actually the coast may be “sinking” faster on its own.
This is assessed, and the forecasts made by NOAA were different for different parts of the US coast. Because of local subsidence and other changes in the locale.
GIA isn’t included in the figures for acceleration. The critics just used local tide gauge measurements.
Why is is so hard to say “we don’t know”.
We don’t know what percentage of the warming since the late 1880s was man made.
The correct answer is “we do not know”.
There is no need for faith, or unproven beliefs, in science.
We finally have decent measurements with UAH
We have haphazard surface measurements before UAH, which say there was little warming in the 99 years of the era of CO2 emissions, from 1880 to 1979.
And UAH says we’ve had faster warming in the 42+ years 1979 to early 2022.
While we don’t know what percentage of past warming was man made, we can make a simple assumption — just assume ALL the warming since 1880 was man made.
Then consider if that warming since 1880 was dangerous (it was not — harmed no one)
And consider if the pattern of warming was good news or bad news (mainly affected colder higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night) — that warming pattern was good news for a lot of people.
Based on observations, past warming was mild, harmless and benefited people in the NH higher latitudes.
Even if we cherry pick the 43 years since 1979, with the fastest rate of warming — we can consider the effects of another 43 years of similar warming — that would also be harmless.
Conclusion:
There is no climate emergency.
Past predictions of warming 2x to 3x faster than observations have been wrong since the 1970s — there is no logical reason the believe today’s predictions are more accurate.
Always wrong predictions of the future climate are not science
They are data-free climate astrology. I say “data free” because there are no data for the future — the predictions are just based on unproven theories and speculation, that has just given us a 50+ year track record of wrong climate predictions.
“Climate change” is always wrong wild guess climate predictions, not climate reality.
I have faith too — Faith that the climate predictions will continue being wrong, as they always have been.
Let me get this straight, RG – you do not know, therefore there is no emergency?
The answer is more than 100%, btw:
https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-than-all.html
Willard the Dullard
The future climate can not be predicted
But we have over 140 years of experience with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 enrichment so far has been harmful. Therefore, we have no evidence a continuation of the past warming trend will be harmful.
Given that the growth of the CO2 emissions in the next 47 years will be similar to the growth of CO2 emissions in the past 47 years, there is no logical reason to assume a different global average temperature output in the future.
Expecting a different result from future CO2 emissions than the actual result from past CO2 emissions (using the worst case assumption that ALL warming is caused by CO2) would meet the definition of insanity. A subject in which you are an authority, Willard the Dullard.
“But what if, in the absence (or relative near-absence ) of human interference, the climate would be cooling? After all, it’s agreed that the world has been cooling since the “Holocene optimum” – this is a point that is commonly wielded by the inactivist camps after all.”
But it’s only been a slight amount over 1000 years [on average].
If it was 100 years rather than 1000 years, it’s 10 times more of thing.
“If you extrapolate the background trend (ignoring the hockey stick blade at the end) you will see that from first principles, a slow cooling is a reasonable expectation for the natural trend. This would mean that the anthropogenic contribution is not sharing in the warming with natural factors, but actually pulling against a (relatively small) natural cooling, probably orbitally forced. Thus if one had to express anthropogenic warming as a percentage of total warming, the total fraction would be over 100%. ”
So, yeah!
For anthropogenic warming?
Is there some reason we want average surface global air temperature to be 13 C, or colder than anyone imagines the Little Ice Age was.
Only advantage is a lot more glacial ice- is more of freshwater reservoir, one might use it {though we aren’t currently using them- and so might just solely be regarded as more dangerous}.
Oh good:
“WHY THIS MATTERS
There’s a sequence of dilutions; from what scientists perceive to what scientists are willing to say publicly; from what scientists say to what the IPCC process will approve; from what the IPCC process approves to what the general public and the policy sector understand. And so, there’s a secondary story buried under the bizarre Senate votes this week that interests me more than the bizarre dance of politics.”
Nope, that didn’t help.
“Does she really not understand that residual after 110% is accounted for is negative? The more I look at these exchanges (and looking back on Twitter streams is an amazingly awkward task, by the way – please fix this Twitter) the more convinced I am that she thinks that if one piece is 110% of the total then WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PER CENT THE TOTAL IS!
You know, I think that is really what she meant.”
Well as I said, Judith Curry is mostly worried about weather.
Which is something valid to worry about.
But we don’t seem to getting much progress in predicting the weather.
What are you doing here, gb?
Try this:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/i-also-dont-get-judiths-logic/
So long ago
Contrarian talking points are old.
Maybe this, is what is triggering an old memory
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-climate-nexus/
“Tom Pyle sums it up with this statement:
“The west is seeing the results of years of getting energy policy advice from Swedish teenagers, former bar tenders and washed up socialists. We need grown ups running energy policy.”
“But Greta” is another Bingo square, gb:
https://climateball.net/but-scapegoat/
Please keep in your lane.
> The future climate can not be predicted
That’s another Climateball move, RG:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
No need to predict anything to know the size of the A in AGW.
Do you think I would not notice you moving the goalposts, and how do you feel about being 100% liquid these days?
Whickering Wee Willy,
What are you blabbering about, laddie?
What fresh nonsense is this –
“No need to predict anything to know the size of the A in AGW”
Your predilection for self-abuse has obviously scrambled your wits. Do you find yourself ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!” with greater regularity?
Get your hand off your willy, Willy. Accept reality – no GHE, no climate emergency due to CO2, and the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann definitely did not win a Nobel Prize!
Get with the program, sport. Reality is all around you.
Carry on.
No one knows the size of the A in AGW, therefore no one knows the effect of humans on the climate in the past, or in the future. Lots of guessing — no certainty.
I invested in out of favor TUR two weeks ago – a Turkey stock ETF. Should be very profitable in a year. You should consider TUR, and invest your life savings of $67.95
What you try to ignore is constrained well enough:
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
Keep appeals to ignorance to your financial newsletters.
Reply to Willard the Dullard’s pitiful appeal to authority logical fallacy in his 10:23 am cut and paste comment:
The IPCC assumes global warming is man made and dangerous, then predicts future global warming will be man made and dangerous.
This circular reasoning logic fallacy has been in every IPCC report since 1988.
In 1995, the IPCC arbitrarily declared that all natural causes of climate change were “noise” — too small to matter. No proof, of course — just “because we say so” science.
That’s quite a conclusion after 4.5 billion years of 100% natural climate changes !
But it is a perfect conclusion for dingbats like you — arbitrarily dismiss all natural causes of climate change and the result is that all climate change has to be man made it’s like a magic trick !
But that’s not real science — the IPCC was formed to blame climate change on humans so eliminated all other causes arbitrarily. That is politics, not science, and you love it.
My personal list of climate change variables, few of which are even considered by your beloved IPCC political organization:
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent.
RG goes for a full-blown gallop of “But Anything But CO2”:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
He still fails to dodge a very simple point:
“Over the past 60 years, natural forcings (sun, volcanoes) have also had a cooling effect.”
Earlier, I pointed out that claims of measuring global sea level to one twenty fifth of the thickness of a sheet of paper I had just measured were unbelievable.
I also pointed out I can repeatedly measure to 0.01 mm. Quite easy, using a micrometer.
bobdroege, moron-at-large, responded –
“Swenson,
Some people might be able to measure things to the thickness of a human hair or even finer.
You are just incredulous.”
Not only is bobdroege a moron, he suffers from a mental defect which renders him unable to comprehend fairly simple English. He might well be a climate crackpot, for all I know. He fits the profile.
Have you managed to find the greenhouse effect yet?
You might have to pull your head out of its current location and wipe your eyes.
b,
There is no greenhouse effect. You are a moron, if you are trying to convince people that your fantasy supersedes reality.
Carry on,
Putting more CO2 in our atmosphere makes the average temperature of the surface more hotter more better, as has been scientifically measured and this message is approved by the council of card carrying Hansenites.
b,
You wrote –
“Putting more CO2 in our atmosphere makes the average temperature of the surface more hotter more better, . . . ”
Well, it doesn’t actually. The atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Suns energy reaching the surface, and 0% from leaving (that is why temperatures drop at nigh)t.
Reducing the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the surface results in lower temperatures, moron, not higher ones.
Learn some physics If you have time. You might sound a little more rational if you do.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I said on average meaning over a period longer than a day.
Or did you miss where I said that.
The Sun’s energy warms the atmosphere and that energy also warms the surface.
That, of course, has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, which you don’t seem to understand, which means that you don’t understand physics. So try and stay on topic.
Sorry, go back to school, and try and learn something this time.
Man made does not mean due to CO2. I am pretty there is a much stronger man-made forcing than CO2. Just consider this:
“For a 1% change in absolute cirrus coverage with τ = 0.33, the GCM yielded surface temperature changes (DTs ) of 0.438 and 0.588C over the globe and Northern Hemisphere, respectively.”
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975”
These are from Minnis et al 2004, from the NASA research center. What Minnis argued was a tiny little increase in cirrus cover (CC) over the US (and some other regions), was enough to explain all the warming there. If this was due to contrails, that would explain it.
On the other side he found no upward trend in CC over Europe, rather it was even declining. Accordingly contrails could not explain global warming.
But here is the beautiful part. The drastic reduction in air traffic 2020 has given us much better data on how contrails contribute to CC. And indeed they massively expand it, which combined with the climate sensitivity named above, can easily explain ALL the global warming since 1970.
What do you suggest, that we bury the planes, leave fossil fuel in the ground and use solar powered trains and ocean liners?
Why should we? Contrails are not a lasting issue. And even if they should pose a perceived problem, aircraft could fly at lower altitudes, sharply reducing contrail formation.
It’s those pesky perceived problems we shouldn’t be worrying about.
What is the delta 18O isotope value change of the last 40 years (1980 to 2020)? Notice you never see it presented so curious what data you are basing this statement on?
More than 800,000 refugees from Ukraine have already reached Poland, the vast majority of them women and children, including the elderly. One million refugees will soon be surpassed. Men who can fight are returning to Ukraine, including many who have long lived in other countries. Ukraine has about 40 million citizens. Russia is unable to control all of Ukraine. No one greets the invaders with flowers except on their graves.
The willingness of both the Polish government and, above all, the Polish population to take in so many refugees is admirable and is a slap in the face to all people (especially these dumb alt-rights) who, for example in Germany, in France or in the UK, stay indifferent, unfriendly or even aggressive towards refugees, though being so often themselves grand-children of refugees.
Last but not least, Poland is showing the dictators Putin and Lukashenko (and the nomenklaturas who cowardly crowd around them) how miserable, pathetic and cruel they all are.
Serdecznie dziękujemy ludności polskiej!
The dumb alt-right don’t matter.
The issue, is the US should control the southern border, or otherwise the criminal Cartel will continue to control our southern border.
Or whole issue is about legal vs illegal migration not about numbers of people who come to US.
The US is unpopulated, and we need a growing population.
In terms migration, internally, recently people have fleeing Blue States, like California where I live.
Or such other states are, obviously, in a real sense, encouraging migration of people with the freedom to move somewhere, else.
So, is better for Ukrainian people to come to US, legally, or arrive in Mexico and pay money to a criminal cartel to enter the US, illegally.
It seems obvious that something the US Congress should manage so it’s legal, rather inaction that helps monetize various criminal organizations which make Mexico a more lawless State {no one should imagine it helps Latin America}. Of course, the War of Drugs, is also an issue.
You can see that the sudden warming in the stratosphere has moved from the middle stratosphere to the tropopause. See how low the temperature is in the lower stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png?fbclid=IwAR2sAmADTIJ08aA5CnQaKtaMW7T3qvKDAMK08_uqGBKQZSziTVi77zPJHRE
This is what the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere looks like now. It is quite strong, although it is divided. It will continue to affect weather in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/tsfXxwh/Screenshot-2.png
I’m not sure that’s a meaningful question.
18O ratios are usually calculated for ice cores and it takes about 100 years to go from snowfall to firn to dense ice.
You also get variations depending on the ocean unwind.
So, are you asking for the ratio in the ocean , the evaporated water, the snowfall or the firn? Greenland or Antarctica ?
Simply go to Spectralcalc and do this experiment.
Set the Gas Cell to a VMR of 0.00041 or 410ppm.
Set the Gas Cell Length to 100cm
Set the Lower Wave# to 620 and Upper Wave# to 720 (15 micron range)
When you calculate it, you discover that 100% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed, or “Saturated” at 15 microns.
You can only absorb 100% of outgoing LWIR, so CO2 at 100 cm above the surface does that.
Now, increase the CO2 to 0.00082 or 2x 410ppm. Change the length of the Gas Cell to 50cm. You will see that 100% is absorbed, or is “saturated”
Increasing CO2 doesn’t absorb more than 100% of outgoing LWIR, that is impossible, what it does is lower the saturation level. That doesn’t increase warming, it simply lowers the level where saturation occurs. Does saturation at 100 vs 50 cm really matter? I doubt it.
Sure.
But Modtran shows for the atmosphere, the upward radiance, at 100 Km,
for 250-5000 cm^-1,
for Mid latitude summer,
for 260 ppm CO2 is 264.957 W/m^2
and
for 560 ppm CO2 is 262.321 W/m^2
a difference of 2.636 W/m^2
for doubling CO2, while nothing else changes.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Climate action? Net zero in the UK? How long will this drivel and waste of resources go on for?
The Central England Temperature record gives temperature readings from the year 1659.
To entertain myself, I had a look at the averages for the summer months (June, July, and August).
No year in the entire record has ever reached an average of 18C for these months, and values between equal to or greater than 17C are seen infrequently. Here are the greater than or equal to 17C values , with the year.
1781 17.0
1826 17.6
1846 17.1
1911 17.0
1933 17.0
1947 17.0
1976 17.8
1983 17.1
1995 17.4
2003 17.3
2006 17.2
2018 17.3
Annual averages of more than 10C are however more common. Clearly there are reasons as to why this is so – changes in weather patterns or methodology perhaps.
Given that the CO2 level pre-1750 was 280ppm (so we’re told) and it’s now 410ppm, and given the fractional temperature variations seen in for example the UAH satellite record, it’s surely time we moved on from the ‘hockey stick’ for example and started to look at climate more broadly. There’s still dispute over the ‘hockey stick’ – a controversial paper from 1999 – frankly, in 2022 who cares? Since the IPCC was formed in 1988, we have 34 years of climate data from around the world. Where are the detailed and truthful analyses of climate that sould be the subject of research? The endless wrangling over fractional temperature changes seems interminable. If the world’s climates truly are changing adversely, let’s have some other measured data for different regions – for example rainfall, sunshine, and vegetation.
As a long time resident in the UK (now age 73) I fail to see any changes of concern whatsoever in our climate. Net zero is in my view a farce being inflicted on UK residents by unquestioning politicians, few of whom have a scientific background. Consequently they lack the confidence and courage to challenge their advisors and also the climate scientists who claim that we really must do something to regulate the planet’s temperature.
Maybe we live in different UKs.
I grew up in the fens in the 1950s and 60s. Each year some landowners flooded their fields in Autumn. Several times each winter the fields froze and we could skate. Each year there would be the UK speed skating championship. To get safe ice you needed four nights of -4C frost with cold days between.
Gradually opportunities to skate decreased and you might get the odd year with no skating. Then it became unusual to get an opportunity to skate at all.
The last speed skating competition in the fens was held in 1999.
There is still a Fen Skating Association. They count themselves lucky if they skate outdoors once a year and the UK speed skating championship is now held in Holland.
Entropic man: indeed we do live in different parts of the UK – I live in the Nottingham area.
The variability of weather conditions in different regions of the UK can be seen in the excellent graphs linked below from the Met Office. They show temperature, rainfall, and sunshine for the UK as a whole, and also England, Wales, and Scotland separately. These records go back over a hundred years, and are supplied for every month of the year.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
The Met Office time series graphs use the HADUK-Grid data which are land based automatic monitoring stations that may be skewed by UHIE localized warming. I did not find any indication that HADUK-Grid data are adjusted for UHI variability due to population and industrial increases. Additionally, the UK weather and climate are highly affected by polar jet stream variability, short-term and long-term respectively.
Carbon500
From Entropic man I read
” Several times each winter the fields froze and we could skate. Each year there would be the UK speed skating championship. To get safe ice you needed four nights of -4C frost with cold days between.
Gradually opportunities to skate decreased and you might get the odd year with no skating. Then it became unusual to get an opportunity to skate at all. ”
As I live in Germany, hence neither in your UK nor in Entropic man’s, I can’t compete with any anecdotal data.
1. But… raw, entertainment-free data: this I can produce.
You brought us above a nice list of CET years with on average about 17 C summer temperature.
Fine. Looks, at a first glance, as would in England summer temperature remains pretty good the same over centuries.
But… hmmh.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yC0btjeQ-q_65Vm-xFy6TWvv73abAUWQ/view
Did you notice that the intervals between the years you collected are nicely decreasing over time?
Did you possibly forget some you would like to add a posteriori into the list?
If you did not forget any: do you understand that you are doing some nice cherry-picking?
Would not, if CET was so stable as you seemingly wish to indicate, the intervals keep nearly equal over time?
*
2. As do many, you concentrated your search for data on summer months.
I love summer months.
But… hmmmh.
Did Entropic man not speak about skating opportunities disappearing over time – at least in his UK?
What about doing a job similar as above, but now for winter months, Carbon500?
None of that says that there is not a longer natural sequency to both warm and cold.
Both long term well known ocean series are cyclic, PDO, and AMO. Why should global temperatures not be the same?
Bindidon: rest assured that yes, of course I noticed that the intervals between the years I cited are decreasing over time – but the point remains that the maximum temperatures have never exceeded those values. The question is – why? And yes, the intervals have decreased – and again, one asks – why? Is this of any significance? Does it matter?
I chose to present the figures for the summer months simply these are the hottest months – I wasn’t after all writing an exhaustive analysis, merely posting an observation of interest.
You ask: ‘do you understand that you are doing some nice cherry-picking?’
The term ‘cherry picking’ is popular in the world of climate posting on websites – and meaningless. Why should someone who presents observations of interest which contradict others, or have not been noted before, be accused of ‘cherry picking’?
I note that you have no reason to quibble with the figures I presented. On that we’re agreed – excellent!
Your comment about doing a similar analysis of the winter months is of course a good idea – but since you’ve suggested this, why don’t you do it and present your results? I would be very interested to see what you come up with.
Bindidon and Entropic man – further to my earlier replies, and
regarding winter temperatures – an issue raised by you both:
I’m going to cite comments made by meteorologist William James Burrows in his book ‘Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press, 2001). On p186 he states that ‘An additional insight into the variance of winter temperatures in England may be found by looking at the distribution of daily figures in the CET record, which have been produced by the UK Meteorological Office for the period 1772 to the present.’
He compares the graphical distribution of values for the 50 years 1772-1821 with those for 1946-95, noting that ‘for both periods the distribution is distinctly skewed towards higher temperatures with a long tail of low temperatures – but although the latter period was nearly 1.4C warmer than the earlier one, the range of extremes is virtually unchanged.’
‘There are substantially more cold days in the first period and more mild days in the latter.’ He goes on to discuss weather patterns , then finishes by saying that ‘this analysis suggests that the changes affecting winter temperatures in the British Isles are a matter of a shift in weather patterns rather than a significant warming or cooling of the northern hemisphere.’
“The variability of weather conditions in different regions of the UK can be seen ”
So that is just the UK, now extrapolate to the whole Earth.
Thus, I don’t understand why you try to draw conclusions about Global Warming from just the summer months of Central England Temperature?
Nate: You ask – ‘that is just the UK, now extrapolate to the whole Earth.’
That’s exactly what I’m asking for, and the point I’m making!
I said:’If the worlds climates truly are changing adversely, lets have some other measured data for different regions for example rainfall, sunshine, and vegetation.’
Notice that I said ‘adversely’
I’ve made my points and supplied data to back them up – please re-read my comments and answers to previous observations by others.
I’m not inclined to try and find out what records exist for other countries – the time investment would be considerable, but there is in my view a real need for detailed historical studies to be made, and for those to be summarised and easily accessed.
–Richard Greene says:
March 6, 2022 at 11:43 AM
…
The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations
2) Changes in ocean circulation,
ENSO and others
3) Solar Irradiance and activity
4) Volcanic aerosol emissions
5) Greenhouse gas emissions
6) Land use changes
(cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)
7) Changes in clouds and water vapor
8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system
9) Unknown causes of climate change
The variables above are not all independent–
I say there is just one variable related to our global icehouse climate.
The average temperature of our ocean. Which is somewhere around
3.5 C
It seems recently, or in last 1 to 2 million years, Earth ocean only warms to about 4 C.
And earlier in our 34 million year Ice Age, ocean temperature warmed up to as much as 5 C.
Or global climate has been different within the last couple million years, it’s been a colder part of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
A question I have is did the average ocean of our ocean become as cold as 3 C or perhaps did cool to 2.5 C or cooler in the last 2 million years. Though I suppose, it’s not very important question.
More important question is 3.5 C average ocean temperature, much different than temperature of our ocean during long duration of time which is not an interglacial period. Or how close in terms of ocean average temperature, are we from leaving the Holocene interglacial period.
So in Little Ice Age, the ocean average temperature was .1 C cooler, and may have been .2 C cooler.
What happens if average temperature of ocean is .3 C or .4 cooler than our about 3.5 C ocean?
It does not seem this could happen in less than 100 years, but could happen in couple hundred years, and so, this can seen as somewhat relevant.
And as said/asked for quite awhile, what caused the Little Ice Age?
Or one could say, that if we are like the medieval warm period {as some claim} then what followed it, was the Little Ice Age and we have been cooling for 5000 years.
But anyhow, we should explore the Moon as soon as possible.
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative. The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2 and the rate of warming is what you would expect from them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
“The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative”
They are adjusted to be neutral or slightly negative. The inherent uncertainty that Roy mentions means that the reality is not that well know.
“They are adjusted to be neutral or slightly negative. ”
Conspiracy theories again? If you think that scientific data is being fiddled there is no point discussing the data since you will refuse to believe anything it might tell you.
No fact. The methodology used to compute the ‘natural forcing’ is done by subtracting the other forcing’s from the known outcomes tom produce the results. That is what is normally called a circular argument.
The fact is that Roy points out the uncertainty that exists is not taken into account, in either natural or the other forcing’s.
> No fact
Should be easy to establish then.
Show it.
Whining Wee Willy,
If you don’t believe him, produce some facts to show he’s wrong. That’s the way science works, moron.
As Einstein said –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You can’t even find one experiment to support the ridiculous notion that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter, can you?
Moron. You might as well just keep playing with yourself, and ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!” At regular intervals. It won’t turn fiction into fact, but it should put a smile on your dial.
Nothing wrong with that!
Carry on.
> If you don’t believe him, produce some facts to show he’s wrong.
That’s not how it works, Mike.
Yes, the claimant is the person who must prove their claim.
Otherwise there is a unicorn living in the centre of the moon until you can prove that this is false.
>The natural forcing are all neutral or slightly negative. The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2 and the rate of warming is what you would expect from them.
So now you’re quoting Bloomberg?
And the scientists that Bloomberg are quoting.
EM,
“The only forcings producing warming are land use and increasing CO2….”
ASR and OLR are both increasing and the former is greater than the latter. How do land use and CO2 combine to do that?
What about my pony, Chic?
I want my pony!
Whacko Wee Willy,
Want in one hand. Pee in the other.
See which fills up first.
Do you really imagine anyone cares what you want?
Tell that to Chic, Mike.
I can’t believe EM is referencing Land Use when he realizes that IPCC’s carbon cycle model is abysmal. Oh, wait, he’s shown little scruples.
“NONE of the natural, global-average energy flows in the climate system are known to better than about 5-10 Watts per sq. meter”
But those who wish to see warming (or cooling) will claim that their mathematics proves otherwise.
The last 7 years supports that observation. It shows cooling but longer timeseries shows warming. Which is correct? The most recent or not?
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Could you put confidence limits on that graph?
Woodfortrees.org doesn’t do confidence limits I’m afraid.
You could insert them if you know them from other sources.
However it is remarkable that ALL of the sources show a similar decline over the last 7 years so it is more likely than not that the decline is real.
All the sources show a decline from the 2016 peak to the current La Nina. Since they are all measuring the same planet it is not surprising that they all show similar cooling. Is it real, rather just random variation? Probably real.
Is the cooling a statistically significant reversal of the long term warming trend? I would say no.
The 95% confidence limits for most of the global annual temperature datasets are +/-0.1C.
A statistically significant difference between the ends of a temperature linear regression would be when the 95% confidence limits of the two ends do not overlap ( they are 4 standard deviations apart). For your graph that would require the difference to be greater than 0.2C.
None of the datasets on your graph come anywhere near significance over 7 years. Even Had*CRUT only showed a decrease of 0.1C in seven years.
This is not a surprise. The current long term trend for UAH is 0.13C/decade. So you would not expect to see a significant trend with less than 15 years of data. For GISS with its 0.18C/decade you would need at least 12 years.
“But those who wish to see warming (or cooling) will claim that their mathematics proves otherwise. ”
Perhaps you are yourself guilty of the sin you describe. Can you look yourself in the mirror and say with complete honesty that you are not trying to believe that a short term decline due to La Nina is actually the end of a 140 year warming trend?
“Is the cooling a statistically significant reversal of the long term warming trend? I would say no.”
All things have to start somewhere. Would you suggest that this month/year will be warmer or colder than the next?
Well given that the La Nina could well extend until the Autumn, I think that for the next month at least temperatures will be lower than 0.00.
“Even Had*CRUT only showed a decrease of 0.1C in seven years”
“The current long term trend for UAH is 0.13C/decade”
So only 0.03c to go and 3 years in which to do it? That we could see in next month alone. Then any extra would be a decline in the last decade.
Given the estimates from Roy above, it will take a more than a few decades to be certain.
Do I have to keep pointing out that OLS trends statistically only apply to the data/date range they cover and are no guide to future or past beyond those dates?
You cannot create confidence limits of sampling of a sine wave (other than peak to peak). All you do is acknowledge the ‘noise’ around its path.
“All things have to start somewhere.”
RLH is insistent that long-term OLS fits cannot predict the future. Most of us agree.
But here he is trying to predict the future with short-term noise.
We can always count on RLH for inconsistency.
On the contrary, I am showing that uncertainty means that ALL predictions should have large error margins associated with them. Other people will insist that warmer is the only conclusion. I show that colder is an equivalent and valid alternative.
It is interesting how engineers and statisticians use different terms or procedures for the same things.
Confidence limits = noise
LOWESS = S-G low pass filter
OLS = infinite low pass filter
“But here he is trying to predict the future”
Will next month be warmer or colder than last month for instance? Want to use OLS or low pass filters to suggest a solution?
Paul Clark, WFT’s conceptor, has clearly stated and explained that linear estimates over such short periods are of no use.
They are statistically insignificant, because the standard error in such cases mostly is higher than the trend itself.
*
You may move to Dr Cowtan’s trend computer (the most accurate trend estimator, including correction for autocorrelation, a problem which matters even most for short periods):
UAH6.0 LT:
Trend: -0.005 ±0.677 °C/decade (2σ)
RSS4.0 L+O:
Trend: 0.027 ±0.722 °C/decade (2σ)
Had-CRUT4:
Trend: -0.145 ±0.488 °C/decade (2σ)
GISTEMP:Trend:
-0.039 ±0.563 °C/decade (2σ)
BEST:
Trend: -0.025 ±0.477 °C/decade (2σ)
*
Incompetent boasters regularly rant against Cowtan’s tool, but would never be able to scientifically contradict its results.
*
Nick Stokes has also such as guy, named Trend Viewer:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
A bit more complex to manage.
Binny,
The problem is that at 0.5 C per decade, the seas will have boiled dry in a few thousand years.
Then, all the H2O, the “most important GHG” will be in the atmosphere. Presumably, forcings, feedbacks, amplifications, and runaway GHE will continue until the Earth melts!
Complete nonsense. Do you actually engage your brain before hammering away on the keyboard, or are you truly delusional?
Maybe you could explain why you think that the trend will magically halt, if you agree that is not likely that the seas will boil dry due to the GHE?
Or you could just avoid the issue entirely, I suppose.
‘Maybe you could explain why you think that the trend will magically halt’
Here is why I think the trend will not only halt but reverse:
https://fcpp.org/2022/02/11/increasing-cold-extremes-worldwide-is-global-cooling-on-the-way/
So what you are saying is that the range could be
UAH6.0 LT:
Trend: 0.672 C/decade to -0.682 C/decade
etc.
therefore anything is possible in that range according to you. Would you say next month will be warmer than this one or not? And the month after?
The problem is the short term ‘noise’, which you don’t seem to take into account.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/uah-residuals.jpeg
(and that is against a 7 year low pass, against a OLS trend the noise is even greater)
EM,
Confidence limits? That would be the sign of a confidence trickster, I suppose.
Gavin Schmidt seems 100% confident he is a “climate scientist”, but of course he isn’t.
Michael Mann was 100% confident he won a Nobel Prize, but of course he didn’t.
You might be 100% confident that a Greenhouse Theory exists, but of course it doesn’t.
Confidence is no substitute for reality.
“It shows cooling but longer timeseries shows warming. Which is correct? The most recent or not?”
Correct? In teems of what? The question lacks meaning.
angech
I read your reaction upthread, towards Entropic man, concerning his reference to Tamino’s sea level computations.
You may have a big laugh at Tamino and Entropic man, but that won’t help you because your guesses hardly could be correct.
*
I quote you:
” Tamino only uses data and dates that suit his particular argument at the time. He is not stupid but he is very motivated to prove global warming hence all his conclusions are not what they seem to be.
Hey look the sea level rise is accelerating at 10 mm a year!
The premise, that such rates could exist in the world , is of course if it is too good to be true it is not true.
Have a go EM. ”
Wow wow wow, angech. Did you ever process sea level data? I’m not sure.
*
Here are for example people who did hard work in that domain: Dangendorf and his colleagues, who integrated data provided by
– the PSMSL group (tide gauges)
– SONEL and the University of La Rochelle (GPS)
together with a deep ocean current and wind analysis, especially in the ENSO region.
Here is a short version of their results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
{ What I sincerely regret is the title of the paper, which while indeed getting to the heart of what the paper shows, is very unfortunate. Sounds like alarmism, even to me. }
*
And here is a comparison of Dangendorf & alii’s worldwide sea level data with two averages of the PSMSL data (one by Tamino, one by myself) which – of course – both take also account of vertical land movements at many of the tide gauges, by using SONEL’s GPS data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8ECotMocUHDJX8UWOMIpBizobV293-g/view
*
1. Maybe you compare the blue line (Bindidon) and the green line (Foster aka Tamino) with the black one (Dangendorf) ?
Do you see how close Tamino’s quick shot (which cost him incredibly little time) is to Dangendorf & alii’s long, hard work, and looks much better elaborated than mine?
And you want to discredit Tamino’s data processing? On the base of what, angech?
2. Do you see the difference between the blue and the red plot, the latter showing data without vertical land movement correction (subsidence, glacial isostatic rebound)?
*
Now let us come back to the US East coast Entropic man was talking about:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oCpmxFlbNflhma_iZ8TStAsJVs_pz1HL/view
As you can clearly see, the East coast is under heavy subsidence, i.e. it shows sinking coastal regions: the red plot is below the blue one, and not above it like in the Globe’s chart.
You can’t see this in NOAA’s sea level trend chart:
https://tinyurl.com/tfxwdnf8 (grrr… d c!)
because it shows only raw levels, without VLM correction, what gives a wrong impression.
*
Let’s now look at the data for the PSMSL US East coast evaluation.
Most people say: the tide gauge trends in the satellite era are a statistical articfact, they were all much lower before.
Aha. Here is a list of consecutive 10-year distant trends:
1900(-2021): 2.38 (mm/yr)
1910: 2.76
1920: 2.72
1930: 2.65
1940: 2.52
1950: 2.64
1960: 2.80
1970: 2.86
1980: 3.63
1990: 4.01
2000: 6.11
*
What does a team in a greater insurance company, responsible for calculations of insurance premium increases for the next 10 or 20 years, when looking at such data?
Do you think they say:
“Oh… no problem, subsidence-dominated region. Move along.”
or do you think they will use some prediction tool helping them in doing the work?
The rawest, simplest prediction tool would be a quadratic fit which, when applied for 1993-2050, gives exactly… 10 mm/yr.
Apos for a mistake:
Read
2000: 5.94
2010: 6.11
The digits behind the decimal point are of no interest; they are generated automatically.
The problems with tide measurements is that basin characteristics dominate land readings and satellite measurements need to accurately take account of orbital paths and wave heights and both need to account for air pressure. Then we have wind fetch which is quite non-linear depending on time and the uncertainty that exists in any one measurement is quite large.
Assuming that you can average these out by taking many samples assumes that any such ‘noise’ is normally distributed without any proof of such.
As a sailor it is well known that tides are only an approximation of what actually happens but when using that same data in climate it seems that same caution is not maintained.
Large sample sizes and the law of large numbers significantly reduce the error.
Binny,
You wrote –
“The rawest, simplest prediction tool would be a quadratic fit which, when applied for 1993-2050, gives exactly 10 mm/yr.”
Yup. Similar to a naive persistence forecast done by a 12 year old with a straightedge and a pencil.
Insurance companies can’t see into the future. Several dozen, including big names in the business, have gone bankrupt in the US in the last thirty years.
I don’t think that using Tamino’s methods (or yours) would have made much difference, but we’ll never know, will we?
As usual: dumb, stubborn, redundant, egocentric trash, written by an ignoramus who is only able to discredit what others do.
Signal in the nause but not the right signal.
Binny,
When you have a spare moment, maybe you could say what you really think?
[chortle]
Why are you so endlessly pushing to answer nonsense everywhere all the time? How about at least sparing me that?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Why are you so endlessly pushing to answer nonsense everywhere all the time? How about at least sparing me that?”
I do as I wish. If you don’t like it, bad luck for you.
Why do you waste your time whining, when you know I don’t care what you think?
Accept reality – no amount of GHE belief will turn fantasy into fact.
Flynnson, I’m not whining at all.
Who would ever whine because of your utter nonsense?
Binny,
You’re learning to accept reality.
That’s a start. You realise that there is no point whining about what you cannot change.
Keep it up.
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
Ken
” Here is why I think the trend will not only halt but reverse… ”
Feel free to gullibly believe in those who predict grand cooling ahead.
No problem for me, especially when I look at the link you posted!
*
Such people – and there are a lot of, especially on this blog –
– always use shortest possible periods when they want to show cooling, e.g. the recent temperatures (suddenly, the statistical insignificance of the trends no longer play a role, n’est-ce pas)
” Based on the latest satellite data (Figure 1) the global mean temperature variation for January 2022 is a mere +0.03C above the 40-year average. A close analysis suggests that the earth’s climate may be cooling not warming. Observational evidence over many areas of the world definitely points to a cooling climate. ”
BUT CONVERSELY
– always use long term trends whenever these show cooling, e.g. a strange chart of Rutgers snow cover, the trend of which however is not dominated by increasing cooling, but by heavy La Nina phases (look at 2010/11):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8c7wcv
Moreover, the guys you show the ‘results’ of either are incompetent, or pernicious manipulators.
Here is the official Rutgers snow cover data for the NH since 1967:
https://tinyurl.com/2p8np823
Looks a bit different, huh?
Yeah, and that is due to the fact that your ‘source’ manifestly lists the yearly maxima only.
This is plain wrong: snow cover is, like sea ice extent, a phenomenon to be observed and processed throughout the year, and not only during the winter!
Imagine you would do that for the UAH temperature record…
*
If you build – as everybody of course should do – the yearly snow cover averages, you obtain this (I start with 1972, the first year with all weeks present):
https://tinyurl.com/2p8fbpay
As you can see, things now become quite different, because the snow cover increase during the winters is clearly counterbalanced by snow cover loss during the rest of the year.
If you now look at Rutgers snow cover weekly with superposed years, you obtain a similar view:
https://tinyurl.com/2p96j78c
*
And then these photos… Oh Noes.
The thing is, Ken, that when somebody shows warming in the Arctic, s/he gets automatically answered: “That happened decades ago as well”.
But when it comes to cooling, the cooling suddenly becomes relevant, if not ‘unprecedented’.
As said, Ken: think what you want, I don’t care.
Because I look at data – regardless whether it shows warming or cooling or neither, and not at the hand waving of politically interested people.
Warmistas are bad for us, but Coolistas are even worse.
Care to predict if Mar 2022 will be warmer or colder than Feb 2022?
Does it matter?
Even neglecting autocorrealation the difference between this month and next month will tell us very little about the long term trend.
It goes to showing if your warming beliefs are correct. The longer this cooling trend continues the further away from an OLS rising trend it is.
This is the same argument that festooned the net after the 1998 el Nino. Start your analysis from a huge warm anomaly and hey presto! You’ve got cooling.
Based on physics the Earth’s surface will warm in the long term. That’s a prediction I will confidently make. I’ll even bet you on it, RLH.
I’ll bet you that the average of the 10 years after 2016 will be warmer than the 10 years before 2016.
Does $100 seem reasonable? We’re 5 years away from collecting.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Such people and there are a lot of, especially on this blog
always use shortest possible periods when they want to show cooling, e.g. the recent temperatures (suddenly, the statistical insignificance of the trends no longer play a role, n’est-ce pas)”
Try the longest possible period – four and a half billion years, from the molten Earth surface to now.
No heating – cooling. I suppose you want to cherry pick a shorter period, do you?
[laughing]
Since Bindidon, as usual, has already brought up the moon issue, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1197868
I presumably won’t now be attacked for starting a new thread on the subject. Actually, a slightly different (but related) subject – a ball on a string.
Now, some “Spinners” (e.g. Bindidon, Norman, RLH, Craig T) acknowledge that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the ball itself. Rather, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, in the center of revolution. But, there are still many “Spinners” who seem to believe that the ball rotates on an axis going through the body of the ball itself. They present the fact that the ball rotates on its own axis after release as evidence that the ball must be rotating on its own axis before release.
I guess this is an opportunity, for the first time in the history of the debate, for “Spinner” to argue against “Spinner”. Why are the “Spinners” who argue that the ball is rotating on its own axis (the “Hard Spinners”) wrong? “Soft Spinners”, it is time to have your say. Discuss.
DREMT, did you notice we have a new “simple analogy”? One of the spinners provided us with the “bicycle pedal” analogy, not realizing it debunked his beliefs. The pedal rotates on an axle as it orbits the hub. A bicycle pedal is a simple analogy to “orbital motion WITH axial rotation”, or the MOTR — one side always faces a point in space.
The bicycle pedal is a better analogy than the ball-on-a-string. Because if the bearings are locked so the pedal cannot rotate, it becomes a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, like Moon, with one side always facing the inside of its orbit. The pedal can model both the MOTR and the MOTL, depending on if it can rotate on its axis.
Yes, I noticed with some amusement that the “Hard Spinners” apparently believe something which is physically unable to rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) is nevertheless rotating on its own axis, but when you grant that same object the ability to rotate on its own axis (by unlocking the pedal) they suddenly believe it is not rotating on its own axis! As usual their logic is completely opposed to physical reality.
What I was particularly interested in was the old argument that because a ball on a string rotates on its own axis after release, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. What would you say is the ultimate argument to roast that old chestnut?
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life?
It is my thread and I am asking the questions (coherent ones, unlike yours). You are here to either answer my questions, or begone.
That was succinct and relevant. If Mt. Everest was detached and floated off on its own, would it rotate afterwards on its axis or not.
You should be answering that question. After all, you believe the same as I do, that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, rather it is rotating about the Earth’s axis. So, either answer your own question, or get the hell off my thread.
“Discuss.”
Mt. Everest is just a BIG ball on string. So, yes, Mt. Everest rotates once on its own axis as observed from outside of its orbit of Earth center like Clint R pointed out several posts ago.
😂
DREMTY: Yes Mt. Everest would rotate on its own axis if it became detached from the Earth even though it was rotating about Earth’s axis up until that point.
…and why is that, RLH?
Consider GRs argument about concentric circles and the radial velocity associated with each one.
As the radius gets larger, the radial velocity around the center increases too.
Therefore the radial velocity at the top of the mountain is grater that that at the bottom, relative to the center.
This differential will be preserved when the mountain leaves the Earth thus causing the mountain to rotate about its center point.
So, in other words, you agree with Tesla’s argument from a couple of comments below this one…1:36 PM. Fair enough.
I observe that a part of the Earth’s surface will rotate about its own center after leaving the Earth, even though it was rotating about the Earth’s center before that point.
Very good, RLH.
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The rotating after release is due to the physical attachment of the string. Gravity does not provide that physical attachment. So if gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line, not rotating.
The moon flying off in a straight line, not rotating, if gravity were switched off, is certainly my understanding. With the ball on a string, specifically – what is it about the physical attachment of the string that causes it to rotate after release?
Tesla argued that because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own axis, before release, the tangential velocities of the parts of the ball thrown off would be different, and that’s why it rotates on its own axis after release (when moving in a straight line). That makes sense to me, but then it becomes confusing as to why this does not apply with the moon if gravity were suddenly switched off.
The physical attachment of the string means angular momentum is in play. Moon has no angular momentum, because there is no physical attachment. Any physical attachment conveys angular momentum, as represented by the tension in the string.
And here I was thinking that the tension in the string was representative of Gravity.
We know, RLH. You have never understood any of this.
The Pole Dance Experiment would have made you realize how wrong Moon Dragon cranks are a long time ago, Pup.
Begone, wretch.
“Moon has no angular momentum”
So what do you consider the momentum caused by the Moon orbiting the Earth to be?
Moon has linear momentum, but no angular momentum.
… as viewed “from inside of it orbit” as Clint wrote earlier. Earthshine incident on only one lunar face is the reality. Reality always wins.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, in the center of revolution”
It is orbiting about a barycenter which is internal to the 2 bodies that make it up.
I am talking about a ball on a string. You have previously agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself. So, as a “Soft Spinner”, you now get to argue against the “Hard Spinners”. The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
“I am talking about a ball on a string”
Which has no relevance to a barycenter or orbits.
“You have previously agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself.”
I did. But I showed that the barycenter is the thing that both ‘ends’ orbit around, not the center of either ‘end’ itself.
“How do you counter that argument?”
That you are an idiot who does not understand orbital mechanics.
“I did”.
Right, so you are a “Soft Spinner”. As a “Soft Spinner”, you now get to argue against the “Hard Spinners”. The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
We are just talking about a ball on a string. Forget the moon, for a moment.
I am an engineer and a scientist. You are neither. You are an idiot.
“We are just talking about a ball on a string”
Which has no relevance to either orbits or barycenter’s, just to itself.
You are an obnoxious, abusive troll, yes, we all understand that.
I was asking you to defend your belief that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the ball itself. Those that believe it is doing so argue that because it rotates on its own axis after release, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. Please explain why you disagree with them.
“I was asking you to defend your belief that a ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the ball itself”
Of course it is not. A ball on a string does not stand on its own though. You are not prepared to admit that a ball on a string is not anything to do with orbits or barycenter’s.
So now RLH is “an engineer and a scientist”!
He gets the humor award of the day.
RLH doesn’t have a clue about physics or reality.
If a part of a surface detaches from that surface does it rotate about itself in its new life? Yes. But it was previously rotating about a center which is far from itself. How can that be?
Clint R is an idiot who does not understand about anything, although he claims that he does.
RLH, you’re so braindead you can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string.
And “barycenter” has no relevance to axial rotation.
You’re an insane troll.
RLH, either answer my question or get out of my thread. Stop evading.
“‘barycenter’ has no relevance to axial rotation”
Of course not. But axial rotation has nothing to do with orbits either. They are 2 separate things.
Orbits are important for the meaning of barycenter’s, as Newton and others have shown.
DREMT: I answered your question. Do you think that if Mt. Everest (which is part of Earth’s surface) was to leave the Earth it would rotate about its center or not as you have long stated that it rotates about the center of the Earth?
No, you have not answered my question. No, I will not be answering any of your questions. Either answer my question or get off my thread. Here it is, again:
The “Hard Spinners” have argued that since the ball rotates on its own axis after release, as it flies off at a tangent, it must be rotating on its own axis before release. How do you counter that argument, RLH?
As I said, a portion of the Earth’s surface, if detached on its own, will also rotate on its own axis even though it was rotating about the Earth’s axis whilst it was still part of it.
Idiot.
How does that in any way counter their argument, moron?
An argument from our Moon Dragon cranks would indeed be a good idea.
Begone, wretch.
<3
#2
Begone, wretch.
Are we back to counting again?
Idiot.
Answer my 5:42 PM question or get the hell off my thread.
> Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
You go first, Flop:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
A hammer is a ball on a string rotating around the thrower.
When the ball is released it continues to rotate as seen at the end of this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wvDoVZ0PosY
If the ball on a string is a valid model of lunar motion the Moon would also rotate after gravitational release from the Earth and the non-spinners are mistaken.
Ent, thanks for providing more evidence that you’re braindead.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It was NEVER meant to be a “valid model of lunar motion”.
Again thanks for this additional evidence of your inability to learn, combined with your incompetence.
Entropic Man, you are forgetting (once again) that you have already agreed that Mt. Everest is rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. Thus you should already agree that the ball on a string is similarly not rotating on its own axis. Meaning that you should also agree that the hammer is rotating around the thrower, and not on its own axis, before release.
Please explain why the video shows the ball rotating on its own axis after release.
We were already discussing this before you so rudely interrupted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200819
Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
I have provided simple easy to follow models and yet the concept is still elusive.
Here we go anyway
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wqv9ncthzi
The figure contains
RED Bar
Circle
Orange bar within the circle
While the orange bar and the red bar maintain a 90 degree angle, the circular object is NOT rotating about the axis designated by the purple dot in the middle of circle
You can cause the circular object to rotate in line 1 by setting the value to non-zero
Rotating clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qc9eenqipb
Rotating counter-clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/l8oj4loy3t
In this case, the red bar is translating up and down and the circle is rotating on an internal axis
> Three years into a discussion and the basic understanding of an axis of rotation is still a mystery to people commenting on this topic.
You go first, Flop:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Now,
We add a second axis of rotation at (0,0)
In this case since both of the circles maintain a perpendicular angle between the red and the orange bar, neither of rotating on an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xkazy2ov9c
This is what they would look like if they rotate counterclockwise at one rotation per orbit
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hd0z6vqked
One clockwise rotation per orbit
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/bt4so8fwft
It is obvious the circle is rotating on an internal axis because the angle does not remain perpendicular
Lastly,
People get confused when you move the axis of rotation. In this example, the axis of rotation has been moved from (0,0) to (10,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wqozwmhscy
But if I reduce the distance of the center of the circle from the axis of rotation, the behavior changes
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hsv5msrnfv
I have reduced the distance to 2 from 10 https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hsv5msrnfv
I have reduced it to 1 https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vh3wzamemh
If I change the length to zero. All I have done is take an external axis of rotation and moved it to the center of the object. It now becomes an internal axis but there is no orbital motion. Just 1 axis that has moved.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0nogipp5cf
If I stop the orbital motion, all objects stop because the circle at (10,0) has its previously orbital axis moved to the center of the object.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/gihbf7c0jo
The moon has one axis of rotation, external to its location at the barycenter and it orbits that location as it moves
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6otmvswppo
The challenge with modeling the moon is also a problem of scale.
At the relative size of the moons orbit to its radius, it would look like this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w81d8dzvsv
If we zoomed in to see the path, it would look like the translating circle from the 1st example
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fvr6b9foin
Simpler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXD97l7ZT0w&t=1309s
I told you more than once that I have nothing to do with your spinner/nonspinner discussion.
Both groups discuss about the same, useless things – MOTL/MOTR, ball-on-a-string, MGR, coins, curviliear translations, bicycle pedal etc etc etc.
I discuss only about people who managed to keep a scientific approach.
The fact that the nonspinners discredit this approach, with sometimes woeful trolling about ‘astrology’ and the like, won’t change anything here, as they all are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict the approach.
Please keep me definitely off that blind-alley.
Bindidon, here’s the reality for you:
1) You don’t know anything about physics or orbital motion.
2) You are fascinated with centuries old “papers” that you don’t understand. You find such references on the web and you believe that give you knowledge. You’re so scientifically immature you don’t realize you’re fooling yourself.
3) You reject reality. You refuse to consider the simple analogies that debunk your cult beliefs. You’re anti-science.
4) Your head is in a blind-alley.
> the moon issue
The Moon.
There is no issue.
Willard, you are not welcome to comment on one of my threads until you can demonstrate that you understand the absolute basics of your own side’s position, let alone mine. Begone, wretch.
I’m fine, Kiddo.
Thanks.
Begone, wretch.
Once again, here’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/
#2
Begone, wretch.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1195200
#3
Begone, wretch.
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
No, moron. The numbers are there simply because you cannot repost an identical comment in the same sub-thread. Why do you always have to butt into everything?
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
Now try posting the same thing again.
Now try posting the same thing again.
Yes, Willard. You can repost an identical comment to one somebody else has written. What I meant was, you cannot repost an identical comment to one you have written yourself. You cannot write one comment, then write the same exact comment again. It will not let you post it the second time.
“The numbers are there simply because you cannot repost an identical comment in the same sub-thread.”
Which is for good reason!
#4
Begone, wretch.
> 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.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/
All wrong, Willard.
1) The only way the moon can be considered to be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. If you interpret “orbit without spin” as being like the MOTL, you are a “Non-Spinner”.
2) I agree with the physics behind the tidal locking mechanism, so I am not trying to “prove that tidal locking is not possible”.
3) I am not arguing that reference frames don’t matter, aren’t useful, or aren’t necessary. I have instead argued that the moon issue transcends reference frames; by which I specifically 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.
There is no absolute moon motion DREMT as you’ve been told countless times so DREMT remains wrong about the moon issue transcends reference frames.
As Clint R repeatedly points out, reality always wins and location of moon rotation on its own axis observation transcends DREMT’s comments.
Ball4, the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. You do not get to say it rotates on its own axis “as observed from…” or “wrt…”
It can only be rotating on its own axis if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. I know you can’t understand, I know you never will, and it no longer bothers me. I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
All motion is relative DREMT, so you do get to say it rotates on its own axis “as observed from…” or “wrt…” as pointed out a few posts ago by even Clint R.
In reality, there is no absolute moon motion, DREMT, but keep up the comedy act since it is so entertaining to read.
Earthshine incident on only one moon face, sunshine incident on all moon faces is the reality. And like Clint R writes, reality always wins.
I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
I’m happy to understand DREMT is wrong about lunar motion with DREMT providing such continuously humorous entertainment.
Earthshine incident on only one moon face, sunshine incident on all moon faces is the reality. And like Clint R writes, reality always wins.
#2
I am happy to have the privilege of understanding something you are incapable of grasping.
> by which I specifically mean
Kiddo’s little game in a nutshell.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you trying counting again? Idiot.
Ken
Additionally, here is a chart showing all Rutgers snow cover – weekly data – for 1972 till now:
https://tinyurl.com/497fdsd9
No tricks… raw data as is.
But such graphs show also how meaningful it is to generate anomalies with annual cycle removal – like does… Roy Spencer, doesn’t he?
Like this you mean?
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
No, something near to this:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
I just chose a link on the same page (which shows anomalies as you asked).
“Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies
1967-2022 February”
1967-2022 February
” … which shows anomalies as you asked”
NO.
Such single-month or single-season (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON) departures are of no interest for me, unless I need them.
Thus again:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
They are just summaries of the continuous data you show. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, they aren’t summaries. Not at all.
They are seasonal subsets, which have nothing in common with what I’m interested in.
Summaries are additions. Are you saying that adding together days in a month is not addition?
Sure there are different summaries for each month, but then a lot of them are in the Summer when little to no snow falls.
I like those graphs. They show there is not a significant change in snow cover. They really put paid to the climate change claptrap.
” They show there is not a significant change in snow cover. ”
That is exactly the reason why I contradicted the ugly source you posted.
The NH snow cover is incredibly stable, keeps indifferent of cooling / warming.
Why do you expect global warming to decrease snowfall? I expect warmer oceans to increase snowfall.
You need cold to make snow, not warming.
You need cold ground below 0C for snow to land on. Below that threshold it doesn’t matter how cold it is.
The amount of snow depends on the amount of water vapour, which depends on the temperature of the water it evaporated from.
With sea surface temperatures increasing the amount of water vapour carried onshore will increase and the mass of snowfall will increase.
The recent Noreasters in the US illustrate the principle.
The counter argument is that land temperatures are increasing and therefore land conditions cold enough for snow are becoming rarer. Noreasters will dump their water vapour as rain instead of snow.
You can make a rational argument either way. We’ll probably have to watch and see which way the trend goes.
You need cold ground with a maximum daily temperature of around 0c for the snow to persist. Above that it melts.
Water evaporates from Artic(and Antarctic) Oceans which are typically about -2C in Winter (this is sea water remember).
“recent Noreasters in the US” prove that you need cold for the WV to fall as snow.
” They really put paid to the climate change claptrap. ”
Certainly not: I don’t recall a decrease in snow cover ever being blamed on warming.
What is more controversial is what is responsible for the snow mass increase.
In layman’s terms, it’s likely that an increase in snow mass combined with no increase in snow cover means that the snow is getting wetter on average.
And wetter snow is most certainly not due to more cooling, but rather an increase in warm water vapor coming over cold regions, as has been the case in Austria and Germany in recent years, for example.
March temperatures in North America will remain below average due to SSW.
https://i.ibb.co/n81KWHN/gfs-T2m-us-1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
If the weak La Niña persists over the next year due to weak solar winds, it could be the tipping point for a winter temperature drop in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202203.gif
–But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.
But this position is largely an anthropocentric statement of faith.
That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.
Unfortunately, that uncertainty is never conveyed to the public or to policymakers.–
Hmm.
Well there is lot of vagueness. And lots of let’s do something stupid.
And any government is a hopeless mess at doing anything and
there appears to frantic need of government of distracting attention from their constant endless failure.
We are in an Ice Age.
And everyone knows it.
They may not be aware of how cold of Ice Age we are in.
But, how is warmer bad if lot of people are dying from the cold.
No group of people in the past, thought warmer was bad.
The big difference is the people worried about warming are now all living in houses which are warmed.
[None of set the their air temperature as cold as 15 C.]
But I imagine once the fad is over, the next fad could be even
worse.
People aren’t educated, and they being constantly brainwashed by
idiots.
but 15C is an average, an average between day and night and between winter and summer. Given that the typical diurnal temperature range at the sealevel is around 10K, the 15C temperature corresponds to the +20/+10 day/night temperatures, which is practically quite comfortable, though maybe be abit too cold but just a tiny bit. though, most people would probably prefer the 25C/15C type climate.
Earth is cold.
Earth evolved a polar bear.
Earth evolved a human- which isn’t helping.
Human is a tropical creature, which crazy enough to live
where it’s too cold for it.
But point is Earth is definitely not too hot or has no chance in
hell of getting too hot.
As I said, the problem is having too stupid of people working at NASA who failed to understand Venus.
We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem. We can live and feed everyone in warm. Many will die when the Holocene ends. How many can the planet feed during the next glacial?
Modern civilization and all history as we know it came during the Holocene. We don’t know much about anything before the Holocene.
“That doesnt make it wrong. Its justuncertain.”
I would it’s uncertain will enter glaciation within 100 years.
{though one might say we entered a glaciation period 5000 years ago. So, I mean something bad, like the Little Ice Age.}
Is any bad effect from adding .5 C to global average temperature?
Definitely, not.
Of course we already know a little ice age has lots of bad stuff.
Make everyone ( $26,000 __ $38,000 ) A Month Online Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work With No Prior q Experience Or Skills Required. ppq Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site
Open this link.. https://workstore01.blogspot.com/
I come back to this distorting info about snow cover, posted by Ken:
https://i0.wp.com/fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/Chart-2.png?resize=781%2C469&ssl=1
This graph is sheer manipulation. It shows only a tiny part of what Rutgers Snow Lab publishes:
https://i.postimg.cc/PJXDbrc4/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-weekly-1972-2022.png
As you can see: no increase of the NH snow cover to be seen.
A few trends, in Mkm² / decade:
– 1972 – 2022: -0.17 ± 0.23
– 2000 – 2022: -0.10 ± 0.80
– 2010 – 2022: -0.25 ± 1.98
But we see also that looking at linear estimates of absolute data does not give very meaningful results when the data is subject to strong seasonal dependencies. The standard error of the trends for more recent periods is here much too high.
*
As Roy Spencer so often explained, it is then more meaningful to use, out of exactly the same data, departures from a mean instead, e.g. WMO’s most recent recommendation (1991-2020):
https://i.postimg.cc/jS82J4QL/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-weekly-anoms-1972-2022.png
This gives the following trends, in Mkm² / decade:
– 1972 – 2022: -0.17 ± 0.03
– 2000 – 2022: -0.13 ± 0.08
– 2010 – 2022: -0.35 ± 0.20
*
Thus, what has been written about Rutgers’ snow cover in
https://fcpp.org/2022/02/11/increasing-cold-extremes-worldwide-is-global-cooling-on-the-way/
Increasing Cold Extremes Worldwide: Is Global Cooling on the way?
Madhav Khandekar, Ray Garnett – February 11, 2022
is simply BS.
There are very certainly many places and sources which we can use to demonstrate some cooling.
But snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and its processing by Rutgers Snow Lab do not belong to them.
I think the Coolistas will be happy for a while when looking at how solar cycle SC 25 compares to SC 24 these days:
https://i.postimg.cc/SNtWHxrP/Solar-flux-F10-monthly-SC25-vs-SC24.png
The doubts about SC 25 being able to soon climb around SC 24 are slowly, surely increasing, aren’t they?
Ha ha haaah.
Are you predicting something or just talking out of your Arsch again
Eben again not only below the belt, but now right in the near of feces… Great.
S’il y en a un ici qui utilise son cul pour parler, Eben, c’est vous, et personne d’autre.
Once again, we see that not one of the cult idiots could solve a simple physics problem. Here’s the problem again:
***********
A rectangular box has ends with areas of 1 m^2 each. The box has 4 sides, each with 2 m^2 area. All surfaces have emissivity = 1.0.
One end of the box absorbs 1000 W/m^2 continuously. There is no other absorp.tion.
Once the box is at equilibrium:
1) What is temperature of box?
2) What is the emitted flux?
***********
Here’s the solution:
At equilibrium, box is absorbing 1000 W and emitting 1000 W. It’s total area is 10 m^2, so it is emitting 100 W/m^2. The S/B equation then gives a temperature of 205K.
Now, here’s the reason this simple problem is important:
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2, but it is only emitting 100 W/m^2. The box is in equilibrium. It is NOT increasing in temperature, even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. Flux in/out of a system need not “balance”. This is basic physics. Flux does NOT “balance”. Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux. They don’t know what they’re doing.
“…. The S/B equation then gives a temperature of 205K.”
I agree with everything up to that part.
“Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux.”
No. ‘They’ do exactly what you do — balance *POWER* rather than *FLUX*.
** You correctly balance
power in = 1000 W/m^2 x 1 m^2 = 1000 W
power out = 100 W/m^2 x 10 m^2 = 1000 W.
** They correctly balance
power in = 960 W/m^2 x 1.28e14 m^2 = 1.22e17 W
power out = 240 W/m^2 x 5.1e14 m^2 = 1.22e17 W
If your approach is valid, then so is ‘theirs’.
[If you disagree with any specific thing I said, please quote me and tell me what you think is the corrected version.]
It’s interesting you didn’t attempt a solution to the problem, huh Folkerts?
But let’s organize your distortions of reality:
Distortion 1 — “They do exactly what you do”
Distortion 2 — “They correctly balance”
Do you stand by your distortions, Folkerts? Or do you want to start weaseling out of you own words now, before I bring in some reality? Once I slap down your nonsense, I’m not going to play your usual game where you keep twisting and distorting. We know you have no interest in science or reality. Make sure you will stand by those distortions. You won’t get a second chance.
“even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits.”
Wrong, no second chance Clint.
Clint doesn’t know what Clint is writing about since Clint still can’t correctly count flux areas like in Clint’s incorrect ice cube examples.
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2/one end, but it is only emitting 2ends * 1m^2 each *100 W/m^2/end plus 4 sides *2m^2 each *100W/m^2/side.
Canceling flux terms correctly 1000W absorbed on one end =200W on ends emitted+800W on sides emitted = 1000W total emitted at equilibrium so Clint’s box flux does balance all per one second i.e. unit time when the side areas are correctly counted energy is conserved.
Sometimes Clint also counts rotations incorrectly & sometimes not, the reader has to carefully read & correct Clint R comments many times.
Folkerts got caught distorting reality, so here comes B4, to continue distorting. (B4 is the one that can’t find his “real 255K surface”, but to make up for it, he claims ice cubes can boil water.)
Neither solved the problem before I gave the solution. But B4 copied the solution and tried to act like it was his!
They have to distort simple examples like this. Their cult is built on perverting physics.
This really is basic physics; so is the measured real 255K earthen surface. Flux does “balance” when Clint R uses basic arithmetic to count sides correctly & find ice cubes can boil water. I know that’s all a mystery to Clint R.
“It’s interesting you didn’t attempt a solution to the problem, huh Folkerts?”
Huh? “The problem” was “2) What is the emitted flux?” I provided a simple solution for your example — one that agrees exactly with you. So Asked and Answered.
And, yes, I stand by my words.
* No one compares fluxes (in this case 1000W/m^2 vs 100 W/m^2; or 960W/m^2 vs 240W/m^2) to see if they balance.
* Everyone compares total power (in this case 1000 W vs 1000 W; or 1.22e17 W vs 1.22e17 W) to see if they balance.
They compare fluxes, Folkerts. You got caught perverting reality again.
From your own cult headquarters, NASA (bold my emphasis):
Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2. The imbalance (or rate of global heating; shown in figure as the “net absorbed” amount) grew from +0.6 W/m2 (2009 est.[1]) to above +1.0 W/m2 in 2019[2].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
I gave you a chance to correct your distortions, but you can’t. You’re a braindead cult idiot.
As I explained, I won’t waste any more time with your distortions and perversions.
“They compare fluxes, Folkerts.”
As usual, you think too narrowly, Clint. You need to move past the “concrete operational” stage to the “formal operational” stage.
“the planet’s energy budget …”
Energy. That is the goal. How does the total energy in compare to total energy out?
“i.e. balance of incoming and outgoing radiation”
I.e a balance of the total energy radiated in vs total energy radiated out. So they are STILL talking about ENERGY.
“It [radiation] is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.”
This is the subtle part that went over your head. Everyone else sees the connection that you can’t seem to grasp.
(Energy) = (flux) * (area) * (time)
[suitably integrated over the planet and over some time like a year]
or
(Energy in) = (flux in) * (area) * (time)
(Energy out) = (flux out) * (area) * (time)
Here’s the thing. Both are integrated over the same area (the earth’s surface). Both are integrated over the same time (say one year). That means the ENERGY balance in DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the FLUX balance.
* If you tell me the FLUX balance for a year (say “+0.6 W/m^2) I can immediately tell you the ENERGY balance for a year (ie +9e21 J)
* If you tell me the ENERGY balance for a year (say “-6e21 J”) I can immediately tell you the FLUX balance for a year (ie -0.4 W/m^2).
Flux is just a handy, intuitive number to quote. “Showing” a flux imbalance in W/m^2 is not a “distortion” (except perhaps for people who have no sense of proportions or averages or integrals).
Tim,
How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without “energy out” exceeding “energy in”?
Would you mind explaining this process?
All that keyboarding and you still can’t pervert reality, Folkerts. You’re as pathetic as Norman.
Folkerts: No one compares fluxes … to see if they balance.
Reality: Earth’s climate is largely determined by the planet’s energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Reality always wins.
Maybe this analogy will help.
Person A: Which graduated cylinder contains more volume of water?
Person B: The one on the left, because the water is higher.
Person A: I didn’t ask about height, I asked about volume.
Person B: But volume is directly proportional to height.
Person A: Stop talking about height!
Water volume difference is directly proportional to height difference. Similarly, energy imbalance is directly proportional to flux imbalance. (Where average flux is defined as the total radiation per second divided by the total area.)
Perhaps you are confused by the implied “average” in the statement you quoted. The “+0.6 W/m2” in your quote is clearly the *average* flux. No one could think that meant a difference of +0.6 W/m2 everywhere all the time.
Tim,
How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without energy out exceeding energy in?
Would you mind explaining this process?
Mike Flynn,
You mind explaining why you now hide under a sock puppet?
Now, here’s the reason this simple problem is important:
The box absorbs 1000 W/m^2, but it is only emitting 100 W/m^2. The box is in equilibrium. It is NOT increasing in temperature, even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. Flux in/out of a system need not “balance”. This is basic physics. Flux does NOT “balance”. Yet in the AGW nonsense, they attempt to balance flux. They don’t know what they’re doing.
“How has the Earth managed to cool from the molten state, without energy out exceeding energy in?”
That’s easy! Energy out HAS exceeded energy in — many times. Everyone knows and acknowledges that. I can’t figure out your obsession with this straw man.
* For the first multi-million years, energy out exceeded energy in.
* At the start of each glacial period, energy out exceeded energy in.
* At the end of each glacial period, energy in exceeded energy out.
This balance changes based on current conditions. Right now we happen to be in a period (spanning several decades) when energy in exceeds energy out.
“…even though it absorbs 10 times what it emits. “
Suppose a tank gets 10 gal/min from one pipe, and leaks 1 gal per minute from each of 10 pipes. By your logic, it “absorbs 10 times what it emits” because 10 gal/min is 10x as large as 1 gal/min. No, the only logical, intuitive interpretation for the “amount the tank absorbs” is the total water flow = 10 gal/min. Just like “amount the tank emits” is also 10 gal/min.
Just like the only logical, intuitive interpretation is that your box absorbs exactly as much (10 W) as it emits (10 W).
“Flux in/out of a system need not “balance””
And still no one has said it must!
“they attempt to balance flux.”
No, it is always a weighted *average* flux over an object = (Total power) / (total area of the object)
For your box
(Ave Flux In) = (1000+0+0+0+0+0)/(1+2+2+2+2+1) = 100 W/m^2
(Ave Flux Out) = (100+200+200+200+200+100/(1+2+2+2+2+1) = 100 W/m^2
They are equal and hence temperature is constant.
For the earth we would need integrate, but the general idea is the same. The average in and the average out are both (approximately) 240 W/m^2, and the temperature is (approximately) constant.
Funny, Clint R can’t count even count box sides correctly since Clint’s box is emitting 100 W/m^2 from half of ONE side. Your box has 10 emitting areas with 1m^2 area each Clint. Your box fluxes are actually in balance! Clint R avoids dealing with reality even though Clint knows reality always wins.
Clint remains the top laughing stock of this blog.
Folkerts and B4 are back attempting to pervert reality, again.
Of course, they must pervert reality to protect their cult. Truth, honesty, science, and reality are NOTHING to the cult. Let me demonstrate:
Folkerts, TRUE or FALSE?
The rectangular box is emitting 100 W/m^2.
… from one half of one side and each end.
True.
Count the sides correctly Clint R and your fluxes balance in and out.
“The rectangular box is emitting 100 W/m^2.”
Of course that it true. As I have already stated.
Your turn.
True or false. The rectangular box is both absorbing and emitting an AVERAGE of 100 W/m^2 over the entire 10 m^2.
False. You should not “average” flux absorbed over surface area that is not receiving said flux. The box absorbs over only 1 m^2. Thus it absorbs 1000 W/m^2, even “on average”. The difference between the box example and the Earth is that the Earth rotates, so that it receives sunlight over its entire surface area over time. For this reason “they” consider the “averaging” to be justified.
But, is it? Discuss.
The correct answer is “True”, with no perversions, distortions, or distractions.
They were forced to give the correct answer, but they continue with their efforts to pervert reality. They are confusing “flux” with “energy”, either from ignorance or dishonesty. Once you take area into account, you are talking energy.
1000 W/m^2 is flux. 1000 Watts is power. 1000 Watts = 1000 Joules/sec. 1000 Joules/sec in one second is 1000 Joules. 1000 Joules is energy.
The AGW nonsense, in the bogus “Energy balance”, balances flux, NOT energy. Which takes us back where we started:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200915
The answer to my question is “True”.
The answer to Tim’s question is “False”. The box is NOT absorbing an average of 100 W/m^2. It is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 at only one end. If you want to “average”, you must convert to energy by taking into account the area. So you could say the box is absorbing 100 Joules/sec, averaged over its surface area. But, it is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2.
So now Clint admits the box fluxes do balance in and out. Clint R changes from “Flux does NOT “balance”” admitting Clint’s original error in counting areas. Very entertaining.
No wonder Norman is so infatuated with you, B4. You misrepresent my words so well. It’s like you were born to be a pervert.
No misrepresentation Clint since you admit by writing: “So you could say the box is absorbing 100 Joules/sec, averaged over its surface area. But, it is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2.” Your box is NOT absorbing 100 W/m^2 as you write, in reality it is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 flux in and that is = 100*10 flux out as you now admit.
Remember: reality always wins.
“But, is it? Discuss.”
Still not answered what happens if 500W/m^2 (1000W/m^2 / 2) is shone at each ‘pole’.
On a sphere that is.
Clint R
If you are unhappy with flux, why not do the calculation with quantities? Do it in Joules.
entropic…”If you are unhappy with flux, why not do the calculation with quantities? Do it in Joules”.
***
Joules and w/m^2 are measures of mechanical energy, that is, work. They are all derivatives of horsepower. One has to be careful when applying them to EM fluxes since EM can do no work and it carries no heat.
It is only when EM is converted in a mass to heat that w/m^2 or joules can be applied. In free space, EM can only be measures as a flux, wherein a cross-sectional area, so many flux lines per unit area are a factor.
However you define it “capacity for doing work” is flowing down to Earths’s surface from the Sun, doing work and then slightly less than came in is escaping back to space.
Increasing temperatures indicate that a proportion of this “capacity for doing work” is accumulating on Earth.
You are unhappy describing this flow and accumulation using fluxes and Joules. What units do use when describing this process?
This applies if ideally conductive.
Nothing is ideally conductive.
But could be something similar if cube has transparent and reflective elements. Using diamonds and stuff.
Though it is fairly small, so might not need it to be that complicated, so maybe just quartz over silver would work- to be “close enough”.
Quartz over silver is quite cold in full sunlight, BUT it’s a shining silver surface [or it’s for insulation], and need blackbody surface to absorb the 1000 watts {to be simple}. So, yeah, I go back to, it would probably would be fairly complicated. A strange machine {which seems pointless- unless trying to cloak in space {which is hard}.
Roy…thanks you for putting up with us!!!
An outsider arriving here may think he/she has arrived at a strange place but having been here a few years, I think you have the best, most open-minded blog on the Net.
Hope you and your family are well.
Yup. Idiots who think that Newton’s 3 Laws don’t apply to gravity must be frustrating.
Ball4 still believes in magic. Earlier, he wrote –
“This really is basic physics; so is the measured real 255K earthen surface. Flux does “balance” when Clint R uses basic arithmetic to count sides correctly & find ice cubes can boil water.”
I still haven’t seen anybody to use ice cubes to boil water. Or even using ice as an insulator to keep liquid water above its freezing point.
This is the stuff of dreams – and “climate scientists”.
As to fluxual nonsense, it is easy to concentrate the IR from ice to achieve any desired number of W/m2. 1 000, 1 000 000, it won’t make any difference. Likewise, given enough ice, you can generate as much power as you wish. For example, given 1 m2 of ice emitting 300 W/m2, after 1 hour, 300 W/hours of power have been emitted. Useless power, of course, if you want to power a heat engine where the heat sink is above freezing.
According to ignorant morons like Ball4, 1200 W, from 4 m2 of ice, can be used to boil water. Should be no trouble at all to run a 1 hp (746 W) steam engine!
Climate science physics at its finest. Reject reality, and put fantasy in its place.
To Ball4 via Swenson’s comment.
Using the term flux to represent EM in the atmosphere is ingenuous. It presumes the photon theory but EM in the atmosphere is measured as a wavelength or a frequency, therefore it has to be a wave. Waves don’t have a flux.
Each single wavelength portion of an EM field varies in amplitude around a centre point as the wave moves through space. If you want to slice that field so you are looking at it from a right angle, you might argue that each point is varying in the field instantaneously, but that is not a flux field as much as Newton’s ‘fluxion’, which means an instantaneous rate of change at a point in a field.
The idea of flux better represents a magnetic field, where a field density can be measured between magnetic poles or even between the north pole of a magnet and the south pole. Then again, we are dealing with just a magnetic field whereas with EM we have an added electric field perpendicular to the plane of the magnetic field.
When we talk about ice emitting an IR flux we don’t have the slightest idea what is going on. It emits something but the form of that something is still a mystery. We know from experience what it means to sense the emission from a 1500 watt oven ring or a hairdryer, and claiming that ice causes the equivalent sensation of about 1/5th of that radiation is serious bunk.
Gordon & Mike…err Swenson, consider a glass of tap water with some dry ice in it in your room temperature kitchen making some artificial fog (don’t breathe that!). Quickly replace the dry ice with regular ice cubes. The artificial fog stops and the mixture warms. You have raised the temperature of the water mixture with added ice cubes! This is not a miracle.
Gordon, in photon language, the ice cubes & water emit photons of light at all frequencies measuring brightness 32F in your room temperature IR thermometer display. In wave language, the ice cubes & water emit waves of light at all frequencies measuring brightness 32F in your room temperature IR thermometer display.
No difference. That is no miracle either.
Ball4,
You moron. Try it – in reality.
If the water temperature falls below freezing, it becomes ice. If it doesn’t, adding ice to liquid water (which of course cannot be below 0 C) will not make it warmer.
You are such a moron that you are convinced you can boil water with ice cubes, but you refuse to accept the reality that you cannot achieve this miracle.
Carry on being a moron. You could try being so dimwitted as to claim your imaginary water and ice mixture is precisely 0 C. Then you could try claiming that adding ice would make the water hotter, but all you would get is sniggers at your stupidity.
Give up dummy – you have snookered yourself well and truly.
Nope Swenson, you are wrong, in reality I made the water mixture warmer by adding the warmer ice cubes and removing the cooler dry ice. Similar to removing the cold of space and replacing that space with the warmer than space atm.
Try harder to actually deal with reality Mike…err Swenson, I know it hurts Swenson but there it is.
Ball4,
No, you moron, you didn’t.
If you reduce the temperature of the water mixture below freezing – it freezes! No longer liquid water.
As long as it remains liquid, you can’t make it hotter by adding ice, you idiot!
You don’t think, do you?
Maybe you should try actually carrying out some of your imaginary “experiments”. You will soon discover how reality doesn’t care what your fantasy contains.
Moron.
Never wrote the water froze! The mixture has liquid water and the added ice has increased the mixture temperature. Such a simple experiment is a REAL mystery to Swenson – no wonder Swenson is still looking for a GHE definition after all this time. Don’t breathe the artificial fog!
Ball4,
Reduce the water temperature below 0C, and it freezes. Doesn’t matter whether you use frozen H2O, or frozen CO2.
You fool, you can’t raise the temperature of liquid water by adding ice! It doesn’t matter how much ice you have in your “mixture”, adding more won’t raise the temperature.
You are a deluded moron, who doesn’t realise that you can’t raise the temperature of liquid water by adding frozen water to it!
Back to your fantasy, fool.
Nope Swenson, my water with the dry ice in it is making artificial fog. If the water were frozen, then there would be no artificial fog. Obviously, physics remains a complete mystery to Swenson. Don’t breathe that fog!
For climate debils like Binderdong who are clueless about how climate works and who think every La Nina should do the same things
https://youtu.be/zNyzeVuXqAQ
I think another important issue is where is all the energy coming from. You get a small additional energy gain from the wings but that is along the lines of 1-2%. However, at 2xCO2 in our examples we are radiating away twice the amount of energy.
It is true that with more CO2, you will get more molecules excited by kinetic collisions but at some point, there is no more energy in the pool. The kinetic energy had to come from somewhere. Maybe it is stolen from water vapor. It does seem important because it is changing the way energy flows out of the atmosphere.
This is also where the Miskolczi result comes in. There is only so much energy and it all gets radiated away. So, if CO2 starts radiating away more, then something, probably water vapor, would be radiating away less. That would keep the optical depth the same.
“It is true that with more CO2, you will get more molecules excited by kinetic collisions but at some point, there is no more energy in the pool.”
Only so much sunlight coming into the pool & its trend in the satellite era is measured negligible (-0.053 W/m^2/decade out of total ~340). Added CO2 ppm cannot raise the temperature of the total atm. as CO2 burns no fuel like the sun.
However, the added ppm CO2 can increase global lower region atm. temperature and equally decrease global upper region temperature keeping global thermodynamic internal energy constant except for that negligible added sunlight. This increases the IR opacity of the atm. looking up from surface driving higher effective emission levels.
“keeping global thermodynamic internal energy constant ”
No. The top post is about a small, yet presumably real net imbalance of ~ 1 W/m^2 and consequently a net increase in internal energy.
Presumably? That word is not found in the top post so I don’t understand to what you refer. Added clarity will help.
Thermodynamic internal energy of the TOA control volume is NOT constant when there is a meaningful decadal increase in EEI measurement of 0.50W/m^2 +/- 0.47 W/m^2 in the satellite era. As Dr. Spencer writes the + interval means Nature’s actual imbalance TOA could be about 1 or the negative interval could be almost zero with equal confidence during the period.
Sunlight change measured during the period is not very important, other factors are at work as I wrote. Most of the measured EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atm.
Top post: “That doesn’t make it wrong. It’s just…uncertain.” is a reasonable way to, in summary, write about Nature’s actual imbalance during the satellite era.
WUWT Contest Winner, Professional, 1st Place The Greta Leap Forward
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/07/wuwt-contest-winner-professional-1st-place-the-greta-leap-forward/
We likes it.
Good choice to focus on IPCC.
Keep in mind that IPCC is the best “they
got”.
Isn’t that really, really, sad, when think about it?
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/JimKelly-fig1-697×720.png
Is worth a look. Models do indeed run hot.
RLH
We were discussing your seven year trend.
I was playing on Woodfortrees and noticed something odd.
Try plotting the linear trend for UAH V.6.0 since 1979. Now add a separate line for the linear trend for the last seven years.
The short line sits entirely above the longer line.It does not look like the long term trend changing from warming to cooling. It looks more like a warm blip around 2015 reverting to the trend.
So you agree that the last 7 years have shown that things are not warming as they were before.
Perhaps using low pass filters will give a more accurate suggestion as to what will occur in the near and far future.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg
(Still Jan 2022 data as Roy has not got round to putting the full Feb data up yet).
P.S. Are you suggesting that the next month or the next year will ‘revert to trend’.
We shall see won’t we.
We’re in the middle of a La Nina. They tend to run 0.3C below the trend so I expect to see monthly anomaly figures around 0C to 0.1Cuntil ENSO neutral conditions return and between 0.3C and 0.5C for the near future thereafter.
And if the La Nina continues until the end of this year as NOAA has shown?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. First says: “… human causation for recent warming has not been convincingly established.”
Followed immediately by: “… I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused…”
Brings to mind this old adage: “If you took all the geologists in the world and laid them end to end, they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.”* You could substitute meteorologist for geologist to same effect.
Question, did Dr. Spencer read Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions? Any thoughts?
(*) no geologists were harmed in this exercise.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
says the last 7 years have not been warming at all.
TYSON, you omitted the second quote’s preceding content stating “…given the lack of evidence to the contrary…”
There’s no cognitive dissonance here because “not…convincingly established” is a assessment of overall analytical causation deductions, and “provisionally…view” is a statement of personal presumption in lieu of better data-driven analytical deductions.
Across the board, the main question is not “if?” but “how much?”
“…the main question is not “if?” but “how much?”
Physics gives us the answer to “how much” — Zip, zero, nada.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
According to the all-time-better-knowing UK genius, OLS-based linear trends are not worth much.
I say: they are not worth much – unless they confirm his egocentric narrative.
*
He posted may times comments on this blog going in that discrediting direction; anybody having some idle time could confirm this with a corresponding search on the blog’s threads.
*
Moreover, the genius’ offsets are, with the exception of that for Had-CRUT, plain wrong.
“OLS-based linear trends are not worth much”
What I said is that OLS trends are only relevant over the time periods that created them. Do you dispute that?
RLH
You are an absolute liar.
You have clearly discredited OLS-based trends AS SUCH.
If you have forgotten the many places on this blog where you wrote them: YOUR PROBLEM.
I won’t search for them.
I repeat what I have said many, many times, OLS trends are only relevant of the time period they cover. They are not useful for predictions either into the past or the future. Idiot.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Are you saying that you cannot reproduce the above graph using the numbers shown in it? You either lie or are incompetent.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/offset:-0.695/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2015/offset:-0.453/trend
Are you saying, are you saying, are you saying…
You are a lover of insinuations.
What I have said is that
– trends over such short periods have no significance
– the numbers you use are wrong (I have corrected them for you – but, like Robertson, you never admit having been wrong, let alone would you change what was wrong in your allegations.
Like for example your repeated lies about alleged rounding errors in my USCRN computations – which you never have been able to prove.
But you woefully continue to repeat your lies.
The numbers come for Woodfortrees but you probably know better than them.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/offset:-0.695/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:2015/offset:-0.453/trend
We have been at this before
“No, you arrogant twat. USCRN rounded their Hourly data for you to the nearest 1/10th of a degree (as they say on their site). From their sub-hourly (or better) data. Therefore using their Hourly data as you do instead of calculating it for yourself will lead to just the errors I have discussed.
e.g.
As below
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.70 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Notice how one rounds up but the other down?
But you are too arrogant to read things closely or understand any of it.”
Your figure for that day was -6.8 which shows you rounded (to 1 decimal place) from -6.76 whereas USCRN used -6.74 for their correct result of -6.7.
So who is lying now?
“I rounded only once the hourly data to 0.1 C for short, in a completely different step, in order to compare, for the CRN Kenai station,
the daily average of USCRNs hourly data
with
USCRNs daily data”
Your words.
Which shows how you got things wrong and that you believed that ‘your’ daily data composed from already rounded hourly data was more accurate than USCRNs daily figures.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
–
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos is still wrong ignoring atm. opacity when calculating for Tmean, since the 33K GHE difference exists in the real world as determined by actual real-world measurements. With atm. opacity properly included actual measurements find:
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K, rounded not zero as Christos claims.
Martian Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K, rounded not zero as Christos claims.
Christos’ calculations/claims do not agree with these actual measurements so it is Christos’ claims that are faulty.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond.
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
and
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s atm. is not optically thin Christos since it’s substantially opaque to surface IR band emission which you completely ignore and thus arrive at an answer that doesn’t agree with measurement or physics so your conclusion is faulty.
In reality, there is a measured +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature. GHGs are not numerically dominate, GHGs are radiatively dominate.
Ball4
“In reality, there is a measured +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature. GHGs are not numerically dominate, GHGs are radiatively dominate.”
That is what exactly I am explaining about, it is not happen what you say. There is a tiny theoretical greenhouse effect I estimate about 0,4 oC. It is almost two orders of magnitude less than the mistaken +33oC.
It is so much insignificant we should not take it in consideration when estimating Earth’s mean surface temperature 288K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
Ball4 has measured the theoretical 33K in his head. It is futile to argue against that.
“Dont argue with a fool, or the listeners will say there is a pair of you.”
Christos you are wrong by ignoring the IR opacity of the Earth atm. Your calculation is faulty, the 33K earthen GHE measurements are reality.
Ball4,
You do not know about the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It states:
Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I do know! Dr. Spencer already showed Christos how to account for the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Earth rotation speed has not changed yet the LTL atm. has warmed in the satellite era as shown in top post. Christos’ formula is thus known to be faulty.
Rather than repeating faulty conclusions, Christos should be hard at work discovering why they are faulty.
Oops TLT would be better.
Ball4
“The Earth rotation speed has not changed…”
Yes, the Earth rotation speed has not changed.
But
You do not know about the
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It states:
Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
And you do not know, it is a Phenomenon for all planets and moons in the Universe!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No Christos, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has nothing to do with any sixteenth root, it is simply due to the non-linearity of the S-B eqn. for an object with real Cp as Dr. Spencer points out for you:
“any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet.”
Ball4
“No Christos, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has nothing to do with any sixteenth root, it is simply due to the non-linearity of the S-B eqn. for an object with real Cp as Dr. Spencer points out for you:
any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average temperature of a planet.”
Ball4, Dr. Spencer is absolutely right!
Ball4, what it is you don’t understand then? Please explain.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t understand how Christos makes such a horrendous physics error when Dr. Spencer’s physics for the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is so easy to understand.
Ball4
“I don’t understand how Christos makes such a horrendous physics error when Dr. Spencer’s physics for the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is so easy to understand.”
What error I make? I do not disagree with Dr. Spencer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But Roy doesn’t agree with you. Probably.
So, Roy’s best friend, did Roy give you permission to speak for him?
90% of the accumulating energy goes into the ocean, so that is the best place to look for trends.
Ten years ago I calculated the ocean heat content change and got 3ZJ/Yr.
Recently I recalculated for Coturnix and got 6ZJ/year.
Now I read a professional assessment and they see ocean heat content increase of 14ZJ/year.
That does not look like a lack of warming, just a bias towards ocean warming over atmospheric warming.
The extended La Nina has been sucking energy into the oceans at the expense of the atmosphere and has, as measured by UAH, stopped the atmosphere warming.
When ENSO returns to neutral or El Nino we can expect a considerable jump in UAH temperatures.
This might be a good time for me to place a bet with someone who believes that warming has ended. How about it RLH?
I will bet a 20 donation to the RNLI that an UAH monthly temperature will exceed 0.5C during 2022. Will you take the other side?
Certainly.
Since 1998 there has been only 6 monthly readings that have exceeded 0.5c, 2 in 1998, 3 in 2016, 1 in 2020 so it is extremely unlikely that this will be beaten in 2022, especially as the trend is downwards at present.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-1.jpeg
P.S. All I observe it is that the long term OLS trend is becoming more and more dissociated with the current monthly data.
“That does not look like a lack of warming, just a bias towards ocean warming over atmospheric warming”
Or a cold ocean cooling a warmer atmosphere.
Exactly.
That’s what a La Nina does. It brings colder water up from below which takes a higher proportion of the incoming energy and stores it.
With a smaller proportion of incoming energy going into the atmosphere you get lower UAH troposphere temperatures.
When the Pacific switches to El Nino the opposite happens. With warm sea surface temperatures a higher proportion of energy goes into the atmosphere and you get higher air temperatures.
After the recent extended La Nina I’m expecting a strong rebound. Look at 1997/1998. The UAH monthly temperature went from -0.4C to 0.6C in a year.
So what you really saying is that the poles are cooling the tropics, for now at least.
“It brings colder water up from below which takes a higher proportion of the incoming energy and stores it”
Oh really! Where does it store it?
RLH,
Quite obviously, in a Magical Climatological Heat Storage Device. Heat goes on, and doesn’t come out unless the correct climatological incantation is recited.
Unfortunately, the secret spell has been mislaid, so that Kevin Trenberth lamented that the missing heat cannot be found, and it’s a travesty that it can’t!
What a load of bollocks! Anything hotter than its environment cools down. Anything colder heats up. All natural processes are in a state of flux. The only constant is change – just observe weather, resulting from changes in the atmosphere.
Deep ocean currents are due to convection. Luckily, enough heat transfers through the crust to prevent deep bodies of water from freezing right through. Combined with small variations in salinity, and chaotic fluid dynamics – Ninos, Ninas, ENSO, PDO, and all the rest, result.
Anyone who believes they can predict the outcomes of a chaotic system any better than a small child is deluded.
“Anyone who believes they can predict the outcomes of a chaotic system any better than a small child is deluded”
I can predict with reasonable certainty that nighttime will be cooler than daytime.
Idiot.
And that Summer is warmer than Winter.
Eman got his science book from “Goldilocks and the Three Bears.”
Ent, all your guesses, 3ZJ/year, 6ZJ/year, 14ZJ/year, are just that — guesses.
Pick a number, any number….
And if you want a scarier number, go with 132 ZJ/year. That’s the annual energy emitted by the Antarctic ice sheet!
Are you scared yet?
“And if you want a scarier number, go with 132 ZJ/year. Thats the annual energy emitted by the Antarctic ice sheet! ”
132ZJ is also absorbed by Antarctica. It is roughly in balance.
The figures above are annual NET increases in heat entering the ocean. As a whole, the heat content of the climate system is increasing at an accelerating rate.
That’s what I’m scared of!
The figures above are meaningless. They aren’t even consistent. They’re bogus.
The heat content of the climate system is NOT increasing at an accelerating rate. You’re just making up reasons to support your cult nonsense. Like you made up the nonsense about passenger jets flying backward. Your cult is more important to you than reality.
Clint R
“And if you want a scarier number, go with 132 ZJ/year. Thats the annual energy emitted by the Antarctic ice sheet! ”
132ZJ is also absorbed by Antarctica. It is roughly in balance.
The figures above are annual NET increases in heat entering the ocean. As a whole, the heat content of the climate system is increasing at an accelerating rate.
That’s what I’m scared of!
EM,
If you are not a deluded moron, you will be able to provide a reproducible experiment demonstrating how you can increase the heat content of a mass of water (or material of your choice), by periodically exposing it to a fixed heat source followed by at least as much time without the heat input.
Maybe a fixed heat source applying heat to a slowly rotating globe? You could attach containers of water at various points, with temperature sensing devices as appropriate.
Providing a 4 K environment would be difficult, so carrying out the experiment in a large commercial freezer at -40 C or so should suffice.
Net heat increase? You must be quite mad. Don’t you accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?
No GHE. Just a handful of delusional fanatical cultists claiming that the science is settled, but it’s worse than we thought, that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but we are 95% confident that we can!
And you believe these idiots?
Greenland ice sheet is monitored for signs of “global warming”.
No signs yet….
https://postimg.cc/tYs8GSjr
As usual: nonsense from Prof. Dr. ignoramus Clint R, who thinks that this week’s obviously cold temperatures in Greenland could have anything to do with its long time ice sheet mass balance:
https://dataverse01.geus.dk/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z/PHNFC1&version=197.0
Download the data, Clint R, and start processing it, instead of ‘ball-on-a-string’ing.
Yes Bindidon, you should be concerned. Your cult is falling apart. The Greenland ice sheet, at close to minus 50C, scares you, huh?
Your mention of the ball-on-a-string reminded me that you denied that reality also. Since you mentioned that “simple analogy”, here’s another one for you to deny.
True or False: A properly functioning bicycle pedal rotates on its axle.
Download the data, Clint R, and start processing it, instead of ball-on-a-stringing.
You couldn’t answer the simple question, could you Bindidon?
You can’t face reality.
If you answer the simple question truthfully, all your nonsense about centuries-old astrologers goes away. For the pedal to both orbit and keep one side facing a distant star, it MUST rotate about its axis. That’s why bicycle pedals have bearings. If the bearings are locked, the pedal cannot rotate, and one side will always face the inside of its orbit, like Moon.
Reality always wins.
Here, Pup:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191213
W
How about giving us your best Mrs Maisel impersonation.
Clint R: A pedal rotates on an arm as it travels in a circle around the central pivot at the same time keeping its bottom facing the ground.
Just as the MOTR keeps it face pointing wrt the stars whilst orbiting the Earth/Moon barycenter.
Of course wrt the arm it changes its angle but that is because the arm is rotating around the center whilst the pedal is kept flat to the ground.
wrt to the ground the pedal does not rotate. wrt to the ground the arm does.
wrt to the pedal the ground does not rotate. wrt to the arm the ground does.
Pozzo,
You should not be revealing your age.
Something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis. Something that is physically able to rotate on its own axis (the unlocked pedal), can rotate on its own axis.
No "wrt’s" needed.
Proof that the Moon is not rotating about its own axis: the 8-bit era.
C’mon.
A ‘locked’ pedal becomes part of the arm and does not have a center as such.
Exactly, RLH. The locked pedal is not rotating on its own axis. It is just rotating about the central pivot point, same as every other part of the arm.
…and since the locked pedal is not rotating on its own axis, the unlocked pedal must be…rotating on its own axis.
“The locked pedal is not rotating on its own axis”
That is because the locked pedal has no axis to rotate about. It is part of the arm.
I love it when you think you are arguing against me, but are actually in agreement.
I use clipless pedals, which are clipped to my shoes, which are definitely not rotating.
Something that is clipped or attached to something that is not rotating is therefore not rotating.
There is a bearing between the not rotating shoes and the rotating crank that allows one to rotate and the other to not rotate.
Something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis. Something that is physically able to rotate on its own axis (the unlocked pedal), can rotate on its own axis.
Waffle away, bob. Nothing you can say changes the above.
“Something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis”
The arm (which is what the locked pedal is now part of) has an axis at the center.
The locked pedal does not have an axis as such.
Braindead bob can provide such great examples of braindead.
It’s amazing how many of the braindead cult idiots don’t even understand how a simple bicycle functions.
And, they can’t learn….
RLH continues to “argue whilst agreeing”. Funny.
It’s amazing that people do not understand the difference between being part of something and being independent.
No, I get it – I just know it’s irrelevant. The locked pedal is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the pedal itself. Your agreement on that is all that matters. Thank you.
The locked pedal does not have an axis.
Exactly. Thank you.
The level of confusion is astounding.
“Something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis. Something that is physically able to rotate on its own axis (the unlocked pedal), can rotate on its own axis.”
Locking something to something else, does not prevent the first something from rotating with the second thing. The axis of the second thing, the crank, can be mathematically manipulated to be centered on the axis of the pedal, simply done. For those who can do math, others may struggle with the transformations, not my problem. Yes, reference frames matter.
The bearing between the pedal and the crank allows the pedal to not rotate while the crank rotates. That is what the pedal is doing, not rotating because it also happens to be fixed to the foot of the bicycle rider.
The pedal is the MOTR, the axel through the pedal is the MOTL.
Morons will be morons
But the freely rotating one does.
bob: waffle away, nothing you can say refutes the logic of my 11:42 AM comment. You’ve lost, I’m afraid.
RLH: Yes, again, correct. Thank you.
Your crap has been refuted a thousand and one times DR EMPTY.
Try enrolling in some science and math classes at your local junior college.
You might have to try a decent university to get a decent logic class.
Proper use of reference frames does refute DREMT’s 11:42 am comment, so bob has NOT lost.
Something that physically cannot rotate on its own axis (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis wrt to that axis whereas the same locked pedal does rotate on its own axis wrt the bike frame, wrt the bike rider (no foot on pedal), and wrt the usual passing bike observer…with blog handle Clint R because location of observer determines spin or not was correctly pointed out by Clint a few posts ago.
11:42 AM wins it. Sorry bob, sorry Ball4.
🙂
… when observed “from inside of it orbit” per Clint R several posts ago (the locked pedal) does not rotate on its own axis.
11:42 is now the new 4:20 which was the old 11:11.
So join me, if you got em.
I’ll share if you can find me.
DR EMPTY has had too much.
Sorry for your loss, guys.
☹️
… the loss of any reasonable competitive come back from DREMT, happy with our obvious win, and once again proving DREMT is wrong.
Just another day on the blog doing so.
Sorry again for your loss, Ball4.
Yes I too am sorry for the loss of any competitive come back supporting your case DREMT. I understand though DREMT’s need to completely give up when so obviously refuted.
Neither of you presented anything to refute. Simple as that. Ball4, you just believe re-writing what I wrote with added “wrt…” and “as Clint R said a few comments ago” constitutes an argument. It does not. bob believes prattling on about “mathematically manipulating” an axis constitutes an argument. It does not. You lose.
Our loss is any competitive reasonable come back from DREMT since DREMT has completely given up writing one by so obviously losing the debate.
There is nothing to come back to, as you made no reasonable challenge to my 11:42 AM comment in the first place.
DR EMPTY,
You don’t even understand the math or the physics of my arguments, you just hand wave them away.
Looks like I need to get high to argue with you.
It’s more fun that way.
And by the way, there are more than just two reference frames.
Sorry bob, you’re just a thick, fat, pathetic failure. You’ve lost every argument we’ve ever had. 11:42 AM won this one.
DR EMPTY,
Flap Flap Flap
Are your arms tired yet?
Sorry for your loss, bob.
It’s still all about frame of reference. Even the pedal.
Exactly.
That’s what a La Nina does. It brings colder water up from below which takes a higher proportion of the incoming energy and stores it.
With a smaller proportion of incoming energy going into the atmosphere you get lower UAH troposphere temperatures.
When the Pacific switches to El Nino the opposite happens. With warm sea surface temperatures a higher proportion of energy goes into the atmosphere and you get higher air temperatures.
After the recent extended La Nina I’m expecting a strong rebound. Look at 1997/1998. The UAH monthly temperature went from -0.4C to 0.6C in a year.
“When the Pacific switches to El Nino”
Next year at least according to NOAA and CFSv2.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
That graphic shows no el Nino.
Hre you can see the outlook for a range of US and international ENSO forecasts, including CFS.
https://i.imgur.com/kANXg1P.png
Hard times for the people in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia.
That strong La Nina phases often have devastating consequences for Australias’s East coast, is well know.
But this time the situation there looks worse than during preceding events.
What do knowledgeable ‘weather’ specialists blame for this?
Yes, they’ve been having a bad Autumn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-60489660
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-60552110
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60656717
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1201143
Jesus what are you a dumb person.
” That strong La Nina phases often have devastating consequences for Australia’s East coast, is well know. “
Why would anyone take any notice from someone who uses already rounded data and then lies about having used even though his own words say otherwise?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1202075
Many parts of Australia are too flat to handle La Niña rainfalls, which occur repeatedly. It’s an engineering/infrastructure solution, like has been done in Oklahoma, Kansas, and other US States to handle mighty rivers like the Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi. (And more needs to be done.)
Braindead politicians don’t have any interest in infrastructure because it isn’t “sexy”.
The scope of the problem with flooding is too large to obviate with large scale projects. 3/4 of Queensland was underwater in 2010/2011. QLD’s area is 1 million sq mi.
The thing the pollies could do better, especially in NSW, is to provide speedy relief to affected areas, especially when the bureau of meteorology gave clear warnings well ahead of the events. In this they have significantly failed this wet season.
Short story – listen to the experts.
Finally a proven way of earning money online. Yes! you can earn more than you think only by working just a few hours from home regularly. I have been doing this job for like a few weeks and my last weekly payment was exactly 2537 dollars.
See More Information Here…… http://Www.TopEasyWork.com
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S P A M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
For the ignoramus who did not understand my comment about Australia, here is the top 10 of the Multivariate ENSO Index, the most elaborated ENSO series:
2010 7 -2.43
2010 8 -2.40
2010 9 -2.28
2010 10 -2.18
2010 11 -2.04
2010 12 -1.91
2011 1 -1.83
1988 8 -1.79
2011 3 -1.79
1988 7 -1.77
It seems to me that some geniuses really think that the 2021/22 La Nina is the ‘strongest evah’.
Should anybody wonder about the absence of June 2010 in the top 10 above: this is simply due to the incredible speed at which the La Nina started in 2010:
2010 5 -0.17
2010 6 -1.33
2010 7 -2.43
*
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/La-Nina-2010-12.pdf
What will they write about this year?
Ooops… A correction is needed here.
Instead of
” … the 2021/22 La Nina … ”
you should read
” … the 2020/22 La Nina … ”
because, according to MEI, the current episode started in June 2020.
Why would anyone take any notice from someone who uses already rounded data and then lies about having used even though his own words say otherwise?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1202075
Or perhaps go to BOM.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/#tabs=Outlooks
Or NOAA
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
EM,
Where at least some of the models agree with each other.
Or just ask a random small child in the street.
RLH
You are a persistent, dishonest liar, and you know that.
You still owe US ALL a proof that my use of USCRN hourly data would make, within my monthly generation context, any visible difference below the third digit after the decimal point, compared to the use of subhourly data.
My guess: you will never give us that proof: namely because you already tested what I mean, saw on your output how minuscule the differences are, and had to see that you can’t contradict me.
But you persist in your dishonest behavior… No wonder.
Incidentally, your demeanor is more reminiscent of a stubborn elementary school teacher than the seasoned engineer you claimed last year to have been.
You lie consistently as can be seen above.
Why would I take anything from someone who it appears has never studied statistics or have an engineering background.
At least I have a piece of paper (and a career) that says I have.
Some geniuses ? who are they ? I have never seen anyone claiming 2021/22 La Nina is the ‘strongest evah’,
Blabberdong is talking out of his ass making up zshit thats all he does
Don’t try to divert and confuse, Eben: that’s useless.
You perfectly know what I mean.
The way you constantly underlined last year how strong this Nina episode would be could not be overlooked.
Conversely, I have admitted that I had underestimated it – on the base of JMA’s forecasts. May bad.
And you don’t get to blame your failed forecast on somebody else you dumbass, you post it you own it
The only way Bindidork can claim he is right about something is he makes up a totally fake argument about something nobody ever argued about and they pretend he is destroying it.
Can’t back up any of his lies when called on it , laying piece of scheiße
“Why doesn’t everyone stop whining about high gas prices and buy a Tesla?”
Because they BELIEVE in fossil fuels.
Electricity prices have risen too.
I enjoy posting absurd statements from leftists.
stephen p anderson
Do you believe Putin to be a left-wing or right-wing person. If he was a citizen of US on what scale would you put his values on things?
Interesting question.
A traditional Russian politician.
Obviously.
Or a murderous psychopath- in other words,
your typical politician.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
He is like Castro or Speaker Pelosi.
Also like Hilary Clinton in sense of not
really a politician, rather mostly just severely deranged
by power.
A Mob boss.
“He is like Castro or Speaker Pelosi.”
Tee hee..
Darn, Pelosi forgot to send Polonium to Trump and McConnell.
Btw, Joe Biden could be a perfect US president.
I don’t know, but being brain dead, could have
benefits, in terms of the Universal Law of:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
It seems it’s possible the past leaders who were
similarly brain dead, could have been severely,
under appreciated.
It’s just theory.
Does anyone have evidence that it’s wrong?
It going to be further proof that God exist.
[Atheists might have a “interest” in proving
my theory, wrong.]
From a statistical viewpoint there are 3 main ways of summarizing daily, yearly, etc. data.
1. Tmean. An arithmetic mean of higher frequency data points recorded during the period (hourly, sub-hourly, 5 seconds, etc.).
2. Tmedian. A statistical median of the same high frequency data points.
3. Tmiddle. A construct only used by people in climate where Tmiddle=(Tmax+Tmin)/2 and usually referred to as a ‘mean’. This incorrect verbal usage is not to be recommended.
Being an non-statistical figure, Tmiddle is not the preferred statistical method of unaliasing the high frequency data points.
The arithmetic mean is observed in all statistical textbooks as less accurate than the median for data that is not normally distributed.
Temperature data at both daily and yearly intervals is not normally distributed.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Temperature data at both daily and yearly intervals is not normally distributed.”
If anyone claims anything in Nature is normally distributed, I would immediately suspect fraud, fakery, or foolishness. Nature seems to be capricious, chaotic and absurd.
Hooray!
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
is not chaotic.
RLH,
So you say, but why do you say it?
Even the IPCC agrees with me (in relation to the atmosphere, at least) –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
There may be series in nature which are not chaotic, but I cannot bring any to mind at present.
Day and night. Summer and Winter? Generally non-chaotic but uncertain as to the precise numbers.
“Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration
of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,
and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction
of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible
states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is
computationally intensive and requires the application of new
methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information
is essential.”
TAR Ch 14.
Short story – we can’t tell you exactly the climate state long term, but we can estimate the probability of future climate states.
“There may be series in nature which are not chaotic, but I cannot bring any to mind at present.”
Seasons.
Which are climate change.
Or are you going to tell us it’s completely random that Summer is Warmer than Winter?
“The arithmetic mean is observed in all statistical textbooks as less accurate than the median for data that is not normally distributed.”
Can you show us an example of a textbook that says that?
Tim Folkerts
I’m missing this text reference as much as you are.
RLH has been claiming this to me for untold months but has been unable to provide any one.
Conversely, I have read last year in a statistics textbook that the median is preferable to the mean of Tmin and Tmax only with ‘highly skewed data’, which has NEVER happened with the data I examined (DWD – Deutscher Wetterdienst, Meteostat and USCRN).
“RLH has been claiming this to me for untold months but has been unable to provide any one”
Liar. I have responded on many occasions showing online examples of just such observation.
Would you care to tell me that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
is not skewed?
Tim Folkerts (cntnd)
And here is a chart showing the anomaly plots in the average of 138 USCRN stations
– mean = (Tmin+Tmax)/2
– median
– full 24h average of the day
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
Neither do I see relevant differences between the three, le alone would RLH be ever able to prove that using subhourly data would change anything in the monthly anomalies.
Until now, all he was able to present us here is a trivial average of all stations over all days: a simpler job you can’t do.
Not even a monthly time series of absolute values until now!
So what.
And then to appear here as the great expert…
“mean = (Tmin+Tmax)/2”
Mean is not a statistical, arithmetic mean. It is best called what it is a Middle.
Thanks to the elementary school teacher…
Thanks to the comment by a lying idiot.
“mean = (Tmin+Tmax)/2
Mean is not a statistical, arithmetic mean. It is best called what it is a Middle.”
“Come on guys. This fact is well known in statistics (ask any statistics prof). The mean can be distorted by outliers whereas the median is less susceptible to those.”
This has always been a strawman argument by RLH.
If all that is available is Tmax and Tmin, which has been the case for most of the record, then the Mean and the Median are the same!
What is available does not make it a statistical arithmetic mean.
And no, Mean and Median are not the same unless the distribution is gaussian normal which temperature series most definitely are not.
What is available is not a recognized method to analyze data in statistics.
If all that is available is a Max and a Min then that is 2 points. That is the distribution!
Min to Max is a range, not a distribution.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1203295
for a set of distributions.
What statistics would you apply to those and why?
If all that is available is Tmax and Tmin, which has been the case for most of the record, then the measurable Mean and the Median are the same.
It is a strawman to complain that Median should have been used.
A median or an arithmetic mean cannot be used if the data was not recorded at hourly or similar intervals, true.
That does not mean that you can use 2 quite different methodologies and just add them together.
It also does not mean that the middle of the range is the same as the arithmetic mean of all of the samples in that range.
What statistics would you recommend for analyzing
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/uscrn-darrington-histogram/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
and why?
Nate: The middle of a range gives no statistical information as to the distribution of the values in the set.
Come on guys. This fact is well known in statistics (ask any statistics prof). The mean can be distorted by outliers whereas the median is less susceptible to those.
Here are some online ones.
https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/Career%20and%20Technical%20Education/Documents/Electrical%20T-Chart%20-%20Describe%20how%20outliers%20affect%20measures%20of%20central%20tendency.pdf
“Measures of central tendency are mean, median and mode.
Outliers affect the mean value of the data but have little effect on the median or mode of a given set of data”
https://lisbdnet.com/how-will-a-high-outlier-in-a-data-set-affect-the-mean-and-median/
“How will a high outlier affect mean and median?
How does outlier affect the mean? The mean follows the outlier. High-value outliers cause the mean to be HIGHER than the median. Low-value outliers cause the mean to be LOWER than the median.
How does a high outlier affect the mean?
An outlier can affect the mean of a data set by skewing the results so that the mean is no longer representative of the data set
How will a high outlier in a data set affect the mean and median change?
An outlier in a data set is a value that is much higher than almost all other values. An outlier can change the mode of a data set, but does not affect the mean or median.”
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/outliers.html
“So it seems that outliers have the biggest effect on the mean, and not so much on the median or mode.
Hint: calculate the median and mode when you have outliers”
And if you use skewness as a keyword
https://opentextbc.ca/introbusinessstatopenstax/chapter/skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode/
the mean reflects the skewing the most.
To summarize, generally if the distribution of data is skewed to the left, the mean is less than the median, which is often less than the mode. If the distribution of data is skewed to the right, the mode is often less than the median, which is less than the mean
https://openstax.org/books/introductory-business-statistics/pages/2-6-skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode
Typically temperature data is not normally distributed and is skewed with the lower lobe being larger than the higher one.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
I think my main issue is making a blanket statement about one being “best” without specific context or purpose. All measures of central tendency have their uses and each is best at different times.
Also ( Tmax+Tmin)/2 IS the mean of those two numbers. It is not some strange new measure.
(Tmax+Tmin)/2 is NOT recognized in statistics as an average. Find me a statistical textbook that says otherwise.
In statistics an average is either a mean, median or mode of ALL of the samples taken during any given period, not the range over which they exist.
“(Tmax+Tmin)/2 IS the mean of those two numbers”
No it is not. It is the range of the samples taken in any given period.
Actually, the range is (Tmax – Tmin).
And the middle of it is {Tmax+Tmin)/2.
What statistics do you think should be applied to
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
and why?
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/35399_Module5.pdf
“If there are several outliers, the median is a
more appropriate measure of central tendency to
report than the mean because the median is not
influenced by outliers”
https://www.cuemath.com/data/relation-between-mean-median-and-mode/
Figure.
https://d138zd1ktt9iqe.cloudfront.net/media/seo_landing_files/empirical-relation-between-mean-median-and-mode-1628764844.png
(What is rarely mentioned is binomial distributions from sinusoidal patterns such as temperature records show because that is not normally part of statistics as such
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg)
Oh no, not again:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10691898.2005.11910556
Tmiddle, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is not a recognized statistical method of obtaining an average.
Tell me how it does in binomial distributions such as are common in temperature series.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg)
Tell me how it does in skewed binomial distributions such as are common in temperature series.
> Tmiddle, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is not a recognized statistical method of obtaining an average.
Source: NOAA
If Tavg is (Tmax+Tmin)/2 then it is not a statistical arithmetic mean no matter who said it is.
Tavg, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is most definitely not a statistical average.
“Tavg, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is most definitely not a statistical average.”
How do you come to that conclusion? You have two statistics — Tmax and Tmin. You find the mean of any set of statistics by adding them and dividing by the number of date points in the set.
That is exactly what (Tmax+Tmin)/2 is — the calculated mean AKA average.
Find me any statistical textbook that says (Tmax+Tmin)/2 is an average. It is a middle.
“You find the mean of any set of statistics by adding them and dividing by the number of date points in the set”
Tmin and Tmax are composed by taking much more frequent samples of a dataset, not just 2.
So the set can be taken at say, 5 second intervals, to get min and max so it is 24*60*60/5 samples in size, not 2.
“You find the mean of any set of statistics by adding them and dividing by the number of date points in the set”
How does the center of a range comprise an average and not a middle?
> It is a middle.
You mean a central value.
Like many others.
If it’s not an average, what it is?
“Tmin and Tmax are composed by taking much more frequent samples of a dataset, not just 2.”
Actually, for years, a simple analog thermometer was used to record the high and low for the day. So there were indeed simply 2 numbers recorded. Old weather records are FULL of this data.
When this is the available data, you work with what you have. In this case, both the mean and median are half way between these two.
I know the history of temperature recordings but that does not make half of a range an average in statistical terms.
Continuous analogue sampling is slightly different to digital methods but ultimately slew rates determine the min/max recorded in both cases.
See Nyquist for the differences between continuous and discrete sampling methodologies.
“In this case, both the mean and median are half way between these two”
Wrong. Statistically speaking.
“If its not an average, what it is?”
The middle of a range is not an average statistically speaking.
“You mean a central value”
To call the middle of a range a central value is to distort the meaning of central value in statistics.
What statistics do you think should be applied to
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
and why?
> To call the middle of a range a central value is to distort the meaning of central value in statistics.
You can call it a measure of central tendency if you prefer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_tendency
Where in that does it say that it is the halfway down the range?
Especially with a distribution that looks like
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
or
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
or
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/uscrn-darrington-histogram/
or
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
“In statistics, a central tendency (or measure of central tendency) is a central or typical value for a probability distribution”
A probability distribution means you have more information than just the range.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/fun-with-summer-statistics-part-i-usa/
Tmean (which is the center of a range) is used to imply that there is some statistical support for the concept that the middle of a range carries some statistical meaning.
It is a deliberate attempt to conceal an inconvenient fact that earlier range data cannot be simple graphed onto later arithmetic mean data statistically speaking.
If Tmin and Tmax are so important, then those same data points should be used now. Doing so is quite simple as shown by
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
The middle of a range gives no statistical information as to the distribution of the values in the set.
https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/textbooks/Introductory%20Statistics.pdf
Because a large proportion of electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. If we used entirely nuclear and renewable you wouldn’t see the price rises.
Entropic man
” If we used entirely nuclear and renewable you wouldnt see the price rises. ”
Correct!
But… the price for the nuclear corner never rose because the nuclear industry
– never had to pay for nuclear disasters like Harrisburg or Fukushima (the latter being allegedly only due to the tsunami, and of course not for the disastrous site selection) !
– has never had to carry out any complete final treatment of the nuclear waste generated by the sector, that is to say not only the power plants, but also the refining, the enrichment and the reprocessing , let alone the waste generated by their dismantling !
Probably nothing…
LME (London Metal Exchange) suspended nickel trading as prices soared on a big short. Nickel largely comes from Russia and is used in manufacturing Lithium batteries fie electric cars !
Lithium up YOY: 600%
Nickel up YOY: 399%
Canada makes a fair amount nickel.
In terms Lithium, Canada nor Russia, are on Wiki
list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_lithium_production
Australia, and then South America
In terms of wiki, nickel world production, Russia leads Canada, but south east Asia are top producers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_nickel_production
World 2,700,000 tonnes
Russia 270,000 tonnes
Russia supplies about 10% of the world’s nickel.
From where I sit: Current Production Of Energy Transition Minerals
And if you use skewness as a keyword
https://opentextbc.ca/introbusinessstatopenstax/chapter/skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode/
“the mean reflects the skewing the most.
To summarize, generally if the distribution of data is skewed to the left, the mean is less than the median, which is often less than the mode. If the distribution of data is skewed to the right, the mode is often less than the median, which is less than the mean”
https://openstax.org/books/introductory-business-statistics/pages/2-6-skewness-and-the-mean-median-and-mode
Typically temperature data is not normally distributed and is skewed with the lower lobe being larger than the higher one.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
It was time that RLH finally shows what he (hopefully really) read, and not scanned for keywords fitting his egocentric narrative, like does Robertson.
But again: I see nowhere real advantages of median versus (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
Nowhere! Only explanation concerning skewed data!
That was clearly confirmed by my comparison of anomalies generated out of USCRN, what LLH never did.
*
And, as I showed by comparing data out of Meteostat and USCRN, the difference between the two arithmetical methods differs by a lot betweeen e.g.
– averages for Germany and the UK
– USCRN stations in Alaska and Florida!
(Tmin+Tmax)/2 = Tmiddle which not a recognized method in statistics.
You find the mean (AKA average) of any set of data points by adding them and dividing by the number of date points in the set.
Suppose you have two data points — Tmax and Tmin. The average is exactly what you wrote: (Tmax+Tmin)/2
You have a range of the data between min and max. Halfway down a range is not an average, it is a middle.
> Halfway down a range is not an average, it is a middle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-range
What statistics do you think should be applied to
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
and why?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
is skewed!
Tmin to Tmax is a range, not a sampling.
I can’t recall a person being so incredibly stubborn.
Instead of
– endlessly reciting your simple-minded, ball-on-a-string-like stuff, as do elementary school teachers lacking any practical experience
and
– showing us on this blog silly examples that have nothing to do with what textbooks mean by skewing:
why don’t you prove us – through the complete processing of bigger data sources like those I have shown – that I am wrong when claiming that the difference between the three aforementioned techniques is negligible in bigger averages?
*
It looks here all the time as if you weren’t courageous enough to do that.
And this mix of incapacity and lack of courage is very probably the reason why you endlessly polemically discredit what I’m doing, instead of technically proving me wrong.
One of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to contradict, soon starts to discredit! ”
You are the best example of that.
You have obviously never studied statistics.
An average is either a mean (an arithmetic mean in this case), a median or a mode.
(Tmin+Tmax)/2 is not a statistical arithmetic mean. It is the middle of the range that lies between min and max.
Even elementary school teachers know that (and no, I have never been an elementary school teacher).
> An average is either a mean (an arithmetic mean in this case), a median or a mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average#Mid-range
The middle of a range gives no statistical information as to the distribution of the values in the set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-range
Your a liar too as your own words demonstrate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1202075
“I rounded only once the hourly data to 0.1 C for short, in a completely different step, in order to compare, for the CRN Kenai station,
the daily average of USCRNs hourly data
with
USCRNs daily data”
2010/11/16 CRND0103-2010-AK_Kenai_29_ENE
Daily Average = -6.7 Count = 1
Hourly Average = -6.76 Count = 24
SubHourly Average = -6.74 Count = 288
Your value was -6.8!
“Your a liar ~ too ~ as your own words demonstrate.”
So you’re admitting to lying? I dunno about the wisdom.
No I do not admit I lie, as I do not do so.
However Blinny does as his own words show.
Bindidon, your confused reference to a ball-on-a-string reminded me that you didn’t answer the question:
True or False?: A properly functioning bicycle pedal rotates on its axle.
(You may consult any bicycle mechanic, if you don’t know how to ride a bicycle.)
“True or False?: A properly functioning bicycle pedal rotates on its axle.”
Aha. A closet greenie that wants us all to ride bicycles. Who knew?
The simple question about a simple bicycle shows what a braindead cult idiot you are, Ken.
Who knew?
Clint R,
That’s not a proper true or false question.
A bicycle pedal rotates on its axle some of the time, and doesn’t rotate on its axle at other times.
But you are a moron all of the time.
A locked pedal cannot rotate on its own axis when stationary, so it is not rotating on its own axis when in motion. Instead, it rotates about the central pivot point, same as every other part of the arm to which it is attached.
A locked pedal has no axis of its own to rotate about.
Exactly, RLH. Your support is so welcome on this issue.
The unlocked pedal stays aligned with the ground during its circuit. Much like the MOTR.
You’re getting it…and as you said up-thread, the unlocked pedal does have its own axis of rotation.
To all the morons out there
“Instead, it rotates about the central pivot point, same as every other part of the arm to which it is attached.”
And also rotates around its own axis same as the chalk circle resting on the ground below the merry go round, which was rotating on its own axis as proved when the not rotating hole saw neatly cut it out from the deck of the merry go round.
No, bob…a locked pedal has no axis of its own to rotate about. Listen to RLH. It rotates about the central pivot point, same as every other part of the arm to which it is attached, but it does not rotate on its own axis – it has no axis of its own. Just be told, by those that understand this better than you do.
I held my not rotating hole saw against the rotating merry go round and drilled a circular hole.
That experiment should show that you are wrong.
You know my previous post was directed only to morons and you responded.
It shows that you still don’t know the difference between "translation plus rotation on an internal axis" and "rotation about an external axis plus rotation on an internal axis"…and you probably never will. You are ineducable.
Well well well.
If it’s not Kiddo trying to start a food fight.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
This statement of yours
“It shows that you still dont know the difference between “translation plus rotation on an internal axis” and “rotation about an external axis plus rotation on an internal axis”and you probably never will. You are ineducable.”
That you are the ineducable moron and still can’t tell which of the Moon on the right, or the Moon on the left, is the one that is rotating on its own internal axis, and probably never will.
According to standard kinematics the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle plus rotating about an internal axis.
It can not be described as rotating about an external axis plus rotating about an internal axis. That is where you go wrong, and always will, because you are ineducable.
DR EMPTY,
The Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
I have proved this using simple geometry and some simple calculations you can’t seem to follow.
bob, look at b), again. Take a deep breath. Respond once you’ve given it some thought.
Keep handwaving DR EMPTY,
One day you will take off.
b) Translating in a circle plus rotating about an internal axis.
b1) Rotating about an external axis plus rotating about an internal axis.
These are still equivalent and Franco is still dead.
You still think rotating about an external axis includes the rotation around an internal axis, and you are still wrong.
Address my proof that the Moon rotates, I am sure you can think of something.
“You still think rotating about an external axis includes the rotation around an internal axis”
Huh?
The MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Not the MOTR. The MOTL. I am correct, and always will be, about that.
DR EMPTY,
“The MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.”
Can you prove that?
I have proved the exact opposite and no rebuttal from you.
I have proved it to you several times already, most recently with the transmographer.
You have never proved the opposite, or even provided evidence of the opposite. What you do occasionally provide evidence for is that the MOTL can be described as:
b) Translating in a circle plus rotating about an internal axis.
which I already understand.
Ultimately, whether our moon rotates on our own axis or not depends on whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR.
DR EMPTY,
You don’t understand that the transmographer adds the rotation around an internal axis to the translation about an external axis.
So the transmographer doesn’t prove your point, the equation for an ellipse is for a point moving around the center, you have to add the rotation because points don’t have an orientation.
Yes rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right.
Always has and always shall be.
“You don’t understand that the transmographer adds the rotation around an internal axis to the translation about an external axis.”
The transmographer clearly shows that motion like the MOTL can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle plus rotating about an internal axis.
“Yes rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is the Moon on the right.”
Wrong, bob, as the transmographer proves (among other things, like Madhavi etc).
RLH is right. Mid way point between Tmax and Tmin is not ‘mean’ or ‘average’.
Mean ought to be the expected measurement at any given moment in the day as averaged out by the measurements taken at that given moment every day over (preferably) a long period of at least 1000 measurements.
Tmax and Tmin are two different points in the day. You could get a mean of Tmax and a mean of Tmin but any assumptions about other points during any given day would be inappropriate.
> Mid way point between Tmax and Tmin is not “mean” or “average”.
Tell that to Roy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/
You can also determine the average or mean of any number of data points described as (Tmax+Tmin)/2. Which is what the data set USHCN you refer to does.
That still doesn’t make (Tmax+Tmin)/2 average of anything else.
The middle of a range is not an average of anything. It is just the middle of the range.
Did you ever do statistics?
> That still doesnt make (Tmax+Tmin)/2 average of anything else.
A central estimate is a central estimate of the target population, Kennui. Nothing more, nothing less.
> The middle of a range is not an average of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average#Mid-range
This is getting ridiculous.
“A central estimate is a central estimate of the target population”
The middle of a range is not a statistical anything other than a middle.
To compare it to an arithmetic mean is the same as just tacking an instrument record onto a proxy one.
“Mid-range
The mid-range is the arithmetic mean of the highest and lowest values of a set”
It is not an arithmetic mean of ALL of the values in the set as the name ‘arithmetic mean’ implies in statistics. It is not directly comparable to them either.
> It is not an arithmetic mean of ALL of the values in the set
How many values do you have in a set consisting of Max and Min, Richard?
An arithmetic mean has a definite meaning in statistics and the middle is not one of them.
I’m sure there’s a point behind that remark, Richard.
Which one would that be?
That the middle of a range is not a mean in the statistical sense.
Keep trying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-range
The middle confers no information about the statistical dispersion of samples in the dataset.
An arithmetic mean, median and mode does, particularly their differences.
Done any real statistics or do you just inaccurately quote wiki?
Want to try some of your ‘real statistical knowledge’ on actual data?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_ middle provides some wonderful insight into these
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/uscrn-darrington-histogram/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
Now tell me that the middle provides some wonderful insight into those.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_ middle provides some wonderful insight into these
was an editing error – sorry
> An arithmetic mean, median and mode does, particularly their differences.
Here, Richard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean
Keep digging.
A YEAR OF SUNSPOTS, SOUTH VS. NORTH:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
What do think about the pattern {you could say, recent pattern}?
Sunspot number: 93
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 11.96 x 10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.0% High
Approaching, say 20 [at 11.96]
And Neutron getting towards, 5
Which would seem to me to be more of Solar Max conditions in terms
orbital drag and space radiation {in LEO and everywhere in Space}.
gbaikie
Many thanks for the link which had disappeared off my radar monitor, especially
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/09mar22/wnosuf_strip2.jpg
No idea what it means exactly, but it’s well interesting.
Let them drive electric cars
https://youtu.be/r1f_dWkRFWk
At https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1196188 Nate questioned Dr. Spencer’s post’s claim that a “tiny [1 W/m2] imbalance can be compared to the 5 to 10 Watt per sq. meter uncertainty in the ~240 Watt per sq. meter average flows in and out of the climate system.” Nate claims the CERES satellite “stability over time is good enough to track CHANGES in flux to less than 0.5 W/m2 over a couple of decades.”
Nate, I think your problem is in assuming that trends reduce measurement error. My view is that the statistics of trend analysis and measurement error are to a large degree unrelated. I am preparing my argument in case you disagree.
Chic pretends that it is only me claiming these things. It is not.
The Loeb paper claims it, as I showed him:
“As noted in detail in Loeb, Doelling, et al. (2018), EEI is a small (∼0.15%) residual of much larger radiative fluxes that are on the order of 340 W m−2. Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable. We thus adjust the satellite EEI to the in situ value by applying an OFFSET to the satellite EEI such that its mean value over the 15-year period considered in this study is consistent with the mean in situ value. Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does NOT AFFECT THE TRENDS of either time series nor the correlation between them.”
Not sure why Chic fails to understand the implications of this quote for this debate.
“Chic pretends that it is only me claiming these things.”
Obfuscation #1 in this thread.
“Not sure why Chic fails to understand the implications of this quote for this debate.”
That quote involves at least three points, the satellite error, the offset, and the correlation of the trends. Which of those do you think I don’t understand the implications of? Obfuscation #2.
All of them, based on your statements.
Do you really not see the relevance?
“All of them….”
We never discussed the offset or the correlation between the trends. Obfuscation #3 here.
As an example of comparing measurement uncertainty and trend error, I calculated the standard deviation of UAH monthly temperatures and the standard error of the 0.13 K/decade trend. Almost all temperature anomalies are within two standard deviations (0.492 K) of the average. The standard error of the trend is 0.006 K/decade. I do not know what the error bars on Loeb 2021 CERES decadal trends represent, but I’m pretty sure they do not reflect satellite measurement uncertainty. Apples and oranges comparison.
“As an example of comparing measurement uncertainty and trend error, I calculated the standard deviation of UAH monthly temperatures and the standard error of the 0.13 K/decade trend. ”
Apples and oranges.
You obtained the ‘measurement uncertainty’ from a statistical measure, st. deviation.
That is NOT the same as absolute accuracy.
“Satellite incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes are presently not at the level of accuracy required to resolve such a small difference in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. ”
Stop mixing ABSOLUTE ACCURACY with standard deviation. Remember the clock?!
“That is NOT the same as absolute accuracy.”
Which is why I wrote apples and oranges. Obfuscation #4. I never mixed absolute accuracy with standard deviation and you never mentioned absolute accuracy until something like obfuscation #18. I pointed out that absolute accuracy requires reference to a standard. There is no mention of standards in anything you have written or in Loeb 2021.
Are you suggesting trend error represents absolute accuracy?
The clock is obfuscation #14 on the other thread, I think, and I don’t see why you think clocks explain the failure of satellite radiative fluxes to be resolved in an ABSOLUTE SENSE.
In the interest of clearing this up, I’ll express what I think you believe and you can correct me if I’m wrong by stating why.
Because the satellites are stable, CERES can measure average radiation to within 0.5 W/m2 in 2002 and again in 2020 and the CHANGE will be accurate to 0.5 W/m2.
“However, satellite EEI are highly precise as the instruments are very stable.”
“Use of this offset to anchor the satellite EEI to the in situ EEI does NOT AFFECT THE TRENDS of either time series nor the correlation between them.”
Its pretty clear what he is claiming here. And anyone with basic science literacy should understand it.
Why don’t you?
“Ill express what I think you believe and you can correct me if Im wrong by stating why.”
It sounds like you are not understanding what he is saying, and then trying to pin it on me and my ‘beliefs’.
It is not really about my beliefs.
“Because the satellites are stable”
Yes he clearly said that, not MY belief. Maybe your lack of belief?
“CERES can measure average radiation to within 0.5 W/m2 in 2002 and again in 2020 and the CHANGE will be accurate to 0.5 W/m2.”
Are you quoting Loeb? These are not my numbers.
In figure 1 much of the variation in flux in CERES and in-situ ocean heat uptake are correlated, thus actual variation.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/71db3845-ea57-4a2a-90ed-d8cad4cc06c7/grl62546-fig-0001-m.jpg
Therefore the contribution from the CERES instrumental error to the variation must be considerably smaller than what we see in that plot, which is ~ +- 0.5 W/m^2.
Probably in an earlier paper they state the flux measurement error.
An earlier paper
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
he offset of the total to the expected is 4.3 W/m^2.
Table 7
“Uncertainties in absolute calibration and the algorithms used to determine Earths radiation budget from satellite measurements are too large to enable Earths energy imbalance to be quantified in an absolute sense. Rather the CERES data products are more useful for providing its spatial and temporal variability.”
After skimming through the first few obfuscations which, because some are repeats, I’ll just call #5; it brings us down to,
“Therefore…must be….
Unintelligible #1 in this thread. Are you responding between classes?
Probably….”
Ok, I’m bored with this also.
WUWT Contest Winner, Professional, 2nd Place Is there really a climate crisis?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/09/wuwt-contest-winner-professional-2nd-place-is-there-really-a-climate-crisis/
I agree it’s second place.
But it’s much more interesting than first place.
{I find bureaucracies as quite dull}
The graph of Holocene is one I don’t recall seeing.
I have “problems” with it. But it’s interesting.
And another thing interesting
“Discrepancies between models and observations was first raised with regard to temperatures in the tropical troposphere where due to the lapse rate (rate of cooling as moist air rises), according to the models, surface warming should be amplified in the troposphere and this is one of the central empirically testable propositions generated by climate models (Johnston 2010 p.19). However, no such rise in the tropical troposphere temperature has been observed and the IPCC has admitted that the reasons for this discrepancy are elusive (IPCC 2013).
Another discrepancy is that computer models are also programmed to predict a constant water vapour relative humidity in the upper troposphere (8 12 km) above the tropics as CO2 increases. Observations show that relative humidity in the upper troposphere above 8km has fallen by 9% since 1960 and this would mean the feedback effect on temperatures from a doubling of CO2 would be significantly less that the models predict.”
I believe this important part that the cargo cult continues to fail on. It doesn’t even follow their dogma- and has been completely disproven, to boot.
And Roy is mentioned:
–Dr. Roy Spencer noted:
Now in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models? I frankly dont see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are not consistent with the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.–
Well I was looking at that Holocene graph.
One thing about graph, is where 15 C is.
Or it indicates our current global average temperature is 16 C [or more].
And I think Holocene Optimum was warmer.
Or it has to be warmer, as Sahara desert green.
Does anyone think the Sahara desert would be green if it was colder and drier?
Also it had ice free polar sea ice.
If in next few years, we got ice free polar sea ice in the summer,
would that suggest, Earth is warmer, and/or a lot warmer. Or about
the same global average temperature.
And I think it’s possible that holocene optimum had some winters which had ice free polar sea ice.
Is it possible to have a green Sahara and having a few ice free winters AND not have a fairly high global average temperature- like 18 C or warmer?
The Holocene graph was based on very early data. The modern interpretation looks like this.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
A smoothed graph + a splice is not an improvement.
It’s like 500 years of history and adding the last month of news.
And it’s simply wrong without even considering counting the very stupid/wrong splice.
But might close if cut green part in half and call this last 5000 years the ocean average temperature. And highest green part of line is 4 C ocean and current is 3.5 C.
It’s similar to idea that best history is burning most of the history- something Marxists have always been fond of doing.
The modern interpretation ?
You mean The modern shysterfication
I have some thoughts to share with you on the planet without-atmosphere Te =255K issue.
It was always coming back from opponents – it is not possible for a warmer planet without-atmosphere
(Tmean =288K) to emit the same amount of IR EM energy, as the uniform surface temperature blackbody planet at (Te = 255K).
–
Theoretically the uniform surface temperature for the same emitted IR EM energy should be necessarily higher, than the actual the planet’s average surface temperature.
–
(Thus, the Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature should be lower than 255 K, since Earth has not uniform surface temperature. And the greenhouse effect should be bigger than +33oC, and no one knows how much bigger, so everyone conveniently turned a blind eye on this simple but very important fact).
https://www.cristos-vournas
–It was always coming back from opponents it is not possible for a warmer planet without-atmosphere–
Warmer being more uniform.
I know how to make the Moon warmer without an atmosphere.
The Moon has more solar energy than Earth [per square meter- obviously Moon is smaller].
One can simply use solar panels which capture solar thermal energy.
Of course it is “unnatural”.
Nature can make something similar to glass [people used it for windows] so Nature could make glass like surface. But space rocks are going to smash it into bits. Space rocks can’t smash H20 into bits and there is a LOT of water in this universe. So planet covered with water. Though the water will also make an atmosphere.
And fundamental problem is that planets are spherical or more 1/2 gets little sunlight- or the surface is below 0 C before any sunset- because of it’s slow rotation. And daylight is 1/2, solar heating is less then 1/2. Or a large area of sphere is in daylight and it’s below 0 C. But faster rotation increase the surface temperature of large area so could be above 0 C.
In morning side, you got cold surface which takes time to warm up- or colder sunrise than sunset.
The lunar surface is very good insulation. Lunar surface at noon is even a better very good insulation.
So, atmosphere allows a surface less pounded in the tiny dust- and it has low gravity- making it slightly more fluffy. Plus below the top surface is fractured bed rock [which know very little about].
Regrettably the essay rests on a false proposition.
” surface warming should be amplified in the troposphere and this is one of the central empirically testable propositions generated by climate models (Johnston 2010 p.19). However, no such rise in the tropical troposphere temperature has been observed”
That turns out not to be the case.
It was described in 2013
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50465
And confirmed by Sherwood and Nishant in 2015.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Because the models are SO accurate. Not.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/JimKelly-fig1-697720.png
Oops – bad link try
https://imgur.com/a/XYVeUNy
Or
https://imgur.com/a/SlzVJde
Why do Climate “Scientists” ignore quantum mechanics when addressing Global Warming. Simply go to Spectral Calc. If you use the Gas Cell, you will see that by 100cm 100% LWIR of 15 microns will, if you double CO2 to 800ppm, the level of saturation drops to 50cm. You can only absorb 100% of LWIR of 15 Microns. How can slightly changing the level at which 100% is absorbed cause climate change throughout the entire atmosphere? Also, use the blackbody calculator and set it to 13 to 18 microns and -80C. That is the range that CO2 absorbs, energy associated with -80C.
Quantum Physics doesn’t support CO causing climate change, and no consensus will ever trump the actual physics.
The problem is, the cult is not interested in science. They’re only interested in perverting reality. Many of them will actually claim that ice cubes can boil water. The ones that haven’t claimed that, have tacitly agreed with it, by not speaking against such nonsense.
To a cult, it’s “Largely a Matter of Faith”, to borrow from Dr. Spencer’s title above.
After it absorbs 100% of the IR, it emits IR, so there is still IR to be absorbed further up in the atmosphere, basically because CO2 also emits, the saturation argument is bunk.
” That is the range that CO2 absorbs, energy associated with -80C.”
That’s the peak of the blackbody curve for -80C, which has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 that is emitting the IR.
Quantum Mechanic does support the greenhouse effect.
CO2isLife, of course as bob writes, if the surface at 100cm doesn’t emit 15micron radiation (is IR opaque at that freq.) but continues to absorb solar SW and terrestrial LW radiation, the surface temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until that 100cm surface emission spectrum shifts to regions for which its emissivity is not zero.
b,
Who cares if Quantum Mechanic, Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann, or any other dimwit, supports the greenhouse effect?
Members of the Society of Morons are perfectly free to support any mythical concept they like. Unicorns, Phlogiston, the Indivisible Atom, the Greenhouse Effect – who cares?
Carry on.
Swenson,
Which mythical concepts have I ever supported on this website?
Remember, you told me where the greenhouse effect can be observed.
B,
You wrote –
“Remember, you told me where the greenhouse effect can be observed.”
The contents of your fantasy are not reality.
There is no Greenhouse Effect. It is a mythical concept. If you support mythical concepts which you can’t even describe, you are a moron.
Carry on, moron.
Swenson,
Why lie?
“There is no Greenhouse Effect. It is a mythical concept. If you support mythical concepts which you cant even describe, you are a moron.”
I have described the greenhouse effect to you, I am not doing it again, you don’t understand the relevant science.
You are the moron who can’t learn, and you continue to lie about it.
You are a sociopath.
b,
Claiming you can describe the Greenhouse Effect is about as stupid as some other moron claiming he knows how to heat water using ice.
I suppose some idiots may believe you. No rational person would, without actually seeing your “description”. The part where you describe how the Greenhouse Effect cooled the Earth to its present temperature will be good for a laugh!
Moron.
Laugh away moron.
The greenhouse effect has been described to you.
And look at the graphs at the top of the monthly report, it shows warming, not cooling.
bob,
As Clint R often says, “You don’t understand any of this.”
Unless the atmosphere is relatively stable like most cloudy nights, all of the LW radiation from the heated surface, other than what goes directly to space, will be absorbed by the IR active gases and quickly thermalized by the bulk air. The air expands and convects to the upper troposphere where water vapor condenses into clouds and the air becomes thin enough for emissions to exceed collisions.
It’s complicated. Learn about it here: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Infrared-Forcing-by-Greenhouse-Gases-2019-Revised-3-7-2022.pdf
Note particularly at the bottom of page 34.
“In the troposphere, most of the heat comes from convection of air from the solar-heated surface. Warm air parcels carry heat to higher altitudes, where the p dV work of volume increase dV in the ambient air pressure p adiabatically cools the parcel at the expense of internal energy of the molecules. Thermal radiation removes a relatively small amount of heat and provides diabatic cooling. The relatively large amount of latent heat released when water molecules condense into cloud particulates slows the cooling of rising parcels.
Chic,
See figure 10 in the Happer paper which shows there is still radiation in the CO2 bands as high as 86 kilometers altitude.
That blows the saturation argument out of the water and that’s what I was addressing.
Then you go off and tell only half the story.
“Unless the atmosphere is relatively stable like most cloudy nights, all of the LW radiation from the heated surface, other than what goes directly to space, will be absorbed by the IR active gases and quickly thermalized by the bulk air.”
The other half of the story is that the non IR active molecules in the troposphere collide with the CO2 molecules to keep the population of excited vibrational states relatively constant.
So the atmosphere all the way up keeps emitting IR from the CO2 molecules.
b,
I suppose you don’t realise that everything above absolute zero emits IR, no matter how high in the atmosphere it is.
CO2, O2, N2 – all just keep emitting IR. It cannot be stopped.
Still no GHE, moron.
Stick to nonsensical concepts like forcings and feedbacks. At least nobody can define these, so you can just ask sceptical unbelievers to “prove” that something which doesn’t exist – doesn’t exist!
How about describing the Greenhouse Effect in scientific terms?
Only joking – you can’t, you just “believe”. That’s what makes you a moron.
Carry on.
bob,
Figure 10 is a computer representation (HITRAN) of what satellites see at 86 km up. The CO2 saturation occurred near the surface and satellites don’t see that. They only see what emits from a high enough elevation the tiny spike in the central CO2 15micron band occurs around the tropopause at about 220K.
I told you a dumbed-down version of the whole story and you understood none of it. You don’t understand the saturation argument at all.
A population of relatively constant excited vibrational states is a case of local thermodynamic equilibrium and there could be no increase in the temperature of those air molecules. That can’t be if the surface is heated by the sun. If IR inactive molecules did not thermalize radiation from CO2, then their kinetic energy remains the same, resulting in no temperature increase, no bulk air expansion, no convection. On the contrary, most of the radiation at the surface is absorbed by IR active gases and transferred to O2/N2 bulk air molecules by collision before CO2 or water vapor molecules have a chance to emit. This is well-known physics. The reverse kinetics, emissions exceeding collisions, only occurs in the upper atmosphere where the air density is sufficiently thin.
IR from the CO2 molecules is being emitted “all the way up” through the atmosphere, but not before being absorbed a relatively short distance from the surface. Only an infinitesimally small number of 15 microns photons, most likely zero, could make it through the atmosphere without being absorbed and thermalized. That is the saturation argument.
That’s not an argument, Chic.
That’s just handwaving.
Show some evidence for a change.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Who needs “evidence”?
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted from all matter that is at a non-zero temperature in the wavelength range from 0.1 μm to 100 μm. It includes part of the ultraviolet (UV), and all of the visible and infrared (IR).”
You can reject reality if you like. Reality doesn’t care, and nor do I.
Carry on.
Chic,
I’ll just pick one thing
“On the contrary, most of the radiation at the surface is absorbed by IR active gases and transferred to O2/N2 bulk air molecules by collision before CO2 or water vapor molecules have a chance to emit. ”
This is part true, but mostly bullshit.
Yes the thermalization happens faster than emission, but still the emission rate is due to temperature and concentration and occurs even though the thermalization is faster, both reactions occur at their respective rates.
Also, as I pointed out, the CO2 molecules get to the excited states from collisions with the N2 and O2 as well, that reaction goes both ways.
Then you go with the “You don’t understand the saturation argument at all.”
Yeah, I get it, I told you why it is bunk.
Swenson,
“I suppose you dont realise that everything above absolute zero emits IR, no matter how high in the atmosphere it is.”
Where did you get that from, the me not realizing it part.
You know that your statement blows the saturation argument out the window as well.
Are you aware that some things absorb and emit IR better than other things?
I have already given you a scientific description of the greenhouse effect, and I don’t chew my cabbage twice when a moron isn’t listening.
And you should know that gaseous CO2 emits roughly a billion times more IR than gaseous O2 or N2.
bob, you have NOT given “a scientific description of the greenhouse effect”. What you have given is the version that violates 2LoT. There is NOTHING scientific about it. It is all your cult’s belief.
Within Earth’s thermodynamic system, Sun is the only meaningful energy source. CO2 is already in the system, mass-wise, as it is stored in chemical compounds. After combustion, CO2 adds NO new energy to the system. It can absorb energy, and emit that energy, but it adds NO new energy. CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
You don’t understand any of this. Your strong faith is in a false religion — a cult.
Clint R,
All you have is a claim that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law.
Perhaps you can explain that?
I’ll explain it to a dumbass like you that CO2 doesn’t heat, it slows the cooling, like a blanket. While the heat source is still the Sun, dumbass, the CO2 slows the cooling resulting in a higher average temperature.
That’s about your speed.
You have it on the little plate in front and the big gear in back, but you are going down hill and all the pedaling you are doing don’t affect anything.
bob,
“This is part true, but mostly bullshit.”
The only bullshit is your inability to understand what’s going on. No surprise from one of your climate-cult dogma believers.
The fact that emission rates occur at certain rates has nothing to do with the relative difference between the rates. There is a definite probability that an emission will occur after an excitation. Because of density differences the probability of thermalization decreases with altitude. Try to open your mind and consider the repercussions of that. The important point is that irrespective of CO2 emissions at any altitude, CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it near the center of the 15 micron band within 10 meters of the surface.
Whether or not CO2 gets excited from bulk air has nothing to do with the saturation concept Richard introduced here. You can define a different strawman saturation argument if you want an escape out of the dead end you are in. But credible climate scientists agree on the saturation near the surface at 15 microns. It is only on the wings of the band and at higher altitudes where a breakdown in total saturation occurs. This is visually explained in Figure 10 of Wijngaarden and Happer 2019 where a doubling of CO2 causes a small change in the wings.
It’s one thing to defend one side of an argument you understand and something else if you don’t understanding the argument.
Wrong again, bob.
Go back and look up the “2LoT lessons”. More 15μ photons will not increase the frequency of 15μ photons.
You’re also confusing CO2 with a “blanket”. Non-radiative gases are somewhat like a blanket. CO2 is like “holes” in that blanket.
I can always tell when you know you’ve lost — you start with the name-calling.
I accept your concession.
Clint R,
If you read my post you will note I asked you to explain how the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Then I called you a dumbass.
You can’t even get the order of sentences correct.
And I am still waiting on your explanation of how the second law of thermodynamics is violated by the greenhouse effect.
You should give up, you are not up to it.
Chic,
Here is the quote from Happer, it is in the same ballpark as the IPCC estimate for the forcing from doubling CO2.
” Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would
only cause a forcing increase (the area between the black and red lines) of ∆F
{i} = 3.0 W
m−2
, as shown in Table 2.”
If you want to claim the saturation argument, I would expect that number to be closer to zero. Happer is debunking the saturation argument.
CO2 absorbs and them emits.
CO2 gets excited by collisions and them relaxes through collisions.
CO2 absorbs and then relaxes by collisions.
CO2 gets excited by collisions and then emits.
All things happening at the same time.
Braindead bob, you don’t understand any of this. You don’t understand 2LoT, you can’t learn, and you reject reality.
You support the nonsense that ice cubes can boil water. You support the nonsense that passenger jets fly backwards. You support the nonsense that a CO2 laser melting steel means that CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the planet.
As you will be here all day with such nonsense, I have to end it. Someone has to be the adult in the room.
Clint R,
If all you can do is attack me, and not my arguments, that means you got nothin.
I’ll repeat that you got nothin.
I’ll say it again, you got nothin.
“Someone has to be the adult in the room.”
Well it can’t be the person attacking the straw man that thinks I think you can boil water with ice cubes.
Though in certain circumstances there can be water boiled from ice cubes.
Tunguska is an example of one such historical event of an ice cube boiling some water.
And wtf is this about?
“Go back and look up the 2LoT lessons. More 15μ photons will not increase the frequency of 15μ photons.”
Yeah, the frequency of a 15 micron photon is fixed by the Frequency = speed of light / wavelength.
So who thought that “More 15μ photons will not increase the frequency of 15μ photons.”?
Certainly not me.
Send me some straw, I need to grow some grass, both kinds.
bob,
You are so far in over your head, I throw you a life line and you strangle yourself with it.
“If you want to claim the saturation argument, I would expect that number to be closer to zero. Happer is debunking the saturation argument.”
No. Prof Happer is explaining how you could respond correctly when people bring up the fact that saturation occurs near the surface. All radiation available to be absorbed is absorbed near the surface. That’s the saturation argument. But, it’s in the wings somewhere in mid-troposphere where CO2 allegedly absorbs more as its concentration increases. This is your “slow cooling” argument using Happer’s analysis. The subsequent emissions supposedly occur at a higher elevation. There, that’s your rebuttal to the saturation argument.
Unfortunately, there is no data to support slower cooling and a higher surface temperature result. That’s because both Prof Happer’s analysis and actual satellite measurements don’t measure the simultaneously occurring convection. It’s complicated, but try opening your mind instead of bull shitting.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1206090
BobDroege Writes: That’s the peak of the blackbody curve for -80C, which has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 that is emitting the IR.
That is pure nonsense. CO2 emits a very narrow band of LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. The energy contained in those ranges is quantifiable. That is what a black body represents. Go to spectralcal and test it yourself. FYI, Ice emits LWIR around 10.5 microns, which is much higher energy than 15 micron LWIR. Basically, the IR emitted from CO2 won’t even melt ice. That is a fact. Test it yourself. Warm something to -80C and surround it with mirrors and point it at some ice, or spend a fortune and buy a long pass filter that isolates 15 Micron LWIR and shine light through it at some ice.
“That’s the peak of the blackbody curve for -80C, which has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 that is emitting the IR.”
That is pure nonsense, simply go to SpectralCalc, either you are wrong of the calculator is wrong. I trust the calculator.
“Quantum Mechanic does support the greenhouse effect.”
That is a strawman. Yes, the GHG Effect is totally driven by quantum mechanics, mostly of H2O. CO2 only radiates 15 micron. That wavelengths don’t support warming above -80C.
Do I have to post pictures of a CO2 laser melting steel again?
“CO2 only radiates 15 micron.”
Bullshit, it also radiates around 4 and 10 micron.
“That wavelengths dont support warming above -80C.”
Bullshit again, the 15 micron radiation is readily absorbed by any surface it strikes, adding its energy to the surface, whether that causes warming or not depends on other factors.
“That is pure nonsense, simply go to SpectralCalc, either you are wrong of the calculator is wrong. I trust the calculator.”
More and more bullshit, there is a third option, that you are wrong.
I suppose you didn’t mean to say all the 15 micron radiation comes from CO2 at -80C.
Too many morons, not enough weed.
Do I have to post pictures of a CO2 laser melting steel again?
That comment demonstrates an ignorance of biblical proportions. Do you see the earth of temperature 18C shooting out highly coherent laser beams? Do you even know what a laser is? Are there any naturally occurring laser emissions? You can do all sorts of things with CO2, and manipulate it to emit all sorts of wavelengths. The one and only radiation band related to CO2 and the GHG Effect is very very very low energy 13 to 18 micron LWIR, consistent with a black body of -80C. Relating LWIR to high energy coherent laser radiation is absurd.
The CO2 laser produces a beam of infrared light with the principal wavelength bands centering on 9.6 and 10.6 micrometers (μm).
Carbon-dioxide lasers have become useful in surgical procedures because water (which makes up most biological tissue) absorbs this frequency of light very well.
A laser is a device that emits light through a process of optical amplification based on the stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation. The word “laser” is an acronym[1][2] for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”.[3][4][5] The first laser was built in 1960 by Theodore H. Maiman at Hughes Research Laboratories, based on theoretical work by Charles Hard Townes and Arthur Leonard Schawlow ([6]).
A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light which is coherent. Spatial coherence allows a laser to be focused to a tight spot, enabling applications such as laser cutting and lithography. Spatial coherence also allows a laser beam to stay narrow over great distances (collimation), enabling applications such as laser pointers and lidar. Lasers can also have high temporal coherence, which allows them to emit light with a very narrow spectrum. Alternatively, temporal coherence can be used to produce ultrashort pulses of light with a broad spectrum but durations as short as a femtosecond.
Bullshit, it also radiates around 4 and 10 micron.
You don’t even seem to understand the very basics. CO2 have 3 main vibrational states, 2.7 micron, 4.7 micron, and 15 microns. Only 15 micron is emitted from the 18C earth. 4.7 Microns is associated with a blackbody of 350C. Only over Volcanoes is earth emitting 4.7 micron LWIR.
CO2islife
“The one and only radiation band related to CO2 and the GHG Effect is very very very low energy 13 to 18 micron LWIR, consistent with a black body of -80C.”
Yes but CO2 does not act as a blackbody in the atmosphere, so that’s all bullshit.
A blackbody at -80 C emits a range of radiation, not just 13 to 18 micron.
It’s a infrared active gas between two blackbodies, if you want to talk about the basics.
I’ll repeat, CO2 doesn’t act as a blackbody in the atmosphere.
“A laser differs from other sources of light in that it emits light which is coherent.”
Fancy word, but that changes its ability to be abs*orbed? How?
Youve been shown data before that shows that ocean water abs*orbs very well at the wavelengths of CO2, including 15 microns.
Several times.
So why do you persist in ignoring this key fact, CO2isL?
bobdroege,
1LoH, “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.
What, you want a spectrum that shows CO2 absorbing at about 10 microns? I can provide that for the usual fee.
I only mention the CO2 laser because it shows that the energy transfer is done by individual photons of low energy.
If you think the 15 micron photon is so much lower in energy than a 10 micron photon, you know its a free country.
“Relating LWIR to high energy coherent laser radiation is absurd.”
A CO2 laser is still one photon at a time, just like the greenhouse effect.
And lets add clouds to the argument, not like Happer and ignore them.
Braindead bob proves again how braindead he is:
“A CO2 laser is still one photon at a time, just like the greenhouse effect.”
I should keep a list of all his perversions:
* Passenger jets fly backwards
* Bicycle pedals don’t have an axle
* A mysterious explosion in Russia is proof ice cubes can boil water
* The atmosphere is like a CO2 laser.
Clint R,
Did I say the atmosphere is like a CO2 laser.
I was just pointing out a 10 micron photon can transfer energy, just like a 15 micron photon can.
You can transfer heat and or energy one photon at a time.
bob, a CO2 laser has no meaningful connection to the bogus GHE. So, it’s good you are now denying your own attempted perversion about that.
Now, you can also deny the other perversions listed.
The closer you get to reality, the less braindead you are.
Clint R,
I explained the connection to you, you are too dense to understand it and just reject it with no counter argument.
It’s not about the laser, it’s about the energy of photons.
Clint R,
“So, its good you are now denying your own attempted perversion about that.”
No, I was responding to your argument about the temperature of CO2 emitted photons.
Tell me the truth, is all CO2 at -80C, that should clear some shit up.
Try explaining how the greenhouse theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.
Yes but CO2 does not act as a blackbody in the atmosphere, so thats all bullshit.
Your ignorance is truly astounding. Yes, CO2 doesn’t act as a black body. How does that help your position? Yes, CO2 emits energy FAR LESS than a true black body. CO2 emits a spike, a very very small fraction of the energy that a true black body would emit. CO2 doesn’t emit a wide spectrum, it emits a small sliver of what a black body would emit. Your ignorance is truly amazing.
None of that is in dispute.
You actually agree with what I said and then say my ignorance is truly amazing!
Now who doesn’t understand the greenhouse effect.
CO2 prevents some of the energy from leaving the Earth’s surface and redirects that back down to the Earth.
A small fraction of the incoming average energy, and increasing CO2 makes that a slightly larger fraction.
An increase of 2% of the Earth’s average surface temperature is a big deal, enough to flood a large portion of the Earth.
Oh yeah, but this is bullshit
“CO2 emits a spike”
A spike would be a single wavelength, would you like to retract that?
Ernest Shackleton’s ship Endurance, which sank in 1915 near Antarctica, has been found
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/03/09/ernest-shackleton-endurance-ship-found-antarctica-100-years-after-wreck/9437513002/
“The Falklands Maritime Heritage Trust confirmed on Wednesday that the search expedition, known as Endurance22, located the wreck of Endurance at nearly 10,000 feet underwater in the Weddell Sea, located east of the Antarctic Peninsula. The team of researchers, technicians and others worked from a South African vessel. ”
Linked from http://www.transterrestrial.com/
The brass of Endurance is still shiny.
{interesting in terms of corrosive nature of seawater- it isn’t apparently, if deep and cold}
Too much pressure for free oxygen to exist at that depth so no corrosion.
Maybe.
I was also wondering if there is biological aspect involved with ocean surface [first 100 meters].
I can’t say as how I’ve ever heard of corrosion due to biological aspect.
Rust is due to oxygenation of material. Corrosion requires electrochemical reaction that is influenced by temperature and pressure. Salt water conducts electron flow so materials in salt water will tend to rust faster than in other situations. Oxygen is the critical factor.
Life is complicated and there is all kinds of life.
I have heard of it, though I would not called it “settled science”.
Google:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-8255-7_1
“Ever since man began recovering metals from their ores and placing them in soil or aqueous environments, organisms have undoubtedly played a role in accelerating their corrosion”
Something to think about.
https://www.chemaqua.com/en-us/Blogs/biofilm-amoeba-and-legionella
Radical Plan to Make Earth’s Deepest Hole Could Unleash Limitless Energy
–MIKE MCRAE9 MARCH 2022
Since its launch in 2020, a pioneering energy company called Quaise has attracted some serious attention for its audacious goal of diving further into Earth’s crust than anybody has dug before.–
https://www.sciencealert.com/confidence-grows-in-mit-spin-off-aiming-to-make-the-deepest-hole-for-limitless-energy
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
[I like volcanoes at sea floor, better. But this blind faith seems
more exciting]
BOMBSHELL: NYT Reporter Comes Clean, Admits Lefty Media ‘Were Making Too Big a Deal’ About January 6
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/03/09/bombshell-nyt-reporter-comes-clean-admits-lefty-media-were-making-too-big-a-deal-about-january-6-n1565069
From affiliated: https://instapundit.com/
“New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg, the Pulitzer-prize winning National Security correspondent for one of the nations largest newspapers, has admitted on an undercover video what most of us have long known: the lefty news media is blowing the events of Jan. 6, 2021, out of proportion.”
[I heard about this earlier- I think Scott mentioned it.]
Sure. An invasion of the Capital happens every year at about that time.
no you’re right, people taking selfies in the Capitol need to be shown no mercy
it’s not like climate protesters barricaded the White House just last summer
or BLM protesters attacked the White House the previous summer while threatening to lynch the President
or mobs physically assaulted an octogenarian Supreme Court Justice or went after Rand Paul
or a left-winger shot up Congress in 2016 shouting “this is for health care!” after correspondence with Dick Durbin’s office that they still won’t release
nope Jan 6 was totally unprecedented
I see you get your news from FOX.
All those things are in a different ballpark than the Jan 6 event.
Similar but not in degree.
yes, in the sense that all of them were more violent than the Jan 6 protest
but hey it’s not like the media would cover for the swamp
——-
Within 24 hours of the NIH email to Randall Lane, my regular Forbes editor called and announced new rules. Forbes barred me from writing about Fauci and mandated pre-approval for all future topics.
Then, Forbes went silent and terminated my column roughly 10 days later on January 28.
On the day Forbes cancelled me, the editors bent the knee. A new piece on Fauci published: Faucis Portrait Will Soon Hang In The Smithsonian.
Of course, the article was designated an Editors Pick.
Yeah right,
Except the BLM protesters as well as the climate protesters did not get into and damage the White House.
Gimme some o dat wut yer smokin so I can go argue with DREMT some more.
lol they BARRICADED the White House, the point was never to go in
this happens all the time
see “Police and climate activists hurt in clashes at Interior Dept. ” in October
but “insurrection” only applies to Republicans invited in by Capitol Police for selfies
who then get Stalinesque show trials for thoughtcrimes by Democrat prosecutors in front of Democrat judges who demand loyalty oaths to a Democrat in front of 94% Democrat jury pools, at which trials we are regaled with tales of how the Republic, with all its nukes and F-15s, nearly fell to Jacob Chansey’s buffalo horns, with help from Ray Epps, who was definitely not working with the FBI
> the point was never to go in
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/capitol-attack-police-officer-five-deaths
Happens all the time.
Dave,
“but insurrection only applies to Republicans invited in by Capitol Police for selfies”
They did not have the authority to let them in for “selfies.”
Who knows what they would have done had they got hold of any of the congresscritters.
You reference the Interior Dept clashes, how many police injured there?
How many police injured Jan 6?
How many police died from injuries that day?
Dammit Willard don’t answer my questions before I ask them.
Spot on… the ignorant lefties will never ever admit to all the murders , rapes… burnings of federal properties…in the last two years….. it’s just fine for them. I can’t imagine the amount of spew the imbalanced lefties would throw out there if there were ever a ‘Chop’ zone carved out of San Fran street blocks (or anywhere)…where lawlessness reigned. It was not until the ‘leaders’ of the several autonomous zones realized that they actually need laws….need order…need some way to pay for all of those things that society already offers ..that they finally gave up on their lefty liberal wet dreams of being an adult.
Pure intellectual dishonesty by the BLM and historically incorrect 1619 ilk.
It seems the People’s House is like a church.
And the whole Capital was designed and built for the public.
But you have to able to govern the public- and it seems this was
not done.
Idiot!
Jan. 6 Defendant Is First to Plead Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy
The plea by military veteran Joshua James of Alabama comes as a federal prosecutor opened the first criminal trial in connection with the Capitol riot
March 2, 2022 8:38 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jury-set-for-opening-of-first-jan-6-criminal-trial-11646234704
TM, why do you think the Capitol police stepped out of the way, rather than preventing the crown from entering?
The only crown I know of is the English Crown and I do not think that they invaded the US Capital on Jan 6th.
I think you mean crowd.
it’s not like they were feted as heroes for killing two unarmed, defenseless middle-aged women by the same people who think a drug-addled petty criminal’s death from fentanyl overdose justified months of rioting because he was restrained too roughly after running amok in a mall
then we’d have to ask whether we really want to share a country with these people
lol what lunacy, seditious conspiracy hasn’t been charged in over 100 years
hey remember the Republic of CHAZ? did they charge any of those revolutionaries with sedition?
in other good news, after a whole year the FBI is finally asking where the Jan 6 pipe bombs came from, after the GOP demanded to know why they hadn’t yet, but also won’t share the results with the GOP
all perfectly fine and normal
“TallDave at 10:44 AM: the FBI is finally asking where the Jan 6 pipe bombs came from…”
Another [useful] Idiot! https://tinyurl.com/PIPE-BOMBS-IN-WASHINGTON
“TallDave at 10:44 AM: …seditious conspiracy hasn’t been charged in over 100 years”
Are you a freaking idiot? I just told you that this man pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. Meaning that he had been charged with…
lol yes the first time since the Civil War it had been successfully charged
as I said, lunacy
lol even Tokyo Rose had her sentence commuted
So, that’s a yes on the “freaking idiot” interrogatory then. Thought so.
When the sedition comes, it will not be from Trump protestors in Washington. That’s what the Deep State is getting wrong. They think making an example of these protestors will quell unrest in the future when they attempt to steal future elections. The sedition will start with the states like it did in 1861. However, this time, the Republic won’t survive.
After that happens, there will be no one to save Britain’s ass when the leftists turn on each other.
After being kept in an oubliette for more than a year I’d be ready to confess to anything to put an end to the madness.
Ken,
Indeed. Just like the black teenager who was interrogated for hours, jailed, and told if he confessed he could have a MacDonalds burger, and would be allowed to go home. He confessed. He wasn’t allowed to go home, after all!
Luckily, his sister had photos of the boy playing basketball for his high school team at an away game some 20 miles away at the time of the alleged crime.
Eventually grudgingly released without apology.
The most recent I know of.
I believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed freely confessed to every terrorist attack in history after being drowned and resuscitated (“waterboarded”) 183 times. To make sure he didn’t become dehydrated, he had water forced into his rectum (“rectal hydration”) on numerous occasions, to better enjoy his periods of sleep deprivation.
I’m sure GHE cultists would love to offer these delights (compulsorily) to anybody who questions their beliefs. Bindidon prefers merely to have dissidents die a lingering death from disease, accompanied by electric shocks and floggings.
Just a matter of freedom, justice and the [American] way.
This is what stratospheric intrusion over North America looks like now. Low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) shows the extent of air from the north that does not mix with the surrounding air.
https://i.ibb.co/fHcvmTL/gfs-pvort-320-K-NA-f024.png
Severe frost in Colorado and northern Texas. Snowstorm in Kansans.
https://i.ibb.co/n3RSvbP/Screenshot-1.png
Why did PJMedia invite me to join a Right Wing campaign against Joe Biden?
Could there be a hint of Right bias in their reporting?
Ent, truth is only “bias” to someone that seeks to deny reality.
I’ve watched US politics for many years and it is not impressive.The “cradle of democracy” badly needs its nappy changed.
Politicians on all sides will make any smear, tell any lie to get elected. They even have their own newspapers, television stations and websites to help.
The voters are too thick or too credulous to notice that they are treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bullshit.
Benjamin Franklin set out to create a country which was ungovernable and he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations.
It’s even catching on over here. We have Boris Johnson.
“Politicians on all sides will make any smear, tell any lie to get elected.”
We see that right here with anonymous trolls claiming that passenger jets fly backwards.
I find it amusing when you Brits comment on how bad America is. How many times have we saved your sorry arses?
And dragged us into Dubya’s war.
The stench of corruption from your political system can be detected even here, 3000 miles downwind. You, head down in the shit, just think it’s normal.
Ent, you enjoy perverting history as much as you enjoy perverting science.
Saddam refused to comply with numerous UN resolutions. He was a proven menace to World peace. He had to be stopped.
Grow up.
Clint R
Actually be wasn’t a threat to world peace. All that talk of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be an excuse for Dubya to try and outdo his father. You destroyed Iraq for one man’s pride.
Your paranoia fits well with your need to pervert reality, Ent.
Tmiddle (the middle of Trange) is not statistically speaking an arithmetic mean, even though it is the arithmetic center of the extremes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean
Arithmetic mean in statistics implies that there are more samples than just the limits.
To do otherwise is like claiming that proxy records are exactly the same as thermometer ones and that causes hockey sticks as we all well know.
“Arithmetic mean or simply, mean
the sum of all measurements divided by the number of observations in the data set”
To say that the limits of a dataset are all of the measurements that are in them is to distort the meaning of the words.
“Limitations of the Maximum and Minimum
The maximum and minimum are very sensitive to outliers”
To move the goalposts
To alter the rules or parameters of a situation in such a way as to suit one’s needs or objectives, making it more difficult for someone else to succeed, keep pace, or achieve an opposing objective.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/move+the+goalposts
For instance:
(G1) An average is either a mean (an arithmetic mean in this case), a median or a mode.
(G2) The middle of a range gives no statistical information as to the distribution of the values in the set.
(G3) Tmiddle (the middle of Trange) is not statistically speaking an arithmetic mean, even though it is the arithmetic center of the extremes.
All true.
Tough isn’t it?
Want to try some of your ‘real statistical knowledge’ on
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_ middle provides some wonderful insight into these
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/uscrn-darrington-histogram/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
You can skip the
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_ middle provides some wonderful insight into these
part.
> All true.
The first claim is false, the second claim is false, and the third claim is also false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean
Moreover, the three claims are irrelevant.
It might be time you stop digging, Richard.
“The first claim is false, the second claim is false, and the third claim is also false”
(G1) An average is either a mean (an arithmetic mean in this case), a median or a mode.
The above is a standard definition in all statistical text books.
(G2) The middle of a range gives no statistical information as to the distribution of the values in the set.
What statistical information do you determine about the distribution in the set from the middle of that set?
(G3) Tmiddle (the middle of Trange) is not statistically speaking an arithmetic mean, even though it is the arithmetic center of the extremes.
Tmiddle is not a mean of the set but a mean of the limits. Not the same thing.
Try harder.
P.S. I note you do not know or apply your great statistical knowledge to the real world examples I gave you.
Every time you punt with Many Questions you’re providing a tell, Richard. The issue is quite simple. Your mistake rests on the failure to understand Tim’s point:
Tmax and Tmin are the two sets of data points under consideration, therefore to divide by two indeed gives us an average, a mean, a mid-range, whatever. Terminology won’t help you circumvent the fact that we do not have the data at the granularity you would like for the extend we need to get long time series.
We use Tmax-Tmin/2 thing to make everything congruent, which is the best we can do. If we don’t, we *will* bias the time series. That follows from the bias argument you pretend is yours, but is in fact Binny’s. You don’t care.
Quit pretending you have any formal chops. You don’t have them, be it logic, geometry, or statistics. Focus on handwaving cycle nuttery.
“Tmax and Tmin are the two sets of data points under consideration, therefore to divide by two indeed gives us an average, a mean, a mid-range, whatever”
Tmin and Tmax are the limits of a set that tell statistically nothing about the data distributions within that set.
You can dance around that all you like but that is the fact.
If you believe that choosing just 2 data points is somehow helpful then why not do it for the whole series over the whole time?
If you were to use Tmix and Tmin as they are, then there would be no statistical objection but using the middle and comparing it to a true mean is unacceptable.
You are just pulling definitions and rules out of your hat, Richard.
Show me any statistical source that say that the middle is the same as a mean of a set.
Yet again it is noticeable that Willard does not apply his ‘statistical knowledge’ to real world data.
Richard moves the goalposts yet again:
(G4) The midrange is not a *true* mean.
(G5) Either the mean is the *same* as the midrange, or else.
The first is a true Scotsman, the second an equivocation.
Word of the day is:
“battologist” (17th century): an individual who repeats the same story over and over, even when all the facts contradict them.
Oh, I like that.
Just curious how you came upon that and if you had anybody particular in mind?
Most of the dictionaries state ‘wearisome repetition of words in speaking or writing’
Nothing mentioned about facts or contradiction of facts.
In the sense of John Milton’s “heathenish battology” in Animadversions… (1641).
They are the outliers.
Sure.
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/8/2/60/htm
“Correction of Outliers in Temperature Time Series Based on Sliding Window Prediction in Meteorological Sensor Network”
“As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I still provisionally side with the view that warming has been mostly human-caused (and this says nothing about whether the level of human-caused warming is in any way alarming).”
that was my view until very recently when the CERES data showed 21st century warming was almost certainly dominated by shortwave effects
now warming up to the “tropical waster-cycle thermostat dominates everything” view, which CERES seems to support very strongly
but of course that would mean we’d not only wasted trillions of dollars trying to cool the planet, but are also teetering on the brink of another Ice Age instead of being the oft-assured 500,000 years away
this is why Google has to help suppress such dangerous views
pretty soon they’ll cut off your bank access too
for science
*water-cycle
–but of course that would mean wed not only wasted trillions of dollars trying to cool the planet, but are also teetering on the brink of another Ice Age instead of being the oft-assured 500,000 years away–
The longest I seen is that CO2 enrichment will delay a glaciation period by 75,000 years.
Which I thought was very silly. But 500,000 years, would be 10 times the silly.
I have not seen something I would regard as serious about predicting our of entering glaciation period.
But technically, we are not on brink of an Ice Age, rather we are “in the middle” of 34 million years of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. And last 2 million years of this icehouse global climate has been coldest of that 34 million years.
It seems 15 C average global surface temperature at your present point in the Holocene should been colder than the average global surface of the last 34 million years.
Or glaciation periods are always longer duration as compared to interglacial period, but the coldest part glaciation which was 10 million years ago may have been only slightly cooler than 15 C.
Or our Little Ice Age could be colder.
10 million years ago, the main thing about interglacial period was higher global water vapor- Earth had far fewer deserts than we have, now. And 10 million years ago glaciation period, didn’t 100 meter sea level drops, but were more like our present interglacial periods.
Wiki:
–Six million years after the start of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet had formed, and 14 million years ago it had reached its current extent. It has persisted to the current time.
In the last three million years, glaciations have spread to the northern hemisphere. It commenced with Greenland becoming increasingly covered by an ice sheet in late Pliocene (2.9-2.58 Ma ago) During the Pleistocene Epoch (starting 2.58 Ma ago), the Quaternary glaciation developed with decreasing mean temperatures and increasing amplitudes between glacials and interglacials. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene, large areas of northern North America and northern Eurasia have been covered by ice sheets.—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
We cool a few degrees, and humans are in serious trouble.
If the planet cools a few degrees, humans are in serious trouble. Societies will collapse.
Well since about 6000 years ago, we have cooled by couple of degree C.
Had enormous climate change of entire Sahara Desert which was green
become mostly a very dry and inhabitable desert.
And recently we had a period of time called Little Ice Age, which in coolest low, was about 2 C colder than our current peak level, which is leveling off, may continue to level off, and may cool or warm a bit more.
We are in serious trouble, but it has nothing to do with global surface average air temperature or average ocean temperature of 3.5 C.
A slight problem is the vast Sahara Desert is still inhabitable.
But the only reason we not collapsing, is due to Age of Enlightenment and Exploration, and it’s product of the Industrial Revolution. Or US has done a lot to prevent this Fall.
One could give credit to UK, for starting it, but excitable Americans went gang buster at it, and it didn’t take long before Americans got indoor plumbing and electrical power. Which makes even “poor people” live better than greatest kings in all the ages.
And globally one could say we going to enter a magical age, which will exceed anyone’s imagination.
Or it’s possible, we crash, and crash to hellish depths never seen.
The decline in the Nino 4 index still means no warming in Australia in March due to high cloud cover.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
does not look helpful either.
Chic, and Nate,
Contrary to what I said here https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1196269 , I was not wrong after all.
Water vapor has been increasing faster than possible from just planet warming. The amount depends on which reported average global temperature that is used. The least overage is 40% using Ha.CRUT5 temperature data. The most is 178% using UAH data. GISS is representative of the rest at about 74%.
This demonstrates convincingly that planet warming was not initiated by CO2 increase and that the CO2 increase has little if any significant effect on climate.
The analysis using monthly values and numerical integration is accurate.
The initial hesitancy was that the final multiplier in each line of the algorithm, to be precisely correct, should be (WV(n-1)+WVn)/2. This would introduce a circular reference not allowed by EX_CEL. Realizing that the error would be very tiny I simply used WV(n-1). The monthly increment due to this expedient would have to be half of the total rise divided by the number of months. This was arrived at by manual iteration in less than three steps. The total error at the end is truly insignificant at less than 0.005%. Click my name and look in Sect 7 for the calcs and links.
My real time work with facebook I m making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it. All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has IKo without a doubt changed my life.
Visit below site Hare http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
We cannot compare the planet Te and planet Tmean, and here is why:
1). Planet surface has not uniform temperature.
2). Planet is solar irradiated from one side only.
3). Planet as a whole is in continuous radiative equilibrium, but planet surface every particular spot is not in radiative equilibrium.
4). Planet rotates.
5). Planet cannot be considered as a blackbody.
6). Planet blackbody temperature Te (effective temperature) is a theoretical mathematical abstraction, without a physics analogue.
7). Radiative flux do not averaged.
8). The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law does not work vise-versa.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems intuitively obvious. Historically, science tried to match real-world observation, no more. Now it conforms to politics.
Let’s have a very close look at the blackbody planet emission temperature formula (planet effective temperature Te). Some call it as planet Stefan-Boltzmann emission temperature, but let me assure you, there is not in the scientific literature any mention of Stefan or of Boltzmann using the J = σΤ ⁴ (W/m ²) vice-versa as
Te = [ J/σ ] ¹∕ ⁴ (K) .
So, let’s have a very close look to the
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
The core idea of Te is the uniformly averaging over the entire planet surface the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux. The only possible way to transport the incident EM energy is by HEAT conduction. (there is not any other physics way to do so, but to transform the incident on surface the solar SW EM energy into HEAT
–
Let’s assume planet has uniform surface specific heat capacity (cp).
Let’s assume planet surface has infinitive conductivity
Let’s assume planet’s Φ-factor is Φ =1
Let’s assume the entire not reflected portion of incident on planet solar flux on the very instant is TRANSFORMED into HEAT and that HEAT is uniformly averaged on the entire planet surface on the same very instant.
and
Let’s assume the uniformly averaged HEAT at the same instant is IR EM energy emitted to outer space.
–
The Total EM energy (in Earth’s case) incident on the planet surface with radius r will be:
(1- a)S*πr ² (W)
(1- 0,306)1.361*πr ²(W)
944,5(W/m ²) *πr ²(m ²) = 944,5 πr ²(W)
The temperature (T) of the disk with planet’s radius r will be then for Earth (before averaging)
T = [ (1-a) S /σ ] ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
T = [ (1 – 0,306) 1361 /σ] ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
T = (0,694*1361 /σ) ¹∕ ⁴ =
= (944,5 /σ) ¹∕ ⁴ = 359 Κ
Let’s average the temperature of the disk over the entire planet surface by dividing by 4
Te = 359K /4 = 89,75 K or rounded Te = 90 K
The Te = 90K for Earth is the result of uniformly averaging the accumulated on the instant of incidence the TRANSFORMED into HEAT solar flux’s energy.
The emission intensity of uniform surface temperature Te = 90 K is
J = σT ⁴ W/m ²
J = σ90 ⁴ W/m ² = 3,72 W/m ²
for the entire planet surface
Jtotal = 4πr ²(m ²)*3,72(W/m ²) = 14,88 πr ²(W)
Let’s compare the TOTAL on the instant the incident on the planet the SW solar radiative energy
944,5 πr ²(W)
with the corresponded on the same instant emitted from the averaging the TRANSFORMED into HEAT solar energy which resulted in IR emission
14,88 πr ²(W)
Conclusion:
It is obvious, when averaging the incident solar energy (because that it is what about – to average the incident solar energy over the entire planet surface, which should be transformed into HEAT first, to be conducted on the instant and uniformly… the resulted uniform temperature (for Earth’s case Te = 90K) is very low to support the planet radiative energy balance – the necessary radiative equilibrium
energy in = energy out
and the planet surface is not in radiative equilibrium with the incident SW EM solar energy.
In reality the Rotational Warming Phenomenon is what brings planet to the necessary radiative equilibrium average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
–
The planet effective temperature Te =255K is a mathematical abstraction, because the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa, and because the incident on the planet solar flux cannot be averaged.
What can be theoretically averaged is the accumulated energy and not the flux. The energy is accumulated in form of HEAT.
–
Planet is warmed by radiative energy, but planet cannot be considered as blackbody. Blackbody has a different physics IR EM energy emission mechanism.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The core idea of Te is the uniformly averaging over the entire planet surface the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.”
No Christos.
You once again neglect that the atm. of a planet does radiate (both martian atm. and earthen atm.). Tse is the effective radiating temperature of a planet’s surface not Te. The rest of your work falls apart accordingly.
For Earth measured: Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K earthen GHE, rounded.
For Mars clear atm. measured: Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K martian GHE, rounded.
NB: “Te = 359K /4”, no Christos: temperature is an intensive property thus your division operation is nonsense.
Ball4
““Te = 359K /4”, no Christos: temperature is an intensive property thus your division operation is nonsense.”
Thank you Ball4 for your respond.
Please read in the above post, there is an assumption:
“Let’s assume planet has uniform surface specific heat capacity (cp).”
If temperature 358K*cp /4 = 90K*cp it is the averaged energy. When divided by cp it obtains the planet average temperature of 90K.
It is alright now. I think now everything is alright!
Thank you again Ball4. Your notice is very important for better understanding that planet Te is a mathematical abstraction without physics analogue.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“..understanding that planet Te is a mathematical abstraction without physics analogue.”
Incorrect Christos. Properly defined planetary Te is reasonably measured for both Mars and Earth with their atm.s in place – thus something (Te) that can be measured is not a mathematical abstraction & is physical.
B4, why don’t you tell Christos you believe ice cubes can boil water? That’ll indicate your “knowledge” of science.
And, where is that “real 255K surface”?
Still admit looking for it huh Clint?
Just shows Clint admits doesn’t understand basic atm. physics nor how ice cubes can boil water as experiments show. Remember no matter how beautiful your theory is about these things it is wrong if it doesn’t agree with experimental measurements.
Got to give Clint credit though for being quite an entertainment specialist since that’s what blog physics laughing stocks do.
Hey Clint R,
“And, where is that real 255K surface?
You might find it in a building that teaches Physics, a place you have never been and might have difficulty finding.
Sorry B4 and bob, but I don’t have time for your kid games. The fact that you can’t produce your bogus “real 255K surface” tells us all we need to know.
The bogus 255K surface can’t be produced only the earthen real 255K surface is readily available for inspection Clint R. It’s measured with data 24/7. Clint just needs to gain some knowledge of basic atm. physics. bob noted a good place to start and I’d add a good college library will work too.
However, I do understand Clint R would rather continue to be the blog laughing stock on atm. physics than study up on the basics.
Christos,
It is futile to discuss your work with Ball4. He is wasting your time with nonsense about a measurable 255K surface.
255K comes from an idealized (conceptual, imaginary) surface from which the radiation received would about 240 W/m2 by applying SB with no albedo. The average OLR just happens to be approaching 240 W/m2 which, of course does not originate from any realistic surface since some of the OLR comes from the surface and some from the tropopause and above.
No Balls, Entropic man, and bobdroege will not help you make your case because they are deluded by the AGW dogma. Nothing you write will make sense to them.
Chic, the earthen 255K (and OLR) is from continuously measured data! Measured data cannot be imaginary.
Chic writes OLR “does not originate from any realistic surface” yet “some of the OLR comes from the surface”. It is Chic that is deluded.
Like Clint R, Chic can benefit from a visit to the library to obtain a good atm. physics text & do the work to learn from its contents.
Google “Earthen 255K surface” and you will find only your pitiful exchanges with Clint R. Only a fool would go to a library and search for a meteorology text book to find an Earthen 255K surface.
It is a fact that OLR comes from the Earth’s surface, above the troposphere, and everywhere in between. One would have to be deluded to call that a surface and continue to promote that lie over and over here.
Which of us is more likely to be deluded (believing something that is not true)?
Which one? The one that hasn’t accomplished the atm. radiation (terrestrial and solar) physics study to learn about the instrumentally measured real 255K surface.
A curious fool would go into the library, dig out the relevant information with the help of a librarian, and come out enriched having learned about the real measured earthen Te = 255K surface… and while there also the surface Tse.
Earthen measured surfaces Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, rounded
Martian measured surfaces Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K GHE, rounded
You have been touting a “real Earthen 255K surface” for months now impersonating folk pedaling this AGW dogma hypothetical nonsense as reality. Your calculated 255K from 240 W/m2 is not proof of anything. You can subtract it six ways from Sunday, but that doesn’t make it a real surface. It is just a hypothetical construct.
Carry on making a fool of yourself.
“Your calculated 255K” earthen global Te = 255K is from calibrated measurements Chic. The earthen real 255K surface can also be easily calculated from textbook 1LOT theory so the theory = the measurements which as Dr. Feynman long ago stated is a requirement.
Carry on making a fool of yourself.
“What can be theoretically averaged is the accumulated energy and not the flux. The energy is accumulated in form of HEAT.”
With an ideal thermally conduction blackbody sphere at Earth
distance from Sun with uniform temperature of 5 C, to answer the question how cold does it get, if sun blinks out existence, you have
know how much energy has accumulated. If close to zero, then it cools in instant, to the background universe temperature.
On this topic, Earth has “a lot energy accumulated”- or would stay somewhat warm for thousands of years.
So if we say 2 to 3 C [or warmer] is somewhat warm, of rocky planets, we only have Venus, which in same league as Earth.
Gas Giants are millions/billions of years- a completely different
league. And though we know little about Venus, we know less about
gas giants.
Earth has about 510 million square km and has more the 510 million cubic km of area over 2 C- without include underground rock.
So metric will be 500 million cubic km of non rock kept at 2 C
or warmer [not counting just small small hotspots or hot springs]. Which has volume of 500 million cubic km with a temperature of 2 C or warmer, longer, Venus or Earth- if both of them, don’t have sunlight warming them?
Or not talking about making tunnels or underground cities, though I am counting under ocean water.
Well, obviously Earth wins.
Anyhow how long before Venus cools to 2 C?
And about, how long does boat in tropical ocean last before the surface water freezes- maybe Venus can beat that.
Earth absorbs about 240 watt on average and emits about 240 watts.
Without any sunlight how long would take for earth to emits less than 160 watts on average?
Well, how long before average surface temperature averages 5 C instead of 15 C?
It seems if earth atmosphere is around 5 C then our atmosphere shrinks.
One might also ask, when would Mount Everest climber would no longer
be able to breath oxygen from a mask. Could it be sooner than 24 hours that atmospheric pressure will go below 2.5 psi?
Or does require a week or month?
What if it was summertime in the Antarctica, when sunlight ceases.
What kind of emergency would be for the people in Antarctica?
Say a plan was to wait until the ocean freezes to drive to South America? How long does that take for that ocean the freeze.
It seems it would take more than 1 month.
Say interested in sailing somewhere, is going to windy enough to sail somewhere, or so much wind that one can’t sail?
It seems to me doldrums could be a problem, as a general matter.
Typical winter temperatures (C) in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/stDPCq4/Screenshot-1.png
Current anomalies
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
Beware the climate change doomers https://youtu.be/vnT9aE84o4o.
“This demonstrates convincingly that planet warming was not initiated by CO2 increase and that the CO2 increase has little if any significant effect on climate. ”
The latest figure is that the climate system is accumulating 14ZJ/year.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3
The total solar input is 3800ZJ.
0.36%. of the incoming energy is accumulating in the system.
Expressed as power that is 240W/m^2 entering the climate system and 239.14W/m^2 leaving the system.
Energy is accumulating at 0.86W/m^2.
If it is not due to CO2 and feedbacks, what do you think is causing the accumulation?
Sorry. Addressed to Dan Pangburn at 6.39pm yesterday.
Have you not paid attention to anything he’s been saying? I don’t know if he’s correct but I don’t have to ask him what he thinks.
Sorry Ent, but you’re confused about the science, again.
Both your figures, 240 and 239.14 W/m^2, have huge errors which makes your difference (0.86) completely inaccurate.
Earth has such large energy storage capability (heat content), that any “energy imbalances” are irrelevant.
Of course, if you want to believe such garbage, like passenger jets fly backwards, be my guest.
Entropic man,
Dan’s view is that water vapor is increasing at a rate greater than can be explained by its feedback, with irrigation as the likely suspect. The problem with that rationale is that OLR is increasing while, according to climate cultists like you, it should be decreasing or stable at best.
The most reasonable explanation is that the amount of solar radiation being absorbed is increasing due to a couple factors that aren’t measured well, albedo and clouds.
The evidence for CO2’s involvement is slim to none.
Do you have numbers?
Such as:-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00205-7
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf
“The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature”.
“Editorial”
"Cope".
Not exactly, but slim would be within experimental error of zero. None is zero.
If you meant numbers on clouds and albedo, no I have no numbers on them, which is why I wrote they aren’t well measured. Maybe you can help.
The data on ASR > OLR has been discussed plenty at drroyspencer.com the last few months.
ASR>OLR can initially be deduced from the existence of global warming. If the world is warming more energy must be coming in than is leaving.
You don’t need satellite radiation measurements to estimate the size of the imbalance. With 90%+ of the accumulating heat going into the ocean you can estimate the ∆heat content from the change in temperature(Argo) or from the thermal expansion (sea level rise).
When you compare the energy inputs derived from the sea temperature and volume with the imbalance derived from the satellite measurements you get figures whose error bars overlap. They all centre around 1W/m^2 or 10ZJ/year.
You have it all figured out—Nobel Prize to Eman.
Stephen
Do you have nothing more than sarcasm to contribute?
This is all basic physics. Any undergraduate could do the calculations.
Why not try the energy imbalance calculations yourself? I can help with the procedure if you struggle with specific heats and coefficients of thermal expansion.
“With 90%+ of the accumulating heat going into the ocean”
You can find this massive energy in the ocean surface data can you?
Then why don’t you help the IPCC with mass balance?
Ent, basic physics is basic physics. You’re perverting basic physics with your assumptions, estimates, and false beliefs. You actually believe passenger jets fly backwards. You’ll say anything to support your cult. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
“You can find this massive energy in the ocean surface data can you? ”
No, from the ocean volume.
Ent, you don’t know the ocean volume!
You don’t understand any of this.
Ent writes, “You dont need satellite radiation measurements to estimate the size of the imbalance.”
You could have written “You don’t need an altimeter to know you have fallen off a steep cliff” and said as much.
Earth to Entropic man: The subject here is how much of the intuitively obvious warming do humans cause.
“Earth to Entropic man: The subject here is how much of the intuitively obvious warming do humans cause.”
105%
We have converted a natural slow cooling trend into a rapid artificial warming trend.
What you have done is created a generation whose brains are fried. Apparently you got infected early.
105%. Good grief.
Search for “Over the past 60 years, natural forcings (sun, volcanoes) have also had a cooling effect” on this page, Chic.
Thinkin cures reactionism.
I’m surprised Ent didn’t go for 500%. He likes to make things so absurd he can sway the sheep. He’s the one that claimed passenger jets fly backwards, to support his cult beliefs.
They make things so ridiculous, and then other cult idiots come in, to lend support. Just look at the “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense. The more ridiculous, the better. That’s how propaganda works.
Yep we don’t even know the net effect of aerosols. Aerosols in these radiation budgets are just plug figures to get to the CO2 effect desired.
bill, from 09/2002 – 03/2020 the net effect of aerosols on top-of-atmosphere flux trends has been measured. You should look it up.
“No, from the ocean volume”
We don’t sample the whole ocean volume across the whole world, just a portion of it and not very well in time at that.
https://imgur.com/a/9ccXbG1
We do not know everything.
Therefore we know nothing.
Contrarians learned little since Gorgias.
Extrapolating what we do know into what we don’t know is not science, it is a belief system.
Much the same as projecting on OLS trend into the future or the past.
Ball4 says:
March 11, 2022 at 10:29 PM
bill, from 09/2002 03/2020 the net effect of aerosols on top-of-atmosphere flux trends has been measured. You should look it up.
————————-
Ball4, Impossible!
We can perhaps measure the reflective nature of aerosols but we can’t measure their greenhouse effect. Heck we can’t even measure the greenhouse effect of CO2. If your biased sources were consistent we wouldn’t measure the greenhouse effect of either.
This is the entire problem with non-independent science, inconsistency!
Its exceedingly easy for one experienced in auditing to detect inconsistencies. Its not necessary to know the correct answer its simply a matter of checking to see if similar issues beyond the knowledge of science is treated consistently. In mainstream climate science the consistency of treatment of the unknown rises to the level of gross negligence.
Ball4 Here is the NASA statement on aerosols.
”Without the presence of these aerosols in the air, our models suggest that the planet would be about 1 C (1.8 F) hotter.”
Thats a good one! ‘Suggest’ has such overwhelmingly strong scientific certainty. LMAO!
bill, there exist earthen polar orbiting satellites! On these satellites instrument packages are carried that continuously measure the effect of atm. aerosols on top-of-atmosphere flux trends in the period mentioned with 95% confidence that Nature’s actual trend is in the range reported. All constructed, launched, calibrated, and monitored by humans (see top post for an example).
The reports and results can be read for free on the internet. Time to catch up on your relevant physical science reading.
Ball4 says:
On these satellites instrument packages are carried that continuously measure the effect of atm. aerosols on top-of-atmosphere flux trends in the period mentioned with 95% confidence that Natures actual trend is in the range reported.
—————————–
LOL! Ball4 I said ”We can perhaps measure the reflective nature of aerosols but we cant measure their greenhouse effect. ”
Yes satellites can perhaps measure the effect of aerosols on sunlight shining on the earth’s atmosphere system to some degree of accuracy. What satellites cannot do is measure the greenhouse effect of the aerosols. Its like clouds, scientists argue continuously about whether certain types of clouds represent net warming or net cooling, yet we know from satellites that the reflection from clouds is a cooling influence. The problem is in estimating the warming influence. So you bought hook, line, and sinker into the traditional greenhouse argument that we will take all we know and guess or not guess at the rest depending upon what result we want. You do understand that CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere do reradiate sunlight before it reaches the ground also right?
CO2 and wv don’t reradiate sunlight bill, they radiate at terrestrial temperatures.
The relevant satellite instruments do measure that LW terrestrial radiation from aerosols in addition to their SW reflection in the period and report the net I mentioned with 95% confidence; bill just prefers to not do the work required in reading and understanding the reports.
Ball4 says:
CO2 and wv dont reradiate sunlight bill, they radiate at terrestrial temperatures.
——————–
LOL!
I thought you guys believed watts are watts. So now you seem to be claiming reflecting high frequency watts has more effect than radiating terrestrial frequency watts.
So explain the difference Ball4. Oh thats right. . . .the models ‘suggest’ aerosols contribute to net cooling. I have done modeling and when you have unknown variables you can pretty much produce any outcome you wish. You can even spend 44 years tweaking the model to put off recognizing your original predictions of how fast warming would occur were completely wrong.
bill 11:46 am: – “CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere do reradiate sunlight”
bill 12:57 pm later writes: “radiating terrestrial frequency”
bill demonstrates being capable of correcting comments.
Ball4 – Sunlight includes terrestrial frequencies. so you have made no distinction of merit.
All objects emit ALL light frequencies bill where sunlight has way, way more irradiance (many decades) at shorter wavelengths than terrestrial light so bill made a decent correction.
which of course means Ball4 is trying to change the subject.
I’m adding light to the subject of bill making a decent correction after bill learned about atm. aerosol net effect on OLR being known from measurements in the period noted.
Perhaps some day it will amount to something when the science matures.
NASA:”Despite considerable advances in recent decades, estimating the direct climate impacts of aerosols remains an immature science. Of the 25 climate models considered by the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), only a handful considered the direct effects of aerosol types other than sulfates.”
Immature?
The most recent source from the page you do not cite is dated from 2008, Bill. That’s why it says:
“This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Aerosols
Do you have anything more recent?
Willard I am not advocating anything, unlike you. So a better question would be do you have anything new?
I thought you were interested in aerosols, Bill.
Where’s your homework?
No Willard I don’t have an interest in aerosols. I have an interest in good science. One of the several primary rules of good science is consistency.
Apparently you failed to come up with anything newer Willard so you dreamt up an interest in me rather than confirming what it seems you so much want to believe.
Entropic man says:
You dont need satellite radiation measurements to estimate the size of the imbalance. With 90%+ of the accumulating heat going into the ocean you can estimate the ∆heat content from the change in temperature(Argo) or from the thermal expansion (sea level rise).
——————
thats a tough go when 1/3rd of the ocean isn’t even measured and measurements are poor what is measured up to half the ocean. . . .not to speak of the huge attribution problems due to the short life of ARGO. Ultimately one has to revert to divining temperatures from tree rings of sacred trees.
So you do not know is the science on aerosols has matured since 15 years ago, Bill.
Got it.
I know it hasn’t. Because if it had they would have figured out how the CO2 greenhouse effect works.
For a guy who has no homework to show and admits has no interest in the question, Bill, you know a lot.
Willard says:
For a guy who has no homework to show and admits has no interest in the question, Bill, you know a lot.
———————————
One needs only a grasp of the larger picture Willard. The aerosol picture was cemented in place in 2000. What one be sure of it any thing to contrary will be ignored. And anything new in support will receive major media play taking full advantage of if it bleeds it leads.
So media has been silent. Entropic throws up 105% which was the 2000 figures. And the question is whether there has been any maturation of the science.
Based on the premises outlined above the status quo is probably not since anything mitigating will be ignored as a maturation of science and Entropic will probably have new numbers if the situation is getting worse.
Also since you completely failed to provide any evidence of maturation. . . .let me help you out.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130514085309.htm
Here is a study suggesting that the cooling affect of aerosols is likely overstated.
What if that big picture was pure contrarian fantasy, Bill?
Indeed ones eyes can be deceived. . . .especially if one does psychoactive drugs or if one naively buys into a medicine show.
Tell me, Bill –
Would you hire an auditor who keeps mistaking plus and minus?
More than 100% remains more than 100%.
Willard you need to understand that being more than 100% reinforces the possibility of negative feedback since most of aerosol production is natural and determined in many ways including biological, geological, hydrological and thermodynamical. The biological processes are examples of negative feedback resulting from the greening caused by CO2.
And completely absent from the analysis is the greenhouse effect from all aerosols despite their origin. Instead it is simply assumed to not exist because so little quantification of its available.
Climate science does the same for clouds, assuming they represent negative feedback on the basis of their reflectivity.
But albedo does not determine equilibrium temperature and temperature determines the greenhouse effect. The only thing that albedo determines is how much earth system radiation to space must occur to achieve a level temperature.
If you start treating that as some kind nonvarying measure then neither warming nor cooling could occur.
Seems to me those who think they are better than others want to claim that such variation can only occur due to anthropogenic activities. Its a shakedown!
> you need to understand that being more than 100% reinforces the possibility of negative feedback
Giggles.
“If it is not due to CO2 and feedbacks, what do you think is causing the accumulation?”
Changes in insolation at 60N due to centuries long cycles in glaciation.
If the cause were glacial cycles we should be cooling out of the Holocene.
Instead we are warming…fast.
0.5C since 1979, a very cold winter, isn’t ‘warming fast’. Not by any reasonable definition.
Entropic man says:
If the cause were glacial cycles we should be cooling out of the Holocene.
—————————–
Why? Glacial cycles aren’t believed to be subject to a single variable. There are several variations that occur with orbits and precessions. Double peak interglacials are not rule out in any way shape or form. And that doesn’t even include internal variation of oceans that affect OLR.
Which variables, Bill?
External variables:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Internal variables:
ENSO
PDO
Those were only detected after more than one cycle occurring during the instrument record.
Longer termed cycles seem likely exist since 2c to 3c fluctuations can be observed on a multi-centennial scale within ice core proxy records.
That’s just great, Bill.
Now, please read EM’s again:
Slowlier, this time.
Willard that may be what you and EM believe. but its wrong. EM has picked up some ecowarrior propaganda and actually believes it and you walk in because you are either bought and sold or an ignoramus and agreed with EM.
Read this article by Javier at climate etc. and educate yourself that glaciations do not occur smoothly. They are accompanied by smaller scale excursions with excursions that run at various timescales up to and including 10’s of thousands of years.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/
https://squashpractice.com/2011/01/08/dynamic-climate-is-lesson-of-ice-core-records/
You guys need to get the science and jettison the propaganda.
Allow Bob to explain, Bill:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/#comment-878462
Thanks for the reminder!
Willard says:
Allow Bob to explain, Bill:
I find Javiers posts to be long slogs, as we used to say in our more immature years, if you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/#comment-878462
Thanks for the reminder!
——————————
Nice dodge Willard. I didn’t provide the Javier article as one of two sources provided to convince anybody that his theory of glacial evolution was correct. I provided it because them because of their inclusion of significant collections of ice core data analysis that shows significant variations of temperature that exceed the past 150 years during all multi-millennial cooling events. We can’t even claim the current multi-decadal warming to be of any great interest within the past 150 years as it barely exceeds the early 20th century warming spurt.
Of course its a dodge because as of this moment absolutely nothing has been offered in support of EMs ignorant belch. I suppose somebody will pull Al Gore out of mothballs at this point.
Entropic man says:
”If it is not due to CO2 and feedbacks, what do you think is causing the accumulation?”
Most likely due to variation of water in the atmosphere. It has the important free variables such as ability to change the lapse rate and isn’t evenly present in the atmosphere thus it isn’t anywhere near saturation.
Ken
By geological standards 0.5C in 50 years is incredible.
The Holocene began with 5C warming in 5000 years and until the Industrial Revolution we were cooling at 0.5C in 5000 years.
What caused that cooling? Natural factors?
but the world warms and cools by 4K every 6 months. And yes, the entire world average changes by that much, not just one hemisphere.
That’s the seasonal cycle. You can see it in the first graph here, with monthly anomalies moving 2C above and below the annual mean each year.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/year
The glacial cycle moves up and down in a 5C band every 100,000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
The glacial cycle was driving the natural cooling until the artificial warming began.
The recent warming can be associated with H2O, not CO2.
Yes. About 1/3 of the warming is directly due to increasing CO2 and 2/3 due to the water vapour feedback.
Remember your climate sensitivity. For each 1C warming due to increasing CO2 you get another 2C from feedbacks like increasing water vapour.
Ent, neither H2O nor CO2 can raise Earth’s temperature. You’re way into your science fiction. We don’t even know ocean temperature today, yet you believe it’s known from 800,000 years ago???
When you need to support your false beliefs you can always rely on deducing, estimating, assuming, and your vivid imagination, like passenger jets flying backwards.
But, that ain’t science.
No, none of the warming is due to CO2.
Stephen
“No, none of the warming is due to CO2.”
What is causing the warming? Please explain, giving measurements and numbers so I can check your calculations.
RHL and Ent,
What data do you fools have that shows CO2 and water vapor have had any effect on raising global temperature?
An untested hypothesis and failed models are not data. Stop with the pontifications.
Ent, this minor warming trend is due to natural variation. It may even have peaked. Who knows.
Ent,
The measurements and numbers that demonstrate that there is no water vapor increase resulting from CO2 increase (or increase of any other greenhouse gas that does not condense at earth temperatures) are given in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
“Remember your climate sensitivity. For each 1C warming due to increasing CO2 you get another 2C from feedbacks like increasing water vapour”
It is suggested, not proven.
Proof belongs to math and cocktails.
Between suggesting and proving, there is quite a range of possibilities.
Puns intended.
If you are saying that GW is neither proven, nor provably manmade nor statistically accurate I would have to agree,
> If you are saying
I suppose that an if-by-whiskey befits talks of proof.
Pun intended.
Entropic man says:
What is causing the warming? Please explain, giving measurements and numbers so I can check your calculations.
—————————————
Ah very good skepticism EM!!! Kudos|!!!
I would love to see your check of the calculations of how CO2 warms the surface!! Assuming of course you are consistent in your skepticism. How about providing a link?
ipcc.ch
Willard fakes a link!
See CET anomaly. 1700 1735 it went up 2C. Then down again even faster. 0.5 over 40 years is insignificant.
The Central England temperature has not anything to do with the global terrestrial mean (except in the head of some manifestly not very competent persons).
CET is the report over a minuscule part of Earth.
Even CONUS with 8 Mkm^2 is no more than 6% of the land surface.
Collecting the same kind of data for both entities can lead to highly different results.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/
“The Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy”
“If you want an idea about where in the world is cooling/warming over a given period use the GISS mapping tool
You can map trends for monthly, seasonal or annual averages, choose your start and end years, change to 250km smoothing radius and go.”
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/#comment-746298
Is your ‘average’ a mean, median, mode or middle?
MikeH is not your average Climateball player:
“Japanese government changed their mind to support Pachauri, mainly because they don’t want to support Watson, who US government doesn’t support, and also they want Developing country to “meaningful participate” so that Pachauri is good person for that… basically looking at the negotiation at UNFCCCC”
That’s from #883.
Willard, as usual, ducks the statistical question.
Richard can’t bother to use the GISS mapping tool to realize the silliness of his bait.
Ent,
Now you are getting into fool territory along with Ball4.
You weren’t there. How do you know what the temperature variability was 500 years ago, let alone 5000?
> How do you know what the temperature variability was 500 years ago, let alone 5000?
https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=How%20do%20you%20know%20what%20the%20temperature%20variability%20was%20500%20years%20ago%2C%20let%20alone%205000%3F
Chihuahua,
More cut and paste. You think you’re making a point?
Which part of “LMGTFY” you do not get, Troglodyte?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Theoretically the uniform surface temperature for the same emitted IR EM energy should be necessarily higher, than the actual the planet’s average surface temperature.
–
(Thus, the Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature should be lower than the alleged effective temperature 255 K, since Earth has not uniform surface temperature. And the greenhouse effect should allegedly be bigger than +33oC, and no one knows how much bigger, so everyone conveniently turned a blind eye on this simple but very important fact).
https://www.cristos-vournas
Thanks for the link
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf
to an interesting paper about a synthesis of CERES, ERBE, HIRS and surface temperatures.
*
If Entropic man had posted the link above, he would have been immediately discredited.
The little sentence
” The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature. ”
seems to have been extracted out of a context precisely confirming the existence of GH gases (and by no means only H2O, of course, as the paper clearly outlines).
*
I’m not quite sure that the Pseudomoderator would have voluntarily posted a link to an article containing a heretical paragraph like
” Compared to the pre-industrial period, the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR; this represents a positive (heating) radiative forcing [2].
This positive GHG radiative forcing is partially compensated by a negative (cooling) radiative forcing of aerosols, which increase
the amount of Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) and hence decrease the ASR [3].
Variations of the incoming solar radiation could also create a radiative forcing, but in practice the solar irradiance variations are small [4]. ”
*
The paper contains also an interesting critique of the main GCMs with respect to a major factor they seem to underestimate: the so-called ‘cloud thinning effect’.
I forgot to mention that the paper’s results also confirm what you see here:
https://i.postimg.cc/HLSjkqV7/MEI-V2-Nino-Nina-split-1979-2021.png
namely that within ENSO, El Nino continuously decreases, and La Nina continuously increases.
What of course doesn’t have anything to do with surface or troposphere temperatures; otherwise, these would all decrease since 1979.
Bindidon, have you had enough time to answer the simple question: Does a bicycle pedal have an axel?
I’ll give you some more time, if necessary. I know you don’t know much. Feel free to use all sources available to you. Maybe you even know someone that owns a bicycle?
That should be “axle”, of course! %*!#*!&
Stupid spellcheck….
“If Entropic man had posted the link above, he would have been immediately discredited.”
He would never have posted that because it contradicts the AGW meme and it’s written in too much plain English. Compare it to the paper E man linked to.
The rest of what you wrote is largely false. There was no data indicating water vapor or CO2 contributed to OLR. It was only a supposition included in the introduction to get it by the reviewers, I think.
The only reference to GHGs was what you quoted, “Compared to the pre-industrial period, the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR; this represents a positive (heating) radiative forcing. This positive GHG radiative forcing is partially compensated by a negative (cooling) radiative forcing of aerosols, which increase the amount of Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) and hence decrease the ASR.” That was in the intro and there was no data to back up the assertion.
That is the AGW dogma you guys have been hyping ad infinitum. I expected more from you.
> The rest of what you wrote is largely false. There was no data
If there’s no data, Chic, how can you tell that what EM says is false?
If you want a pony, at least be consistent.
Temperature data isn’t evidence of AGW. It’s evidence of temperature. We know temperature and CO2 appear correlated. Now provide evidence that CO2 causes temperature and not the other way around. Chic can show you evidence that CO2 follows temperature.
Chic can’t show me evidence that temperature causes more CO2, Troglodyte.
I hope we all know why. Do we?
He can show you mathmatical evidence that CO2 lags temperature, Chihuahua.
He’s posted it many times. Maybe you were asleep?
“CO2 lags temperature”
So the median global temperature goes up today because I am going to drive my big V-8 gas SUV tomorrow. I don’t see how that logic can work but possibly stephen can explain.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.19/offset:0.17
See, Troglodyte?
Chic can’t provide any evidence that temperature causes more CO2.
Perhaps contrarians need to ponder on the Humean predicament, which is the human predicament.
Chihuahua,
I was expecting too much from you, sorry.
I didn’t expect Chic to be able to let go of one of the silliest Climateball talking point, Troglodyte:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Willard, please stop trolling.
Huge Crater Under Greenland Glacier Surprises Scientists With Its True Age
CARLY CASSELLA11 MARCH 2022
“When the Hiawatha crater was first discovered in 2015, researchers suspected it was made by a meteorite sometime between 12,000 years ago and three million years ago. ”
…
“Determining the new age of the crater surprised us all,” says geologist Michael Storey from Denmark’s Natural History Museum.
“I’m convinced that we’ve determined the crater’s actual age, which is much older than many people once thought.”
…
“The argon-argon method suggests the Hiawatha asteroid struck Earth in the late Paleocene, sometime between 56 and 66 million years ago, while the uranium-lead technique landed on a date 58 million years in the past.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/huge-crater-under-greenland-glacier-surprises-scientists-with-its-true-age
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“In the late Pleistocene, Greenland would not have looked anything like today. The Arctic island was probably home to a temperate rainforest with an abundance of animal life.”
Yes, it was further south. And much warmer world.
19.3 miles wide is a big impact.
“Typically, materials from space hit Earth at about 20 kilometers (slightly more than 12 miles) per second. Such a high-speed impact produces a crater that is approximately 20 times larger in diameter than the impacting object.”
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/shaping_the_planets/impact-cratering/
So, if 20 km/sec {average impact velocity 20 km/sec or is 44,640 mph} it would cause 20 km diameter crater from 1 km diameter impactor:
“is probably the result of a kilometer-wide asteroid that crashed into Earth 58 million years ago.” and “31-kilometer-wide indent (19.3 miles)”. So might been 1.5 km diameter space OR a faster velocity rock:
What influences the size and shape of a crater?
“The size and shape of the crater and the amount of material excavated depends on factors such as the velocity and mass of the impacting body and the geology of the surface. The faster the incoming impactor, the larger the crater. Typically, materials from space hit Earth at about 20 kilometers (slightly more than 12 miles) per second. Such a high-speed impact produces a crater that is approximately 20 times larger in diameter than the impacting object. ”
So one can have 30 km/sec rocks hitting Earth. One can rock with higher density than “average” which say is about 2000 kg per cubic meter, whereas could more iron space rock could be +4000 kg per cubic meter
–Iron Meteorites
The iron group is nearly solid nickel-iron metal. Because of the strength of the metal, some of the largest individuals recovered are iron. Also many of the craters formed by iron meteorites because the asteroids survived without breaking up all the way to the ground. Magnets strongly attract Iron meteorites which look like real metal when you grind a spot off their surface. They show a pattern when etched by chemicals because of the different nickel-iron minerals composing them.–
https://starlust.org/what-are-the-different-types-of-asteroids/
Also could mean [and probably do] size of space rock when it hit.
“The bulk density of an asteroid provides clues about its composition and meteoritic analogs. For the M-types, the proposed analogs have bulk densities that range from ~3 g/cm3 for some types of carbonaceous chondrites up to nearly 8 g/cm3 for the iron-nickel present in iron-meteorites.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-type_asteroid
Btw, we detected and plotted say +90 % of all space rock 1 km or larger which which “near earth” or are most likely population of space rocks which could hit earth {none are going hit within say century] so if Earth is hit, it would smaller than 1 km, working on 140 meter diameter and larger. 140 meter with direct hit would take a city. Unlikely as we mostly ocean, and not much of area land have cities.
Earlier, someone wrote –
“What is causing the warming? Please explain, giving measurements and numbers so I can check your calculations..
Heat. If you don’t believe heat causes warming, you are suffering from a severe mental defect.
Why would anybody accede to the demands of a moron to provide calculations for “checking” by the moron?
Are the inmates in charge of the asylum?
Good grief!
Stratospheric intrusion in the east will bring a strong drop in surface temperatures in the eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/y4SdjPq/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
Record Cold with 40 F below normal Temperatures to impact Southeast U.S. on Sunday, some areas even colder than Alaska.
“But, its in the wings somewhere in mid-troposphere where CO2 allegedly abs*or*bs more as its concentration increases. This is your ‘slow cooling’ argument using Happers analysis. The subsequent emissions supposedly occur at a higher elevation.”
‘allegedly’ ‘supposedly’
Happer is cited, because he does know what he’s talking about. But when he says anything about GHE or forcing: like
“cause a forcing increase (the area between the black and red lines) of ∆F = 3.0 Wm−2 as shown in Table 2.”
that must be doubted and placed in the ‘allegedly’ or ‘supposedly’ categories, and extra burdens of proof are demanded.
Deniers like Chip believe they can undermine the GHE, by picking and choosing atmospheric physics to accept, as if the menu in a French restaurant is meant to be a-la-carte. But it only works as a complete dinner with appetizer, salad, entre, wine and dessert.
IOW radiation, convection, thermalization, abs*orp*tion, emission, lapse-rate, all together produce heat transfer from surface to space.
You can’t reject parts of it, without ruining the meal.
“[Causing a forcing increase] must be doubted and placed in the ‘allegedly’ or ‘supposedly’ categories, and extra burdens of proof are demanded.”
Yes, any good scientist will doubt it, because the alleged forcing is calculated by HITRAN, not measured by any change in radiation causing an actual temperature increase.
Go ahead and continue serving up obfuscation and digging yourself into a deeper hole.
“not measured by any change in radiation causing a change in temperature”
BS. You have seen the papers demonstrating a change in radiation.
Then you apply an impossible standard of evidence to it: show that IT caused a change in temperature over a short period while several other confounding variables are also changing the temperature.
“BS. You have seen the papers demonstrating a change in radiation.”
Yes, they don’t definitively discriminate between all the other confounding factors that could be contributing to any alleged commensurate temperature change.
If it was easy, a school teacher could do it.
Unfortunately no confidence in Chic, the relevant reports do definitively discriminate between all the other confounding factors with 95% confidence; it’s just that Chic doesn’t understand the reports. A school teacher CAN read them too!
Carry on making a fool of yourself.
>What is causing the warming? Please explain, giving measurements and numbers so I can check your calculations.
Ent,
That’s how natural variability works. Things go up; then they go down. Things go down; then they go up. What’s the temperature supposed to be, and show your evidence?
Above Nate returns to a discussion involving a cartoon description of the GHE…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1206117
“Exactly, to try to pretend that a cartoon version of the theory is ‘the GHE theory’ and than rejecting ‘the GHE theory’ by showing that the cartoon model is not observable, is a standard tactic by the strawman specialists here.”
The cartoon is from a classic publication by GHE advocates as documented here:
https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#more-7212
I invite Nate to describe the real GHE hypothesis and show the data supporting it.
By the same token, I invite Chic to give me a pony.
W
Pony up.
Nice croup, Pozzo.
“cartoon is from a classic publication by GHE advocates as documented here”
Yes, a cartoon is a cartoon! It has a purpose, to help explain without all the math.
It is not ‘the GHE theory’. That is your strawman.
You want all the math? No you don’t. If you did, you could easily find it yourself and tell us what the problem with it is.
Aside from strawmen building up and tearing down, we also get another favorite denier tactic: assigning Sisyphean tasks!
-Do more work to show me more data that I can reject with impossible standards of evidence, science ignorance, and other flimsy excuses!
-Describe the theory for the dozenth time, this time with more math that I won’t understand, then I’ll just call it ‘obfuscation’ again!
The question is what is your science rationale for rejecting an essential component of atmospheric physics and meteorology, the GHE?
Nate,
You’re flapping in the wind.
“The question is what is your science rationale for rejecting an essential component of atmospheric physics and meteorology, the GHE?”
The answer is: 2LoT — You can not boil water with ice cubes.
Clint R, that 12:20 pm is great entertainment but your beautiful theory doesn’t agree with experiment so it is wrong.
“You want all the math?”
No, I understand the math and the math is just a hypothesis. What Kristian did was apply data to see if the hypothesis is borne out. It wasn’t. For you to refute that, you need to come up with a rebuttal set of data. Just asserting this or that doesn’t cut it.
The scientific rationale for rejecting any hypothesis is to accept the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. At this time I don’t have any better way, other than what Kristian did, of rejecting the AGW hypothesis that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the global average temperature.
How many ponies does it take:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998
ZEKE HAUSFATHER 30.06.2017
So recent.
https://climateaudit.org/2005/08/09/satellite-measurements/
Stephen McIntyre, posted on Aug 9, 2005
2005, 2004, 2003, 1998, 1998, 1997, 1992:
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/UAHcorrections.jpg
” At this time I dont have any better way, other than what Kristian did, of rejecting the AGW hypothesis that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the global average temperature.”
How can an analysis ‘reject a hypothesis’ without error analysis?!
Confirming your faux skepticism.
You apply no skepticism to blog ‘science’ that fits your narrative.
As I explained, he did not reject the AGW hypothesis. He ‘rejected’ a meme version of the theory. And he did so by cherry picking the LT temperature with the lowest trend. And no error analysis!
When asked to show what the actual theory predicts, he couldnt offer anything.
When asked to do the analysis with RSS data, or surface data, he refuses, because it fails to fit his narrative.
What Kristian is claiming is that the OLR trend can be entirely explained by the T trend.
But Loeb 21, shows this is simply not the case for CERES.
Here we can see in Figure 2(b) the trend in OLR, and below it in Fig (e) are the contributions to it, including Temperature.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/982cfcbf-43f4-49dd-be20-2ab9758e2b95/grl62546-fig-0002-m.png
If Kristian were correct, then the Temperature component of the trend would match the Total trend. It clearly doesnt.
The Total is about 1/3 as large as Temperature, because other contributions, WV, and Other (which includes CO2), are cancelling much of the Temperature contribution.
Unless I’m mistaken, you have yet to express your objection to Kristians’s omission of error analysis anywhere on his website. Possibly you are referring to some discussions on this website where your reputation has already been documented as thoroughly obfuscationary and won’t be discredited further elsewhere.
“He ‘rejected’ a meme version of the theory.”
By all means, tell us what the real version is.
“…cherry picking the LT temperature with the lowest trend. And no error analysis!”
Using a potentially less accurate temperature trend may cause less statistical significance, but that does not invalidate his refutation of the hypothesis you have not validated yourself, having not invalidated his refutation, either, for that matter. To do that you would need to show that the error analysis Kristian omitted makes his correlation insignificant.
Kristian addresses some temperature series issues here:
https://okulaer.com/2018/09/07/why-there-is-no-reason-for-you-to-trust-the-official-global-temperature-records/
“When asked to show what the actual theory predicts, he couldnt offer anything.”
Blatantly wrong. It’s worthwhile linking to his post again to refresh your memory. See figures 2 through 6:
https://okulaer.com/2021/03/27/testing-and-refuting-the-central-prediction-of-the-agw-hypothesis/
“If Kristian were correct, then the Temperature component of the trend would match the Total trend.”
You have conflated several issues here, which requires me to point out your obfuscation. Kristian is using data covering 1985 to 2020 versus Loeb’s 2000-2020. The trends will not be absolutely comparable.
Second, Loeb is using a multi-component analysis which presumably (because I haven’t yet critically attempted a closer inspection) assigns a relative contribution to the total OLR as a zero-sum combination of the various factors. We know that the cloud contribution is suspect, and I believe the WV and others’ contributions are spectrophotometrically contrived. Temperature is the only factor that cannot be waffled unless you consider UAH suspect.
My final objection is relying only on trends instead of the close correlation between OLR and temperature. Assuming 0.31 W/m2 for the trend is correct, one can imagine that if the initial OLR anomaly in 2000 was about 0.5 W/m2 and -0.5 W/m2 in 2020, then the change in OLR could be as much as 0.5 W/m2/decade. That would make it spot on with the temperature contribution.
“You have conflated several issues here, which requires me to point out your obfuscation. Kristian is using data covering 1985 to 2020 versus Loeb’s 2000-2020. The trends will not be absolutely comparable.”
I had already pointed out to you that K has made dubious adjustments to align the various pieces from different satellites to create a single OLR trend from 1985-2020. I had already pointed out to him that no such pieced together series can be found in the literature that agrees with his. Another paper pieced a subset of it together quite differently.
Thus the pieces should be look at separately. The 2000-2020 piece was collected with one set of satellites, and the most sophisticated one.
“Second, Loeb is using a multi-component analysis which presumably (because I haven’t yet critically attempted a closer inspection) assigns a relative contribution to the total OLR as a zero-sum combination of the various factors.”
And so??
“We know that the cloud contribution is suspect” No WE don’t. WE just havent bothered to read the references cited for the methods.
“and I believe the WV and others’ contributions are spectrophotometrically contrived.” Temperature is the only factor that cannot be waffled unless you consider UAH suspect.”
WTF is your evidence for it being “spectrophotometrically contrived”?
Perfect illustration of the Chip approach to rejecting evidence that is unsupportive of his beliefs. Applying extra (BS) skepticism to high quality published work.
While applying LITTLE TO NO skepticism to the unpublished worksupportive of your beliefs work, by a blogger with an agenda, whom you have to trust to have done things correctly. He hasnt.
“Using a potentially less accurate temperature trend may cause less statistical significance, but that does not invalidate his refutation of the hypothesis you have not validated yourself, having not invalidated his refutation, either, for that matter.
He reports NO statistical significance because he does no error analysis. He cannot ‘refute the hypothesis” without error analysis!
Anybody who is science literate should understand that. Why don’t you?
“To do that you would need to show that the error analysis Kristian omitted makes his correlation insignificant.”
I don’t to need show that. He is the one making the claim! It is incumbent on him to show what its statistical significance is.
Classic Chic. Automatic acceptance of suspect evidence in favor of his beliefs.
Ever growing barriers to acceptance of high quality evidence opposed to his beliefs.
Its hard to see any daylight between the Chip approach and that of Flat Earthers. (the pictures from space are all fake!)
“My final objection is relying only on trends instead of the close correlation between OLR and temperature.
The close correlation is entirely expected because ENSO has exactly those effects on OLR via clouds and warming ocean, as described in Loeb.
So this correlation is a red herring when it comes to testing the GHE hypothesis.
“Assuming 0.31 W/m2 for the trend is correct, one can imagine that if the initial OLR anomaly in 2000 was about 0.5 W/m2 and -0.5 W/m2 in 2020, then the change in OLR could be as much as 0.5 W/m2/decade. That would make it spot on with the temperature contribution.”
Again spot-on is not what Loeb found.
Why does K use UAH data while he uses surface T to compare to models. The surface data trend and RSS trend are much higher.
“And so??”
And so I am skeptical that the alleged contributions to the OLR are independently derived absolute contributions that, when totaled, would be compared to the trend from the OLR data.
“WTF is your evidence for it being ‘spectrophotometrically contrived’?”
I am so glad you asked. I thought maybe MODRAN or HITRAN or the like would be used to convert a change in CO2 concentration into W/m2. That is spectrophotometrically contrived, because those conversions have not been verified to actually affect temperature changes. How else do you see it?
Your pontifications about my skepticism and the credibility of bloggers are just another form of obfuscation, which can be filed under the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
“He cannot refute the hypothesis without error analysis!”
I disagree. So what. Don’t complain to me. What are you going to do about it?
“I dont to need show that. ”
Good, then Kristian’s rebuttal stands.
“Classic Chic.”
I like that, but not you following up with ad hominems #2. #3, and #4.
“The close correlation is entirely expected….”
Then what beef would Loeb have with Kristian? I don’t see the red herring.
“The surface data trend and RSS trend are much higher.”
All you have to do is back up your assertions with the data. How hard can it be?
Look, this has gone on long enough. Your problem seems to be with Kristian. I simply won’t do the work you refuse to do to make your case.
There, go pound sand. Or throw a tantrum. Demand Dr. Spencer ban me. Hopefully you won’t kick the dog or beat your wife up over it.
“Look, this has gone on long enough. Your problem seems to be with Kristian.”
I have pointed out obvious flaws and presented contradictory published results. But none of that is looked at objectively.
It is impossible to have an honest debate with someone who thinks it is perfectly ok to apply double standards to evidence.
Good example of the double standard here.
“am so glad you asked. I thought maybe MODRAN or HITRAN or the like would be used to convert a change in CO2 concentration into W/m2.”
You assuming. Not finding out what was done. Also it is WV.
Meanwhile Kristian applies a fudge factor 0.266 to compare olr to T . Where is it from? Is it correct? You dont care.
Maybe a few more platitudes will help you get the message. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don’t like my standards or objectivity, take it or leave it. You can always take your ball and go home.
“Not finding out what was done.”
That’s right. It’s a win-win for me. If you don’t challenge me on it, most likely I’m right. If your challenge is correct, I learn something.
Makes no difference whether it is WV or CO2 when it comes to converting a change in CO2 concentration into W/m2. It is still a calculation that does not necessarily translate into any temperature effect.
The 0.266 K/W/m2 factor inverts to 3.76 W/m2/K. It comes from taking the first derivative of the SB equation with respect to T and evaluating at T =255K, 4*sigma*255^3 = 3.76 W/m2/K. You may prefer the van Wijngaarden and Happer value from their equation (86) on page 32, which inverts to a slightly smaller factor.
Is it correct or a fudge factor? Read Kristian and W&H and you tell me.
If I didn’t care, would I bother explaining it to you? You are welcome.
“Your pontifications about my skepticism and the credibility of bloggers are just another form of obfuscation, which can be filed under the logical fallacy of ad hominem.”
Awwww…
if thats a logical fallacy than that puts 95% of your posts into that bin!
Call that obfuscation #56
Your applying a blatant double standard to the evidence is a fact. It makes honest debate with you impossible.
And it is a fact that blogger Kristian’s analysis has never been published and fact-checked by experts in that field.
Why not?
That actually matters. That means there is little to prevent him from distorting or omitting facts.
And his dubious choices, like his adjustments of those various pieces of the record, have not been scrutinized by people who collected that data, who would know if they are valid choices.
Like his oversimplification of the theory. Like his lack of error analysis.
Like his then unwarranted conclusion of refuting a hypothesis.
It is a mistake to accept his results without a giant heap of skepticism.
“The 0.266 K/W/m2 factor inverts to 3.76 W/m2/K. It comes from taking the first derivative of the SB equation with respect to T and evaluating at T =255K, 4*sigma*255^3 = 3.76 W/m2/K.”
I was aware of where it came from. Didnt think you were. Im impressed.
But what you would call ‘contrived’ assumptions are in there. Like the use of 255 K in there. The actual OLR comes from the surface at 288 K and from the atmosphere at various temps for various parts of the spectrum.
Loeb says
“Input variables include skin temperature, profiles of temperature and water vapor, surface albedo, aerosols, trace gases..”
So basically he appears to be calculating the effect of temperature change at various places at the surface and using the atmospheric temp profile.
The point is he finds the OLR change from Temperature change alone does not match the TOTAL OLR change. Contradicting what K claims.
“Your applying a blatant double standard to the evidence is a fact.”
You’re in opinion territory there, school teacher, not fact. If my calling you on obfuscation is ad hominem-ious, then welcome to a pissing contest which is what you’ve degenerated this “debate” into. I’m going to debate, argue, call you King of Obfuscation all I want. What are you going to do about it? Call my parents? Send me to the principal?
“…blogger Kristians analysis has never been published….That actually matters.”
It doesn’t matter that much to me. He wrote a good refutation of the unverified AGW hypothesis. All you do is promote the dogma and prowl around here looking to find any opinion that doesn’t jive with your closed-mind world view. You have no models, no data, and every time you try to make a counter argument, like this one, you fizzle out. I told you what you have to do. Go get the data that rebuts the argument. Quit with the pot-shot complaining what this guy and that guy didn’t do.
For example, stop with the complaint about Kristian’s “dubious adjusting pieces of record” nonsense. And stop with the over-simplification business and error analysis. Nobody likes a broken record. I’m not going to give you an inch on any of that. You know what to do. Go publish a rebuttal somewhere or make the case here.
You are not the judge and jury here. You are no name blogger with nothing to do, apparently, but propagandize for who and for who knows what reason. Somebody has to be paying you. Tell them, if they pay me, I’ll stop pointing out all this obfuscation.
“I was aware of where [0.266] came from.”
So your complaint about Kristian using it was just a ruse to trap me? That’s what I’m talking about! You’re not here to advance knowledge and share information. It’s either your paid shill job or some kind of weird kinky game you’re playing. You complain about my skepticism. Hey, I’m not paid to defend anybody’s dogma. I have my ideas about what’s going on and I keep my eyes open to see if it fits with reality. That’s what keeps me tuned in here.
I made my own estimate of the K/W/m2 factor contribution to OLR by estimating 15% of IR from the surface, 21% from the tropopause, and the rest from 255K. It came out to 0.269. So Kristian’s estimate is good enough for me at this time.
“So basically he appears to be calculating the effect of temperature change at various places at the surface and using the atmospheric temp profile.”
OK, so you still have some work to do to be sure that he, me, and Kristian are all on the same page.
“The point is he finds the OLR change from Temperature change alone does not match the TOTAL OLR change. Contradicting what K claims.”
OK, you can be skeptical of that and check into Loeb’s principal-component-like approach, or just accept it at face value and continue to make a nuisance of yourself and rag on Kristian’s refutation of AGW. Your choice.
” Im going to debate, argue, call you King of Obfuscation all I want.”
Of course you will! You have a double standard for ad-homs as well as evidence.
“For example, stop with the complaint about Kristians ‘dubious adjusting pieces of record’ nonsense.”
How can it be nonsense when you offer NO rebuttal. In fact at some point you agreed that it was not nonsense. What happened to that Chic?
“And stop with the over-simplification business and error analysis. Nobody likes a broken record. ”
Again, not a broken record because you offer no sensible rebuttal.
Your approach seems to be ‘once Ive heard it, I can ignore it and move on.’
But these are still legitimate issues. Without error analysis, without real theory to test, no professional scientist would make a claim to have ‘refuted a hypothesis’. Cuz that makes no sense.
This is precisely my point. No legitimate problems matter to you because apparently youve decided
‘It doesnt matter that much to me. He wrote a good refutation of the unverified AGW hypothesis.’ ”its good enough for me’.
K’s work is intended only for science rubes who have his agenda. It appears you are one of those.
It will never influence science since the scientists in the field will never read it.
You regularly implore people to be ‘open minded’ about these issues, while you yourself are not open minded enough to look at the evidence from both sides with any measure of objectivity.
That is hypocritical.
“When asked to show what the actual theory predicts, he couldnt offer anything.”
“Blatantly wrong. Its worthwhile linking to his post again to refresh your memory. See figures 2 through 6:K ”
K: “So, across each incremental step of the process, Te ends up at the same value as before (cooling first, then warming back up), while Ts (average global surface temp) and Ttropo (average global tropospheric temp) both end up at a higher value than before (Fig.1). And that is the gist of how the greenhouse warming mechanism is supposed to work.”
Yes indeed that is ‘the gist’ but not an actual prediction of an OLR trend.
In the real world Te has not ended up at the same value as before because there has been a growing energy imbalance.
And there are AGW feedbacks that reduce arctic ice albedo. There are downward aerosol trends. Thus the ‘abs*orbed’ solar has increased and Te must therefore increase.
In the real world the OLR is generated at the surface, at various levels in the atmosphere, and by clouds.
The real theory needs to account for these effects and produce a predicted OLR trend with uncertainty (error bars).
The observations of OLR trend with error can then be compared to the prediction.
And if they disagree significantly, ie outside the trend errors, only then can it be claimed that the theory is refuted.
That is why you won’t find a publication anywhere claiming what K is claiming.
“The close correlation is entirely expected.”
“Then what beef would Loeb have with Kristian? I dont see the red herring.”
The red herring is that it says nothing to refute GHE theory! Only the trends need to be tested.
“The surface data trend and RSS trend are much higher.”
“All you have to do is back up your assertions with the data. How hard can it be?”
You should know very well that RSS and surface trends are much higher than UAH.
RSS LT since 1979 0.213 K/decade
BEST since 1979 0.194 K/decade
UAH LT since 1979 0.134 K/decade.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/best/mean:12/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah6/trend
If K had used even an average of RSS and UAH, there would lots of daylight between his measured OLR and Temp trends.
But then he would not be able to claim refutation of the theory.
“I made my own estimate of the K/W/m2 factor contribution to OLR by estimating 15% of IR from the surface, 21% from the tropopause, and the rest from 255K. It came out to 0.269. So Kristians estimate is good enough for me at this time.”
Good I agree, close enough.
“OK, so you still have some work to do to be sure that he, me, and Kristian are all on the same page.”
I think K needs to do the work here to convince others that what he has done is valid.
The point is he finds the OLR change from Temperature change alone does not match the TOTAL OLR change. Contradicting what K claims.
OK, you can be skeptical of that and check into Loebs principal-component-like approach, or just accept it at face value”
Yep, if you are skeptical enough YOU should check into it further or accept it on face value. Your choice.
“and continue to make a nuisance of yourself and rag on Kristians refutation of AGW.”
Just a much needed fact-check on misleading blog science that no-one else is bothering to do.
With Loebs paper(s), they has gone thru peer review. They are published and on-display for anyone in the field to read, criticize, particularly competitors, or expert skeptics like Roy and his collaborators, other skeptics like Judith Curry, etc.
Lets take the period in Loeb 21 and analyze it with only K analysis. Use BEST, UAH and RSS and compare.
The period he notes is 9/2002 to 3/2020. The OLR during this period had a trend of 0.24 +- 0.13 W/m2/dec.
Using K’s 0.266 factor that would correspond to a T trend of
0.0665 +-0.029 C/decade.
What were the actual T trends?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2002.75/to:2020.25/trend/plot/rss/from:2002.75/to:2020.25/trend/plot/uah6/from:2002.75/to:2020.25/trend
Click on raw data to see OLS trends
BEST 0.2505 C/dec
RSS 0.235 C/dec
UAH 0.187 C/dec
So in this continuous satellite coverage period.
The OLR trend and considering its error, is much shallower than the T trend range, or its minimum UAH.
Correction:
The OLR trend and considering its error, is much shallower than would be predicted by the range of T trends, or even its minimum UAH.
That means that OLR is being reduced below what T alone would produce. Consistent with reduction by GHG inclu WV and CO2.
Your choice…was obviously the latter. You are doubling down on your broken record, obfuscation, and being a nuisance.
Now that you got all that Gish gallop innuendos off your chest, are you ready to apply your skepticism standards to your critique of Loeb 2021? They used a statistical technique that attributes alleged contributions to a total. I’m not satisfied that that is any better than Kristian’s analysis that explains all the OLR from the temperature response to the warmed planet alone.
“Yes indeed that is ‘the gist’ but not an actual prediction of an OLR trend. In the real world Te has not ended up at the same value as before because there has been a growing energy imbalance.”
That’s true, but Kristian could also have drawn his theoretical figures to show an increase in Te due to the imbalance. The ‘gist’ is that the DIFFERENCE between the actual temperatures and the Te calculated from OLR is NO TREND. That means the increase in OLR is totally explained by the increase in temperature. No need to invoke any mythical GHE and ambiguous albedo or cloud effects. I’m beginning to wonder if you even understand the gist.
If you want to make a legitimate challenge to Kristian’s version of the AGW warming hypothesis or GHE, feel free to do that.
Regardless of what method is used to attribute contributions to OLR, the closeness of the trends depends to some degree on the choice of temperature series and the factor converting W/m2 to temperature. The UAH series and Kristian’s 0.266 sufficiently justifies his claim to have refuted the AGW hypothesis as he portrayed it. Furthermore, the close correlation cements a reasonable conclusion that the relationship is causatory. In other words, you don’t need to add in any other contributions like CO2 or albedo to improve the correlation. You may not agree with that, but your objection is spitting into the wind.
If RSS is the proper temperature series to use, then one could argue that 0.266 is too large and derive a smaller value. More importantly, how do you argue that RSS is better than UAH when prior to 2002 both series were much the same?
I’m done here other than to remind you that your beef is with Kristian and if you want to rebut his refutation, you need to at least show his trends are significantly different or justify the use of a difference temperature series. You should preface that by explaining how the ‘real’ theory accounts for all possible contributions and produces a predicted OLR trend not confounded by the various factors.
Correction, “… one could argue that 0.266 is too small and derive a larger value.”
However, I don’t want to argue that because any change large enough to matter is unrealistic. The issues are with temperature and OLR trend variability.
Nate says:
And it is a fact that blogger Kristian’s analysis has never been published and fact-checked by experts in that field.
Why not?
That actually matters. That means there is little to prevent him from distorting or omitting facts.
————————
LOL! There is a sucker born every minute! That’s pretty in a social environment can’t even agree what a ‘man’ or ‘woman’ is.
My experience suggests that if you personally cannot detect what facts are distorted or omitted and you choose to rely upon somebody else to tell you. . . .be sure you have legal recourse to somebody who misinforms you. . . . and that would include Kristians himself.
That is a philosophy that has served me extremely well over many years particularly when I became mature enough to fully understand the reason why.
But unfortunately what we have is a very large segment of the population who desires to not follow that advice and even acts to attempt to foist it on others. Pretty disgusting ignorance. . . .pretty much responsible for the vast majority of problems the world has faced over its entire history.
“The gist is that the DIFFERENCE between the actual temperatures and the Te calculated from OLR is NO TREND. That means the increase in OLR is totally explained by the increase in temperature.”
But as I showed you,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1211421
when we compare the actual temperatures and the Te calculated from OLR, there is a LARGE difference, for the period 2002-2020.
For RSS, BEST or UAH.
Did you miss this?
It is noteworthy that this is a continuous period of satellite coverage, thus requiring none of Kristian’s ‘adjustments’.
This agrees with Loeb, though he calculated the T contribution differently.
“Regardless of what method is used to attribute contributions to OLR, the closeness of the trends depends to some degree on the choice of temperature series and the factor converting W/m2 to temperature. The UAH series and Kristians 0.266 sufficiently justifies his claim to have refuted the AGW hypothesis as he portrayed it.”
I see, so if your theory works for the lowest trend series but not the others, no worries. Drop the mike, and claim victory?
If your theory works by making questionable adjustments in the gaps between data sets, drop the mike.
If it doesnt work within the datasets where no adjustment is needed, no worries!
Weird.
“Furthermore, the close correlation cements a reasonable conclusion that the relationship is causatory. In other words, you dont need to add in any other contributions like CO2 or albedo to improve the correlation.”
The relationship IS causatory. When T changes and nothing else compensates for it, then OLR SHOULD change. No one disputes this!
No one is arguing that over a short term, the GHE should respond to ENSO warming/cooling and its OLR changes.
On the contrary, the GHE is expected to grow slowly over a long period of time and affect the TREND in OLR, not the short term variation.
“Im done here other than to remind you that your beef is with Kristian”
My beef was with Kristian, but you were the one who brought his work up, again.
“and if you want to rebut his refutation, you need to at least show his trends are significantly different or justify the use of a difference temperature series. ”
Did just that. Used his method on current data, and trends are significantly different. His conclusions are not valid for this continuous period of time, and must rely on his ‘adjustments’.
So, lacking any of the usual excuses to reject it, do you accept this is valid evidence against Kristian’s claims?
No of course not. It’s Chic.
I really hate writing “I’m done here” while proceeding to prolong this further waste of time confronting your obfuscations.
I mentioned Kristian only in the context of the previous thread’s discussion of emission height explaining that it is hypothetical, not real. I asked you to clarify why Kristian’s description of AGW hypothesis is wrong. You are the one getting into the weeds over Loeb vs. Kristian.
Long term vs. short term: You can’t rebut Kristian with the long term trend, so you cherry pick Loeb’s shorter period.
The arguably best data, UAH, gives a good trend comparison, so you want to insert RSS or a surface temperature series. The latter are suspect for obvious reasons. You still have yet to justify RSS over UAH.
“Did just that. Used his method on current data, and trends are significantly different.”
Yes the 2002 to 2020 OLR trend is different from the longer term trend. For some reason, Loeb 2020 doesn’t include the full continuous data which would make the trend larger. I am trying to get the data and do the stats myself. You “did just that” NOT.
“His conclusions are not valid for this continuous period of time, and must rely on his ‘adjustments’.”
That is yet to be determined and unless you have evidence to refute his adjustments, that’s ok. Just because someone else has a different opinion about the adjustments doesn’t make Kristian’s analysis wrong.
“So, lacking any of the usual excuses to reject it, do you accept this is valid evidence against Kristians claims?”
Yes, I will stop beating my wife…oh wait.
The issue being discussed was K’s claim that the OLR trend could be entirely explained by T.
I showed you that Loeb found for the continuous CERES coverage period 2002-2020 that this was simply not the case.
Your main objection, aside from the time period, (Ill come back to that) was this:
“Loeb is using a multi-component analysis which presumably (because I havent yet critically attempted a closer inspection) assigns a relative contribution to the total OLR as a zero-sum combination of the various factors.”
So. then I showed you that even without any of the fancy attributions, just using K’s analysis, the OLR trend is very much lower then the T trend for the continuous CERES coverage period 2002-2020, using any of the data sets.
IOW, I give you what you asked for “if you want to rebut his refutation, you need to at least show his trends are significantly different”
This was when, very conveniently, you declared “Im done here”.
As to “Long term vs. short term: You cant rebut Kristian with the long term trend, so you cherry pick Loebs shorter period.”
You know very well that I did rebut his long term trend. Did you forget that these satellite measurements have ‘absolute accuracy’ issues that made you doubt their small error bars on trends?
And that Kristian made his own choice of dubious ‘adjustments’ between the series to align them to give his long term trend, in a way that appeared to be biased to produce a desired result of a match to temperature.”
Again, his choice of ‘adjustments’ have never been fact-checked by people who collected the data. And a previous Chic said of this “Thats a valid criticism”.
So at best one could conclude his analysis is interesting, but far from conclusive. It needs to be reviewed by experts (which neither us is).
Face it, Nate. Nothing I say will please you. You will use adjustments, unfact-checking, truncated data, out-of-context “that’s a valid criticism” and probably other stuff that I don’t need to explain, because you are locked into the dogma.
I’m not done here until I open the .nc file that I downloaded and run the trend analysis myself. However, that won’t change anything because you will never accept Kristian’s long term analysis. Your only game is to hassle people here at drroyspencer.com. You have no models, data, etc. of your own. Only your Loeb data. Sad.
Can you follow all his hand waving arguments here to justify, in the end, that he, made the right choices, which he admits was based on assuming his hypothesis, while published papers did not make the right choices?
“https://okulaer.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
You find this convincing? I dont.
Again, this requires expert input, which he hasnt bothered to get.
“However, that wont change anything because you will never accept Kristians long term analysis.”
There is no reason for me ‘accept’ blog science with obvious holes in it, thats never been fact-checked or peer reviewed. Am I expected to just trust that K made the right choices?
Why should I?
Your auto-acceptance of contrarian work is absolutely baked in.
Exposure of the flaws in the work never ever makes a difference.
“Can you follow…?”
Of course, I have no problem reading English and understanding good scientific rationale. Kristian goes into great detail to explain what you call hand-waving. That’s why you are King of Obfuscation. You really should get some psychological help, although you may be too far gone for counseling to do any good.
Kristian’s detail is much more understandable than anything Loeb 2021 has done. In my work on CO2 emissions, I can use either temperature or population to give good estimates of a reasonable contribution from non-fossil fuel emissions to closely explain the Mauna Loa data using a single sink rate constant. The two contributions are conflated. IOW, both may be contributing to the CO2 rise and I have no way of differentiating to what degree either are contributing. My statistical analysis will spit out the best correlation and predict what fraction of each contributes. But that is what is known as a best guess. Similarly unless Loeb can explain how the several contributions to OLR can be distinguished, one can only accept on faith that CO2 or the others play any role at all.
The published papers you brag about, assuming it is from the Allen group to whom Kristian refers, use an offset based on model output. This is not a strong justification as Kristian thoroughly explains. If you are going to challenge Kristian on that, you will need to stop using appeals to authority and start justifying their methods based on science. Expert opinion is not science, is it?
Kristian’s alleged hand-waving from his verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record post is summarized here:
“‘[UPSCALE data (climate model simulations)] use realistic radiative forcings’ is another way of saying that the UPSCALE model simulations (just like the CMIP5 ensemble mean) very much adhere to the ‘enhanced GHE’ dogma; in other words, OLR stays flat while T increases.”
“There is no reason for me ‘accept’ blog science….”
Good. Then don’t. Go ahead and keep drinking the Kool-Aid. You are just a pissant, as far as I know, without any credible expertise in climate science. I don’t either, but I’m not the one making judgements about science based on by who and where they were published. You need to get some skin in the game. Let’s see your data that backs up your argument. There is something wrong with this Loeb trend business and I am on a learning curve to find out what. If I were you I would do likewise.
” good scientific rationale.”
That seems to be, for some reason, unpublishable in a scientific journal. Maybe because it is based on assuming the hypothesis, a huge scientific no-no, then post-hoc rationalization. Maybe because of the lack of error analysis, a huge scientific non-no. Maybe because of the lack of real theory being tested.
C’mon you are being extremely flexible in your notions of what counts as science. If this werent posted on a contrarian blog with an anti-AGW agenda you would not be letting it get away with being these major scientific flaws.
“Good. Then dont. Go ahead and keep drinking the Kool-Aid.”
The ‘Kool-Aid’ is science operating with the usual standards of science, that is peer-reviewed, published for all experts to critique, contains error analysis, is fact-checkable, whose agenda is simply to do good science.
” but Im not the one making judgements about science based on by who and where they were published. ”
Are YOU expert enough at satellite measurements and all the nuances of their calibration, and adjustment, the different types of measurements that different equipment did, to be able to judge whether Kristian’s adjustments are valid?
No, of course not.
But you trust it anyway.
“C’mon you are being extremely flexible in your notions of what counts as science.”
Possibly. But put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. There are many examples of peer reviewed papers that had to be withdrawn and climate science probably has as bad a reputation for peer collusion as any of the real hard sciences. My view is similar to this one from Tim Ball, “As a climatologist I take a systems approach and try to put each specialist piece in the general puzzle. If it doesn’t fit, I want to know why and too often ‘hard’ scientists are unable to offer an answer.” Hard science cannot prove CO2 increases global temperature. Anthropogenic global warmers like yourself claim it does. Kristian offers an Occam’s Razor approach that shows it doesn’t and his argument won’t get any better by putting on error bars lipstick. It won’t satisfy you and the don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts-I’ve-already-made-up-my-mind crowd.
“The ‘Kool-Aid’ is science…is simply to do good science.”
Maybe you aren’t old enough to know about the Jim Jones’ cult massacred by drinking poison-laced Kool-Aid.
If Loeb’s objective is to do good science, why did they only use 2002 to 2020 instead of starting with the first data available in March 2000?
“But you trust it anyway.”
No, I don’t trust in anything human unless saving my life depends on it.
Any chance you’ll come up with anything but warmed-over obfuscation?
Nate says:
”That seems to be, for some reason, unpublishable in a scientific journal. Maybe because it is based on assuming the hypothesis, a huge scientific no-no, then post-hoc rationalization. Maybe because of the lack of error analysis, a huge scientific non-no. Maybe because of the lack of real theory being tested.”
Nate this is pure fiction. Hypotheses are offered up in scientific publications on a daily basis. Nothing at all unusual. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is a great example. Hypothesis made, proof obtained a few years later.
Its just sometimes in political environments it gets biased who will be allowed to hypothesize and a political litmus test is enforced.
Overseers who owe zero accountability and even are protected by anonymity abuse their positions at will with zero consequences. Its the exact opposite model of public assurance for financial information released to the public for the purpose of soliciting investment. These auditors bear strict liability for their work meeting an entire panoply of standards and practices in completing their reviews.
Such a valid model of review in the world of academia would be impractical it would virtually shutdown the publications. It would be like only having an ‘official’ valid point of view as to what qualified for publication. Where the problem is though is when such publications are cherry picked for the purpose of the government regulating both what people do and say.
We saw that conspiracy very much alive and well in the Climategate emails where folks were being open about blocking access and going after peoples jobs who dared to publish or aid in publishing any criticism of the Emperor having no clothes.
People like you are a huge obstruction to science, cutting down hypotheses with a wave of a hand and bullshit claims that such stuff doesn’t belong in a scientific journal. Fact is Nate anything that produces a different angle of thought and/or provides a new and scientifically valid compilation data can be worthy of publication.
If you were a true liberal you would be well aware of how important a free and open marketplace of ideas is to our quality of life.
Publication gate keepers should be honorable folks who apply identical standards of review across every proposed article. You live entirely in your own world of cowardly fear that others may misinterpret the thrust of a paper you disagree with. When in fact for you to understand what really is wrong, all you have to do is look at yourself in a mirror and recognize that your own point of view has weak and spindly evidence that can be easily disregarded.
The general population is far more smarter about that than you give them credit for. All you do though is assume they are all dumber than you when in fact the exact opposite is the case. Fact is education does not define intelligence in any way shape or form.
But no you are not going to look at yourself in the mirror! Your entire crusade here is exactly as characterized by Chic. You simply object to the marketplace of ideas being open because of whatever benefit you see to yourself in one idea versus the other and you just can’t stand the fact that stuff you adamantly disagree with sees any light of day. Your one sided comment above is decidedly evidence of that.
It is clearly your sole purpose here.
Im not saying published papers must be right. They are often wrong.
But publishing and peer review has historically facilitated science.
Im saying they have gone thru a minimum of fact-checking, and they are put out there for anybody, particularly experts and competitors in the field to read and then critique, and try to replicate or repudiate.
Im saying that blog articles that have not gone thru this will never be read and fact-checked by experts.
I have published a number of papers. Doing so requires you to fact-check yourself, make sure you understand the background work, make sure you arent misrepresented other peoples work, make sure you arent making mistakes.
Publishing something that turns out to be wrong can be humiliating, and most would rather avoid it.
There can be highly technical things in papers, and non-experts will have hard time judging their accuracy.
A good example is UAH and RSS. The disagree by a lot. There are different instruments with different technical issues. It is quite difficult for non-experts to judge which one of them is doing something wrong and what it is they are doing wrong.
Any of us non-experts claiming we KNOW UAH is doing it right and RSS is doing wrong, or vice-versa is likely a liar or delusional.
Bill,
Nate’s “maybe it is based on assuming the hypothesis” is just another obfuscation and ploy to avoid stating what the “real theory is” as if its hypothesis has ever been validated.
“True liberals” are becoming endangered species due to political correctness and the cancel culture. It will be interesting to see how Nate responds to your critique.
“It appears I was right
33y TLT–OLR connection confirmed!”
Kristian was intent on fact-checking himself, cuz no other experts cared to, and sure enough he passed with flying colors!
Let’s be very clear here. what was he fact-checking. His ‘discovery’ that UAH Temperature and OLR match over 30 y.
How to do that check? First step, force the hypothesis to come true!
“This initial hypothesis was then made ready to be put to the test. I combined the two separate OLR curves (ERBS and CERES) into one by placing them on top of the single TLT curve (UAHv6), adjusting them in such a way and to such an extent that they matched the overall progression of the TLT curve from 1985 all the way to 2017.”
I am the one who complained to him that this was a science no-no.
The problem is that contrarians like Kristian, once they latch onto a new way to cancel climate science, they never let go! They never never ever ever admit error.
Thus focused K’s attention on finding and interpreting facts in order to confirm his beliefs.
And shockingly enough he ‘found them’.
“It appears I was right
33y TLT–OLR connection confirmed!”
From the start there were problems:
K:”my entire argument that there is no trace in 33 years of high-quality radiation flux data (ERBS+CERES) of an ‘enhanced GHE’ contribution to ‘global warming'”
We know what happens within those two consecutive timespans [1985-1999 & 2000-2017], covered by each radiation flux dataset [ERBS & CERES] separately and in succession. Thats really an open-and-shut case. The persisting pattern is unmistakable, undeniable.”
Except it IS VERY deniable for the period 2002-2020.
The problem is that Kristian and Chic (see above) are both misled by the match between short-term T variation and OLR variation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1211703
There is no doubt of a match, because as I explained above, it is well understood that warming/cooling T SHOULD lead to OLR variation on the short term, but this says NOTHING about long-term trends in OLR.
The K hypothesis of a match between the trend of OLR and Temperature is simply NOT TRUE for the period 2002-2020.
As I showed above, and this is easily checked:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1211421
when we compare the actual temperatures and the Te calculated from OLR, there is a LARGE difference, for the period 2002-2020.
For RSS, BEST or UAH.
It is the opposite of an OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE as K claimed.
K then focuses on a
“potentially also during a gap in the WFOV record during 1993 [Trenberth, 2002]. Since there is no way to know the true changes during these periods, we use the following method.”
“Because values from instruments on different satellites cannot be trusted without overlapping measurements, the reality of the increase in OLR in the 1990s hinges on the continuity of the ERBS measurements. However, there was a three-month hiatus in those measurements in 1993, after which substantial changes in calibration occurred and an offset of 2.5 W m−2 was introduced**. Without that offset, the decadal increase in OLR would not exist. At the very least, this raises questions about the reality of the decadal variation reported ”
There is clearly lots of back and forth and controversy about how much OLR changed in the gap.
Allen et al describe a method using reanalysis data and simulations to fill the gap. “we consider that simulated flux changes are likely to be realistic over these relatively short periods of the record”
They have a solid scientific rationale. Have they done it right? I don’t know.
But What is K’s method to fill the gap?
He uses UAH T data! It doesnt match well at all to OLR in that Pinatubo period. But he continues to assume the hypothesis must be true! And he unconvincingly finds NO adjustment in the gap is needed.
PFFT!
Which leads of course to a substantial trend in OLR in the 90s that, shockingly, matches UAH T.
Based on all this, the reconstructed 33 y OLR record is highly questionable.
This is why I focused on the continuous CERES period. In this period the K hypothesis is proven completely wrong.
Nate says:
Kristian was intent on fact-checking himself, cuz no other experts cared to, and sure enough he passed with flying colors!
Let’s be very clear here. what was he fact-checking. His ‘discovery’ that UAH Temperature and OLR match over 30 y.
How to do that check? First step, force the hypothesis to come true!
I am the one who complained to him that this was a science no-no.
The problem is that contrarians like Kristian, once they latch onto a new way to cancel climate science, they never let go! They never never ever ever admit error.
Thus focused K’s attention on finding and interpreting facts in order to confirm his beliefs.
And shockingly enough he ‘found them’.
—————————
Nate all that is is arm waving on your behalf. Who told you that you were in any position at all to state what is a no-no in science? Not to speak of you not having any argument or source to back you up.
“once they latch onto a new way to cancel climate science, they never let go! They never never ever ever admit error.”
Especially Bill.
Bill,
Nate’s response was in fact interesting and incredibly long winded. He doesn’t find anyone else who can find fault with Kristian’s TLT-OLR connection and declares himself judge and jury. You got right to the heart of the matter with, “Who told [Nate was] in any position at all to state what is a no-no in science?”
What a hypocrite he is!
Once he latches onto anyone challenging climate science dogma, he never lets go! He never never ever ever admits error.
Just more handwaving from sourceless Nate. So typical. Nate saying its a scientific no-no holds absolutely no water. May as well be asking Joey Tribbiani.
Chic Bowdrie says:
You got right to the heart of the matter with, ”Who told [Nate was] in any position at all to state what is a no-no in science?”
——————————–
Yep, when he does find a source it is usually actually supporting the point of view he is arguing against. Lets see if he does it again or he just continues to handwave. LOL!
“He doesn’t find anyone else who can find fault with Kristian’s TLT-OLR connection and declares himself judge and jury.”.
And if anyone throws shade at contrarian science, then it just becomes more righteous!
Meanwhile for published climate science: its BS even if you don’t have clue why:
“There is something wrong with this Loeb trend business and I am on a learning curve to find out what.”
Here is Nate’s opening claim in his classic obfuscationary style:
“Thus focused Ks attention on finding and interpreting facts in order to confirm his beliefs.”
K’s hypothesis, following his observation that OLR tracked UAH TLT before and after a gap, was “the OLR would also track the tropospheric temps across the 1999-2000 data gap.” There is no beliefs involved in that. The tracking in the separate periods was observed and the joint tracking was the hypothesis Kristian tested in a completely scientifically appropriate manner.
Nate objection to the observations, “Except it IS VERY deniable for the period 2002-2020” omit the fact that 2002 is two years short of the full record and Nate has not done the fact checking on the original data to know which of the two 21st century data sets are correct. I have yet to download any data resembling either set.
Nate goes on to regurgitate the strawman that short term OLR/temperature relationship doesn’t make it true long term despite the fact that the long term match is exactly the hypothesis that Kristian is testing. Next, Nate again regurgitates the claim that 2002-2020 OLR trend doesn’t match the temperature trend without explaining the 2000-2002 truncation or providing data of his own.
The logic escapes me. Nate acknowledges “no one disputes” the short term OLR/temperature relationship and then claims the 2002-2020 relationship doesn’t exist.
Nate claims “[Allen et al.] have a solid scientific rationale,” but it is essentially using model data to “fill the gap” in the instrumental record.
Nate objects to K’s use of UAH data to fill the gap by ignoring the fact that Kristian used alternative satellite data to verify his filling the gap to be “more or less spot on.”
Nate interprets everything according to his warped AGW mind set and thus erroneously concludes K’s “reconstructed 33 y OLR record questionable” and claims “K hypothesis is proven completely wrong” without definite evidence.
“K’s hypothesis, following his observation that OLR tracked UAH TLT before and after a gap, was ‘the OLR would also track the tropospheric temps across the 1999-2000 data gap.’ There is no beliefs involved in that. The tracking in the separate periods was observed and the joint tracking was the hypothesis Kristian tested in a completely scientifically appropriate manner.”
Interesting. The tracking of short term T to OLR is happening but it is imperfect. It is not reliable enough that the points before a gap and after a gap match can be expected to match each other so perfectly.
Look at this. It shows hardly a perfect match on either side of the gaps. In 1998 at the peak there is a poor match. And what bothered me originally was the jump in OLR immediately after the 1999 gap caused by K’s adjustment choice.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/olr-60-60-erbsceres-c.png
“Nate objection to the observations, ‘Except it IS VERY deniable for the period 2002-2020’ omit the fact that 2002 is two years short of the full record and Nate has not done the fact checking on the original data to know which of the two 21st century data sets are correct. I have yet to download any data resembling either set.”
What are u talking about? What two sets? K gets data from Loeb group. Both he and we have to assume this is correct data.
“ate goes on to regurgitate the strawman that short term OLR/temperature relationship doesn’t make it true long term”
Not a strawman at all. You made exactly such a claim!
“despite the fact that the long term match is exactly the hypothesis that Kristian is testing.”
“Next, Nate again regurgitates the claim that 2002-2020 OLR trend doesn’t match the temperature trend without explaining the 2000-2002 truncation or providing data of his own.”
Why do you think that is suspicious? Loeb has reported all data in other papers.
“The logic escapes me. Nate acknowledges ‘no one disputes’ the short term OLR/temperature relationship and then claims the 2002-2020 relationship doesn’t exist.”
Yes, clearly the logic escapes you. Increased T, with all else equal, should increase OLR. Yes?
The AGW hypothesis is that the OLR blocking effect of GHG is increasing slowly over a long period of time. It is only long term trend that can test that.
The long term trend of OLR (converted to T) in 2002-2020 is different from the long term T trend. Much lower. This is consistent with the blocking effects of GHG inclu water vapor.
I showed you the data. Check it yourself
“Nate claims ‘[Allen et al.] have a solid scientific rationale,’ but it is essentially using model data to ‘fill the gap’ in the instrumental record.”
Yes, they used weather data and reanalysis, which uses weather and climate models to calculate all the atmospheric parameters including OLR. It is one way to fill the gap. But I noted that I do not know if that is going to be correct or not.
“Nate objects to K’s use of UAH data to fill the gap by ignoring the fact that Kristian used alternative satellite data to verify his filling the gap to be ‘more or less spot on.’
His UAH data matches poorly to OLR on either side of the gap with Pinatubo. His claim that no adjustment needed is suspect.
Clearly, others, Trenberth, Allen et al. do not agree with K that NO adjustment is needed.
Given this am I supposed to just trust that K is doing it right and Allen et al, and Trenberth are wrong?
I know enough to know that I am not an expert at these measurements and the different instruments. Therefore I know that am not qualified to judge who is right.
Though again, K’s choices have never been checked by those who are qualified.
And I’m pretty sure you are not qualified either (nor K for that matter).
So if you are trusting K’s interpretation then you should be honest and admit that your trust is based purely on your biases.
“Nate interprets everything according to his warped AGW mind set and thus erroneously concludes K’s ‘reconstructed 33 y OLR record questionable’
Ive explained very clearly my rationale. It is questionable.
“and claims ‘K hypothesis is proven completely wrong’ without definite evidence.”
False. For the 2002-2020 period I showed you the clear evidence.
“omit the fact that 2002 is two years short of the full record”
Lots of stuff in here: have at it.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fclim$002f31$002f2$002fjcli-d-17-0208.1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fclim%24002f31%24002f2%24002fjcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
I gather that a new satellite, Aqua, started to be used in 2002 and required… yep… adjustments.
“Clearly, others, Trenberth, Allen et al. do not agree with K that NO adjustment is needed. Given this am I supposed to just trust that K is doing it right and Allen et al, and Trenberth are wrong?”
No you aren’t. You can assume that both are right or wrong and check for yourself. You have thoroughly checked Kristian’s work, but you haven’t scrutinized the others and you used the others to scrutinize Kristian’s work. I don’t assume either Kristian or Loeb is correct. I will continue my attempts to get the data downloaded so that I can check both sets these guys published. Just because they reported data from the same place doesn’t mean they showed the same data in their reports. Those two accounts don’t look the same to me. Those are the “two sets” I’m talking about.
As for your gripe about Kristian’s fit around 1998, I don’t see the problem. Between 2000 to 2008 the data are almost superimposed. Also, from 2011 to 2016. Moving up or down is not going to make a much better correlation (although feel free to check). The correlation is less “perfect” for the 1985-1998 period, but again a move up or down isn’t warranted.
“It is only long term trend that can test [the AGW hypothesis].”
Yes, and that is what Kristian was doing. To cherry pick one short term period with a trend different from the long term trend and claim fail is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
“The long term trend of OLR (converted to T) in 2002-2020 is different from the long term T trend. Much lower.”
2002-2022 is a short term trend and does not necessary have to equal the long term trend, especially if 2000-2002 has been omitted to make it look so. I remember you arguing that a steady CO2 causes the extremely variable global temperature rise despite the clear evidence the temperature fluctuations control the annual CO2 changes. It seems the shoe is on the other foot now.
Chic says:
No you arent. You can assume that both are right or wrong and check for yourself. You have thoroughly checked Kristians work, but you havent scrutinized the others and you used the others to scrutinize Kristians work.
As for your gripe about Kristians fit around 1998, I dont see the problem. Between 2000 to 2008 the data are almost superimposed. Also, from 2011 to 2016.
———————
So typical of Nate to just pick a political side in the issue. He even wants to rely on Trenberth when its clear that in private Trenberth doesn’t even think he should rely on Trenberth as denoted in the famous quote: ”The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Careers at stake desperate men do desperate things.
“Yes, and that is what Kristian was doing. To cherry pick one short term period with a trend different from the long term trend and claim fail is throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
This is simply a lie. You know very well it is not a cherry pick, since I gave you a clear rationale. The rationale is the the adjustments for the long period are quite controversial and uncertain.
The long term trend of OLR (converted to T) in 2002-2020 is different from the long term T trend. Much lower.
“2002-2022 is a short term trend and does not necessary have to equal the long term trend, especially if 2000-2002 has been omitted to make it look so.”
20 y is not short. It is more than half of his 33. This is a period in which no controversial adjustments are required.
” especially if 2000-2002 has been omitted to make it look so.”
Evidence for that? No you have none. BS.
“I remember you arguing that a steady CO2 causes the extremely variable global temperature rise despite the clear evidence the temperature fluctuations control the annual CO2 changes. It seems the shoe is on the other foot now.”
And that was correct, Strawman King.
No one with a working brain has suggested that ALL T variation should be caused by CO2, and no one denies that short-term T variation affects CO2.
But both are red herrings for AGW.
There is error on the 20 y trends. And unlike Kristian, I and Loeb and Allen discussed the error and the difference in the trends is (just) outside the error bar.
You need to get up to speed on error analysis instead of just wildly waving hands.
Nate says:
”20 y is not short. It is more than half of his 33. This is a period in which no controversial adjustments are required.”
LOL! What are you talking about? It hasn’t yet been determined that a 15,000 year chronology can be used as an indicator of a predicted future linear trend.
With 170 years of climate data along with 42 years of detailed satellite climate data so far we can predict into the future about all of 2 weeks.
“This is simply a lie.”
I did not lie. You misunderstood that my statement only applies to using a short-term period to invalidate a long-term period. I doubt your “clear rationale” that truncating the later period is justified, but that is not why I object to invalidating a long-term trend based on a portion of it not agreeing with the long-term trend. I am not yet convinced Loeb’s truncated trend is accurate and I will never agree to use only that truncated portion to rule out the long-term trend. You can disagree with my analysis, but don’t call me lying about it. It just provides more evidence of your obfuscationary tactics.
“Evidence for that? No you have none.”
Not yet.
I admit that my reference to your view on CO2 vs temperature is not the best example of your double standard on climate change data. I withdraw the accusation.
“I … discussed the error” and “you need to get up to speed on error analysis….”
IIRC, you have only cited what others reported. Being “just outside the error bar” is not up to speed statistics.
By the way, it’s now Day Six of No One Giving A Shit About The Trucker Convoy.
A.K.A.:
a bunch of Qrackheads driving their big giant trucks around in circles (unless it was raining in which case they canceled) while complaining about the price of gas.
TM, you could cut back on the sugar and caffeine. See if that helps….
This morning:
Germany: 2.07 EUR/liter x 1.09 $/EUR x 3.785 liter/gal= 8.55 $/gal
Italy: 2.21 EUR/liter = 9.12 $/gal
Coming soon to the US.
With Biden shutting down Keystone, and the prohibitions on drilling and fracking, it’s almost like someone has a plan, huh?
Not coming to US soon.
European gas prices have always been much higher than in the US due to taxation differences.
Here’d 2005
https://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
Actually, Nate, it’s not that far off when range of pricing is considered in Californication! And if you want “premium” grade that will cost you dearly!
http://www.californiagasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=A
You realize youre comparing today in Ca to 2005 in Europe?
You realize it is still not much different than my original post, right?
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/Europe/
Now you are mixing litres and gallons?
Italy, Germany: $2.4/litre = $9.12/Gal
Oh no? Gas prices have already leapt to $4.69 in my state. Cars are difficult to make, but Biden doesn’t care. He wants to force electric cars down our throats.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf
Read up on how “efficient” electric cars are.
Dr. Spencer, would you do a blog post addressing what you said about the RSS Date?
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/another-correct-forecast-from-roy-spencer/
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/roy-spencers-prediction/
Is the post on Real Climate Science accurate?
This is fascinating if accurate.
But are you forgetting that UAH revised their analysis around that time to FIND we had much LESS warming than UAH had previously thought.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:36/plot/uah6/mean:36
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
says the last 7 years have not been warming at all.
This means that Had is the outlier as the coolest trending of them all during that time.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2014
Says you like cherries with your cycle nuts.
Says the data, not me.
Want to predict next months data?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/offset:-0.48/plot/gistemp/to:2015/trend
https://imgur.com/a/vvpBcVK
for Had
Data don’t say anything, Richard.
You’re just hiding your plausible deniability behind your graphs.
The Auditor did it better than you, and look where he is now.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2013/trend/offset:-0.48/plot/gistemp/to:2013/trend
The data shows that the last 7 years are different to the data before that.
On all the temperature series that Woodfortrees.org supports.
Only a few more years to get a full decade. But a decade is unimportant right?
Since when was 2013 7 years ago?
“Data dont say anything”
Sure. Just ignore inconvenient facts.
I’ll rather ignore what you’re trying to dogwhistle, Richard.
Willard doesn’t do statistics. They are just too inconvenient for him.
We have all learned by experience that RLH will selectively show only data that he thinks supports his beliefs.
He will abuse Zoom-in and OLS as much as necessary to present a misleading view of what is going on.
He will ignore error analysis, and he will fit noise as if it as signal.
What we have learned is that his posts have all the characteristics of propaganda.
So Nate: Want to predict what next months UAH LT temperature will be?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1207424
Its too bad that this is the reputation youve earned.
It would be nice if multiple RSS data sets were available to run the same analysis. Anyway, how can any “science” be settled when the data sets aren’t even reliable? Are any data sets consistent?
If anyone doesn’t understand how thin the troposphere is in winter at mid-latitudes, they should be in the southeastern US right now. Then he will understand how a total freeze can occur in a few hours.
https://i.ibb.co/mXDw0Fm/gfs-T2m-us-6.png
When climate ‘scientists’ claim that the middle of a range is directly comparable to the mean of the same range then you know they are very desperate.
Ken says:
March 11, 2022 at 10:50 AM
If it is not due to CO2 and feedbacks, what do you think is causing the accumulation?
Changes in insolation at 60N due to centuries long cycles in glaciation.
Reply
Entropic man says:
March 11, 2022 at 11:17 AM
If the cause were glacial cycles we should be cooling out of the Holocene.
Instead we are warmingfast.
–
Here it is what I think about it:
The Reversed Milankovitch Cycle
Milankovitchs main idea was that the glacial periods are ruled by planets movements forcing.
Here we have the grapheme of the Reversed Milankovitch cycle. The minimums in the reversed Milankovitch cycle are the maximums in the original. These two cycles, the original Milankovitch cycle and the reversed differ in time only by a half of a year. According to the reversed Milankovitch cycle there are long and very deep glacial periods and small and very short interglacial. The reversed cycle complies with the paleo geological findings. As we can see in the reversed Milankovitch cycle, we are getting now to the end of a long and a slow warming period. What we are witnessing as a Global Climate Change are the culmination moments at the end of that warming period.
Please visit my site’s page devoted to the “Reversed Cycle”
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
Cristos,
They only allow the Milankovitch Cycle as an explanation when it is expedient for them.
Yes, Stephen.
Milankovitch cycle predicts cooling trend. It is wrong assumption. Planet is warmer when the southern oceans summer is at perihelion – when Earth is tilted towards sun with southern oceans.
Thus the Reversed Milankovitch cycle is what explains the Earth’s current warming.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Milankovitch cycle predicts cooling trend. It is wrong assumption.”
Hmm, I guess that is mostly correct.
Milankovitch cycles are connected to when we have a rapid massive increase in global air temperature.
It’s connected to the mystery of how Earth gets from an apparent very cold state {Glaciation period with a mile of glacial ice covering most of Canada [[cold]] to peak interglacial global air temperature.
This current mystery, was what was once called “global warming”.
Then we had the cargo cult which call the coolest time of our Holocene interglacial period “global warming”.
Trying to understand how these cargo cult people are so confused
has been my hobby.
But it seems they have forced me to have this silly hobby.
They are bullies. And they have mostly terrorized children.
I blame NASA.
You know, I read “The education of Henry Adams” who is a bit of
a nut {an amusing nut]. And he had theory of history. He was history professor for 7 years at Cambridge. And apparently the University liked him, but he had mixed feeling about being a professor, but was very grateful for some kind things they said about him.
Anyway this theory was forces attracted “life” or humans, rather than human were attracted to forces {a more common view].
Power as in, political power, attracts people.
But I would say mystery attracts people.
So the mystery of climate cargo cult, attracted me. I was not interested in it.
And we go to the cargo cult of airplanes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
These poor people were not interested in airplanes or the people
used airplanes. They drawn to the mystery of what these apparently crazy people with airplanes were doing.
Though mystery is why I interested in NASA.
Decades ago, sat at my computer, and asked,
what I am interested in?
Why aren’t their colonies on the Moon- or whatever.
Or what they doing.
I like sfi, and so why wasn’t it happening.
But it was my choice. Or seemed to be my choice.
But maybe it wasn’t.
Maybe a lot people are victims of NASA’s incompetence.
It does seem common.
What happening? Where did our future go?
Most space cadets seem to wonder about it.
I like chasing mysteries.
But there is endless mysteries to chase, and seems
invented or unnecessary mysteries are… weak?
Related. Wanted to jolt it down:
“We had this debate about Iraq. Was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam, or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq? In other words, theres the personality, which cant be denied, but there are also structural factors that shape the personality. One of the arguments I made in my Stalin book was that being the dictator, being in charge of Russian power in the world in those circumstances and in that time period, made Stalin who he was and not the other way around.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
Poor, poor, Stalin???
[The murderous fiend]
If like America- think about as a therapy for US presidents.
No wonder Hilary wants to be the US president.
I think we should better mental therapy than having
to endure crazy people as US presidents.
If you imagine America is the worst, then you run away from it.
Or are we going to mainly go with, like attracts like.
??
I don’t think Russians are bad, they just living someplace too
cold.
I was wondering why these people live in such a cold place?
Was it because 6000 years ago, it was warmer?
Endless, irrational, hope?
Milankovitch Cycles are minor aberrations compared to our solar system passing through its spiral arm about every 35 million years. Until there’s a quantification of the cosmic dust density variations (CDDV) during that transit, and until the CDDV is incorporated into every climate model, every climate model is grossly lacking in completeness.
Now Roy has updated the Feb full dataset
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Southern set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Likewise for the Northern set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Trends etc
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-residuals.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Sorry
Tropics should be this month, not last month
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
Thanks for posting such experiences Dr. Roy however I think some people are negating your theory in the comments so I am a bit confused to add anything extra.
What I can say from my side https://onlineabedon.blogspot.com/ can help person to find government job in weather and forecast departments.
What is Roy’s Theory?
Sergei Babkin sang his hit “I’m a Soldier” in the Ukrainian manner.
https://youtu.be/d8Tw462YH5M
Very recently there has been cooling, but over last couple decades there has a small amount of warming and over more 30 years there a moderate amount of warming. And some of this warming, I would guess is related to long term recovery from the Little Ice Age. And what could be immeasurable amount warming could due human causes of which some portion is due to rising CO2 level, and human activity could have added to the CO2 levels and any future addition to global CO2 will mostly result from China’s CO2 emission, due mostly the enormous amount Coal China is using and it’s inefficient energy use as general issue. And it seems possible China will start to use less coal and have more efficient energy use, and/or effectively export less to the rest of world which require large amount of energy to make.
Part of what China exported to rest of the world was relate to “green energy” of wind and solar panels.
And the world’s use of more wind and solar energy has not lower Co2 emissions, and large amount burning of “biofuels {wood} has increased CO2 emission as compared to using far more efficient methane for energy needs.
And Europe is now dependent upon getting natural gas and other cleaner energy sources from Russian and/or the rest of world, rather focus domestically on mining natural gas.
It seems Europe has chosen a path in which it should not have industries involving the use of a lot energy. And there been a recent shift of focus of being involved more with space related matters [which btw don’t use a lot energy- despite large rockets which seem like they use a lot energy]. Though if and when we are more than 3 rockets per day [globally] then is a measurable amount of CO2 in terms global CO2 levels. Btw, SpaceX wants to launch 1 rocket per week in the coming year, and it does it dominate total payload to orbit, globally. And Musk wants to launch Super heavy Starships more 3 times a day in the future, though unlikely within time period 20 years. But such plans are really related to global satellite industry which what Europe is focusing on. Or Europe involvement in space will and can not emit much CO2. Whereas mad plans to make cities on Mars, could add a bit. But we need a test launch of a starship before one “plan on” anything related to this. And it seem within 20 year many things could change, though what very very unlikely is that solar and wind will reduce any CO2 global emission, and mostly likely cause large amount of environmental damage exceeding what using natural gas to get the energy could do.
In terms lowering CO2 emission what lowered CO2 has been using methane as clean energy source, and I would say South Korea’s development of nuclear energy. South Korea appears to be much more successful with nuclear energy than any other country in the World.
One thing about rockets is they use a lot energy, in the first minute, and a lot less in the several minutes it takes to reach LEO orbit. It’s the nature of rockets that they must use a lot energy in the first minute, to most efficiently get to orbit.
So, it seems quite dramatic if watching rocket launch.
Which brings us to my favorite topic, what call a pipelauncher.
A pipelauncher can reduce the amount energy a rocket needs in lift off.
And the energy source of a pipelauncher is liquid air and warm water- the warmer the water, the less air is needed. But need tons of liquid air. But liquid air doesn’t require much energy to make- and due little amount of energy needed, about $100 per ton or about 50 cent a gallon. Or like/similar to LOX- air has about 20% oxygen
LOX is pure oxygen and likewise about $100 per ton and LOX is the most of the rocket fuel used with LH2/LOX or Liquid Methane and LOX
rocket. Cheap LOX is why rocket fuel is cheap.
And lunar water mining is about making LOX. Per mass water is 8/9th
oxygen or 1/9 hydrogen.
Or splitting water to make Hydrogen, is very expensive way to make oxygen- there much cheaper ways to get oxygen- ie, mining our sky. Mining our sky is a large industry, and getting the liquid Nitrogen is very important.
I think we’ve reached a peak in technology, and it won’t advance significantly for centuries.
If don’t explore the Moon in next 100 years, it could be true.
But it seems some entity will explore the Moon, soon.
Also and as important, I think we going to do a lot Ocean exploration in next 50 years.
As a reply to a comment upthread, saying that
” The Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy. ”
I can only admit that from the point of view of superficial eye-balling, the sentence above is ‘plain right’.
You see that when comparing Hadley Centre’s CET data with the average of about 8000 GHCN daily stations worldwide (covering about 70 % of a 2.5 degree grid):
1. 1880-2021
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18QSOLigZEvDtARws2YBNZdU7zH2Q6GCr/view
2. 1979-2021
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AKCduXQASM1eUUv44ihAhQtZsNqROpac/view
*
Looks at a first glance wonderful, doesn’t it?
But… when you compare the estimates of the two series for various periods, you see that a fit based on eye-balling is only accepted by people when it fits their personal narrative.
Otherwise, they would of course even argue about a trend difference of 0.02 C / decade over 140 years!
CET vs. GHCN daily (C / decade)
1880-2021: 0.09 vs. 0.11
1979-2021: 0.26 vs. 0.19 (?)
2000-2021: 0.04 vs. 0.14 (?)
2010-2021: 0.87 vs. 0.12 (ignored, nonsensical)
Thus, there is, I unambiguously admit it, a good correlation between CET and the Globe – provided you are not really interested in an accurate comparison.
Especially the huge difference, for the satellite era 1979-now, between the CET series and the worldwide average of raw station data cannot be considered ‘reasonable’.
Therefore, I keep preferring the data coming from numerous stations worldwide to a ‘reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy‘.
*
By the way, it is very, very interesting to see once more that ‘proxy’ is always good for people when it fits their narrative.
Otherwise, proxy data is, according to the very same persons, not even worth the paper on which it was printed.
*
Source for the CET record:
https://tinyurl.com/y44p7373
Source for the GHCN daily record:
https://tinyurl.com/yrd92bbd
So you are saying that you know better than the Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood who were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy.
Unsurprisingly.
Manifestly, the person endlessly behaving like an elementary school teacher has one more time intentionally misrepresented what I wrote.
No, I am NOT saying ” that [I] know better than the Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood.
NOT AT ALL.
Read my comment again, elementary school teacher, and try exceptionally to understand what I wrote.
You are such a stubborn person who, like Clint R, Robertson, Flynnson and a few others, permanently distort what others write.
*
Moreover, you pasted above, out of a Climate Etc guest post written in 2015 by Tony Brown, things which, in the original, look considerably different.
” The Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy. ”
And now, we look at what you ‘forgot’ to tell us:
However, it is not the intention of this paper to claim that its findings and observations are relevant to any region other than Britain, although this is obviously a topic that warrants further examination at some point. ”
*
Here we all can see how dishonest and polemic you behave: one more time, you simply hide everything what you don’t want us to see.
*
The major fact, elementary school teacher RLH, is that you are absolutely unable to contradict what I wrote.
You don’t even know how to generate anomalies out of the absolute data reported by thousands of weather stations all over the world.
The fact that I am not an elementary school teacher seems to escape you.
So Tony Brown’s paper was only looking at CET but included the observation that the Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy but somehow that does not mean what it claims?
TonyB’s paper?
Bindidon, were you able to find someone that knows how to ride a bicycle, yet?
Bicycles weren’t yet invented back in the day of your astrologers, so that’s probably why they were so messed up with Moon. Maybe you can do better. Learn about bicycles, and then answer the simple question: “Does a bicycle pedal rotate about its axis?”
You do want to learn, don’t you?
On Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, all bicycle pedals rotate about their axis – in the entire Universe.
On Tuesdays, Thirsdays, Saturdays, all bicycle pedals do not rotate about their axis – in the entire Universe.
Dimanche est le jour du Seigneur.
J’espre que cette fois, l’idiot du village me laissera enfin en paix.
Grrr
J'espère
Si tu demandes gentiment, Binny, tu pourrais me laisser le Pup.
Volontiers!
J’en ai vachement ras le bol de ce mec.
There’s a reason Bindidon runs from reality.
Like Norman, he’s been trying to fake it, but now he’s caught again.
At least he has other cult idiots to comfort him.
There are many reasons why Pup does not do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Here is one of them:
https://www.reddit.com/r/maybemaybemaybe/comments/tck9or/maybe_maybe_maybe/
Where’s your sock puppet, Dud? Let’s go Brandon!
You’re so ignorant you didn’t realize the reality of a simple bicycle would work against you.
That’s why this is so much fun.
BG is his own man, Pup.
I rode a CCM.
Hey, Pup.
How’s the Pole Dance Experiment going?
Bindidon runs from reality, again.
You’re not Reality King, Pup.
Wonky Wee Willy,
And you worked this out how, precisely?
Got an “equation” or a “theory”, have you?
Or do you just think your speculations are superior to others because you imagine yourself to be such a clever fellow?
Carry on, moron.
Is there something you want to say behind that sock puppet of yours, Mike Flynn?
Witless Wee Willy,
So you really believe your fantasy is superior, do you?
That would explain your pointless comments about sock puppets and Mike Flynn.
You have nothing in the way of facts, have you?
Why don’t you just keep up your demented babble about ponies, lichurchur, modulz – and all the other puerile nonsense you spew out?
That might divert people away from asking why you can’t produce your fictitious Greenhouse Theory, do you think?
You’re not only a moron, you’re delusional into the bargain!
[chortles loudly]
You are not a fantasy to me, Mike.
You know better than USCRN too.
I’ll try that again with hopefully less monthly errors in the urls.
Now Roy has updated the Feb 2022 full dataset
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
Northern set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Southern set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Trends etc
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-residuals.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
UAH LT to LA
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_tp.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_ls.jpg
UAH LT to LS
For those who had hoped to see, in UAH’s lower stratosphere (LS) data, some trace of the Honga Tonga eruption: here are, for January resp. February 2022, the 1:1 representation of UAH’s 2.5 degree LS anomaly grid.
Jan 22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nxz-eN25Vs-JAC69SC8_3f1QWg08X6oL/view
Feb 22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xOr59QQklku5gy5Lhqto8tpT36VxoaMf/view
Reminder: its location is 20.545 S, 175.393 W
Maybe it is the orange patch around the location in the Feb data… No se!
As the dust and the rest of the effects of the eruption spread out quite quickly over a wide band of southern latitudes perhaps Roy’s. equal area presentation for this month might be more appropriate.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
But of course Blinny knows better than Roy (and most other people as well).
Hey Bini,
What do you think of Thomas Sowell’s view of the Nazis?
tinyurl.com/yckzr24p
Anderson
You are still as dumb as last year. No wonder.
Why, do you think, are the most ardent admirers of Hitler and the Nazis e.g. in Germany and France all brutal, ultra-right-wing people?
You know absolutely nothing about all that, Anderson.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1159059
Stephan p anderson. Your slurs and false insinuations are not welcome here. Get lost!
stephen p anderson
I think you are only half right. You attribute evil with leftism and good with rightism. The correct thought process is both will be evil when they go to extremes. When humans go to some extreme view that is when the evil comes out be it a conservative or liberal. You had Trump breaking up families to stop immigration. This tactic can work but it is most evil in content of how it treats people “the other”.
I think the rational course is to try and stay away from extreme thought (like you display on this blog), you happen to be on the extreme right but if a large group of you strengthens your beliefs you will be just as evil as you think the left is. You could kill the left and be happy about it which is proven out in Conservative Circles who cheer on Rittenhouse because he killed what were deemed evil left. This action should not be cheered. No matter what it is a bad thing when it goes to this extreme.
The enemy is extremism. Nazi Germany, Stalin, current Putin (extreme measures with the Truth). The extreme Right and Left in the US who look at each other as evil enemies and not just people who happen to view things differently.
I again appeal to you to get off the Right-Wing extreme blogs (who lie and make up false narratives) and return to your roots as an evidence based scientific mind.
Norman,
“No matter what it is a bad thing when it goes to this extreme.”
What’s extreme is your view that a defense of Rittenhouse translates in conservatives cheering about people dying. This type of knee-jerk, broad brush, and possibly delusional thinking explains why you can’t see the forest for the trees on climate change.
I am extremely right wing politically and the last thing I want is for any leftist to die. I just want you out of power and relegated to the dust bin of history before nuclear war breaks out.
Norman doesn’t realize that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Extremism always starts with a lie. And a lie always starts with rejecting reality. Norman constantly avoids reality, to the point of perverting it.
Norman,
This view that KKK or Nazis are right-wing is a fiction of the leftist elite. The KKK was the militant wing of the Democrat Party. Read the 25 point Nazi platform. There is nothing small, limited government about it. Stop trying to characterize right-wing as big government. We aren’t. Right-wing conservatives believe in small, limited government. We don’t want you climate Nazis controlling our tax policies. Right-wingers are not Nazis or Fascists or White Supremacists. White Supremacists are leftists. Read their platforms. They carry Nazi banners often. I don’t blame leftists for trying to distance themselves from Nazis. How about stop trying to act like Nazis?
Bindi,
Is Thomas Sowell as dumb as last year?
Bindi,
Is Friedrich Hayek as dumb as last year?
I thought Friedrich was dead, Troglodyte.
stephen p anderson
You have your sources but there are those who disagree.
The Right-Wing extremism is very much related to Authoritarian Governments.
https://www.gale.com/intl/essays/cynthia-miller-idriss-white-supremacist-extremism-far-right-us
I do not think Conservative would be the same as Far-Right extremist. The Far-Right wants to push their ideas on everyone else as much as the far left does. I think you miss my point. Extremism is the threat. At the extremes both views become the same. Their is an “Other” enemy and we are the Good guys.
You seem to have much more aggressive far-right ideas than you pretend. It is not innocent as you suppose. If enough people with your radical views gains real power, look out! You do not seem to have a rational thought process. You fall for any Conspiracy and believe it to be fact (like Christos garbage rotational posts…if you think of what he states logically you will conclude he is a crackpot and not a genius).
>I thought Friedrich was dead, Troglodyte.
His ideas endure, pinhead.
Norman,
Explain what part of authoritarian governments believes in small limited government?
NOrman,
Far-right is by definition conservative, like Far Left would be progressive, socialist, or Marxist.
Norman,
So is Cristos a conspiracy of one?
Norman, you are NOT one of the “good guys”. You are a troll. You are a braindead cult idiot, believing whatever your cult puts out. Where’s your “real 255K surface”? You’re a clown for believing such nonsense.
You thrive on perverting science. You thrive on insulting, making false accusations, and avoiding reality.
stephen p anderson
I do not think Conservative and far-right are the same. I think Conservatives long for a smaller Government and more personal Freedom.
I do not think this is the goal of Far-Right or Far-Left.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics#:~:text=Far%2Dright%20politics%2C%20also%20referred,having%20nativist%20ideologies%20and%20tendencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics#:~:text=Far%2Dleft%20politics%20are%20politics,the%20left%20of%20communist%20parties.
You don’t have to agree with these articles but this is how the two extreme groups are viewed by most and it is what I use when using the term Far-Right. I would be a moderate.
When it comes to science issues I will go by textbook science unless a convincing experiment comes along to prove it wrong. Most of what is in textbooks is from long history of various experiments done.
Norman, you’re spewing gas again.
When it comes to science, you AVOID textbook science. You opt for your cult beliefs. That’s why you never get things right, get so frustrated and angry, and go into meltdown.
That’s why you’re so much fun.
Clint R
You must miss me. You are again wrong. I link to the most valid data I can find and yes I have linked many times to textbooks.
Not sure what false information you are attempting to peddle. It is false and misleading.
You are the one who can’t understand my links. I understand them quite well.
The funny thing is you are the one who never supports any assertions you make (that is because you are a program and not human and you have no concept of how you respond to things…mostly repeat over and over). You are the cult minded braindead idiot you accuse me of being. Amusing and stupid. Not sure why you need to act in this manner. Other than being a nonhuman bot you make little sense.
I have already listed your false ideas and how you cannot support any of them. You still have not supported any of them and it is a certainty you never will. I don’t think bots are able to support things.
Norman, you’re such a fraud.
Where’s your “textbook” support for…
1) Your bogus “real 255K surface”?
2) Your belief that ice cubes can raise something to 325K?
Those two are just a start.
(You get ONE chance to support your nonsense. If I debunk it, you’re a proven fraud, again. I won’t waste time with ignorant trolls.)
You sure have your ways not to lose time, Pup.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The elementary school teacher manifestly did not see that we are talking about the lower stratosphere, and not about the lower troposphere.
And he still could not grasp that
– what I posted had nothing to do with a representation of Earth using the Mercator projection, but was no more than the simplest possible output of a two-dimensional array;
– what matters here is not the geometric representation of the grid, but that of its CONTENTS.
The Mollweide projection used by UAH for the representation of the anomaly grid is of course geometrically correct, but the contents are not, because like in my rectangular output, the anomalies were not subject to latitude weighting.
If that weighting had been applied, you wouldn’t see the 2-cell hot patch with 4.62 resp. 4.52 C in either picture.
*
And if the elementary school teacher had a bit of honesty, he would simply admit how easy we can see, on the rectangular representation of UAH’s LT grid for February 2022, the aforementioned red hot patch in the Eastern Arctic, located around 70N, 130E:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YSnhfewr0v7wmkLzZXkNNV-3XQU3DlE1/view
Feel free to compare that simple, straight-forward output with the Mollweide projection
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
and search for the patch. It is there, of course, but the Mollweide projection completely distorts the polar regions: theoretically correct, but practically inadequate.
*
But some unluckily never learned to admit anything…
*
By the way, here is a real, intentional use of the Mercator projection, namely Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/71%C2%B015'00.0%22N+131%C2%B015'00.0%22E/@72.8212617,-3.5742235,3z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xd94a5679ff0ce202!8m2!3d71.25!4d131.25?hl=en
Greenland’s apparent surface is absolutely wrong of course.
But I never heard anyone complaining about that.
What matters to Google Maps users namely is not
– how correct the Globe is represented
but that
– distances between two points on the Globe are correctly calculated.
“what I posted had nothing to do with a representation of Earth using the Mercator projection, but was no more than the simplest possible output of a two-dimensional array”
That’s what a Mercator projection is. A 2d layout of a latitude grid without equal area compensation. Idiot.
“The Mollweide projection used by UAH for the representation of the anomaly grid is of course geometrically correct, but the contents are not”
Yet again Bliny knows better than all the people who correctly use equal area presentations so as not to distort a latitude grid towards the poles.
He even knows better than Roy.
The elementary school teacher still did not manage to understand:
” The Mollweide projection used by UAH for the representation of the anomaly grid is of course geometrically correct, but the contents are not, because like in my rectangular output, the anomalies were not subject to latitude weighting.
If that weighting had been applied, you wouldnt see the 2-cell hot patch with 4.62 resp. 4.52 C in either picture. ”
As usual, the elementary school teacher intentionally omits to post what he prefers to keep hidden.
If the elementary school teacher was able to process UAH’s grid data, he would not pompously write all this irrelevant stuff.
“the anomalies were not subject to latitude weighting”
Mollweide = equal area for latitude
Mercator = not equal area for latitude
That’s why professionals use Mollweide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection
“The projection trades accuracy of angle and shape for accuracy of proportions in area, and as such is used where that property is needed, such as maps depicting global distributions“
Blinny still thinks that Greenland is as important as Africa in his global rectangular latitude data layouts even though their actual land areas are significantly different.
He still thinks he knows better than everybody.
Care to state what the surface area is covered by each pixel in your rectangle Blinny?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_ls.jpg
Note the LS in the url and on the graph.
Roy doesn’t do LS as a latitude graph, only the global total one.
Thanks for the hint, elementary school teacher… I did not know that, of course!
https://i.postimg.cc/8kvbNNLz/UAH6-0-LT-vs-LS-anoms.png
I have asked Roy if he intends to do the other 3 layers as a map as well as the series.
Why is your data not up to date? We are in 2022 now.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_tp.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_ls.jpg
P.S. Why do you think that ‘elementary school teacher’ is a slur?
RLH,
Because he’s got no facts. Reduced to threats of violence and pathetic ad-homs!
Just another delusional moron of the climate crackpot variety. He seems to believe he predict the future by obsessive examination of the past. What a Wally!
Yeah he really does
Bindiclown actually 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
In reality he cannot even read the forecast correctly , let alone to predict it
I think it is because he failed at elementary school.
NEO Surveyor, Protecting Earth from Dangerous Asteroids
Highlights
NASA’s NEO Surveyor mission will launch in 2026 to find near-Earth objects, or NEOs — asteroids and comets with orbits that come close to Earth.
NEO Surveyor will find 90% of near-Earth objects with diameters of at least 140 meters. An impact from an object that large could level an entire city.
U.S. Planetary Society members pressed their congressional representatives to fund the mission during the Society’s 2021 Day of Action.
https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/neosm
And:
“Objective
The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size–larger than a small football stadium–and to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause, and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date.”
https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/neoo
Just another scam by NASA.
Hell, I can protect Earth from objects that could level an entire city. At one-tenth of the cost — money back, guaranteed.
It’s not protect, it’s detect.
There is no known space rock which will hit Earth in 100 years.
But millions of small rocks which can hit earth, usually rocks the size of car or smaller, hit Earth every month, and have being doing this for billions of years. And many people have seen rocks bigger than a bus hit earth, though less often, every few years.
–AN ASTEROID JUST HIT EARTH: Discovered. Photographed. Destroyed. All three things happened to asteroid 2022 EB5 in quick succession on March 11th. Hungarian astronomer Krisztián Sárneczky discovered the asteroid at 19:24 UT. Italian astronomer Enrico Pettarin photographed the asteroid at 20:28 UT:
The asteroid destroyed itself at ~21:22 UT when it hit Earth’s atmosphere off the coast of Iceland, disintegrating harmlessly as a bright fireball. The entire sequence of events took less than 2 hours.
University of Western Ontario astronomer Peter Brown estimates that “the asteroid exploded with an energy close to 2 kilotons of TNT. Assuming a speed of 15 km/s, it must have been about 3 m in diameter,” he says.
This is only the 5th time an asteroid was discovered just before it hit Earth. The others were 2008 TC3 (Sudan), 2014 AA (Atlantic Ocean), 2018 LA (Botswana), and 2019 MO (Puerto Rico). All were small space rocks that did no damage when they broke up in our planet’s atmosphere. 2022 EB5 appears to be the smallest yet, and demonstrates that humans are getting better at finding potentially dangerous asteroids before they strike.–
https://www.spaceweather.com/
And:
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (CATEGORY G2): A CME is expected to hit Earth’s magnetic field later today, March 13th. The impact could spark a G2-class geomagnetic storm. During such storms, naked-eye auroras may appear in northern-tier US states from Maine to Washington.”
Sunspot number: 93
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.28 x10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.7% High
48-hr change: +0.8%
“the asteroid exploded with an energy close to 2 kilotons of TNT”
That will ruin your day if it is close overhead.
As a reminder https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54420033
“I can protect Earth from objects that could level an entire city. At one-tenth of the cost money back, guaranteed.”
Please do outline the methods you would use.
His plan would be to call it a brain dead idiot until it decided to go find a planet with intelligent life.
His plan would be to call it a brain dead i diot until it decided to go find a planet with intelligent life.
Sorry, I can’t reveal my proprietary methods.
As I thought you don’t have any.
“Don’t Look Up”
If there were a rock large enough to cause an ely event, you wouldn’t hear about it. The misery we’d inflict on each other in the final days would mean society would be better off not knowing.
I like Arthur C Clarke ‘Hammer of God’ as well as Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle ‘Lucifer’s Hammer’ for a science fiction view of what life would be like before and after.
No one cares. I was a young officer cadet in barracks sharing a television set with dozens of others who were much more interested in watching the Stanley Cup playoff than in waiting for the 30 second news clip about Shoemaker Levy hitting Jupiter.
Bottom line: even if we knew it was coming there isn’t much anyone could do about it.
“an ely event”
It depends. What size rock is that?
Given decades of warning, a small nudge is all that would be needed.
And with big rocks, we could easily get decades of warning.
Masses of extremely freezing air will reach South Carolina and North Carolina.
https://i.ibb.co/VWX8Qxq/Screenshot-4.png
A violent surge in the stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb9065.png
https://i.ibb.co/k56TjKc/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png
NASA extends SpaceX’s Commercial Crew contract by three missions for $900 million
“NASA announced today that it has officially awarded SpaceX the Crew-7, Crew-8 and Crew-9 missions to the International Space Station, bringing SpaceX’s total Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract to $3.49 billion.”
https://tinyurl.com/2s42ky47
“NASA paid an average of $55.4 million per seat on Roscosmos’ Soyuz launch system between 2006 and 2020. By the end of that period, NASA was paying the Russian agency a reported $86 million per seat. The same OIG report estimated SpaceX’s average cost per seat to be $55 million and Boeing’s $90 million.”
SpaceX is making a lot money each crew launch but is doing cheaper than the Russian or Boeing.
And Boeing has a $4.2 billion contract, but has not finished demo yet. So demo first, then Boeing first crew to ISS.
May 20: Atlas 5 • CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2
And if successful:
Late 2022: Atlas 5 • CST-100 Starliner Crew Flight Test
“A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket will launch Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft on its first mission with astronauts, known as the Crew Test Flight, to the International Space Station.”
SpaceX:
April 15: Falcon 9 • Crew 4
“A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Crew Dragon spacecraft on its seventh flight with astronauts.”
Plus SpaceX has cargo missions to ISS:
May 1: Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 25
“A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Dragon 2 spacecraft on its fifth cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
So the statistical question for Willard, Nate, Blinny and others is which from the below 3 choices is most likely to predict next months (Mar 2022) UAH LT temperatures and why?
1.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
2.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2013/trend/offset:-0.04/plot/uah6/to:2013/trend
3.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/trend/offset:-0.185/plot/uah6/to:2015/trend
Make that 4
4.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend
Now you threw them totally off the rail, they don’t know which line to extend
None of them will ‘predict’ the future since none of them contain theory.
Only models which contain theory can make a prediction.
Most models containing theory do predict that the long-term warming trend will continue.
They cannot predict short term noise, such as that produced by ENSO, because ENSO is not predictable beyond a a couple of months.
#3 above will likely be the worst at matching the next decade. Previous fits of this length show huge variations in slope, since noise is what is being fitted.
“None of them will predict the future since none of them contain theory”
So an linear trend doesn’t predict the future. So said Nate.
Here is an example of a successful prediction using a model incorporating theory. It correctly predicted many of yhe features of the GW pattern that occured over the next 40 years.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
Nate admits there is great uncertainty about future temperatures or predictions.
Yes, there was and is uncertainty in model predictions.
Much of it came from not knowing with certainty what the emissions would be from 1980 to present.
Once the emissions were known, the uncertainty range could be reduced.
My point is this is modeling based on theory. It can make predictions.
OLR fits to past data are not predictions. But they do give a good idea of what will ensue if anthro forcing continues to rise at the same rate.
Still no answer from Nate as even to the range of next months UAH LT temperatures let alone an actual central figure.
RLH has obviously missed the point of my posts…None of it would help predict short term noise.
I have a question for all you that are smarter than myself. Im not a scholar just a redneck with a thought. Everyone is hung up on green house gases, what about all of the asphalt and concrete covering acre after acre each day. I think the more soil you cover with heat holding surfaces such as these, the ground temp stays warmer. This in turn then would cause day time warming to occur faster and reach higher temps. What do you think?
Its called urban heat island. The effect is local and not large enough to change global climate even as local temperatures will trend higher.
Its still about how much energy from the sun is absorbed and then radiated by the earth.
That presumes that land climate temperature stations are not within the UHI.
Yes.
But with our satellite measurement that is no longer a problem- except if people imagine they are too warm and they live in urban area [and most people do] the urban heat island effect “probably” has increased their average air temperature, much more [2 to 5 times more] than global increase of about 1 C increase over last hundred years. And unlike “global warming” urban heat island effect does increase the number and duration of “heatwaves”. Or UHI effect does increases the daytime high temperatures.
And “global warming” is mostly about warming nighttime and winter temperatures- or global warming is causing a more uniformly warmer
global temperature.
It’s called the “Urban Heat Island”. It’s a localized effect, and dissipates during the night.
UHI makes the both the days and nights warmer than they otherwise would have been.
RLH,
If I was rich, famous and had an IQ of 200, I’d be richer, famouser, and smarter than I otherwise would have been,
On the other hand, I’m richer, more well known, and more intelligent than I otherwise would have been if I was poorer, less well known and dumber.
“Otherwise would have been” is generally a refuge of dimwits who can’t accept reality.
Obviously, they can’t measure what “otherwise would have been”, so nobody can prove definitively that they are climate crackpots (for example).
These sorts of fools claim that there is a fictitious GHE, which they can’t describe or document, and then assert that the fact that their GHE cannot be subjected to scrutiny, means that it must exist!
Moron “science”.
UHI exists. Idiot.
If there was any increase in global temperature due to the increase in CO2, it would most likely be from reducing diurnal extreme temperatures. IR radiated from the surface is absorbed by IR active gases near the surface which thermalize with the bulk air causing convection. That creates fast cooling during daylight. Slow cooling occurs at night. This combination likely produces less extreme temperatures. It takes a warmer global average temperature from moderate temperatures to radiate the same amount of energy compared to a global average of more extreme temperatures. That is my version of global warming, if there is any real warming in the first place, and it does not make any claim to how much humans have to do with it, if any.
My hypothesis comes from the SB equation and Holder’s inequality (the average of the fourth power of all global temperatures is greater than the fourth power of the average global temperature). Therefore, a temperate body will be warmer than one with more extreme temperatures, because extreme temperatures radiate more W/m2 than a similar body with the same average temperature.
AGW, based on some version of a GHE, is an unvalidated hypothesis as yet. No direct evidence exists that an increase in CO2 will increase the average global temperature.
Dr. Spencer, global temperatures can give a misrepresentation of the impact of CO2 on temperatures. The reason? There are many exogenous factors that can impact temperatures not included in the CO2 drives temperature model. NASA produces research highlighting the “Greening” of the globe. A greener globe means a more humid globe. A more humid globe will be warmer due to H2O, not CO2. Many things can warm the oceans and get them to degas CO2, such as fewer clouds, which I think has been demonstrated to have occurred. To truly understand the impact of CO2 on temperatures you need a data set that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperatures. To do this you need natural control. That natural control for H2O and the UHI effect are deserts, both hot and cold deserts.
Your UAH South Pole Data set is the ideal controlled data set. If you chart each month going back to 1979, you will find that most months show COOLING, and none show a material uptrend in temperature. Why then do you have no warming in the South POle, yet warming elsewhere? Do the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule change from the South to North Pole? No. If that is the case, then clearly something else is causing the warming. That is how a controlled experiment is done, and how you isolate the impact of one factor on another. Combine that evidence with the Gas Cell and Black Body information and you can see that the CO2 drives temperature theory isn’t supported by the physics behind the CO2 molecule.
Antarctica is high, dry and cold. CO2 doesn’t have much to work with there. And UAH only covers to -85 degrees latitude.
You got some work to do.
bobdroege
Who processes UAH6.0’s grid data knows it’s even a bit less:
82.5N – 82.5 S.
In all grid anomaly and climatology files below
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
you can see that the three northernmost resp. southernmost latitude bands never contain valuable data – regardless the layer (LT, MT, TP, LS) you process the data of.
Surprisingly, the preceding revision UAH5.6:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
covered 90N – 90S! So what.
*
And, as always, the Heartland/GWPF blogbot nicknamed Co2IsLife still did not (need to) understand that the Antarctic land is so cold that there, the effect of CO2 is inverted because the lower troposphere is way warmer than the surface.
Like in those Northeast Siberian corners, for example Verkhoyansk and Oymyakon very cold in winter, for the same obvious reasons.
“the Antarctic land is so cold that there, the effect of CO2 is inverted because the lower troposphere is way warmer than the surface”
So there is a temperature inversion in the Antarctic with LS being warmer than the LT? I think not.
Or the LT is warmer than the surface?
b,
So the GHE works in reverse in the Antarctic?
Peer reviewed papers claim that the GHE is reversed when it’s cold – making cold things even colder.
An effect for all seasons!
I suppose that on average, the colder balances the warmer, for no net effect whatsoever.
Thar would explain the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so, I guess.
You’re obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Swenson,
Cold, high, and dry?
Pay attention.
b,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
Cold, high, and dry?
Pay attention.”
What are you blabbering about, moron?
“Youre obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic.”
What are you babbling about, racist?
bob, please stop trolling.
Are Roy Spencers views complimented by those of Prof. Jorgen Peder Steffensen (Neils Bohr Institute in Denmark) who examined ice cores in Greenland and summed up his findings like this:
We have obviously had an increase in global temperatures in the 20th century
But an increase from what? Probably an increase from the lowest temperature we have had for the last 10,000 years.
Which means it will be very hard indeed to prove whether temperature increase in the 20th century was man made or it is a natural variation.
It will be very hard because we have made ourselves a very poor experiment – we started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years.
Ice core data is ice core data. It isn’t real-time temperature measurement. How long have we had accurate worldwide temperature measurement data? Since 1979?
Same argument: We started to observe meteorology in 1979; the coldest spot in the period of record.
That’s when everyone thought we were heading into a new Ice Age, and we may be.
My real time work with facebook I m making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it. All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has IKo without a doubt changed my life.
Visit below site Hare http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
Dr Spencer, GISS applies a BI metric to all their ground stations. Is it possible to parse the Satellite Data is a similar manner? That way you could use the Satellite data to quantify the Urban Heat Island Effect. If you could tie the data to humidity levels for regions you could also quantify the impact of water vapor. If you did that you would be far better able to model the Climate. What I’ve done is use the GISS data to isolate the low BI stations and observe them. What you find is that stations with low BI don’t show a consistent warming pattern. Choose the deserts and you get no warning at all. The laws of Physics don’t cease to exist over the deserts. The models are simply mis-specified and under-specified and don’t include the needed factors.
ren
” Masses of extremely freezing air will reach South Carolina and North Carolina. ”
Can you confirm us all that with tomorrow’s data?
Here is wetteronline’s ‘prediction’ for the coming night:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20220314&daytime=night&iid=namk
*
By the way: before some ignoramus starts telling us
” Wooooaaah!
-31 C at night in Iqaluit! Unprecedented!! Absolutely!!!”
here is the anticipating reply, lowest recorded temperatures there
CA002402590 63.7500 -68.5500 34.0 NU IQALUIT A
CA002402591 63.7500 -68.5500 34.0 NU IQALUIT AWOS
CA002402594 63.7500 -68.5500 22.0 NU IQALUIT UA
for March 10+ days:
CA002402590 61-44 1964 3 11 -43.9 (C)
CA002402590 61-44 1964 3 12 -42.8
CA002402590 61-44 1964 3 13 -41.7
CA002402590 61-44 1967 3 10 -41.7
CA002402590 61-44 1964 3 14 -41.1
CA002402594 61-44 2004 3 11 -41.1
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 11 -40.9
CA002402594 61-44 1984 3 17 -40.7
CA002402590 61-44 1949 3 11 -40.6
CA002402594 61-44 1995 3 10 -40.3
And the same since 2000:
CA002402594 61-44 2004 3 11 -41.1
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 11 -40.9
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 10 -39.9
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 16 -39.4
CA002402594 61-44 2004 3 16 -39.0
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 15 -38.0
CA002402590 61-44 2004 3 17 -37.8
CA002402594 61-44 2004 3 17 -37.8
CA002402594 61-44 2004 3 12 -37.3
CA002402590 61-44 2000 3 12 -37.0
Yeah. That’s PGC: Perfect Global Cooling.
Tout va bien, Ebenito?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xj-asfrqHY
“Multiple Troughs Set Up A Active Pattern For Severe Weather! Next Week Looks Interesting POW Weather”
Bookmarked.
And btw, elementary school teacher: I asked ren, and not you.
*
But we all know here: the elementary school teacher permanently urges in documenting his alleged ‘knowledge’.
*
Like when he thinks that the Mollweide representation of a grid automatically makes the grid cells’ values become weighted in the same manner as are the geometric areas containing these values.
Mein Gott, was für eine Ignoranz.
Mollweide representation of a latitude grid is an equal area representation, Mercator is not.
Get over it.
Does your representation of Greenland and Africa show them to be roughly the same area or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection
“The Mollweide projection is an equal-area, pseudocylindrical map projection generally used for maps of the world or celestial sphere. It is also known as the Babinet projection, homalographic projection, homolographic projection, and elliptical projection. The projection trades accuracy of angle and shape for accuracy of proportions in area, and as such is used where that property is needed, such as maps depicting global distributions.”
https://geoawesomeness.com/best-map-projection/
https://www.geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Mercator.jpg
“On a Mercator projection, Greenland is roughly the same size as Africa. In reality, Africa is almost 14 times larger, and Greenland can fit inside China no less than four times. The map also suggests that Scandinavian countries are larger than India, whereas, India is actually three times the size. And yet, Google Maps, Bing, Yahoo and even OpenStreetMaps continue using some version or the other of the Mercator to display the world.
Pros: Sailors loved it; preserves angles and directions in a small area
Cons: Bad for understanding the real size and shape of continents and countries”
https://xkcd.com/2577/
Did the elementary school teacher (EST) still not understand this simple sentence?
” Like when he thinks that the Mollweide representation of a grid automatically makes the grid cells VALUES become weighted in the same manner as are the geometric areas containing these values. ”
*
Here is a deep zoom into the Mollweide representation of UAH 6.0 LT for February 2022, around the two highest grid cell values for the month:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Itd9Ll9cYhjwqEpwgzhCrrp9iiUcLRoP/view
Do you see the tiny red blob at about 70 N – 130 E?
It represents exactly these two adjacent grid cells, described by the coordinates of their center:
71.25 N 131.25 E : 4.62 C
71.25 N 133.75 E : 4.52 C
These cell values you can find in UAH’s original source file
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2022_6.0
Simply search for the character sequence ‘462 452 449’.
*
You can’t see the 4.5 C denoting the blob’s minimal temperature because its area is too small. But even you should be able to see that inside of the area’s contour, the color is darker than outside, isn’t it?
And when you now look at my representation (call it Mercator if you want: so what), you see the same little blob around 70 N – 130 E:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YSnhfewr0v7wmkLzZXkNNV-3XQU3DlE1/view
*
The global average anomaly for a month is computed using a latitude weighting of the latitudinal averages, according to the formula
Tglob = sum[i=1:n] (Tlat(i)*cosval(i)) / sum[i=1:n] (cosval(i))
with ‘cosval’ being the cosine of the corresponding i-th latitude angle in radians.
Within that computation, the value for the grid cell at 71.25 N 131.25 E no longer is the raw value 4.62; it becomes the latitude weighted value 4.40. A similar change happens to the value of the nearby cell at 71.25 N 133.75 E, whose weighted value is 4.41.
*
This means that Roy Spencer together with his team on the one side, and I on the other side, both represent the monthly grid data according to the same, raw data, independently of the geometrical shape in use.
This means also that if both sides would represent the monthly grid data according to the latitude weighting out of which the month’s global anomaly is computed, neither UAH’s Mollweide picture nor my ‘Mercator’ picture would contain the 4.5 C blob, because both grid cells would then have values below 4.5 C.
A little hint: while the correctly computed global anomaly for February 2022 is 0.00 C, the average of the raw values of the 9504 grid cell anomalies is 0.04 C.
For some, it is not even worth a discussion.
*
The same is of course valid for the representation of UAH’s grid cell trends for 1978 till now. Both UAH’s Mollweide and my ‘Mercator’ representation show raw grid cell trends, and not the weighted trends leading all together to the correct global trend value.
*
I can live with such a tiny discrepancy, and Mr Spencer very certainly can too.
*
But, EST, when you claim
“Roy is right and you are wrong”
you are yourself wrong.
But… you will never admit it, because you never admit being wrong.
No problem for me, EST…
And now, I shutdown this ridiculous skirmish because you will never end repeating I’m wrong, as usual without proving I am.
There is no point in trying to insult someone because he is an elementary school teacher.
Here in Canuckstan we have a part-time drama instructor who made good and became Prime Minister. Yeah, he is second worst Prime Minister we ever had but he is Prime Minister and I am not.
“grid cells VALUES” are not the same as grid cell AREAS.
Mercator and similar layouts such as your rectangular grids distort things in their presentation with invalid areas which is why they are not used in most professional layouts.
“And now, I shutdown this ridiculous skirmish because you will never end repeating Im wrong, as usual without proving I am.”
I have proved you wrong many times, but like others on here you just refuse to recognize when your are wrong.
Others on here will be the judge of who is correct.
Ken: Despite Blinnys assertion, I am not nor have ever been an elementary school teacher.
RLH
No one claims that you would ever have been an elementary school teacher.
I name you an elementary school teacher because you BEHAVE like an elementary school teacher.
During the last 50 years, only elementary school teachers were stubborn enough to write things like
” ‘grid cells VALUES’ are not the same as grid cell AREAS. ”
” Mercator and similar layouts such as your rectangular grids distort things in their presentation with invalid areas which is why they are not used in most professional layouts. ”
instead of trying to understand what I wrote, like any professional engineer would do.
You really did not understand ANYTHING of the comment I wrote above.
*
Moreover, you lie when you say:
” I have proved you wrong many times, but like others on here you just refuse to recognize when your are wrong. ”
Where did you prove me wrong?
You thought, guessed and claimed I was wrong.
But you never prove it. You know that.
You will never be able to prove anything wrong in my USCRN processing. NEVER!
Instead, you will continuously try to discredit me.
Keep lying strong, EST.
You are not even able to process UAH grid data… let alone JMA, GHCN daily, HadISST1, PSMSL, USHCN, etc etc etc.
All you are able to do is to endlessly fill this blog with simple, trivial, boring low pass stuff you paste over existing data as if that was an unprecedented, genial activity.
I have proved you wrong in that the area of the surface of a globe cannot be reduced to Lat * Lon (a rectangular grid or Mercator projection).
It can be reduced to the area of an ellipse, twice as wide as it is high. Such as a Mollweide projection.
Even an elementary school teacher (which I am not) will get that correct.
P.S. When you talk to stubborn idiots such as you, talking to a child would be a step up.
“Unlike latitude, the distance between degrees of longitude varies greatly depending upon your location on the planet. They are farthest apart at the equator and converge at the poles.
A degree of longitude is widest at the equator with a distance of 69.172 miles (111.321 kilometers).
The distance gradually shrinks to zero as they meet at the poles.”
Unlike a rectangular grid or Mercator projection where the values at the pole and the equator are the same.
“You will never be able to prove anything wrong in my USCRN processing. NEVER!”
But your daily figures composed from USCRN hourly data is more accurate than USCRNs daily figures. Sure.
What are the actual areas on the globe for each pixel in your rectangular grid? Top, bottom and middle ones will do.
In Roy’s equal area layout they are all the same. In yours they are not.
Someone (possibly gbaikie) linked to this: https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=09&month=03&year=2022
The link contains a composite photo of a year of sunspots. The sunspots appear in two bands, one above the equator, and one below the equator. It’s a very interesting photo, and is worthy of some more attention.
Why do the sunspots appear in bands?
Sunspots are magnetic systems within the complex electromagntic fields of Sun. Each sunspot has its own polarity, that somewhat aligns with Sun’s magnetic field. Each sunspot is also affected by Sun’s electric field. Let’s discuss each field seperately to keep it simple.
A compass on the surface of Sun would point to Sun’s “north” pole. The compass would point in the same direction, all over the surface — “north”. But, if the compass were inside the sun, say on its axis, the same compass would point “south”. The reason is the compass needle is aligning with the field, and the field lines form a loop. So outside Sun the compass points north, but at the middle of Sun, the compass points south. It’s the same with Earth.
Electrical field lines do not “loop”. Electrical field lines have a “start” and a “stop”. So on the surface of Sun, the electric field “points” the same direction as it would if it were in the center of Sun. Another major difference between the two fields is a magnetic pole can not exist by itself. That is, if there is no opposing pole, the magnetic field does not exist.
There just isn’t a lot of information about Sun’s electric field. Electric fields exist within Sun, due to the separation of positive (protons) and negative (electrons) charges. Two separated charges will be connected by an electric field. Sun’s total electic field is conjectured to be associated with its “dynamo effect”, which is believed to also be the source of its magnetic field.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Earth-dynamo/more/2001%20Demorest,%20Dynamo%20theory%20and%20Earth's%20magnetic%20field%20.pdf
This is why the “bands” photo is so important. It tells us how sunspots handle all of the different fields, since we can’t figure it out ourselves. Looking at the photo, it is clear that sunspots avoid both poles, and the equator.
Before closing, Sun’s magnetic field actually reverses with its sunspot cycle. The “north” pole becomes the “south” pole, and vice versa, about every 11 years.
“ESA’s Solar Orbiter is imaging the Sun from closer than any spacecraft has done before, and will be the first to directly observe the Sun’s poles, which are key to understanding the star’s magnetic field that drives the generation of space weather. But getting to the uniquely tilted orbit necessary to observe the poles requires a series of complex manoeuvres, building on techniques from a host of previous missions.
In the early hours of 10 February 2020, Solar Orbiter launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and began its journey to the Sun.”
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Solar_Orbiter/How_to_get_the_best_view_of_the_Sun
“In fact, Solar Orbiter will be just the second spacecraft to perform such a manoeuvre, following the NASA/ESA Ulysses mission which used a gravity assist at Jupiter to increase its inclination and make in-situ measurements above the Sun’s poles in the mid-1990s.”
Btw, Henry Adams theory or my slight alternation {which not really different then Mr Adams as he definitely including the Occult as a force which attracted humans/life. But Mr Adams lived from 1838 to early 20th century and was focusing on Coal power and the Dynamo [making electrical power] and seems to suggest that Occult was early “force” which shaped history, rather suggest that Occult would be or would continue to be a major force that captured humans.
Though Adman discussed discuss the great force of females, and women
were somewhat lost in “modern age” and quite lacking as force in the US, or he thought women were lost following male’s attraction to physical forces. And also that human were finding new unknown forces
such as related to nuclear power {which was mysterious force, and also as was magnetism {which is still somewhat a mystery- as is actually, gravity. Though, as is everything}.
Anyhow, it occurred to me, that space/universe is Occult/Mysterious
force. And was demonstrated by Apollo Moon landing- “everyone” in the world paid attention- including “isolated” “primitive” peoples.
Including American politicians who say, if we went to Moon, it means we do “X”. X = War on Poverty and other “wars” and etc.
And I still think the Churches of major Religions should paid a lot more attention, and will eventually, focus on Space Exploration and things like living on Mars.
They have to.
One could wonder if CNN recovers, but this is about Forbes:
How Fact-Finding Fauci Led To My Cancellation At Forbes
The inside story of how it happened.
Adam Andrzejewski
https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/factfindingfaucicanceledforbes?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
{oh, substack is latest rage, and never read/subscribe to it- I am not a “serious” news junkie. But substack is no doubt, “going somewhere” I would guess}
“Dr. Anthony Fauci is the most highly compensated federal employee and the most visible. So, it’s incumbent upon all of us to give him oversight.
In 2011, I founded a national transparency organization called OpenTheBooks.com. Last year, we filed 47,000 Freedom of Information Act requests, the most in American history. We successfully captured and displayed online $12 trillion of federal, state, and local spending.
Over the past 14 months – since January 2021 – we investigated Dr. Fauci’s financials by filing FOIA requests. When I published our original reporting at Forbes, here is what happened.”
So, this what journalist do {and we have too few of them- a vacuum of them- so, obviously, we should more of them}
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Is Russia going to lose?
https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/03/12/is-russia-going-to-lose-n454888
linked: https://instapundit.com/
“But what if the optimists were too pessimistic? What if Russia is facing near-term defeat on the battlefield as well?”
Optimists “learn” to be cautious.
As they are always, running into walls.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+Speak+The+Truth
What seems a summary is Russia is regrouping, and will probably within next few days, bring in, serious conventional heavy weapons.
Or I would say it this way, Putin will not start WWIII but will leave zero doubt that he is a war criminal.
I would say, making Putin so toxic even to the Chinese ruling class.
Even Iran will find it unbearable.
And apparently, bad cold weather is coming soon, to the region.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLiSMNFwxg
Russian Army Takes Its Biggest Loss Yet – Ukraine War
Seemingly more likely Russia going to lose.
They [Russia] used hypersonic missile {not good move for Russia}.
Another top commander being killed.
Ukraine forces could soon cut off important Russian troop area.
Also Russian mined commercial sea lanes of Black Sea.
If blocked all ship entered Black Sea [for “safety reasons”- though of course also including all Russian resupply [until the hazard is solved- and let add also for insurance reasons- then Russia would shot their own feet, duh!!]
If Russia can mine ocean area, every country can mine it.
So story would there so many mines there by all kinds of different country and no one knows where they are, going to have hold international meeting next month and “clear up” the confusion so can safely remove all the mines.
Meanwhile all ships are advised not go anywhere near it {it’s closed}
My real time work with facebook I m making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it. All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has IKo without a doubt changed my life.
Visit below site Hare…… http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
Dr. Spencer, why can’t you simply have multiple flasks of IR transparent material filled with varing levels of CO2 and expose them to equal OLR and measure the temperature differences, then do it again with CO2 and H2O, and then CO2, H2O and a block of asphalt.
Temp = f(CO2) R2 = 15
Temp = f(CO2 + H2O) R2 = 80
Temp = f(CO2 + H2O + UHI) R2 = 95
Why don’t Climate Scientists apply the scientific method like every other science does and create controlled experiments to isolate the individual factors in a multi-factor variable?
Would someone please point me to a Climate Model in the form of Temp = f(X1, X2, X3…Xi) that has easy-to-access data sets so that an individual can test it themselves? Why is there so little transparency and accountability in Climate “Science.”
Alright, I’ll pony up that one:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/teaching/model.htm
Check Tim’s spreadsheet model.
CO2,
It’s been done – although more rigorously, and with many other gases, by Professor John Tyndall more than 150 years ago.
His temperature observations were comparative rather than absolute, but even then, his equipment could sense temperature differences of less than one hundred thousandth of a degree F.
Climate “scientists” are well aware of facts – they just choose to ignore them. Amazing, but true!
Its been done although more rigorously, and with many other gases, by Professor John Tyndall more than 150 years ago.
Swenson, no, experiments like that were not run, and I doubt he had IR transparent glass that would have been required.
Listen closely, NO ONE DENIES THE GHG EFFECT. My point is about quantifying it. In my opinion H2O is the only significant GHG near the surface and impacts our climate. Why? Because it absorbs the same 15 micron LWIR as CO2 does, and a whole lot more.
By doing the experiment I detailed then you can scientifically demonstrate the coefficient on CO2, H2O and the UHI effect. Those are the bare minimum coefficients you need to complete an accurate model.
Once again, show a simple climate model in the form of Temp = m1*CO2 + m2*H2O + m3*UHI…+eror
That is how real science is done.
CO2,
You wrote –
“Swenson, no, experiments like that were not run, and I doubt he had IR transparent glass that would have been required.”
You obviously prefer fantasy to fact. You might care to read Tyndall’s books (not just the Bakerian lectures). You can assume that nothing else beside glass is transparent, but you would be wrong. Tyndall, like most genuine experimenters, goes into some detail on how he obtained his IR transparent material. I won’t spoil it for you.
You also wrote –
“Listen closely, NO ONE DENIES THE GHG EFFECT.” Well, the fact that you can’t decide what the mythical effect is actually called, is an indication that you are confused, yourself.
If you can’t describe your “effect., regardless of what you decide to call it, devising an experiment which could disprove it, is likely to prove difficult.
Maybe your befuddled brain has not accepted the imaginary nature of an insulator which allows less energy to travel in one direction than another.
No GHE. A model is not an experiment. Climate is the statistics of past weather events.
In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. His heat source was not the Sun, but radiation from a copper cube containing boiling water. In modern terms, this was infrared radiation just like that emanating from the Earths surface.
That actually sounds like conduction and convection and certainly doesn’t quantify the coefficient on CO2.
CO2isLife
An experiment was run to show that CO2 slows the cooling rate of a heating element as compared to air. They go into the equations, if you are interested. They show the data in graphs. It may not answer your question but then again it may.
With addition of CO2 in our atmosphere it slows down the cooling rate. With a heated surface (like the Earth’s is, constantly being heated by solar input) the surface will reach a higher temperature. The amount is not much, a degree or two Kelvin. The issue is how does this effect the complex climate system.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
Norman,
Morons who demonstrate what any high school physics student (or a 12 year old Chinese or Indian student), already knows, are either completely delusional, or exceptionally stupid.
Of course insulators slow the rate of transfer of energy! That’s why they are called insulators.
If the so-called experimenters heated their “Earth” using a heat source external to their balloon, they would have no doubt been amazed to find the temperature rose more slowly, and required more external heat, when using CO2. Just like the Earth, compared to the airless Moon.
You probably think this sort of nonsense is science. Good for you!
You probably believe in the GHE, too.
Norman is famous for finding things on the Web he can’t understand. Here, he does it again!
The “experiment” adds more mass to the balloon and they’re amazed it takes longer to cool?
They only proved they’re braindead cult idiots.
Clint R
Explain why you think adding more mass (that is colder than the object cooling) would slow down cooling? In your idea, more CO2 cools faster not slower because you have more radiators to cool with. If you lose energy by convection or conduction, more mass will also increase the ability to transfer more heat to the cooler gas. At this time you are making no sense. I am sure you will divert around and not answer this specific question.
Swenson,
A degree or two, Kelvin? That certain are you?
Nice try Norman, but you can’t dodge, evade, and ignore:
Clint R says:
March 13, 2022 at 9:59 PM
Norman, you’re such a fraud.
Where’s your “textbook” support for…
1) Your bogus “real 255K surface”?
2) Your belief that ice cubes can raise something to 325K?
Those two are just a start.
(You get ONE chance to support your nonsense. If I debunk it, you’re a proven fraud, again. I won’t waste time with ignorant trolls.)
Clint R
You are a very strange human or else a mindless program just responding as a bot would.
YOU: “1) Your bogus real 255K surface?
2) Your belief that ice cubes can raise something to 325K?”
That is NOT my bogus real 255 K surface. I said that the radiating surface (the boundary of the Earth’s emission vs the surrounding space as seen in IR images of Earth) has a brightness temperature of 255 K. The average outgoing longwave radiation from Earth is 240 W/m^2 hence it has a brightness temperture of 255 K.
2) Whoa what a stupid post that is. When did I claim ice cubes will raise something to 325 K. I am really hoping you are a mindless bot program. I would hate that a real human could be so very stupid as to post what you just did. It comes from an older Tim Folkerts post. The ice does not warm an object to 325 K in his post. If you make such a claim you are just a lying human or mindless bot.
Tim Folkerts clearly set up the situation. An object is surrounded by a clear ice sphere. It warms an object to the temperature of the ice. You have a visible light source that goes through the ice and reaches the objects surface, gets absorbed and raises the temperture to 325 K. Not sure how you can scramble a correct and simple idea but you seem to be able.
Again you did divert (as predicted and as you always do) from explaining how adding mass will slow down cooling. I suspect you will never answer and throw out more stupid posts. All the more making you seem less human and more likely a bot.
Swenson seems total bot you seem a hybrid. Sometimes the human programmers step in and post to make you seem more like a human but in the long term you show no signs of human intellect in any or your many posts. Lots of similar repetitions with zero content. Over and over to many different posters.
Norman, there’s no need to wear out your keyboard. If you now deny those two nonsense items, I’m happy for you.
So, to be clear, do you now admit that both items are nonsense and completely anti-science?
CO2,
You are wrong. You may have overlooked the heat sources used in Tyndall’s laboratory experiments. These ranged from heated sheets of copper, to boiling water (in a Leslie Cube – I’ll let you figure out why), to platinum heated to white heat (using primary electric cells).
Tyndall did use radiation from the Sun, and came up with a figure for the reduction in insolation compared with that intercepted by the atmosphere. Very close to that measured by NASA, but 150 years earlier. Those observations started him thinking about water vapour and its role. CO2 came much later. You really have no clue, have you?
You wrote – “That actually sounds like conduction and convection and certainly doesnt quantify the coefficient on CO2.”
Once again, your fantasy opinion does not trump reality. Reality does not care about what you think something “sounds like”.
You are free to think what you like. It won’t change a single fact.
Carry on.
“Would someone please point me to a Climate Model”
Global average temperature is Ocean average temperature which
is about 3.5 C.
3.5 C ocean is colder ocean for an interglacial period.
For interglacial period in the last 2 million of our 34 million year icehouse global climate {also called an Ice Age}, a warmest ocean average temperature is about 4 C.
It requires thousands of years to warm or cool our ocean by .5 C.
We have cooling for 5000 years from the peak Holocene temperature.
What you might want is global weather model, unless you are interested in our global climate centuries from now. Which I could tell you, that, it will be about the same.
Or if want a global climate model. We in a Icehouse global climate and so what you want is an Icehouse Global Climate Model.
But it seems an Icehouse Global Weather Model, could be more relevant for a day to day existence.
In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. His heat source was not the Sun, but radiation from a copper cube containing boiling water. In modern terms, this was infrared radiation just like that emanating from the Earths surface.
Dr. Spencer, Swenson may have provided the experiment to settle all this nonsense. Simply repeat the experiment of Tyndall.
Equipment: Copper Tube, Sealed Container that is either transparent to LWIR or Reflective of LWIR, it can not absorb LWIR, Hot Water, O2, H2O, N2, and CO2 gas.
Experiment #1: Fill the airtight container with 70% N2 and 30% O2
Experiment #2: Fill the airtight container with 70% N2, 30% O2 and 400 ppm CO2 (Current)
Experiment #3: Fill the airtight container with 70% N2, 30% O2 and 270 ppm CO2 (Pre-Industrial)
Experiment #4: Fill the airtight container with 70% N2, 29% O2, 1% H2O, and 400 ppm. (Current)
Experiment #5: Fill the airtight container with 70% N2, 29% O2, 1% H2O, and 270 ppm. (Pre-Industrial)
Run the Copper Tubes through the Airtight Containers, run the hot water through them, record the temperature change in the air containers.
My bet is:
1) There will be no material change in temperature between experiment #4 and #5
2) There will be no material change between #2 and #3
3) There may be a minor change between #1 and #2
Anyway, those above experiments can be run at any University with a Chemistry Department. I challenge anyone reading this post to run those experiment and post the results.
CO2,
I know you don’t want to believe, but . . .
Your “experiment” shows only that gases can be heated. Gee, where have you been for last century and a half? Or just observe that the atmosphere cools in the absence of sunlight, and ask yourself why.
Just read Tyndall’s experimental results, if you want to learn something.
If you want to waste time demonstrating that which is well known, why not just waste your own time, rather than “challenging” others to waste theirs?
You wrote –
“Dr. Spencer, Swenson may have provided the experiment to settle all this nonsense.”
I assume you emerged from your fantasy long enough to rush off and try to prove me wrong, but unfortunately discovered that I actually know what I am talking about. Next time, engage your brain before hammering away at your keyboard.
Your experiment shows only that gases can be heated. Gee, where have you been for last century and a half?
Swenson, you are joking right? I was replicating the experiment you highlighted as evidence of the GHG Effect. That is how Tyndall did his experiment. If you are claiming that the experiment to support the GHG effect done by Tyndall is pure nonsense, then I agree.
CO2,
You wrote –
“Swenson, you are joking right? I was replicating the experiment you highlighted as evidence of the GHG Effect. That is how Tyndall did his experiment.”
Generally, anyone who writes ” . . . you are [ . . ], right?.” Is trying to have an unsubstantiated assertion accepted as fact.
You weren’t replicating anything. You have no idea of Tyndall’s work, and even less about conducting rigorous experiments.
There is no such thing as the GHG effect, which is why you can’t describe it.
You might be a moron, but at least you are completely ignorant.
If you think I’m joking, be my guest.
The problem with the experiment is that your source of IR energy does not match earth surface radiation.
The problem with AGW hypothesis is the assumption that adding more CO2 will result in more warming. The failure to recognize the spectrum is saturated is why AGW hypothesis fails.
That’s why your experiment doesn’t prove anything except that GHG absorb energy. (Rare that Swenson is right but in this case he is)
BTW, the proper way to do this experiment would be to apply additional LWIR between 13 and 18 micron, peak 15. To do that you would simply replace the copper tube with light shined through a Long-Pass IR Filter isolating the target wavelengths. The fact that you can’t point to that experiment being run proves Climate Science isn’t a serious science.
Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube filled with dry air.
The dry air Tyndall filled the tube with had only traces of CO2.
That is why Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
The dry air has only traces of CO2. The dry airs CO2 IR absorp.tion is negligible,
It can not be measured, it can not be detected Tyndall couldnt.
–
The 288K 255K =33oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Everything started with error
And here is why.
The planets old effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴
is defined as a planets equilibrium temperature in the absence of atmosphere.
When calculated, the Earths Te = 255 K, instead of the satellite measured actual Tmean = 288 K – the cause was obvious.
Earths surface was considered warmer by +Δ33oC because of the planet Earths atmosphere.
It was error.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Recently, I checked how many years had, like 2021, all first 11 months with an anomaly less than that in the year before:
1981
1982
1989
1992
1999
2011
2021
You see again: nothing unusual.
And suddenly I asked me: why always to search for years with anomalies less than the year before, and not the inverse?
1982
1985
1986
1994
1997
2008
2009
2015
2018
Surprisingly, the Pinatubo year 1991 was not in the list.
But… from September 1991 till March 1995, UAH had, if I’m not mistaken, 43 negative anomalies in a row.
Not bad.
Imagine we would have an eruption like Tambora in 1815, or – even far worse – like Samalas in 1257, with a VEI 7+.
Ooops?!
I see that, due to the average temperature for 1991-2020 higher than that form 1981-2010, UAH now has even 50 negative anomalies in a row, namely from April 1983 till May 1987.
Nothing that matters: it would be better anyway to look at absolute data for such anecdotal matter.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Imagine we would have an eruption like Tambora in 1815, or even far worse like Samalas in 1257, with a VEI 7+.”
Just imagine.
Or accept reality – the choice is yours.
Blinny: Why do you think that Roy uses abnormal rather than absolute is his monthly figures?
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/graphing-global-temperature-trends/
“Global temperature data are reported as anomalies, the measure of the amount of departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value. A negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas (that may have very different absolute temperatures) than absolute temperatures do. They also give a frame of reference that allows for more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends”
Oh look! We see again the RLH stalker, the one with an elementary school teacher’s behavior (i.e. all-time-better-knowing about everything, but asking for irrelevant matters all the time).
Look how he tries to teach us about anomalies
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/graphing-global-temperature-trends/
BUT… never generated any anomaly out of any absolute data!
How laughable.
*
The elementary school teacher really does not need to teach us about the greater usefulness of anomalies compared with absolute values.
Rather, he should go back to this blog’s threads, and try to find the place where he felt the need to explain us that anomalies are not necessary because his low pass filters would do the same job much better.
*
Moreover, despite so quick in teaching, the elementary school teacher still doesn’t seem to REALLY understand that anomalies are departures from a mean and their value hence is absolutely depending on that mean.
This is, of course, quite useful for comparisons of very different absolute values, as we can see for example here:
UAH 6.0 LS vs. LT, absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
UAH 6.0 LS vs. LT, anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
No doubt: anomalies are of greater interest for comparison purposes than are absolute values.
*
But in the case we are dealing with (sequences of negative temperatures wrt to a given mean), they are of no use, because the same sequence of 43 anomalies wrt 1991-2020 moves down to a sequence of merely 27 anomalies wrt 1981-2010.
No wonder: the mean difference between 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 is, after all, 0.14 C. Thus, all anomalies wrt 1981-2010 which were lower than the difference of the means no longer exists.
The same holds for the oldest UAH reference period (1979-1998) as well as for any period in the future.
*
But… the elementary school teacher always knows better.
“Moreover, despite so quick in teaching, the elementary school teacher still doesnt seem to REALLY understand that anomalies are departures from a mean and their value hence is absolutely depending on that mean”
Liar. I know perfectly well how to construct anomalies. I also know that they contain small errors due to the reference periods only being 30 years (typically).
Blinny demonstrates why UAH 6.0 LS vs. LT, absolute is useless when compared to UAH 6.0 LS vs. LT, anomalies.
Removing the yearly movement and the absolute offset matters.
Try seeing any movements in the data in absolute compared to those shown in anomalies.
(And yes surprise the LS is lower than the LT, who would have thought that?)
“never generated any anomaly out of any absolute data!”
Most people do not present absolute data, for obvious reasons.
The area between 30N and 30S latitude is 50% of the Earth’s surface (assuming the Earth is a sphere – exact figures are left to the reader).
Dispute that Blinny.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l11_p2.html
“This area (between 30-degrees North latitude and 30-degrees South latitude) actually accounts for exactly half of the Earth’s surface!”
Hey Blinny,
I’ll help you out, dS=Rd0 (0=theta)
” This area (between 30-degrees North latitude and 30-degrees South latitude) actually accounts for exactly half of the Earth’s surface! ”
No one on Earth disputes that, elementary school teacher!
*
You still did not want to simply accept what I wrote upthread, namely that
– area saving geometry is only one of the two aspects which must be taken into account,
the other one being the fact that
– independently of an optical area saving representation giving a correct ratio between equator and poles, you have also to keep the represented data akin to its optical representation.
Not accepting that moves you to the level of the lunar spin deniers and of their ball-on-a-string ‘arguments’.
*
You never admit being wrong.
But I know that one day, you will silently change your opinion, and never admit to have ever had any different opinion before.
“No one on Earth disputes that”
So why does your rectangular presentation show 45 degrees as being half then?
Currently seeing the strongest flows of natural gas into EU storage since the invasion of Ukraine started; 1809.27 GWh/d Mar 12 vs 881.91 GWh/d Feb 20. At current prices, that’s quite a bounty.
Where do you get that data? Curious.
Gas Infrastructure Europe (gie.eu)
https://agsi.gie.eu/#/
Earlier, Chic emotions got the better of him when he said to RG:
“We share similar if not the exact same views.”
RG holds that CO2 warms the Earth.
Chic holds that the Earth’s warming, from wherever it may be coming, drives up CO2.
Same same.
Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap….
Correlation is not causation. Which comes first matters.
Cycle nuts who appeal to causation ought to beware their wishes.
Idiots who think they are intelligent should check their ideas.
Let’s help those idiots:
If A causes B, B can’t cause A at the same time.
So Chic and RG’s views are more contradictory than “not exactly the same.”
Idiot.
Start here, Richard:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
Wee Willy Wanker appeals to metaphysical authority!
Has obviously lost the plot.
Next he will start blabbering about lichurchur, modulz, ponies, sammitches – or anything else totally unrelated to science.
He should stick to playing with himself, and ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!” when he comes to a happy conclusion.
As should all delusional climate crackpots.
How’s it going this morning down under, sock puppet.
Have you found your Insultation Theory yet?
OMG.
Did I just say “insultation”?
Woeful Wee Willy,
It doesn’t matter whether you call it Insulation Theory or Insultation Theory.
Neither one exists. If it did, you would wave it in my face, exulting!
Stick to playing with yourself. You’ll probably find it more satisfying.
What a moron you are!
Willard: Which happens first?
Ask your pancreas.
Willard is still an idiot I see.
EM already showed why your silly question is silly, dummy.
Lots of people have observed you are an idiot. Why would I disagree with them?
Because most of them are Dragon cranks, dummy.
Whereas you are an idiot, idiot.
“RG holds that CO2 warms the Earth.
Chic holds that the Earths warming, from wherever it may be coming, drives up CO2.”
Which come first? The warming or the Co2.
Testing
Finally!
It’s not a choice between “temperature changes CO2” or “CO2 changes temperature.
Temperature and CO2 are in equilibrium.
If something increases one, then the other increases. If something decreases one, then the other decreases.
Thus at the beginning of the last interglacial, the Eemian, changes in Earth’s orbit caused a temperature increase and CO2 followed it up. In due course the orbits changed again, temperature dropped and CO2 followed it back down.
In the late 1800s the Industrial Revolution increased CO2 and temperature is now following it up. If we reduced our emissions enough CO2 would drop back to its natural level and temperature would follow it down.
This is causation by correlation logical fallacy.
There is physical-chemical rationale for CO2 to ebb and flow based on temperature fluctuation and that correlation is easily backed up by experimental evidence. Temperature could go up or down with CO2 have nothing to do with it.
Where is your data to the contrary, Entropic man.
EM,
You wrote –
“If something increases one, then the other increases. If something decreases one, then the other decreases..
“If something . . .”?
Here’s a fact – burning hydrocarbons produces heat and CO2 (plus H2O, of course).
The heat eventually flees to outer space, but the CO2 and H2O do not.
The heat has decreased, but the CO2 has increased. Now say something about “the exception proves the rule!
Moron.
” Temperature could go up or down with CO2 have nothing to do with it. ”
Where is your data to the contrary, Entropic man.
It’s mostly negative. If “It’s the Sun,stupid” the warming should be driven by a brighter Sun. We see no brighter Sun.
Similarly with other forcings. Anything natural warming the planet by 0.2C/decade should be obvious, easily observed and measured. We see nothing.
On the other hand, there’s a whole literature on the subject of GHG induced global warming. It links the predictions from the physics with observation. You can choose to accept it or reject it. No point going over it all again when we’re both aware of the arguments.
For me the clincher is the cooling stratosphere.
Every other warming forcing, from fewer volcanoes to increased solar input would produce a warmer troposphere and a warmer stratosphere. Only warming due to increased GHGs would produce the warmer troposphere and cooler stratosphere that we observe.
Swenson
We’ve been over this before.
The record of CO2 emissions from our civilization matches the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, biomass and ocean sinks.
The heat released by our fossil fuel burning is much smaller than the amount of heat necessary to explain the observed warming.
Ent, your “clincher” is anything you see or hear. You’re 100% convinced of the AGW nonsense, and nothing will change your mind. You are opposed to reality and science. Like the other braindead cult idiots, you will say anything to promote your false beliefs.
Heck, you’ll even claim passenger jets fly backwards!
I would say that you’re clutching at straw, Pup, but Dragon cranks don’t even have that.
This ain’t a place for you.
Further to the point Ent, the supposed stratosphere warming has NOTHING to do with CO2. It’s just another example of everything you see or hear is proof of your false beliefs.
It’s the same kind of nonsense as ice cubes boiling water.
EM,
You wrote –
“We’ve been over this before.
The record of CO2 emissions from our civilization matches the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, biomass and ocean sinks.”
Considering you haven’t the faintest notion of how to measure those things you mention, it might be difficult to convince anyone that you are other than a climate nutter.
Your nonsense about GHG induced global warming in not supported by physics, you moron.
You are so delusional that you cannot even describe what a GHG is, without saying something really stupid, along the lines that it traps heat! In the same way as any other gas in the universe, of course, but assisted by magical climate physics, no doubt!
Any gas that is heated, promptly cools down when the heat source is withdrawn. Just like the gaseous atmosphere at night, or during a solar eclipse.
Why do you think that Earth has managed to cool off during the last four and a half billion years or so? Atmosphere and all!
Carry on.
E man,
“Anything natural warming the planet by 0.2C/decade should be obvious, easily observed and measured. We see nothing.”
For a start, the troposphere warms and cools +/- 0.2C every few months due to many possible “forcings.” Most obvious are clouds and aerosols. These things exacerbate the relatively constant solar insolation. ENSO further obscures the distinctions you desire. People only measure a tiny fraction of the globe’s temperatures to come up with an estimate of the “average” temperature. If it was easy, you, Nate, and Willard could do it.
“No point going over it all again when were both aware of the arguments.”
That’s right. Come back when you have better evidence.
“Only warming due to increased GHGs would produce the warmer troposphere and cooler stratosphere that we observe.”
That’s unfounded. CO2 has not been shown to warm the troposphere exclusively and the stratosphere has cooled due to the decrease in ozone and possibly from the increase in CO2 as well.
“If something increases one, then the other increases. If something decreases one, then the other decreases”
But which happens first?
RLH
In glacial cycles temperature changed first.
At present CO2 is changing first.
This will not be proven until the rises stop.
Even then it won’t, for there’s no proof in science.
Balance of probabilities then.
No need to wait for any rise to stop to have that.
Sure. Continue on with your beliefs. Won’t alter what happens in the future though.
Not my belief, Richard.
The best explanation we have on the table isn’t cycle nuts’ favorite.
Well if you base your opinions about the future on the models, then you will always see things as too hot.
But Modulz is another door, Richard:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Cycle nuts are in no position to whine about modulz.
Idiots like you are no position to moan about anything.
Any thing that warms the oceans will gradually cause them to release dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. Just like a cold carbonated soda in a glass sitting outdoors on a hot day will gradually lose its carbonation.
The effect is long term but there is a positive correlation of rising ocean temperatures with higher atmospheric CO2 levels, with a lag averaging 800 years,
Adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself, best reflected in higher night time temperatures (TMIN). When averaging TMIN nd TMAX, the mean temperature will be higher.
Ocean temperature changes causing CO2 level changes, and CO2 level changes causing short term temperature chnanges, can happen at the SAME time. And they are.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Any thing that warms the oceans will gradually cause them to release dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. Just like a cold carbonated soda in a glass sitting outdoors on a hot day will gradually lose its carbonation.
The effect is long term but there is a positive correlation of rising ocean temperatures with higher atmospheric CO2 levels, with a lag averaging 800 years,
Adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself, best reflected in higher night time temperatures (TMIN). When averaging TMIN nd TMAX, the mean temperature will be higher.
Ocean temperature changes causing CO2 level changes, and CO2 level changes causing short term temperature changes, can happen at the SAME time. And they are.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
Because it denies the main AGW argument.
Here again RG, you’re confusing the atmosphere with CO2. The non-radiating molecules of the atmosphere do “impede Earth’s ability to cool itself”. The atmosphere acts as a thermostatically controlled blanket (conforms to the Laws of Thermodynamics), moderating Earth’s temperature around 288K.
Neither the atmosphere nor CO2 can increase Earth’s average temperature. The radiating gases cool the atmosphere by radiating energy to space.
Somehow this comment ended up above by mistake.
If there was any increase in global temperature due to the increase in CO2, it would most likely be from reducing diurnal extreme temperatures. IR radiated from the surface is absorbed by IR active gases near the surface which thermalize with the bulk air causing convection. That creates fast cooling during daylight. Slow cooling occurs at night. This combination likely produces less extreme temperatures. It takes a warmer global average temperature from moderate temperatures to radiate the same amount of energy compared to a global average of more extreme temperatures. That is my version of global warming, if there is any real warming in the first place, and it does not make any claim to how much humans have to do with it, if any.
My hypothesis comes from the SB equation and Holder’s inequality (the average of the fourth power of all global temperatures is greater than the fourth power of the average global temperature). Therefore, a temperate body will be warmer than one with more extreme temperatures, because extreme temperatures radiate more W/m2 than a similar body with the same average temperature.
AGW, based on some version of a GHE, is an unvalidated hypothesis as yet. No direct evidence exists that an increase in CO2 will increase the average global temperature.
“No direct evidence exists that an increase in CO2 will increase the average global temperature. ”
There’s lots of hypothesis testing going on. For example CO2 AGW predicts increasing DWLR, which has been observed. It also predicts increased OLR intensity from the atmospheric window and lower intensity in the 13-16 micrometres band, also observed. I mentioned the cooling stratosphere.
I assume you regard these as indirect evidence.
Ideally we should take two identical planets. Increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere of planet A by 140ppm over 140 years. Keep planet B at 280ppm as a control and compare their temperature records. Alas, we have neither the time or a Planet B.
Unfortunately controlled experiments on whole planets are impractical. They can and have been modelled, but then you don’t believe in models.
What do you think direct evidence would look like?
“There’s lots of hypothesis testing going on.”
Observing is not testing in a scientific method sense. You need to identify controlled, dependent, independent variables, etc.
“For example CO2 AGW predicts increasing DWLR, which has been observed.”
Where? From ASR that includes DWSWR? Don’t satellites do that by subtracting solar insolation from reflected SW? How do you average DWLR at the surface everywhere around the globe?
“It also predicts increased OLR intensity from the atmospheric window and lower intensity in the 13-16 micrometres band, also observed.”
OLR can be attributed to increasing temperature. How do separate the CO2 contribution? Can you share the data for the lower intensity in the 13-16 micrometer band?
“I mentioned the cooling stratosphere.”
This has nothing to do with surface warming. Do you know why?
Direct evidence is your problem. There may be a record breaking catch in the sea, but they don’t give out awards for the ones that got away.
For some reason, EM and his goony bird friends want it badly. Since they want it badly, it must be true. And, that’s all that matters.
As we both no, there are so many other more important issues in this world. I just watched the Ukranian 1994 gold metal skater crying about what’s happening in her homeland.
Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.
Chic Bowdrie
Way back on March 6th I linked you to a paper with the information you requested. You did not read it and kind of pooh-poohed it. You read the abstract and must not be interested in the rest of the paper. They do isolate the CO2 band for OLR and it has decreased. If you read the paper they consider many things and attempt to eliminate them.
You are correct not many studies have been done but there are a few out there that indicate CO2 causes some warming of the surface (by lowering the amount of energy out acting like a radiant insulator).
You can reject this study, up to you but please don’t act like there is no data as that would be a wrong statement.
Again for you. Maybe read through it this time around.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.10605.pdf
Chic Bowdrie
-“induced radiative forcing. The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder
(AIRS) offers the longest continuous record among all current or previous satellite spectrometers and has measured
Earths OLR while atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 373 to 410 ppm, 28% of the total increase since 1750.
Figure 2 exemplifies a single OLR spectrum comprised of 2,378 radiances. This work examines 42.4 billion global
nighttime, clear-sky spectral radiance measurements (hereafter: radiances) made by AIRS between 2002-2019.”
Norman,
You wrote –
“You are correct not many studies have been done but there are a few out there that indicate CO2 causes some warming of the surface (by lowering the amount of energy out acting like a radiant insulator).”
No. You may have noticed that the temperature falls at night. Insulators do not raise the temperature of a cooling body, such as the surface at night.
You can reject reality, but at the same time, reality is rejecting you.
Who do you think will win?
If you think it will be you, you are a moron!
Norman, it’s always fun when you find another source you don’t understand.
That “paper” is complete garbage, yet you swallowed it whole. All you have to realize is their “radiative forcing” is a belief. It ain’t science. They program computer models to get the results they want. Their “radiative forcing” is from a computer model!
Just look at Table 1: “Longwave clear-sky effective radiative forcing from CMIP6 multi-model ensemble“
You don’t understand any of this.
Norman,
I read thru the AIRS webpage here.
https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/
Talk about getting your hopes up. It’s a big fat nothing burger, isn’t it? I’d call it another government boondoggle.
So, are you saying there’s evidence on the page that supports AGW hypothesis?
So, Norman says there’s something on the AIRS page that supports the +33C GHE and AGW. Let’s see the specifics, Norman. Oh, wait, they use the acronym OLR quite a bit. Is that the evidence, Norman?
stephen p anderson
I have a link in my post to the use of the AIRS to find the OLR change caused by increased CO2.
It is not the AIRS webpage.
The 33 K GHE comes from the average measured temperature of the surface which is around 288 K and the difference with the OLR which averages 240 W/m^2 and give a brightness temperature of 255 K.
Both those numbers are based upon measured values and using math to determine statistical averages.
Norman, the “255K” is for an imaginary sphere. It has no relation to Earth. If fact, there are three different levels at 255K in Earth’s atmosphere, none are due to any bogus GHE.
You just keep making stuff up to support your cult, but NOTHING works for you.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(You said you always support your nonsense with “textbook”, so where’s your textbook supporting ice cubes can boil water, and Earth’s bogus “real 255K surface”?)
Norman,
There’s no evidence in the paper that supports anything you wrote.
stephen p anderson
No the link would not have the 33 K GH# in it and it was not intended to be there when I linked it. Chic Bowdrie was asking for evidence (measured) that CO2 has an effect on temperature. The link does provide that.
The GHE comes from other sources.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.4311&rep=rep1&type=pdf
If you scroll down to page 2044 of the linked article they have a global averaged Outgoing Longwave Radiation which approximates at 240 W/m^2 (brightness temperature of 255 K).
The average surface temperature has been measured at around 288 K.
With those two sources you get a GHE of 33 K.
Wrong again, Norman.
TIROS-N is about 500 miles above Earth’s surface. So comparing the “brightness temperature” out in space just means you don’t understand any of this.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”.
> Observing is not testing in a scientific method sense. You need to identify controlled, dependent, independent variables, etc.
That Chuc reduces tests to controlled experiments might explain why he asks for ponies and sammiches.
EM,
Ideally, you could conduct an experiment where you steadily reduce the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a fixed heat source.
You could dance naked while baying at the Moon, in the hope that the thermometer would get hotter.
You are obviously a deluded climate crackpot. Do you agree with the other crackpots who claim that temperatures can be measured in W/m2, and that you can make water hotter by adding more heat energy in the form of ice?
No? I bet you can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? Where may this amazing thing be observed, measured, and documented?
Moron.
Silly Swenson.
There’s no evidence that any pony would please Chic.
There’s no evidence that Willard is not an idiot.
No evidence our Hall Monitor realizes he is defending a Dragon Crank.
Still no evidence that Willard is not an idiot.
Still no evidence Richard responded to Chic’s crankitude:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1209045
The evidence shows that Willard is an idiot.
The evidence is in:
No U
z
Solar flux report
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16mg6vIMd4IoJaP-AAP-77LIf5hDrhi2_/view
Popeye’s spinach hasn’t been enough yet!
Give the sunny boy more of it.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents also seem to need a healthy dose of Popeye spinach.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iDvogUBKnCEY43iWK7_LFWBjT_f14eXL/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA75wUnRDRd0aLlC05oom37Oc8sXzosq/view
It’s the Sun, stupid.
Water vapor molecules have been increasing about 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. Both have been measured. Assertions like: “increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2” from https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-01539/article_deploy/remotesensing-10-01539.pdf are misinformation.
“Most of the GCMs in the study have too low of a dOLT/dT,
indicating an underestimating of the longwave cloud thinning effect: as the earth warms, it contains less clouds and becomes a more effective radiator.”
That’s what is called a negative feedback.
but then less clouds let in more short wave, so it’s also a positive feedback.
Either way the models are inaccurate.
You keep going on about accuracy, I was trained not to.
Ignoring accuracy would be bad training.
Super La Nina Coming for 2022
https://youtu.be/0tOCjEumSwE?t=120
NOAAs CFSv2 agrees.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
It’s a scary world out there, folks. Cackling Kamala is one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And we thought it couldn’t get any worse than Biden.
On the plus side the war is causing a lot of people to actually understand what the climate change claptrap policies mean for their well-being and that those policies must end.
The leftists are such weird sociopathic people. They have no problem aborting one million babies every year. It’s all about advancing their utopian agenda.
While the Right accept 45,000 gun deaths a year, including 24,000 gun suicides and 6000 in school shootings.
The libertarian paradise.
You included the spit ball straw shootings in that 6000 school shootings count ?
Aren’t you british? not heard of british ‘right’ accepting anything other than ‘some’ up their butts.
disclosue: i am neither us not uk citizen nor denizen, though I am a subject of her majesty’s; also, i am both for guns as well as for abortions.
Yes, we do accept it. That is the price of freedom. We’d rather not have gun violence, but that is a consequence of the freest society in the world. However, you can do the math, 45,000 is a lot less than one million, and most of the 45,000 are adults who choose to live here. If people don’t like our Constitutional rights, they can live elsewhere. What choices do the babies have?
What choices do the mothers have? Even the raped ones.
You are using old data, the present abortion rate is almost, but not quite, half the number you are using.
The rate is dropping, not because of repugnicans efforts, but for other reasons.
And as a male, it is none of my business, and shouldn’t be any of your business either.
bobdroege
There is one factor where it is a male’s business. It does still take male semen to create the fetus. Men are also responsible for the large unnecessary numbers of abortions performed. With more self control or use of birth control the number could go down even further and not create such a splitting issue in the US.
> one million babies
That’s not exactly true, Troglodyte.
Why will La Niña’s continue? Observations indicate that the warm subsurface wave will not reach the eastern Pacific before fall. As solar activity increases the polar vortex to the south should be strong, so there should be stronger latitudinal winds, thus maintaining the current circulation over the equator.
https://i.ibb.co/FDQ6L3S/IDYOC007-202203.gif
Probably
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
!Nein! !Nein! !Nein!
https://i.postimg.cc/SxFHmXH8/20nino34-Mon.gif
Ignoring data you don’t like….
ren
It’s funny to look one more time at Eben’s endlessly reposted idiocy.
And when I read
” Ignoring data you don’t like… ”
I get a big laugh, because I read
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
and associated data every day, for example:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure02.gif
*
The present is interesting, and forecasts are useful, though being so often wrong.
But when I read about some predictions about a Super La Nina, I download data and look at… yes, the past. What else?
This time I deliberately chose NOAA’s ONI index, because so many people think the MEI is an invention of some of NOAA’s Warmista teams (“They have hidden our Super 2016 El Nino!”).
Indeed: while ONI shows for the peak values: 2016 > 1998 > 1982, MEI shows the inverse.
Here you see ONIS’s top 10 La Nina months:
1973 12 -2.0
1973 11 -1.9
1974 1 -1.8
1988 11 -1.8
1988 12 -1.8
1955 11 -1.7
1973 10 -1.7
1975 12 -1.7
1989 1 -1.7
1999 12 -1.7
The top month of the most recent La Nina was
2020 11 -1.3
at position 50 in the sort, and the top month in 2021 was
2021 1 -1.0
at position 91.
*
You probably will have noticed that ONI starts in 1950.
Nearly no one anymore knows today that since 1950, the strongest La Nina was 1973/74: in MEI for example, this is visible only in its V1 historical data.
Here is a graph I just made for ONI:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TfTETiTG0Pu3K7uPhUMc2zklBPzGHixA/view
The strongest La Ninas you can see here (starting year, sum of values, lasting months, average value per month):
1973: -37.4 | 34 | -1.3
1998: -33.6 | 32 | -1.1
1954: -22.6 | 29 | -0.8
2010: -21.9 | 22 | -1.0
2007: -17.7 | 18 | -1.0
1970: -16.9 | 19 | -0.9
1988: -16.5 | 13 | -1.3
2020: -14.1 | 16 | -0.9
No one wants to underestimate the current La Nina.
But as all La Ninas before, it will come to an end, and then we will see whether or not it merits a posteriori the name ‘Super La Nina’.
Until then I look at the numbers above.
A detail: nearly contiguous La Nina sequences separated by values of at least 0.4 were merged together.
Ooops?! I did not mention the source for the ONI output above:
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Bindidon, since you have a lot of time on your hands, have you found the answer to the bicycle pedal question yet?
Once again Bindiclown shown getting his forecast totally wrong on end of La Nina by April,
posts a page long psychobabble about past La Ninas
” … a page long psychobabble about past La Ninas ”
Manifestly, you not only love to insult, but are, above all, dishonest to such an extent that you intentionally ignore how the current numbers behave compared with the past – and what that means.
You are really at least as stoopid as Clint R – even if you are, as opposed to him, convinced of the lunar spin about its polar axis.
Anyone who reads and understands your constant bullshit also understands that you are the REAL CLOWN of both of us.
Blinny: Sorted out the difference between 45 and 30 yet?
Bindidon is so far over his head he always reminds me of Norman. Like Norman, he has no understanding of the basic physics, so all he can do is copy/paste data from his cult sources. Similarly, Norman links to things he can’t understand.
Neither one was able to understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. And now, it’s worse. They’re faced with having to understand how a bicycle works! Good luck with that.
Clint R
” Neither one was able to understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. And now, its worse. Theyre faced with having to understand how a bicycle works! Good luck with that. ”
*
Did you really forget that elementary school teacher RLH names you an idiot whenever you talk about your endless ‘ball-on-a-string’ nonsense?
Oh dear.
Are you in hope that the elementary school teacher would change his opinion concerning your nonsense just because you are surprisingly butt-kissing him?
Hmmh.
Bindidon, your immaturity won’t make up for your incompetence. But as it’s all connected to your meltdown, that just adds to the fun.
So NOAA is wrong in their postings?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure02.gif
is about the past.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
is about the future.
Notice the difference?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
“March 2022 La Nia update: three-bean salad”
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
And here is THE REAL PAST, for those who behave inexperienced, ignorant and ridiculous enough to understand under ‘past’ the LAST TWELVE MONTHS (!!!!) :
1. History since 1982
https://iri.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/figure2.png
2. History since 1950, this time as bar chart – for those who do not seem to understand line charts
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dLsGiI-qIlO-VkgltCMZlefXX-HqTG16/view
*
And, since the elementary school teacher did not quite realize that I do not look at the most recent past only, just a hint:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
After 50 years experience with elementary school teachers (as an adult, not as the child they teached), there is no wonder for me that RLH, like all these teachers, does not look a millimeter farther than his noose is long.
*
And that is the reason why he permanently urges, like his friend Eben, to post NOAA’s alleged ‘future’:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
which of course changes all the time, due to the extreme uncertainty. You just need to look how quick the most recent ensemble means can change over time.
So you know better than NOAA and CFSv2. No surprise there then.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
March 2022 La Nia update: three-bean salad
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
Mad Vlad escalation.
The Russian Yamal-Europe gas pipeline – which connects the Yamal and western Siberia fields to Poland and Germany through Belarus – has stopped westbound flows. Yamal is one of four natural gas pipelines from Russia to western Europe. The pipeline usually accounts for about 15% of Russia’s westbound supply of gas to Europe and Turkey. Russian gas flows to Europe through other pipelines, including the Nord Stream 1 pipeline across the Baltic Sea, were steady.
“We cannot compare the planet Te and planet Tmean,
Wrong.
If you know both temperatures then you can compare them
What you should say is that are usually different to each other.”
Yes, they are different to each other.
And here is why:
!). Planet doesn’t reflect as a disk, but as a sphere.
the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is not
(1-a)S
but
Φ(1-a)S
2). Planet doesn’t absorb the the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
What planet does is to interact with the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
When interacting with matter, only a fraction of the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is accumulated in inner layers in form of HEAT.
3). Also, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> There are no data for the future.
We have enough data to make this bold prediction:
RG will recycle But Prediction in the near future.
Will next month’s UAH LT figure be lower or higher than this month’s?
Why are you JAQing off about weather, Richard?
Why are you an idiot Willard?
No U
z (and no, not the Russian one).
I see that I had overlooked a proof of the admirable science level of CO2IsLife, in a reply to Flynnson’s usual absurdity:
CO2isLife says:
March 5, 2022 at 12:44 PM
” Well, nobody has ever demonstrated that increasing the amount of a gas of any sort between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! ”
Absolutely brilliant. Bravo.
Yeah. No comment needed.
In the context of GHG and our current atmosphere, please provide evidence that different gasses will record warming greater than the heat source. That is really easy to test. Yes, in a vacuum adding a gas would result in warming, but not in the context of our current atmosphere.
We had that discussion years ago.
Like all contrarian Pseudoskeptics, you never change anything in your opinion, and thus always repeat and repeat the same stuff again and again.
You did not want to understand, let alone to accept, that
– H2O and CO2 work at completely different altitudes
– though being more or less uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the action of CO2 can considerably differ from place to place, e.g. in the Antarctic.
Independently of the opinion of some absolute geniuses, the presence of H2O in the troposphere has changed our average temperature by 33 K compared to a troposphere free of it.
And independently of your genial opinion, the increased presence of CO2 in the lower stratosphere might very well change our average temperature by 3 K in the next 100 years.
*
You don’t believe it? So what.
Bindidon, is there any cult nonsense you won’t swallow?
When will you do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup?
When will you stop being an idiot Willard?
Blinny. The man who thinks that 45 is 30 (or is it the other way round?)
Richard, the Hall Monitor who fails at logic, geometry, statistics, and epistemology.
No wonder he defends Dragon cranks!
At least I know what an ‘equal area map’ means.
You sure know how to peddle irrelevant factoids.
You sure know how to be an idiot.
Binny was talking about Life’s Dragon crank theory, Richard.
What are you doing here?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Binny was talking about Life’s Dragon crank theory, Richard.”
Not obscure enough, laddie!
You haven’t referred to sammitches, ponies, lichurchur or modulz.
Try harder, moron.
“What are you doing here?”
Presenting real low pass filters, statistics, geometry, maths, etc. as opposed to distortions.
Here’s to what “here” refers, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1210266
Hall monitors have very low-pass filters, if you catch my drift.
” At least I know what an ‘equal area map’ means. ”
Oh, how great!
But that is indeed not very complicated to grasp.
*
Much more complicated for the elementary school teacher (if not even impossible) seems to grasp that
– while ‘equal area map’s representing a sphere indeed show equal areas of it
the engineer responsible for showing data located within these ‘equal area’s in the sphere
– has to compute AND show the data according to rules akin to those used for the areas’ geometric representation.
This means that if the geometric representation of spherical areas is subject to latitude weighting in a 2D chart, the computation of the data to be represented in the chart’s weighted areas must take a corresponding latitude weighting into account.
Otherwise, the average of the (unweighted) data represented within the (weighted) areas will not match the data computed in the corresponding time series:
https://tinyurl.com/bddmvvzf
Though looking quite similar, the time series differ by a lot.
Even Robertson, the greatest contrarian blog nonsense reporter of all time, would say in an impressing 80Hz bass voice:
” They are not even close. ”
*
But the elementary school teacher manifestly is light years away from understanding all that, let alone to ever admit he did.
As long ago has been proved an ellipse with a major axis twice that of a minor axis is directly comparable to the surface of a sphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollweide_projection
“{It} is used where that property {equal area} is needed, such as maps depicting global distributions” like in this case temperature.
https://www.worldatlas.com/geography/world-map-mollweide-projection.html
“Mollweide, also known as homalographic, Babinet, or elliptical projection, is an equal-area projection that displays the globe as an {ellipse} with an axes proportion of 2:1. This projection is used appropriately where accurate areas are required ”
Idiot.
Please note the 2.5 degree lat/lon grid is in angle, not in lengths in km.
Thus a rectangular grid, x*y or Mercator projection, will give an inaccurate representation of areas.
Mathematical proof.
http://master.grad.hr/hdgg/kog_stranica/kog15/2Lapaine-KoG15.pdf
If you were to use a rectangular grid with a constant lat, lon or x, y then you would need to ignore the fact that the length of a degree of longitude ranges from 111 km at the equator to 0 at the poles.
> Mathematical proof.
Well, actually:
> like in this case temperature
You’re a bit quick to gloss over that step, Richard.
Are you suggesting that once again you know better than Roy?
No. I am supporting Roy in his use of Mollweide rather than Mercator/rectangular grids.
Idiot.
Original scientific paper
Accepted 21. 12. 2011.
http://www.geocities.ws/galois_e/pdf/mollweide01.pdf
Proof Without Words:
Mollweides Equation
is not about
Mollweide Map Projection Equations
Willard, as usual, butts in without understanding the difference between an equation and a global map projection. Just that the name is the same.
“In trigonometry, Mollweides formula, sometimes referred
to in older texts as Mollweides equations, named after
Karl Mollweide, is a set of two relationships between sides
and angles in a triangle. It can be used to check solutions
of triangles”
> I am supporting Roy in his use of Mollweide
You’re also supporting the distorsion it provides around the poles, it seems. But in contrast to you, Roy has enough integrity to acknowledge that it does. He also recognizes that one representation can easily be transposed into another. And so once again you seek purity needlessly.
Oh, and your paper isn’t proving what you think it proves. This has been proven in 1805, based on knowledge that goes back at least to Newton. Something you should know, since you read the paper you cite.
> as usual, butts in
Thus spake our Hall Monitor, who coatracks his petty vendetta to a comment that has nothing about geometry, which he knows very little about.
Wee Willy Wanker wrote –
“Thus spake our Hall Monitor, who coatracks his petty vendetta to a comment that has nothing about geometry, which he knows very little about.”
Thus spake a clueless moron, striving for attention.
Thus spake Mike Flynn’s sock puppet.
The distortion it provides around the poles is not in area where it is accurate.
But why let facts get in the way of an argument?
Mollweide is the one who made his map projection famous, even though it was not him who first thought of the idea.
Mercator is simple, but distorts everything towards the poles. In fact it has been claimed that it is responsible for a large number of misconceptions about the world’s layout.
Just as the middle of a range has no statistical meaning as such, implying as it does that day and night or summer and winter will end up at a singular value as the mins are rising faster than the maxes across a very large range of temperatures.
But continue on with your idiocies. You loose a lot more people than you gain.
“nothing about geometry, which he knows very little about”
Sure. Idiot. You know little about statistics either but in geometry I did quite well.
> The distortion it provides around the poles is not in area where it is accurate.
I’ll be damned!
Srsly, Richard, please reread what you just wrote.
Do you dispute that Mollweide is equal area?
> In geometry I did quite well.
Fifty years ago perhaps:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1116823
> the middle of a range has no statistical meaning as such
Must be the age:
Now with emphasis.
It’s incredible!
The elementary school teacher still did not manage to understand what I’m talking about, and continues his tedious, irrelevant teaching about evidences instead.
How is it possible not to understand that I’m talking about the necessity to treat the CONTENTS of latitude weighted areas in a way akin to the weighting of the areas themselves?
Making a Mollweide projection of a 2-dimensional grid changes the SHAPE of the grid cells, but NOT THEIR CONTENTS.
Thus, if a rectangular cell represents a portion of Earth with 4.5 C on average, the Mollweide projection will make a correct GEOMETRICAL REPRESENTATION of the cell, but WILL NOT change the CONTENTS of that cell. It will still be 4.5 C!
Is that so difficult, elementary school teacher?
Mercator, which you prefer, distorts AREAS but does not change the contents.
Mollweide does not distort either the area or contents.
Guess which one you chose?
Idiot.
That is why
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
which is area weighted is preferred over a linear latitude layout.
> Mollweide does not distort either the area
Ahem:
The distortion in Mollweide is not in area (where it is accurate) but in shapes, directions, angles, and distances which are generally distorted.
Areas are quite important where you are comparing one area on the Earth’s surface with another.
A distortion is a distortion, Richard. It is really hard not to distort a sphere in 2D.
You are still conflating representation with transformation.
But there is no distortion in area, only in the other things. Area for area it is accurate.
Do show just how easy it is to replicate the surface of a sphere onto a flat piece of paper. People have been trying it for centuries. Idiot.
> Do show just how easy it is to replicate the surface of a sphere onto a flat piece of paper
Why the hell would I do that, Richard, to fall for another of your baits? Never mind. Start here:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/search?q=platonic
As far as representational virtue goes, we’re not far from angel dancing on pinhead territory. It all depends upon what you want to achieve, and how much you’re willing to pay for it. What can I say, I’m an incorrigible pragmatist, even when I cite Nick’s work on platonic solids.
I think that equal area is the best representation for global temperature and Roy, amongst others, agrees too.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Of course you do, Richard.
Satellites don’t cover the poles very well, so who cares if they distort them?
Mollweide does N90 and S90 if you want, or you could just do the poles as the center of a Mollweide projection instead. Or other ways too such as
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/images/molobl.gif
or
http://www.quadibloc.com/maps/images/atlantis.gif
Willard: Do you prefer the massif distortions that Mercator brings?
I do prefer when we distinguish representation and transformation, Richard, just as I prefer that contrarians accept that EVERY representation distorts areas in ALL of their comments.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here comes REAL “global warming”!
They’re going to save more daylight….
The Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent Tuesday that would make Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent if it passes the House of Representatives and is signed by President Biden.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rubio-backed-bill-to-make-daylight-saving-time-permanent-passes-senate-heads-to-house
History will repeat itself.
They will change it back when kids are waiting for the school bus in the dark.
Just like what happened in about 1970.
binny…”You did not want to understand, let alone to accept, that
H2O and CO2 work at completely different altitudes
though being more or less uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, the action of CO2 can considerably differ from place to place, e.g. in the Antarctic”.
***
There is no scientific proof, based on the scientific method, that any of this is true with regard to atmospheric warming. Both CO2 and WV are trace gases and the Ideal Gas Law tells us they have very little effect in warming the atmosphere.
Your theories emanate from alarmists trying to re-define scientific concepts to suit their lies. They use positive feedback in a model that amplifies heat, yet there is no amplifier. I have not even heard of a heat amplifier.
The alarmists also program warming effectiveness for CO2 into models that they grabbed out of a hat. The alarmists claim that CO2 has a warming effect of 9% to 25%. No one has ever proved that, it is based entirely on consensus.
The Ideal Gas Law is clear that CO2 has a warming effect of no more than about 0.04C per 1C rise in temperature.
Remove the fictitious positive feedback from the models and give CO2 the trace warming factor it has, and voila…no catastrophic warming. All of it can be explained by natural variability.
Robertson
” There is no scientific proof, based on the scientific method, that any of this is true with regard to atmospheric warming. Both CO2 and WV are trace gases and the Ideal Gas Law tells us they have very little effect in warming the atmosphere. ”
What about stopping your stoopid Ideal Gas Law blah blah?
It is completely irrelevant here.
Try to translate this French article in English
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
try to digest it, try to undertsand it, try to learn about it, instead of boasting you superficial, unscientific nonsense.
But as usual, you will at best be able to read 1 % of it, and claim it’s all BS.
I perfectly recall you stoopid reaction on my translation of Lagrange’s
Théorie de la libration de la Lune
You read the translated title
Theory of the libration of the Moon
stopped reading further, and wrote in your reply, though the word ‘rotation’ appeared 18 times in the translated text:
” Lagrange did not write about rotation, he wrote about libration. ”
So you are, Robertson.
A dumb guy who understands nothing, but insults great persons with ad homs like “cheating SOB”.
Bindidon, Lagrange would not have know how to ride a bicycle either. You need to somehow get to at least the 20th century.
You’re WAY behind.
It’s easy to ride a bike, Pup.
Even easier to do the Poll Dance Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvGyS5j9aFY
W
Word around the campfire is that you excel at both.
Yet I dislike Excel, Pozzo.
You should tell Blinny.
Binny, Richard.
Binny.
Don’t let Eboy rule your inner world.
I can call him Blinny if I want.
You can do whatever you please, dummy.
Don’t mistake my dislike for Excel with a dislike for spreadsheets in general. The free ones are pretty great. They suffice to run backtests.
You can continue to be an idiot too.
binny…”What about stopping your stoopid Ideal Gas Law blah blah?”
***
Typical Binny reply. Now the Ideal Gas Law, the primary law that covers the relationship between pressure, temperature, and volume in a gas, is stupid.
Show me once in the work of LaGrange where he claimed the Moon rotates on its own axis. Libration is not rotation, it is a result of the Moon’s near-face changing orientation wrt the Earth. There is no local angular velocity involved.
From your link…
“The basics of physics climate and the greenhouse effect were posed by Joseph Fourier (1824) and this historical aspect has already been discussed in several publications (for example Pierrehumbert, 2004; Dufresne, 2006)”.
“Current radiative models allow attempt to rigorously calculate and specifies the atmospheric greenhouse effect as well as its variation with the gas concentration such as water vapor or CO2”.
Is this your proof, unvalidated climate models? The calculations may be rigourous but in any computer, the GIGO principle applies.
Garbage In – Garbage Out.
ken…”On the plus side the war is causing a lot of people to actually understand what the climate change claptrap policies mean for their well-being and that those policies must end”.
***
Our Premier in BC is still babbling about the ***atmospheric river*** that caused flooding here in November. He thinks there really is a river flowing through the atmosphere and misses the propaganda created by alarmists when they named it that. Neither he nor the other eco-weenie, alarmists have heard of La Nina the real cause.
This fictitious river used to be called the Pineapple Express, a mataphor for a storm bringing excessive rain. The deceitful alarmists are praying on the naive, just as they did with covid, frightening them over an eco-loonie fantasy.
Re Ukraine. I am opposed to the invasion but we have not been told the truth about the dreadful state the Ukraine was in before it. In 2014, a democratically, pro-Russian president was over-thrown in a coup by neo-Nazis who infiltrated a peaceful protest.
These same neo-Nazis have been operating in the Ukraine since 1929. They are a nationalist movement who preach the Nazi dogma of national socialism and they have the same white supremist agenda. During WW II, they fought with the Nazis, committing atrocities against, Jews, Poles, and Russians.
The same neo-Nazis had a 1000-strong battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard, called the Azov Battalion, who were committing atrocities on Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the name of democracy. They wear Nazi symbols on their helmets, have Nazi tattoos, and fly a flag with a Nazi symbol.
I am not condoning the extreme measures taken by Putin, but if I was the Russian leader, and had Nazis committing war crimes while suppressing Russian-speaking Ukrainians on the Russian border, I would not be inclined to sit around and watch it happen. In one case, in Odessa, the Nazi battalion forced Russian protestors into a government building and set it on fire. Most people inside were burned to death.
The US government knows about the Azov Battalion and a bill was passed in Congress to stop supporting them. When Obama was asked about them, he claimed it was Russian propaganda.
The Ukrainian government condoned the use of this battalion and I heard no actions taken by them to deal with the war crimes committed on their behalf. They can hardly complain now that the Russians have taken their own reprisals.
Again, I am not condoning any of this, just trying to get at the truth. Does not make sense to me that Putin simply attacked on a whim. He knew the outcome re sanctions so something had to be seriously bothering him.
A Russian spokesman recently claimed they would leave in a minute if the Ukraine agreed to certain conditions. Among them was the recognition of Crimea as being Russian and the creation of two independent states in the western Ukraine. Those sates would be two of the three states where the Ukrainian Nazis were committing atrocities.
BTW…Khrushchev, who was a Ukrainian, gave Crimea to the Ukraine back in the 1950s.
> I am opposed to the invasion but
C’mon, Gordo.
Defn: Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed.
Perhaps you could explain how soldiers using Nazi paraphernalia, as does the Azov Battalion, translate into Nazis in the Ukraine.
Being a thug that commits war crimes and wears swastika tattoos doesn’t automatically make the thug a Nazi.
It is just more smearing similar to calling people who oppose vaccine mandates: white supremacist, misogynists etc as our Prime Minister does. Complete nonsense.
Ukraine is a democratic nation even as it has some serious problems with thugs in its army. Its not a fascist state, not even the Nazi form of fascism. Too bad people can’t understand the difference.
ken…”Perhaps you could explain how soldiers using Nazi paraphernalia, as does the Azov Battalion, translate into Nazis in the Ukraine”.
***
I can’t believe you’d split hairs while defending neo-Nazis. It would only have taken you a few seconds to look up the Azov Battalion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/14/us-house-admits-nazi-role-ukraine
From link above…
“…the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has just voted unanimously to bar U.S. assistance going to the Azov battalion because of its Nazi ties.
When even the hawkish House of Representatives can’t stomach these Nazi storm troopers who have served as Kiev’s tip of the spear against the ethnic Russian population of eastern Ukraine, what does that say about the honesty and integrity of the New York Times when it finds these same Nazis so admirable?”
As I said, this Battalion has its roots in a neo-Nazi, white supremist Ukrainian nationalist group that dates back to 1929. They supported the Nazis in WWII and helped in a massacre of Jews in a ravine just outside Kyiv. There leader, Stepan Bandera was a hunted war criminal.
I remember when Nelson Mandela thought it was cool to receive assistance from the IRA terrorist group. This is the same thing.
Like so many others, I could not understand why Putin would suddenly decide to invade the Ukraine. I still don’t agree with the invasion but I am getting a glimmer of insight. He has been claiming for a while that neo-Nazis have been operating against Russian-speaking people in western Ukraine and nobody has believed him.
I just listed the proof and you deny it.
ken…”Ukraine is a democratic nation even as it has some serious problems with thugs in its army. Its not a fascist state, not even the Nazi form of fascism. Too bad people cant understand the difference”.
***
You need to a grip, Ken. I am unvaccinated and I have backed your comments on this subject. I have opposed Trudeau and his bs against the truckers. I support your views on the climate change insanity. It’s not as if I am looking for ways to justify the Russian invasion, I am only trying to understand why they’d do it with no apparent motive.
In the beginning of the invasion I was shouting at the TV calling Putin by every expletive imaginable. I could not begin to understand it. Then a buddy, who is anti-Nazi sent me a link to Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire.
I was not prepared to blindly accept whatever I saw in a video. I skimmed the movie first time, then went through it minute by minute, researching and taking notes. By the time I was 1/3 the way through I had verified everything claimed from several sources and I was flabbergasted re the state of democracy in the Ukraine.
Look for yourself…
https://rumble.com/embed/vubrga/
I did not say the Ukraine is a fascist state, I merely said it is employing neo-Nazi battalions. It has stood by while that battalion massacred Russian-speaking people in western Ukraine.
In 2014, an elected government was over-thrown by a mob led by the neo-Nazis. You cannot claim to be a democratic country and allow that sort of insurrection. A former leader of the Azov Battalion, Biletsky, also leader of a white supremist group, sat in the Ukrainian parliament for 5 years.
Can you imagine any democratic country allowing a self-avowed white-supremist, and someone who advocates the same national socialism of the Nazis, to sit in their parliament?
Sorry, the Ukraine never was a democratic state, it just played at it. Now innocents are suffering due to that charade.
Same with Russia. We in the west had a perfect chance to help them transition from 70 years of a brutal oppression in a so-called communism into a democratic state. Rather then help them with that transition we dropped them in it, expecting them to go from an environment where the state looked after them, albeit minimally, straight into free enterprise.
The typical happened. Those least able to fend for themselves dropped through the cracks into poverty while a few made it big. Opportunists went to Russia to pick their pockets (steal their resources) and now we have what we see.
Correction….I have been incorrectly claiming the Azov battalion has committed atrocities against people in western Ukraine. It is actually eastern Ukraine, in districts along the Russian border.
Those are the areas the Russians want declared as independent states.
Hopefully that all they want and that they’ll get out of the Ukraine soon.
Theyll get out of ALL of Ukraine soon.
You need to a grip, Ken. I am unvaccinated and I have backed your comments on this subject. I have opposed Trudeau and his bs against the truckers. I support your views on the climate change insanity. It’s not as if I am looking for ways to justify the Russian invasion, I am only trying to understand why they’d do it with no apparent motive.
Just because we agree on some things doesn’t translate into agreeing on all things. Don’t conflate the view points into unity.
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? Same reason that dictatorial regimes always start wars of adventure; to distract from problems at home. Russia has also broken its back on COVID and the people are restless. No need to find other reasons; invading Ukraine is being done on the flimsiest of excuses.
Watch out for Trudeau committing us to that conflict; you’ve never seen such a paragon of virtue transform from the Goon of Ottawa to the champion of democracy in Ukraine; a country most Canadians would have trouble finding on a map.
Gordon Robertson
There is a history of bad-blood between Russian and Ukraine.
https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin
Even if Russians are treated poorly in Ukraine, what Putin is doing is not acceptable by any measure. Just bombing and shelling of civilian structures. He reminds me of the Spirit of Stalin in this man. Possessed by a long dead tyrant. He is treating Russians in Stalin fashion. Best for the World is this Wanna-Be Stalin step down and go away. One Stalin in Russia was enough. What a brutal person he aged to be. He seemed okay in his early days and the threat of Nuclear War was low, now he seems a man possessed to restore Russia to its former glory of the Soviet Union. Really sad thing to see.
I would hope Ukraine could treat Russians in their country better but nothing can excuse Putin. He has gone over the deep end. Too bad his Military won’t throw him out. The World does not need an egomaniac with Nukes, playing chicken with human civilization. Too bad the European leaders cannot talk some sense into him, he is wrecking Russia and will not restore the former Soviet Union. What does he want? A pile of rubble?
No one should support any leader that behaves like him.
norman…”Even if Russians are treated poorly in Ukraine, what Putin is doing is not acceptable by any measure. Just bombing and shelling of civilian structures. He reminds me of the Spirit of Stalin in this man”.
***
I agree re Putin, I am only trying to place it in perspective. I am trying to understand what might motivate him. When Allied forces drove through Italy and Europe, millions of innocent civilians were killed and/or left homeless. There are no winners in war-like situations.
I don’t agree he is anything like Stalin. In fact, Gorbachev claimed he was a good person. He’s had 20 years to re-establish Stalin-like communism, with its brutality and gulags, and has not gone that route. Don’t know about right now, but anyone was free to travel through Russia till this action started.
I began suspecting his motives when he backed the brutal Syrian regime. I need to force myself to be in his shoes, however, since he is desperately trying to deal with major forces like the US and China. Also, he has to deal with forces in Chechnya and Georgia.
This type of assault on the Ukraine is typical of the Russians. They have used similar tactics in Chechnya.
I cannot begin to understand it, having never been in a war situation. I feel a deep compassion for what the Ukrainians are going through. However, after reading about their past, I’ve had to look at it more objectively. The Ukrainian government recently admitted to the use of the neo-Nazi battalion and they must have known what the battalion was doing during their attacks on Russian-speaking Ukrainians in western Ukraine.
Now they are appealing for help against Russia. We now that is not easy without starting WW III, which will wipe a lot of us off the face of the map.
Those who suffer are the innocents. It’s not their fault that neo-Nazis have been active in the Ukraine since 1929 and now they are suffering…again…due to political idiots who selfishly cannot see past the ends of their noses.
Here in Canada, we had the FLQ setting off bombs in Quebec. Same thing, they wanted to use violence to get separation for Quebec. They have taken little action against such groups in the Ukraine.
Gordon Robertson
Here is what Gary Kasparov (Chess Champ) said about Putin in 2007.
https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/russia703/interview/kasparov.html
I agree Ukraine is not what the US press is presenting it to be…there are some serious conflicts of interest and ethics issues going on and the US ..as far as a decade ago tipped the scales in bad ways there too. I certainly don’t agree with Putin’s tactics…horrid and criminal. He should have just claimed full control over the disputed territories and forced a ‘never-UN’ policy and called it quits….he now faces years and years of conflict and descent there..bogging down many of his forces.
after all Crimea was already pretty much Russian…they have had a major naval base there for centuries and it’s Russian speaking and mostly pro-russian citizenry
norman….watch this…
https://rumble.com/embed/vubrga/
You’ll have to do your own research to verify what is claimed. I am 1/3 the way through and have become bogged down in research. One thing leads to another, needing verification.
Thus far I have been unable to find a denial of what is claimed in the video. There are many apologists. For example, the Washington Post rationalized the Azov Battalions usage of Nazi symbolism as “romantic”. I suppose they think the Holocaust is romantic as well. ***holes!!
Basically, factions is western Ukraine backed the Nazis and welcomed them while factions in eastern Ukraine backed the Russians. I am not implying in any way that all Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis or the Russians.
The Ukraine was formed in 1918 by the Bolsheviks and since, it appears to be a divided country.
> The Ukraine was formed in 1918
C’mon, Gordo:
https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081
Romantic defn: of, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality.
Yeah, Romantic is an appropriate description. I recall as a kid being fascinated by the symbols used by wehrmacht and nazi military. That was before I understood the political Nazi regime and the horrors it inflicted on people.
Its not surprising that a formation like Azov would use that symbiology; Germany’s military didn’t lose because of military ineptitude.
Too, Azov support of Nazis in WWII would not be surprising when you consider that Ukraine was at war with Russia too. ‘Enemy of my enemy is my friend’ applies. Its not relevant to the situation today.
Persecution of Jews has been going on for centuries; its not just a Nazi thing. Recall too that Canada turned away a shipload of Jewish refugees prior to WWII. So you have no justification for your outrage.
The neo-nazi nonsense is propaganda to distract from the fact that Russia does not have Jus ad Bellum. You’ve been fooled by it.
See Sun Tzu for details.
ken…”Its not surprising that a formation like Azov would use that symbiology; Germanys military didnt lose because of military ineptitude”.
***
Speechless, Ken. You are actually defending Nazi bastards.
Our Airborne division in Canada was broken up for minor incidents declared to be racism compared to atrocities the Azov have been documented to have done. An investigation revealed a few members of the Airborne appeared to demonstrate Nazi sympathies and they broke up the entire division.
We no longer have an Airborne division in Canada and I disagree with the decision completely. They were our best soldiers and they did not deserve that kind of treatment. Be that as it may, that’s how things are done in democratic countries.
The German Wermacht (Army) were not representatives of the Nazis and they tended to behave like professional soldiers. Same with the Luftwaffe (Air Force). To their credit, the Wermacht and Luftwaffe often intervened to save Allied soldiers and airmen from the SS and Gestapo.
It was the SS divisions who represented Nazis, like the Waffen SS, Hitlerjugend, Das Reich, etc. Those were the bastards who committed the atrocities.
The SS were in charge of the extermination camps and before they were engaged in fighting, the Waffen SS ran concentration camps in the early 1930s, where Hitler imprisoned ordinary Germans, like socialists, unionists, communists, and others with political views that differed from his. The extermination of Jews, Slavs and others did not begin till much later.
The Azov Battalion is no different than the SS scumbags. They have the same ideology and Aryan mindset.
The symbols are not the issue as much as their doctrine and their actions. The Azov attacked peaceful protestors in Odessa forcing them to seek refuge in a government building. Then they set the building on fire burning people to death.
The 2014 coup in the Ukraine began as a peaceful demonstration till the neo-Nazis got involved. You can’t allow that in a democratic society.
Since I last posted, further research has revealed the neo-Nazi mentality is far more wide-spread in the Ukraine than I had thought. Many right-wingers in the Ukraine are resurrecting former brutal Nazi leaders, like Stepan Bandera, as heroes.
The scary part for me is the torchlight parade in the following link in which Ukrainian Nationalists are celebrating the 104th birthday of Bandera. He died in the 1950s. They are holding his photo in front. That vision is reminiscent of early Nazi devotion in 1930s Germany and it is happening today in the Ukraine.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-puts-the-spotlight-on-ukraines-neo-nazis-what-you-need-to-know-about-them-10419921.html
From the link…
“The previous government of Petro Poroshenko, a businessman known as the Chocolate King, normalised the neo-Nazi presence and activity in Ukraine”.
“In 2015, a new law named the UPA and OUN as heroes of Ukraine, and made it a crime to deny their heroism. Similar other initiatives have mainstreamed and whitewashed the Nazi collaborators Ukraines recent past. For instance, the SS Galichina, a Ukrainian military unit that fought with the Germans in World War II is honoured with celebratory marches now”.
The SS Galichina was a brutal SS faction that murdered Poles, Jews, and Russians in western Ukraine. Possibly the greatest atrocity was committed in the Ukraine at Babi Yar, a ravine outside Kyiv. 42,000+ Jews were systematically shot to death in groups, one after the other. There were Ukranian SS units involved in the massacre
Go figure. Innocent, democratic little Ukraine has passed laws to glorify Nazis and defend their Nazi image.
“Bizarre as it may be, military aid and training from the West has brazenly flowed to the neo-Nazis of Ukraine and continues to. In December 2014, Amnesty International accused the Dnipro-1 battalion, an ultra-right military unit, of war crimes. In 2015, US Senator John McCain was tweeting about visiting them, and went on to praise the unit”.
In defense of the US, they have stopped providing assistance to the Azov battalion. That was after McCain and another US senator made a fool of themselves in the Ukraine, cheerleading for the Nazis.
Gordo,
Nazis aren’t right-wingers. They want big government, only their big government.
ken…”Azov support of Nazis in WWII would not be surprising when you consider that Ukraine was at war with Russia too. Enemy of my enemy is my friend applies. Its not relevant to the situation today”.
***
If you check out the history of the Ukraine, it was formed in 1918 by the Bolsheviks. At the time, there was an east-west tension in the area as various groups vied for control of the area.
Nothing new there, various ethnic tribes are always vying to protect their turf. During the years of the USSR, many Russian-speaking people settled in the eastern portion of the Ukraine. The Crimea belonged to them as well, till Khruschev, a Ukrainian, gave it to the Ukraine.
In our western ignorance, fed by an equally ignorant media, we have no idea of situations in places like Ukraine. When Putin first attacked, I had no idea one of his beefs was the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine. He wants to get rid of them, and if that the case, I say, do it.
He wants to disarm the Ukraine, keep them out of NATO, get rid of the Nazis and their sympathizers, and declare the eastern Ukrainian states as independent states. I have not seen anything indicating he plans to take the country over completely. He seems to want to install a sympathetic president but I think that may be retaliation for the Nazis removing a democratically-elected pro-Russian president in 2014.
Unfortunately, innocents die in the process and I cannot condone his actions based on that. The question that comes to mind is why a so-called ruthless dictator would want to get rid of neo-Nazis. I am thinking Putin must theoretically have good qualities if that truly is a motivation for him.
As soon as it becomes apparent they are losing, the Nazis bullies will go running for the hills.
> The Crimea belonged to them as well, till Khruschev, a Ukrainian, gave it to the Ukraine.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago?gclid=CLHnyZC7ndACFSLicgod-UEIXw
Always nice to see the Wilson Center minimize a genocide.
Gordon Robertson
I find the Historical Documentary on Ukraine interesting. It is long so I have not watched the whole thing.
Putin had his latest speech. The problem is if he invaded Ukraine to help people in Donbass, his ruthless forces are not making a compelling case of humanitarian action.
The Nazi point for Ukraine is odd that the leader is Jewish. If they had such power they would not let Zelinsky be President.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTo68BCT-E
norman…moved my reply to the newer posts (around March 17th) since it getting harder to find this thread each time.
Correction….I have been incorrectly claiming the Azov battalion has committed atrocities against people in western Ukraine. It is actually eastern Ukraine, in districts along the Russian border.
Those are the areas the Russians want declared as independent states.
Hopefully that’s all they want and that they’ll get out of the Ukraine soon.
Theyll get out of ALL of Ukraine soon.
Greenhouse global climate, icehouse global climate, and snowball global climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
“A “greenhouse Earth” is a period during which no continental glaciers exist anywhere on the planet.
Additionally, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor and methane) are high, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) range from 28 C (82.4 F) in the tropics to 0 C (32 F) in the polar regions.
Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history.”
I don’t like the definition, nor their definition of icehouse or snowball. I am going to make my own definitions.
I going to have greenhouse, common, icehouse, and snowball global climate.
Note about snowball global climate, for above:
Most scientists now believe that a “hard” Snowball Earth, one completely covered by ice, is probably impossible. However, a “slushball Earth,” with points of opening near the equator, is considered to be possible.”
I would say Earth as it is, the Sun remaining the same, earth distance from it the same, and way oceans and land are the same.
You can have slushball earth, and yes, “hard” Snowball Earth is impossible, but… such conditions can change, or were different, and therefore, going to define a snowball earth
I would define a snowball has having summer polar sea ice reaching 40 degree latitude for both north and south.
Of course this doesn’t make a slushball as defined above and I regard slushball and hard snowball as impossible, as I would summer polar sea on average reaching reaching 40 degree [or lower] for both northern and southern hemisphere, according to my definition, as impossible [with our “current Earth”] but might possible in past with a “different Earth and/or different Sun”.
And have ocean average temperature of colder than 2 C.
So icehouse global climate wouldn’t have summer polar sea ice reaching 40 degree latitude and would not ocean temperature getting as cold as 2 C. And would not have ocean average temperature higher than 6 C.
A common global climate, doesn’t have polar sea ice, unless it’s isolated sea or ice on a lake.
It’s average ocean temperature is 6 to 15 C
And greenhouse global climate has average ocean temperature of 16 C or warmer.
And it said average ocean temperature in the past have be more than 20 C. And of course early Earth [near formation] or whenever +100 km diameter space rock hit Earth, could have ocean much hotter than 16 C and such hotter oceans could last for hundreds of thousands or millions of years {and such long durations can considered a global climate- rather than just a brief event}
Looks like Biden declared a No Malarkey Zone (NMZ) in Ukraine
New $800 million military aid approved bringing the total announced in the last week alone to $1 billion.
Already sent to Ukraine – not including the $800 million: 600 Stinger anti-aircraft systems; ~2,600 Javelin anti-armor systems; 200 shotguns and 200 machine guns; 40 million rounds of small arms ammunition and over 1 million grenade, mortar, and artillery rounds; Five Mi-17 helicopters; Three patrol boats; 70 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) and other vehicles; Secure communications, electronic warfare detection systems, body armor, helmets, and other tactical gear; Military medical equipment to support treatment and combat evacuation; Explosive ordnance disposal and demining equipment; and Satellite imagery and analysis capability.
some of that equipment was already in Ukraine having been taken there as part of the Afghanistan withdrawal. The helicopters arrived there supposedly in need of maintenance. Perhaps there was a formal exchange of title if they still existed.
FYI, For comparison to UAH, surface data is showing year-over-year warming.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/2016-2022line.png
Nate manages to prove that this year is lower than 2016. By a lot.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Yes we knew that. Feb 2016 was a super El Nino peak. Why would you expect Feb in a La Nina year a few years after to exceed that?
Want to bet on a 3 year La Nina?
Wanna bet that the slot machine that just paid out will immediately do it again? It is a lucky one.
Are you as stupid as you post?
Gee, I was feeling left out of your childish ad-homs.
“year-over-year” but not 7 year.
RLH
You still keep talking about “7 years.
Do you see that as the start of a long term downward trend with 2016 as the peak?
Or just as the interregnum between the 2016 record year and the next record year?
What is the average spacing between record years, and how long a gap beyond that would indicate a genuine reversal of the long term trend?
I took a quick look at the monthly UAH graph.
There were record months in 1980, 1983,1988, 1998 and 2016.
The average spacing between records was nine years.
Your “7 years since 2016” has not yet reached the average spacing between records and the gap between the last two records was 18 years.
So how many years do you allow after 2016 before you can be sure that we are seeing a long term cooling trend and not just waiting for the next warming record?
So do you think that this year will be warmer in total than last year? 2/10 so far says no.
Sorry, 2/12.
I make no prediction.
I am asking a mathematical question.
The warmest UAH monthly temperature was in 2016, the culmination of a 43 year warming trend.
I am asking how many years without a record would be necessary to confirm your hypothesis of a long term cooling trend.
A trend change will start with a step-change. There was a step-change in 1993-1994 and 2012-2016. It will take years to recognize a step-change.
CAVEAT: Unless the step-change is so big that it’s immediately recognizable.
Well a decade would be a good start.
P.S. Nate only shows data since 2016 and I show data since 2015 but my data is considered too short to be of import. Logical.
It was an FYI. Thats all.
“P.S. Nate only shows data since 2016 and I show data since 2015 but my data is considered too short to be of import”
For what do you think it has import?
I said it was too short to use to derive a prediction of the next few years.
I said your tiny slope differences between series were insignificant.
And if the slope continues into next year as well?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
shows some engineering projections. Why do you consider them inaccurate?
“And if the slope continues into next year as well?”
What significance would you assign to this?
You also use Astrology and lucky numbers for lotto purchases?
“shows some engineering projections. Why do you consider them inaccurate?”
Can you see that significant variation around the long term trend still remains after you apply the 7 y LP filter? That remaining noise has correlation to itself over 3-4 years, by definition.
Beyond 3-4 years its apparent ‘predictive’ power (correlation) will diminish to zero.
Can you plot the derivative (slope) of that filtered data, to see how it varies over time?
I can do a ‘noise’ plot instead.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-residuals.jpeg
Ok. Did any of those points have predictive value for the next year? the next 2 years?
No. It shows the ‘noise’ or uncertainty of the long term trend data since 1979.
Here are both of the graphs.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-residuals.jpeg
The difference between engineers and statisticians is that they use different languages and functions to show the same results.
And yes.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
shows what a large physical engine does when subject to known cyclic drivers.
See also
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1212597
Yes?
So your answer is YES beyond the nominal 3-4 years, it had predictive power?
Large physical systems tend to exhibit inertia so
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
shows what the near future will bring in all probability.
“You also use Astrology and lucky numbers for lotto purchases?”
What has that to do with science or engineering? Other than your own fantasies that is.
“That remaining noise has correlation to itself over 3-4 years, by definition.”
So you are saying that ‘noise’ has a correlation to itself over half of the bandwidth it covers?
“Large physical systems tend to exhibit inertia ”
Colored noise exhibits correlation, what you call inertia.
The correlation time of unfiltered T is short. When you LP filter it, what is left is noise with longer correlation times.
When you take the derivative to find slopes, the correlation time of that is even shorter. Looks like 3-4 years.
So beyond that it will not ‘predict’ the future.
Filtered with 72 mo moving average and then derivative to see slopes.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/mean:72/derivative
Do these look like they have predictive power?
Same for GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:72/derivative
“it will not ‘predict’ the future.”
So all attempts to observed the past and determine what happened will in no way effect the future. In that case a linear trend is of no use either.
You could just show the following recent trends
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/mean:72/derivative/trend
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/mean:72/derivative/trend
And the point went whoosh over your head!
You again show the recent OLS with extreme Zoom-in, while ignoring the history showing that the ‘trend’ over short periods like this has flip-flopped many times since 1979!
Its like the warm few days we had in February in my town. You would have Zoomed-in on this period to claim a strong warming trend was underway- Winter was already over!
Of course it wasn’t. We had tons of snow since then. That was just weather.
“it will not predict the future.”
So all attempts to observed the past and determine what happened will in no way effect the future. In that case a linear trend is of no use either.”
Yep.
However, as I noted. If physics-based modeling predicts a continued GHE-driven warming trend at a similar rate as recent decades, then looking at the long-term trend gives us a good idea of what that trend can be expected to be.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Big picture of your slope:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/mean:72/derivative/trend/plot/rss/mean:72/derivative
Same for GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/mean:72/derivative/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:72/derivative
Better: Same for GISS since 1970
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015/mean:72/derivative/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:72/derivative/from:1970
Just tell me that the right hand edge of those graphs do not show a downwards trend for the last 7 years.
Got any reason what Had5 is so different after 1980.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
Any idea why the models are running so hot?
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/JimKelly-fig1-697×720.png
“Just tell me that the right hand edge of those graphs do not show a downwards trend for the last 7 years.”
Its derivative. So the low points at the right indicate a negative trend.
Just tell me how many times the trend was equally negative since 1970? And how many of those were reversed?
“running so hot?”
Where did u get that ridiculous plot?
“So the low points at the right indicate a negative trend”
For the last 7 years. Thank you.
You would prefer?
https://miro.medium.com/max/700/0*9tpruq2f-k_-p-T3
Figure 1 Actual temperature observations compared with climate models. Figure 1 is redrawn from AR5, WG1 Report page 771.
Or the left hand graph in
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigBox9.2-1-1.jpg
The Super El Nino peak was exactly 6 y ago. And we havent had a similar sized one yet. We had a much smaller one in 2019-20, that resulted in almost the same T rise.
Given that the plot of slopes of 6 year smoothed data shows many troughs and peaks of similar size and duration,
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:72/derivative
you should recognize that the current trough is hardly unusual. It is par for the course, quite ordinary noise over the last 50 y.
Why don’t you? It seems you don’t look at noise the same way scientists do. You look at it and imagine this trough will be different from all the others!
IOW, you are betting that the slot machine that just paid out will immediately do again, and again.
“And we havent had a similar sized one yet”
So when do you expect that to occur? 5 years? 10 years?
“It seems you dont look at noise the same way scientists do”
Thanks for your characterization of statisticians as scientists but the exclusion of engineers as such.
Large physical systems, such as climate, have many feedback loops of various lengths in time.
We will have to wait and see when the current downwards trend changes sign.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
“Or the left hand graph”
Do you what cherry pick means? Why it is a tactic used for deception?
“We will have to wait and see when the current downwards trend changes sign.”
Similarly we will have to wait and see if the slot machine pays out again right away.
Im not betting on it, but you seem willing.
“Thanks for your characterization of statisticians as scientists but the exclusion of engineers as such.”
You imagine bizarre things I never said, just like you imagine there is signal in noise.
‘And we havent had a similar sized one yet’
“So when do you expect that to occur? 5 years? 10 years?”
I know as much as you, no more. You can look at the record, just as easily as me to see the typical time between such events.
Look, ENSO looks to me like a type of stochastic (random weather noise driven) cyclic process that has certain correlation times. But it defies prediction beyond a few months.
Its like Earthquakes in So. California. There are a range of magnitudes with frequent small ones and less frequent large ones. When the next one comes and what magnitude it will be is not predictable.
So.
It make no sense to have faith that ENSO will behave as you desire it to over the next year or so.
Whatever it does over the next year or so, we know it is a short-term cyclic process that can never produce long term warming or cooling trends.
Well the number of 3 year La Ninas are quite few in the record.
“”Or the left hand graph”
Do you what cherry pick means?”
Cherry pick from AR5? Sure.
“we know it is a short-term cyclic process”
If during that cyclic process we have more warm than cold periods it will show warming.
If we have more cold periods than warm ones it will show cooling.
If we remove the influence of ENSO from the T record, what remains would not have the recent cooling.
Here’s what that looks like for RSS.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded22_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
What does that do for you? All it does is produce a more continuous warming due to something else. AGW is that something else.
So you removed any leakage from the yearly cycle and you call that relevant? Give me a break.
Try at least 7 years (I would prefer 15 years but the data is too short for that) such as
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
Sure you could then claim that the rise since 1980 is down to CAWG but, as CO2 is well mixed across the world, how come things are so different in the hemispheres since 1980? And no, the Northern Hemisphere did not suddenly get more land in 1980.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
This is what the ENSO looks like since 1980
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and no, 2015 was not even the strongest ‘Super’ El Nino, that was in 1983.
Current data is like
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
“so you removed any leakage from the yearly cycle and you call that relevant? Give me a break.”
What are you talking about?
Im simply asking Climate Explorer to correlate to 5 mo shifted Nino 3 and find the multiplicative factor between the two. It then can subtract this fraction of Nino3 from the data.
As you can see the 1998 and 2016 El Nino contributions are reduced a lot. And your recent cooling is less obvious.
It makes sense? Yes?
I accept that there has been a rise in temperatures since 1980 but not that it is solely due to human added CO2.
What are the hemispheres so different after 1980 but not before?
Do you accept that ENSO is driven/modulated by the PDO and that has a long term cyclic behavior?
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg
“What are the hemispheres so different after 1980 but not before?”
The hemispheres are quite different, with most of the ocean in the SH and most of the land in the NH.
If the one with more ocean didnt respond more slowly to heating, something would be wrong with the theory.
The Arctic is floating sea ice, the Antarctic is ice on a land mass.
As predicted circa 1980:
“Floating polar sea ice responds rapidly
to climate change. The 5 to 10C warming expected at high northern latitudes for doubled CO2 should open the Northwest and Northeast passages along the
borders of the American and Eurasian
continents. Preliminary experiments
with sea ice models (56) suggest that all
the sea ice may melt in summer, but part
of it would refreeze in winter. Even a
partially ice-free Arctic will modify
neighboring continental climates.”
And that is indeed what is occurring. With more open ocean in the Arctic the albedo is reduced and greater solar heating results. Arctic amplification.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
The NH did not suddenly get more land in 1980!
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
Differences go back to well before 1980
NH
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/igiss_al_nh_m_24month_low-pass_loess1.png
SH
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/igiss_al_sh_m_24month_low-pass_loess1.png
If you put both your graphs together on the same vertical scale it produces what I showed.
P.S. I showed Had5 but GISS v4 is virtually the same in disparity.
https://imgur.com/a/Z2ldKzJ
Both this and Had5 show recent trends are different in the Northern Hemisphere compared to the Southern Hemisphere only with old temperatures being similar.
The NH and SH look different for much of the last century.
If you consider that the N. Atlantic is part of the N. Hemisphere, and that AMO captures the N. Atlantic, then you can see here
https://tinyurl.com/2e84pbjb
that if you remove the contribution of AMO to N. Hem that what remains has a consistently higher trend than the SH. And it is accelerating throughout the 20th century.
Now as to whst caused the AMO, a case has been made that the post WWII period to 1980, the air pollution of the East coast cities of US and Europe caused cooling in the N Atlantic region.
The effect would be minimal in the SH.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357253653_The_role_of_anthropogenic_aerosols_in_the_anomalous_cooling_from_1960_to_1990_in_the_CMIP6_Earth_system_models
https://imgur.com/a/Z2ldKzJ
and
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
show that the NH/SH differential is mostly quite recent in fact.
Before that, although there was some small difference, is was quite restricted in both time and value.
Also we have this
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
which shows that things are not so simple if things are devolved beyond yearly figures.
Using your own post (without the offsets)
https://imgur.com/a/Cj1xU6d
shows that you agree with me.
This AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/amo.jpeg
shows that air pollution is not the cause of it.
Nothing indicates cause in that plot.
Read the paper and tell me what they have done wrong.
In any case the NH and SH are different and clearly behave differently. Your complaint is a red herring.
“shows that you agree with me.”
Again youre going to try to tell me what I think?
As you can see here, where a trend has been removed from NH and SH, that the AMO (prob pollution) causes the strong influence in the NH around 1960-1980, and the dip is caused by that, but not so much in the SH.
https://tinyurl.com/2p84acm9
The plot without the offsets clearly shows that the NH stays above the SH, except the AMO dip period around 1970.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/amo.jpeg
So no I dont agree with you that there is a hemisphere ‘problem’ here.
Detrended plot without offsets
https://tinyurl.com/56kxxmxz
NOAA: February 2022 was Earth’s 7th warmest on record
Antarctic sea ice coverage shrank to a record low
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202202
How many record cold temps were registered during 2022?
Record Cold with 40 °F below normal Temperatures to impact Southeast U.S. on Sunday, some areas even colder than Alaska
Published: 12/03/2022
“Record lows for Jan. 21 were recorded in upstate New York: 30 below zero at Saranac Lake (previous record was minus 27 in 2005), minus 29 at Massena (previous record was minus 27 in 2005) and minus 19 at Plattsburgh (previous record was minus 16 in 1984), according to the weather service office in Burlington, Vermont”
Thanks RLH… I assume you mean Jan ‘or’ Feb 2022 and not December 2012. Any news on other countries record cold temps….. I know that Australia and New Zealand had a bit of a big cold dip last year too.
This is all for 2022.
https://medium.com/@tbbates16/record-cold-temperatures-in-new-england-and-the-northeast-6897ff7b43fe
“Temperatures on the morning of Jan. 22, 2022. Source: National Weather Service”
Once more, I read a completely stupid reaction, written by Robertson:
” Show me once in the work of LaGrange where he claimed the Moon rotates on its own axis. Libration is not rotation, it is a result of the Moons near-face changing orientation wrt the Earth. There is no local angular velocity involved. ”
For the very last time: I posted about two years ago my translation of the introduction of Lagrange’s work for the first time:
https://tinyurl.com/ycksab5u { Merci beaucoup TinyUrl! }
and I reposted this link many times.
Robertson belongs to the people who never accept to change their mind, and thus it is no wonder that he again denies the evidence.
His friends-in-denial are in no way better, and especially the dumbest of them very certainly will leave his usual ‘astrologer’ dog poo under this comment, together with his newest bicycle pedal joke.
This is no invitation for anybody to restart the discussion about the lunar spin!
But if I don’t reply to Robertson’s permanent lies, one day everybody will think he was right.
Bindidon, you keep bringing up the Moon issue, hoping you can change reality. You always fail, and that always makes you even more frustrated and angry.
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you don’t understand physics. You reject reality and science, favoring instead your cult beliefs. Again, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
The Moon issue was resolved years ago. You STILL don’t understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. And now, you run from the latest simple analogy of the bicycle pedal.
The reason you reject reality and hate science is because you believe so strongly in your cult. I don’t expect you to ever change.
> you keep bringing up the Moon issue
Gordo brought that one, Pup, in response to Binny’s comment about his “Ideal Gas Law blah blah.”
You’re not very good at this. Allow me to help:
is.gd/hello109
Wilful Wee Willy,
Oh, obscurity! Oh, crypticism!
You are an moron desperately seeking attention, trying to appear intellectual.
Failing.
Oh dear!
Flynnson
” You are an moron desperately seeking attention, trying to appear intellectual.
Failing.
Oh dear! ”
I’m ‘Amazed’.
Because no one could describe your own ridiculous prose better than you just did.
It has perplexed me much that some here …very smart..very educated folks might still think the moon ‘spins on it’s axis’ much like the earth does.
We covered this many many times and the only thing that we ALL agree with is that
The Earth’s Moon does NOT spin on it’s axis in relation to the earth as many exhaustive examples have shown.
So it keeps coming down to the belief that an object (the Earth’s moon) can somehow be spinning on an axis and not spinning… and this is where rotational orbit was shown. (it explains why the sun shines on all sides of the moon)..but as for axil spin of a tidal locked body…i have yet to see any evidence (not proof…just simple evidence ) of any experiment that actually shows it. We have ample evidence of other moons that do spin while also orbiting…. just don’t see it here. Isn’t there an experiment of a fulcrum or pendulum or such that …if tested on the moon would put this argument to bed?
“The Earths Moon does NOT spin on its axis in relation to the earth”
But it does. It also spins on its axis relative to the fixed stars. Once per orbit as has been shown many, many times.
Coriolis motions exist on the Moon that show this to be the case.
thanks for the reply RLH…I’ll spend some time on the ‘Coriolis motions’ on the moon to better understand your perspective.
But just as a casual , logical and reasoned observer – I just don’t see our moon spinning on any axis (in relation to the Earth).
You must be able to observe the axil spin and in no observation point on Earth can anyone see all sides of the moon. We only get one static view. I used the example of a super stretchy string attached to both the Earth and moon at their equator…. after any amount of time passes (after 24 hrs) only one body will be wrapped up in that string…. the earth will have been wrapped up and the moon will have no wraps of said string. (but the same can be shown by a set of lasers…instead of a string…pointed from one body to the other ..from the equator to the other’s equator)
Again, thanks for the response and the item mentioned that I will study up on…. it’s good to not be batting insults back and forth as that only drags both of us and the message down to levels that don’t advance serious thought and perspective.
We see the Moon turn once on its own axis per orbit of the Earth. Otherwise we would not be able to only see one side of it.
As Newton and everybody else agrees (apart from the tiny, tiny cult who thinks otherwise).
P.S. Gravity is not attached at the surface so any mention of strings is a distraction.
“But it does”…. hmmm I don’t follow your reasoning that because it does not spin .. it does spin.
I checked out the Coriolis examples and it clearly is evident here on the Earth. So I tried to conceptualize a what if situation:
what if you pointed a powerful laser from the Earth to the center-line equator on the moon….you would have to gradually adjust your aim to keep that laser pointed to some central target on the moon…up to the point you lost line of sight to it….or you could let the laser just quickly track a line across the visible surface of the moon till it earths spin put the laser endpoint off the moons surface.
Now if you took that same device but this time placed in on the moon and and pointed to the earth’s equator… you would not have to keep adjusting the laser (ignoring the axil tilt by the earth)… most the time you would , more or less, be painting a laser line along a somewhat steady path along the Earth’s surface – had the moon actually posses an axil spin of it’s own in relation to just the earth…you would have a different situation
You stated that Coriolis motions exist on the moon as well, have there been any experiments that show this that I can read about? I certainly agree that there are motions that exist due to the moon’s rotation around the Earth…. I am trying to see how it has any axil spin in relation to the earth…and just the earth alone. thanks
Martin,
“time you would , more or less, be painting a laser line along a somewhat steady path along the Earths surface had the”
No, The Moon has significant up and down and side to side Libration (wobble) due to
1. Constant spin angulsr velocity on an axis and nonconstant orbital angular velocity.
2. Axial tilt of 6.7 degrees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
And #2 is impossible to explain without a rotational axis, which, in turn is impossible to explain without rotation around that axis.
Thanks for the link to the image …but that really does little to show me any lunar spin in relation to the earth.
I am curious if there have been any experiments performed on the moon that represent axil spin…like we have done here on the Earth where axil spin is obvious.
The picture shows what is observed by Astronomy. The Moon has poles that are on lunar maps. There are missions planned to land spacecraft at the South Pole. That shows that they are quite real.
Like our poles, they are defined by the rotational axis running thru them, the one that has a tilt of 6.7 degrees for the Moon and 23.5 degrees for Earth.
Just like our N pole always points to a star Polaris, the Lunar N Pole stays pointed to specifc stars as it orbits.
Its hard to see how any of these can be observed by Astronomers if the Moon didnt rotate on its axis.
But maybe you can explain how.
The picture shows what is observed by Astronomy. The Moon has poles that are on lunar maps. There are missions planned to land spacecraft at the South Pole. That shows that they are quite real.
Like our poles, they are defined by the rotational axis running thru them, the one that has a tilt of 6.7 degrees for the Moon and 23.5 degrees for Earth.
Just like our N pole always points to a star Polaris, the Lunar N Pole stays pointed to specifc stars as it orbits.
This is part of the reason for observed lunar libration.
Its hard to see how any of this can be observed by astronomers if the Moon didnt rotate on its axis.
But maybe you can explain how.
Whoops sorry for the duplicate
Martin is correct. Nate and RLH are incorrect.
Any “Coriolis effect” is due to Moon changing direction due to its orbit, NOT axial rotation. If Moon were rotating on its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Libration is only an illusion, as viewed from Earth. Moon does not really oscillate back and forth and up and down. The illusion comes from Moon’s elliptical and slanted orbit.
And Moon’s “poles” are “assigned”.
If Moon were rotating on its own axis more or less than once per lunar orbit, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Amateur forecasters starting to notice the Super La Nina in the making
https://youtu.be/Tw-bTnrCiCM
Climate Models Don’t
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/16/climate-models-dont/
“So here, we have the first problem. The various models can’t even decide how warm the historical period was. Modeled 1850-1900 mean temperatures range all the way from twelve and a half degrees celsius up to fifteen and a half degrees celsius … hardly encouraging. I mean, given that the models can’t replicate the historical temperature, what chance do they have of projecting the future?”
Maybe they model with ocean having average temperature of 3.5 C.
The average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C
Eschenbach criticizes everything, sometimes with success, mostly however based on very simple analysis – especially when he looks at e.g. tide gauge data.
What is sea rise in last 100 years?
“Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches.”
https://tinyurl.com/2p9cepv3
I wish I had a pound for each sceptic who told me that the past is not a good guide to the future!
This is an example of what we should expect from an analysis of sea level data sources:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
That was way more elaborated than what Eschenbach does.
The title of the paper is very unlucky, however.
Sounds much more alarmistic than shown by its contents.
I have downloaded their data long tome ago, as well as that made by Grant Foster, and compared their work to my little layman’s evaluation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8ECotMocUHDJX8UWOMIpBizobV293-g/view
gbaikie
Moreover, everybody tells about the global average of all local sea level changes (up or down), but few tell about the latter.
Thus, even if, for the sea level satellite era (since 1993), both satellite-borne altimetry and gauges at land measure the same global up thing (3 mm/yr), that does not mean that we will have that same increase everywhere.
Here are some linear trends computed for about 400 of over 1500 PSMSL gauges, having GPS-based measurements of vertical land movement in their near:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uLxJBLcWtzNsYuVvss7aeRmkzwSB-i_o/view
*
And if we detect, behind the linear estimate, a quadratic fit denoting some acceleration, giving for example twice the value estimated in 2050, that also does not mean that everybody will live with tiny 10 cm sea level increase in that future.
Here too, the quadratic fit has to be computed station by station, giving a better insight on the places which will then become more or less affected.
EM,
You ignore history, not skeptics. History says temperature varies.
History says troglodytes die.
History says that idiots like Willard will always be idiots.
Why are you defending Troglodyte, Richard?
You really have no idea how to be Roy’s Hall Monitor.
That doesn’t make you any less of an idiot.
No U, dummy.
So after skooling you in various formal disciplines you pretend to know, I will have to teach you your role as a Hall Monitor.
Challenge accepted!
z
“So after skooling you in various formal disciplines”
This from a man who thinks that Mercator is less distorted than Mollweide.
Keep your straw to yourself, dummy.
You keep on with Mercator and the like.
Idiot.
Eschenbach examines many things and demonstrates that most of them, especially the most popular ones like warming has been significantly caused by CO2, are nonsense.
Willis is the real McCoy:
https://twitter.com/CorneliaHulda/status/1502735443732930563
Pangburn
You appreciate Eschenbach for the one and only reason that what he writes fits your personal narrative.
What Eschenbach writes fits observations.
More Amateur forecasters starting to notice the Super La Nina in the making
https://youtu.be/Xyi-i9-vOfY
norman…”Here is what Gary Kasparov (Chess Champ) said about Putin in 2007″.
***
Kasparov claims most Russian money is kept abroad. If that’s the case, Putin should be doomed after this invasion. I doubt that will be the case since the capitalists won’t allow it. When it comes to money, birds of a feather flock together.
I don’t think Putin is a problem himself, it is the ultra-wealthy and the corporate class who are the problem. Their behind-the-scenes chicanery runs the world.
Kasparov had hopes that Putin might be defeated in 2008. He’s still around 14 years later.
I hardly think that Putin is as stupid and self-serving as Kasparov makes him out to be. Maybe he is, but it strikes me as taking more to remain in power for over 20 years.
> If that’s the case
C’mon, Gordo. Of course that’s the case:
https://www.icij.org/investigations/russia-archive/how-a-network-of-enablers-have-helped-russias-oligarchs-hide-their-wealth-abroad/
It’s time we tracked down these SOBs and shut them down. That would be mighty tough since the elite in all countries are protecting them.
When Obama came to power, he promised to clean up Wall Street and their chicanery. Instead, he hired disgraced Wall Street boffins to advise him. Those he hired helped to orchestrate the financial crisis in the US during the first decade of the 2000s.
How Obama managed to maintain a squeaky clean image is beyond me. The guy was a shyster.
Now Biden is the head-shyster, and his son.
Your populism is showing again, Gordo.
> Over the past 100 years
Just to put things in perspective:
https://earth.org/what-and-when-were-the-mass-extinction-events/
Willard at 10:53 PM
I’m not sure of the context of your comment, but I would add that the assertion that “…The last recorded mass extinction event happened about 65.5 million years ago,” is not strictly correct.
Although not of the same magnitude as the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction in your citation, another notable mass extinction event occurred about 55 million years ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003197117).
This is one of the nine mass extinctions considered as greenhouse extinctions. These are distinct from the K-Pg impact extinction.
Tyson,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but K–Pg has yet to be included in the list of Five Mass Extinction events. These include the Ordovician, the Devonian, the Permian, the T-J, and K-T.
That said, I don’t mind if we give gb a more conservative estimate of the speed 100 years represent on geological timescales. We could also give some visual:
https://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/
Willard at 8:12 AM
Actually, in my preferred terminology the K-T and K-Pg are one and the same.
More precisely stated, the end Cretaceous-beginning Tertiary (K-T aka K-Pg) mass extinction preceded the late Paleocene-early Eocene extinction.
I can’t overstate the fact that K-T (K-Pg) is the only known impact mass extinction.
Fair enough.
70% of surface is unexplored ocean.
If have mass extinction size space rock hitting shallow ocean or land, what effect does same size rock have if it hits deep ocean?
Or about “6.28 x 10^23 Joules”
https://www.sciencenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dino20Discussion20Prompts.pdf
Horse Poop.
Methane is more short-lived, Troglodyte.
Says the methane expert.
Says someone who knew Methane Mike, Troglodyte.
Beware that reducing methane emissions would still be cool:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/09/26/the-importance-of-reducing-methane-emissions/
Willard, please stop trolling.
A breathtaking milestone in astronomy
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/telescope_alignment_evaluation_image_labeled.png
NASA released this the first image taken by the James Webb Space Telescope following the completion of critical mirror alignment steps.
The targeted star is a hundred times fainter than the limit that you can see with the naked eye. Webb is seeing the star at a wavelength of two microns, in the infrared region.
The classic six pointed star shape pattern is a function of the design of Webb’s primary mirror; “The shape of those 18 hexagons imprints a faint diffraction pattern that makes bright stars look like spiky snowflakes – this isn’t a problem for the science; but will give Webb images a very distinctive look. Indeed, the fact that we can see those spikes so crisply also confirms that the mirrors have been perfectly lined up.”
Taking a closer look at the background features in the image, the oval shapes are great galaxies of stars that are probably billions of light-years away.
“The engineering images that we see today are as sharp and as crisp as the images that Hubble can take; but are at a wavelength of light that is totally invisible to Hubble,” said Jane Rigby from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
“So this is making the invisible Universe snap into very, very sharp focus.”
Thanks, interesting!
maguff…”So this is making the invisible Universe snap into very, very sharp focus.
***
Six-sided stars!!! Doh!!!
The twinkling effect of stars that led to the six-sided nonsense is an effect produced by light traveling through our atmosphere. Now they are creating infrared images to emulate that nonsense???
And how do you focus an invisible object? NASA is slowly becoming a source of misinformation and theatrics. They are also perpetuating the nonsense that heat is energy in transit. How did NASA hire people who are this stupid?
If heat is energy in transit, what is the energy being transferred? It’s heat, stupid!!! So, in modern science, heat is heat in transit. I mean, how the heck do idiots like this graduate? It can mean only one thing, the professors teaching them are idiots too.
All electromagnetic energy is much like any other, regardless of the actual wavelength. We can focus it from very short to very long wavelengths given the right equipment.
The difference between Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the satellite era is quite surprising.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-1.png?ssl=1
from
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/03/17/northern-and-southern-hemisphere-warming/
Given that the oceans are 70% of the world’s surface.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-1.png?ssl=1
Sorry. Wrong link. I meant
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/satellite-and-surface_figure-1.jpg?ssl=1
where the SST agrees quite well with UAH.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/15/satellite-and-surface-temperatures/#comment-3478801
So do you disagree that the NH is showing radically different warming compared to the SH?
The NH shows quite different warming compared to the SH.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Area weighted to keep things sensible. (Longitude disappears to 0 at the poles).
Well, let’s see, what are the observations?
There is more land in the NH.
Historical records show that it warms (and cools) faster over land than over oceans.
There is more irrigation (area of shallow warm water, about 14% of irrigation is by sprinkler) and therefore more of the ghg WV added by humanity.
The average global WV has been measured and reported by NASA/RSS. WV has been on an increasing trend of about 1.44% per decade since before Jan 1988
The start of the separation in temperature anomalies coincides with the start of the steep increasing trend in irrigation.
Dan, do you realize it takes energy to evaporate water?
So irrigation has a cooling effect. Then when the water vapor condenses from higher altitudes, the energy is radiated to space. Sorry, you can’t heat the planet with water. That’s even crazier than trying to heat with CO2.
Cli,
Some of us are able to understand that if you increase the resistance to the flow of heat by increasing the ghg water vapor the entire planet surface will heat up. The local cooling as a result of local increased evaporation is substantially cancelled by condensation and precipitation elsewhere. The quantitative assessment makes sense once you understand it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rhkRLFLMTH4VCs0RSf-9ePkOZTq-74BV/view?usp=sharing
Dan, if you claim that water vapor can heat the surface, then you violate the same laws of physics as in the CO2 nonsense.. If you claim that water vapor “traps heat”, then you run into the problem of cloud formation, and the associated negative feedback.
No matter which way you turn, you’re defeated.
Cli,
No matter which way you turn, you don’t understand.
Until you get past the bogus perception that a cooler cover cannot slow the radiation heat loss from a warmer body there is no hope that you will ever be able to understand how this stuff works.
There is slight warming effect from increased CO2 at the surface but that warming is countered, apparently approximately completely, by increased cooling of added CO2 in the stratosphere.
There is no compensating cooling in the stratosphere for the warming caused by increased WV at the surface.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
shows that in the NH winter outside the tropics, mins are increasing much faster than maxs.
“There is more land in the NH.”
The NH did not suddenly get more land in 1980.
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
A paper I read some years ago:
Temperature differences between the hemispheres and ice age climate variability
Toggweiler & Lea 2010
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009PA001758
We are since a longer while in a period where a cold Antarctic and a warm Northern Hemisphere dominate; maybe the Thermohaline Circulation makes over time the former cooler and the latter warmer.
Moreover, the dominance of land in the Northern Hemisphere possibly has a secondary effect, due to the fact that nearly all human activities are since ever concentrated there, what might be an addendum to the natural warming asymmetry.
Maybe the Thermohaline Circulation will make the Northern Hemisphere cooler given that
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1212597
” … given that ”
Instead of spreading diffuse, fog-like insinuations, what about writing EXACTLY what you mean?
Binny,
You wrote –
.We are since a longer while in a period where a cold Antarctic and a warm Northern Hemisphere dominate; maybe the Thermohaline Circulation makes over time the former cooler and the latter warmer.
Moreover, the dominance of land in the Northern Hemisphere possibly has a secondary effect, due to the fact that nearly all human activities are since ever concentrated there, what might be an addendum to the natural warming asymmetry.”
Are you really saying that anything might happen (if it does)?
Maybe you shoukd take your own advice “Instead of spreading diffuse, fog-like insinuations, what about writing EXACTLY what you mean?”.
Carry on being vague. Keep believing that you can predict the future by intense peering at historical weather records if you wish. I’m guessing you might be having second thoughts about your beliefs, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Flynnson
What a load of stoopid blah blah again!
The NH shows quite different warming compared to the SH.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Area weighted to keep things sensible. (Longitude disappears to 0 at the poles).
We entered our icehouse global climate 34 million years with the beginning of the glaciation of the Antarctica continent.
The definition of icehouse global climate is cold ocean and an ice sheet in one or more polar region. And 34 million years this began.
They say “permanent” ice sheet, I am going definite it {permanent”} as ice sheet that lasts long time as in decades rather than thousands or millions of years. Anyhow over millions years after the start [33.9 million years ago] Antarctica’s icesheet wane and waxed and became “more permanent” thousands of year and tens millions years go by becoming more “permanent” getting up to millions of years. Then about 30 million later, Greenland ice sheet became “permanent” but not up to millions of years “permanent”.
I am not happy about these definitions, and I would say it’s just about coldness of the ocean.
I would say the “reason” south hemisphere is colder, is because it’s “always” been colder.
And it’s not really land, it’s about polar sea ice- or continues to be about the ocean.
So Northern polar sea ice is easier to make, if the ocean is cold enough. And one could say the location of Antarctica allowed polar sea ice to form and made the ocean colder, and evenually cold enough to allow Northern arctic polar sea ice to form.
But I think arctic polar sea ice is a warming effect, because in make ocean warmer or prevents the ocean from warming the atmosphere. Or polar sea ice particularly in winter prevent ocean from warming the atmosphere, resulting cold land arctic regions.
So Northern ice free polar sea ice in summer is warming effect for northern countries {land}, northern ice polar sea ice in winter is very large warming effect for Northern countries. But in terms of our global icehouse climate, it’s backing it up a couple million years.
Or in last couple million years of our 34 million year Ice Age, has been the coldest time. It’s a reversal, but Earth is still mostly cold planet.
Or in terms of CAGW, northern hemisphere ice free polar sea ice is the End of the world. But it doesn’t mean the end of snow. It could snow more. It seems it would make the greenland ice sheet less “permanent”, give thousands of years and it might be a lot less permanent. But seems possible the Canada build up in terms of it’s glaciers and more snow could added to the Greenland ice sheet, but more snow could make it, less permanent. And rather snow, it could rain a lot more. Or if added 1 meter a year of snow, rain destroy more than 10 meter a year, or every 3 to 4 years it might rain a lot, and most of time is added more snow.
Or weather patterns. Or glacials deplete by dryness, but could be destroyed by warm wetness.
Always colder since 1980! 🙂
https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NH_SH_Figure-3_featured.png?w=1200&ssl=1
nice
norman…”I find the Historical Documentary on Ukraine interesting. It is long so I have not watched the whole thing”.
***
I found it very interesting and it is long. I skimmed it first time and I have been going through it more slowly, making notes. Problem with taking notes is that each thing I look up leads elsewhere and I have to try to corroborate whatever is claimed, and that takes me further astray.
I have read a lot on WW II and I am familiar with the Nazi SS thinking and actions. I had never associated any of it with the Ukraine and I was flabbergasted to learn of its dark history in that regard. I had always regarded them as victims.
It’s important to keep in mind that the neo-Nazi faction does not represent all Ukrainians and we really don’t know how many of them are involved or who support them. The last president, Poroshenko, was a billionaire and recognized as an oligarch. He created a bill that recognized past Ukrainian neo-Nazis, like Stepan Bandera, as legitimate Ukrainian heroes. He also built up the military and allowed neo-Nazi battalions to play a part in the Ukrainian army.
Anyone who fought for the Nazis during WW II and participated in war crimes against Poles, Jews, and Russians should not be regarded a hero. Stepan Bandera was hunted as a war criminal after WW II and Poroshenko had him declared a Ukrainian hero. Makes me wonder how many Ukrainians support this.
*************************
“Putin had his latest speech. The problem is if he invaded Ukraine to help people in Donbass, his ruthless forces are not making a compelling case of humanitarian action”.
***
I agree, it does not look good. However, no leader can have ultimate control over generals and forces in the field. Furthermore, Russians are not innocents when it comes to hiring mercenaries to do their dirty work. They fought tooth and nail with the Chechnyan rebels and now they have a Chechyan poobah fighting on their behalf.
I don’t blindly accept the notion that Putin’s desire to rid Ukrainians of Nazis is out of compassion. It likely has more to do with the neo-Nazis targeting pro-Russian presidents. Yurichenko was a pro-Russian Ukrainian president and although legitimately voted into power, neo-Nazi factions overthrew his government in 2014.
In the video, Yurichenko can be seen offering a compelling argument. He had the option of joining the EU but there were stipulations that he had to meet certain requirements of the International Monetary Fund. Their requirements would mean increasing the cost of living for Ukrainians while freezing wages. Although his pro Russian sentiments leave his explanation open to bias, he was forced out of power because he preferred relations with Russia over the EU.
That should not happen in a democratic country.
I have always regarded the EU as a load of nonsense. I don’t think such a system can work with so many countries speaking different languages and coming from such diverse cultural backgrounds. Then again, I have no idea what Russian could offer that is any better. The very nature of the EU forces control of their country onto foreigners.
************************
“The Nazi point for Ukraine is odd that the leader is Jewish. If they had such power they would not let Zelinsky be President”.
***
I think that is a bad argument. The neo-Nazi military forces that could overthrow anyone are small in number, maybe 2500 at best. That number could infiltrate a peaceful protest and turn it violent as they did in 2014.
Zelensky’s popularity has dropped dramatically, into the teens, and even lower than Poroshenko’s popularity rating before he was voted out. Obviously, Ukrainians are tired of him too and it might not have been long before the neo-Nazi forces went after him based on him being a Jew.
Hopefully you’ll agree that in a democratic country, you cannot have violent factions overthrowing democratically-elected governments.
***********************
Thanks for the link to Putin’s speech. He comes across as sincere as he does in the video. He explains facts we have not heard in the West. Of course, hard-liners in the West will dismiss it as propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTo68BCT-E&ab_channel=RepublicWorld
Neo-Nazi probably same as strong nationalist.
I am weak globalist. Someone might mistake that as
a strong nationalist.
I think nation doing most space exploration is best nation and
no nation is doing much space exploration.
I think Ocean exploration counts for something also.
It seems ocean exploration is more globalist than national.
It seems Russia has capability to a lot ocean exploration, but
doesn’t appear to doing much. Or seems huge failure of Putin.
I just hope Russia lands it lunar lander, before it implodes too much. I give them 50% chance of blowing it.
> I agree, it does not look good. However,
C’mon, Gordo.
willard…”> I agree, it does not look good. However”
***
Let’s get this over with so we can get back to discussing climate. How about stating your position on this. Are you even aware of the dark history of right-leaning Ukrainians dating back to 1929. It’s all there for you to read on the Net. You like Wikipedia, the entire story is there for you to read and confirm. Look up OUN, Ukrainian independence movement, Stepan Bandera, Alexiy Biletski and the Azov battalion.
Do you understand that Ukrainians have killed 13,000 fellow Ukrainians before Russia invaded? Do you understand that the Ukrainian government passed a law in 2015 recognizing white-supremists and war criminals as heroes? It was so controversial that the European Parliament failed to acknowledge the law.
How would it go over in the US or Canada if 13,000 civilians had been killed in military altercations?
Jewish people are livid about it. They know these so-called heroes participated in murdering their ancestors.
There is something seriously wrong in the Ukraine. If we don’t fix it democratically, the Russians will. They’ve had enough of fighting these clowns in the past. And here we have people like you who are totally ignorant as to what is really going on.
C’mon, Gordo.
Even by your standards, that’s too Galaxy Brain.
Gordon Robertson
Putin is a brutal insane person. He needs to be stopped. What a ruthless bastard.
You need to remember Putin is KGB. They are trained to be one thing on the outside and another on the inside. Putin can give a song and dance but he is one evil person.
After watching your Ukraine video I feel sorry for that country. They have been through enough. They don’t need any more of this. Russia is using WWII tactics. Just bomb the crap out of people to force them to give up.
Screw Putin and Russian soldiers. I am really hoping China turns on that sicko and he gets arrested and put in the Hague. No way would I defend this monster. He needs to face a War Crimes Tribunal.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Russia is using WWII tactics. Just bomb the crap out of people to force them to give up.”
They obviously learnt from the US, who bombed non-military targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) with nuclear bombs, to force Japan to surrender. Over 100,000 civilians died. A little less impressive was the British fire-bombing of Dresden – only about 25,000 civilians killed.
On the other hand, motor vehicles are involved in more deaths than all the wars in history, and US hospitals admit to mistakenly killing between 20,000 and 200,000 people per annum, depending on which peer reviewed study you believe.
I’m not in favour of death. There does seem to be a lot of it about, unfortunately.
swenson…”They [Russians] obviously learnt from the US, who bombed non-military targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) with nuclear bombs, to force Japan to surrender. Over 100,000 civilians died. A little less impressive was the British fire-bombing of Dresden only about 25,000 civilians killed”.
***
I have read many, many historical books on this kind of activity and it leaves me numb trying to understand something I know was necessary yet could not digest. No one of sane mind ever wants to see civilians killed due to military activity.
I have no interest in creating controversy with these posts or starting conspiracy theories. My posts are well researched and not from conspiracy theory sites. I am deeply disturbed by the one-sided nature of the criticism of Russia while the atrocities committed by Ukrainian forces are being ignored. We in the West are inadvertently pushing WW III by failing to seek the truth.
I watched Norman’s link to the Putin speech and I thought he explained himself well. There is never a justification for killing people but I was compelled to consider his reasoning based on the unwarranted crimes committed by Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine.
We are not hearing about this in the West. Then again, modern historians blast ‘Bomber Harris’ for his RAF bombing campaigns of Dresden, Hamburg,and other cities. They even killed French civilians with strategic bombing. They conveniently overlook Hitler’s incessant bombing of the UK, first by bombers then by missiles. Thousands of people died in the UK yet many historians focus only on the German losses.
The Japanese were ruthless with their attacks on the Chinese, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, and the Allied forces in Hong Kong and Burma. They brutalized people without mercy and the Allies knew they would not surrender to an assault by Allied armies. It was projected that up to a million soldiers might die trying. So, they stopped it all with two A-bombs.
There is no way to justify that kind of mass slaughter but it was a necessary evil. If the Nazis or the Japanese had the bombs, they would have used them in an instant.
> I have no interest in creating controversy with these posts or starting conspiracy theories.
C’mon, Gordo.
norman…”Putin is a brutal insane person. He needs to be stopped. What a ruthless bastard.
You need to remember Putin is KGB. They are trained to be one thing on the outside and another on the inside. Putin can give a song and dance but he is one evil person”.
***
There have been about 700 civilians killed in the Ukraine since the Russians invaded. If Putin was as evil and insane as you claim, there would be at least 10 times that number by now.
It is estimated that 13,000 have died in eastern Ukraine since 2014, and that’s what Putin is on about. Why are we not hearing about those deaths, mostly caused by Ukrainian forces with neo-Nazi battalions killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians?
Why are we not hearing about the war crimes committed by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis? The answer is obvious, we don’t care. No one had any interest as long as it was thought to be Russians dying, even though they were Ukrainians.
Let me ask you, Norman, is it OK for a Russian-speaking Ukrainian to die but not a Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t see human being by their nationality or ethnicity? A human being is a human being. Some of us are ruthless, violent SOBs and others are innocents. Putin claims he is defending innocents in the eastern Ukraine and we are calling him a war criminal.
I don’t know if he’s a good guy or a bad guy. I know we have bad guys in the West, loads of them. All I know is that we can stop this war by understanding Putin’s concerns and not writing him off as a madman.
Meant to post this link as proof of the number of deaths in eastern Ukraine before the Russians invaded.
https://www.rferl.org/a/death-toll-up-to-13-000-in-ukraine-conflict-says-un-rights-office/29791647.html
From your own link, Gordo:
C’mon.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
C’mon, you know the US does not recognise the ICC.
The US doesn’t like democracy, unless it’s imposed by the US.
By that logic, sock puppet, Muricans do not like Aussie democracy.
You will have to work harder for your Unclean Hands argument to stick.
willard…”Critics say Russia encouraged separatism and fomented unrest across much of Ukraine after Moscow-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014 in the face of mass protests known as the Maidan”.
***
Duh!!! Russian encouraged separation ****AFTER***** Yanukovych was ousted by a coup in 2014 led by neo-Nazi factions. Yanukovich was a democratically-elected president who had pro-Russian sentiments. The neo-Nazi factions hate Russians, Poles, Jews, and anyone who is not white and Aryan. They had no valid reason to violently overthrow this president.
Did you not see what I wrote earlier, something that can be easily verified. In 2015, the Ukrainian government passed a law that declared known war criminals as heroes. Stepan Bandera belonged to the OUN, a right-wing, fascist organization of white supremists formed in 1929. Bandera worked for the Nazi Abwehr, a spy agency, and he was involved in the killing of Jews, Poles, and Russians.
SS Galatia was a division of the Nazi SS formed from fighters from eastern Ukraine. These jerks are now regarded by the Ukrainian government as heroes….by law.
The European parliament has failed to honour that law. No kidding!!!
The Ukrainians in the region referenced for separation are Russian-speaking UKRAINIANS. During WW II, eastern Ukraine tended to side with the Russians while the western Ukraine tended to side with the Nazis. In a ravine outside Kyiv, those Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers helped systematically liquidate 40,000+ Jews.
Is this what you are defending, Willard? Do you seriously blame Russia for intervening to protect Russian-speaking Ukrainians? What would the US do in a similar situation?
The Russians have been fighting the Nazis since WW II. They helped the Allied forces defeat them. Were it not for the Russians, we’d likely still be fighting that war. I would kind of assume they got perturbed about neo-Nazi forces being used by the Ukrainian army to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine.
> They had no valid reason to violently overthrow this president.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
Gordon Robertson
If Putin put in a Peace-Keeping force (armed but only take action to protect a group such as the Russian speaking Ukranians in the East) in the Eastern Ukraine and explained his actions then I do not think there would be a global outcry. Such actions can be justified.
Russia is just bombing and killing people with no apparent goal except to terrorize the population into submission.
I think Putin has gone full Stalin, ruthless and cold. He has been in power too long and it destroyed him.
I think the attack has two goals. To intimidate the Western countries. “Look I can do whatever I want, what can you do about it” and then to gain control over his own Nation. Russia was becoming very Western. He can use this war to “purge” the traitors that are going West and eliminate the West influence from Russia and return it to the glories of Stalin where he is the mighty leader.
I think if he stays in power much longer he will start killing his own citizens that dare oppose him.
There is not doubt what he is doing now is a War Crime and quite wrong. I can only hope he loses his last support in China and they condemn what he is doing as well.
The US has Neo-Nazis in its borders (not sure of the numbers). Should that justify Canada invading and bombing US cities to rubble and causing a refugee crisis?
Also I think the separatists in the East of Ukraine were not just innocent bystanders. I think there was an active conflict between two sides going on so it is not the same as what Putin is doing to Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
You’ve got Nazis on the brain and it interferes with your thinking. Its two-bit propaganda.
The critical factor is whether Russia has Jus ad Bellum.
The important bit for Canada is whether Canadian interests are at stake. I don’t think so.
ken…”Youve got Nazis on the brain and it interferes with your thinking. Its two-bit propaganda”.
***
You are deeply into Nazi denial. I suppose you’re one of the idiots who claims the Holocaust did not happen.
The Ukraine, in 2015, brought in a law to recognize Stepan Bandera as a national hero. Bandera was a white supremist who willing joined the Nazi Abwer, a spy agency. He was wanted for war crimes after WWII by the Nuremberg tribunal.
Our own Christia Freeland, the deputy PM and Finance Minister, with Ukrainian connection, is singing Ukrainian nationalist songs that date back to the WW II Ukrainian Nazi movement and war crimes. I don’t think she’s an evil person but her level of naivete and that of our Prime Minister has me deeply concerned.
A little while ago, she joined Trudeau in denouncing the trucker protest. She inferred, as did he, that they represented neo-Nazi interests. Yet here she is singing the Ukrainian neo-Nazi anthem with a group of Canadian protestors.
I did not see any truckers committing violent acts or committing atrocities against innocent Jews, Poles, or Russians. I did not see any truckers trying to overthrow the Canadian government, albeit violently. Yet the same neo-Nazis who Freeland is supporting by singing their anthem, violently overthrew a democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014. They are the descendants of the same far-right, white supremist Ukrainian nationalists, the OUN, formed in the Ukraine circa 1929.
This world has gone completely mad. We have Nazis being recognized as war heroes, while the Russians, who are intent on kicking their Nazi butts out of the Ukraine, are called war criminals.
Again, I feel a deep compassion for the innocents who are being killed by this action but nothing is being said about the same innocents being killed by neo-Nazi Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine.
Why the double standard???
> I don’t think shes an evil person but
C’mon, Gordo.
“Why the double standard??? ”
The problem is that there are no Western journalists embedded with the Russian forces in eastern Ukraine and no Russian journalists in western Ukraine.
Thus the mismatch between the two versions of the war.
Historically warfare has been an arms race between attack and defence. The slow progress of the Russians suggests that man portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles have given the defenders the advantage in this case.
Gordo,
It isn’t Putin’s job to act as a neighborhood cop. He’s attacking a sovereign nation. The Ukrainian citizen’s job is to police their country, not Putin’s. You’re succumbing to Russian propaganda.
stephen…”It isnt Putins job to act as a neighborhood cop. Hes attacking a sovereign nation. The Ukrainian citizens job is to police their country, not Putins. Youre succumbing to Russian propaganda”.
***
Whatever I have posted can be easily verified from western sources. It’s official history.
The Ukrainian citizens can’t do the job. Since the 2014 coup, in which a democratically-elected president was overthrown, there has been a division between eastern and western Ukraine. It’s a natural division since eastern Ukraine supported Russian forces during WW II and western Ukraine supported the Nazis.
Remember…the Russians were on our side, and they made a huge difference.
The president who was overthrown was pro-Russian and naturally, the eastern Ukrainians did not like that, so they appealed to Russian for help. That made it Putin’s problem.
The Ukraine was formed by Russians in 1918 and was part of the USSR for over 79 years. THE RUSSIANS SET THEM FREE!!!! There is a ridiculous notion in the Ukraine that it was Nazi collaborators in WW II, like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galatia, who fought for Ukrainian freedom and set them free.
BS. The Russians set them free. Since 1991, following glasnost and perestroika, Ukraine was granted the freedom to form a democracy and they have botched it.
Meantime, the West has been sticking its nose into the affairs of the Ukraine. During the 2014 protest that led to the coup, Senator John McCain and another US senator were in the Ukraine cheerleading the protest.
If the US can interfere to that extent, why can’t Putin?
One of my distant relatives was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church during the German occupation of Holland. He was sent to Dachau for mentioning Queen Wilhelmina during a congregational prayer. He survived though his health was ruined. I probably was in church service in Etobicoke where he was a minister when I was a kid. I am pretty sure the stories about the Holocaust are true; he was a witness and he spoke of his experiences often.
Further, I am just as sure that the tales of a bunch of ignorant Ukrainian people who have an affinity for Nazi symbols are not Nazis. They aren’t even fascists; its just cheap shot propaganda.
Calling people white supremist in a country where the population is 100% white is absolute stupidity. Further, the terms of White Supremist, Far Right, Racist, etc are now merely smear words that have lost all meaning and are bandied about by left wing fascists who are interested in nothing but destroying any chance at rational discussion. Shame on you for playing the same game.
Russia does not have Jus ad Bellum. Ukraine is a democratic country even as you would call them Nazis. It has been invaded by a country bent on foreign adventure.
Canada’s only real interest is to provide distraction from the totalitarian tendencies in our own government. This is ever the way with governments who are in deep trouble with their populations and it never ends well. I’d suggest you focus your attention on the left wing fascists in Canada’s government instead of the bad actors in Ukraine that the propaganda is eager to paint as neo-nazi whatever the heck that means.
ken…”One of my distant relatives was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church during the German occupation of Holland. He was sent to Dachau for mentioning Queen Wilhelmina during a congregational prayer”.
***
I feel for anyone who had to suffer such outrageous treatment but I doubt that your relative was sent to Dachau for something that simple. It’s far more likely that he was one of the brave Dutch people who was involved with the Dutch Resistance or who was helping hide downed Allied airmen. A collaborator likely ratted on him.
I don’t particularly like the word Holocaust because it relates primarily to Jews who suffered the concentration camps. There were just as many Slavs exterminated in the camps. There is absolutely no doubt it existed, however. There are far too many independent eye-witness accounts.
*********************
“Ukraine is a democratic country even as you would call them Nazis”.
***
I have not inferred in any post that all Ukrainians are Nazis. I have no idea how many are involved or who support the neo-Nazi mentality. I have simply said there is a dark history in the Ukraine, especially in the western Ukraine where Ukrainian Nazis and Nazi ideology has prevailed.
Anywhere you have fascist organizations, they rule by terror. Even if the majority of Ukrainians disagreed with them, they would be too afraid to speak up.
I have talked only of a few points related to this but they are key points in Putin’s invasion plans. His invasion ideas began in 2014 when a democratically-elected, pro Russian president was overthrown by neo-Nazi factions who infiltrated an otherwise peaceful protest.
It took him 8 years to form a full-scale invasion, during which time the West sat on the fence and did nothing.
How can a country call itself democratic when it allows openly Nazi elements to not only congregate but to sit in its parliament? Alexyiv Biletsky sat in the Ukrainian parliament for 5 years and he was leader of the Azov battalion at the time. There are photos of him participating in the violent actions.
How can a country call itself democratic when it allows a democratically-elected president to be overthrown? The Ukrainian democracy is only 30 years old and it has been rife with in-fighting that would not be permitted in Canada. It has been a democracy in name only.
************
Re white supremacy. The name does not refer to skin colour as much as ideology. A target of white supremists are Jews and many of them are white, even though the true Jewish people are Arab and tend toward olive skin tones.
I am going solely on descriptions offered in sources of Ukrainian factions like the OUN, formed in 1929. The OUN are Ukrainian nationalists and they tend to be right-wing extremists who want an ethnically pure and independent Ukraine. That is Nazi ideology based on national socialism.
Based on their actions in WWII as allies of the Nazis, they hated Poles, Jews, and Russians.
****************
re Jus ad Bellum…I don’t think any law holds precedence over the human spirit and/or emotions. Those making the law must be able to enforce it, or have the will to try enforcing it.
We have witnessed the contravention of the Nuremberg Code the past two years. Most civilized nations signed it, agreeing that no human should be forced to accept medical treatment or intervention that is not desired. Yet, they forced experimental vaccines on us through different forms of coercion.
The Russians have been painted various shades of black over this invasion and I was one of those people only too eager to jump to conclusions to tar and feather Putin. Fortunately, a buddy who is into analyzing this sort of stuff, sent me the video by Oliver Stone, Ukraine on Fire.
I was suspicious of the video at first, till I began researching it judiciously and found it was factual through the first 1/3rd of the video. I have yet to finish the other 2/3ds, being so caught up in the dark history of the Ukraine re its connection to Nazis in WW II and white supremacy.
It shocks me that a so-called democratic country would make Nazi collaborators and war criminals into heroes.
It seems you and others like Norman are still in the denial stage. Even though the history of Ukrainian war criminals is well-documented, you cannot bring yourself to accept the possibility, never mind the fact.
“I have not inferred in any post that all Ukrainians are Nazis.”
Yes you have. That lumps you in with the left wing fascists like Trudeau and Freeland, both of whom speak with forked tongue.
ken…”I have not inferred in any post that all Ukrainians are Nazis.
Yes you have. That lumps you in with the left wing fascists like Trudeau and Freeland, both of whom speak with forked tongue”.
***
You’re being an idiot. I have said no such thing. Meantime, you can’t get off your ass to verify what I have written.
Same with the Moon debate. Your concern was never the scientific fact it was the length of my posts. You obviously lack the the comprehension to understand what is written and the focus to make it through more than a sentence.
The Australien Government has made an ad about this summer’s floods and it’s surprisingly honest and informative.
From the department of thoughts and prayers: https://youtu.be/PvFy2TuPDaw
Ministry of TrVth more like.
maguff…”its surprisingly honest and informative”.
***
Where did they dig up such an airhead as a presenter? Propaganda straight from Climate Alarm Central. If you challenge any of them on the facts, they reply like a Jehovah Witness on your doorstep.
I recall trying to discuss global warming with an NDPer here in BC, the party currently in power. I knew the guy well enough and thought he’d be open to my query. All I wanted to know was who set the policies on climate and how they arrived at them.
He rebuffed me immediately by claiming his mind was made up and that he did not want to discuss the science. Our Premier, the leader of the NDP government in BC, was bs-ing the other day about how the the November floods were caused by climate change. It would be futile to advise him that we are experiencing a strong La Nina and that LNs cause excessive rain in our part of the world.
These alarmist idiots have no interest in fact and the Australian government is among the biggest collection of idiots.
I tried asking about the source of the carbon tax policy several years ago with the BC Liberals in charge shortly after the carbon tax got introduced. I got shunted to the office of climate change and was told they depend on sources outside of government.
There never has been any due diligence done to verify climate change science by any level of government in Canada except for one committee in the Senate that never came to a conclusion.
I joined Conservative party to find out how they came up with their climate policy. The party policy is grass routes process that people introduce for discussion and vote at Party Convention. There is no quality assurance process ever done to verify test check and replicate any policy based on science including climate science.
The climate policies have nothing to do with climate; its all about woke leftist green fascism that is getting away with destroying out government institutions. Every party is infested with these greens. And people are inculcated into believing the crap from endless barrage of propaganda by green controlled media.
Do I sound like I’m snapping the elastic band on my tin foil hat?
TYSON MCGUFFIN, this is not your personal news blog. You’ve been added to the DeCrufter because you create a lot of “noise” threads.
DeCrufter:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hclipzie2ycrpoo/AADQpHxvvrOMbtYmsRvJ4z6ua?dl=0
Can I haz “WizGeek” to the DeCrufter, WizGeek?
” WizGeek at 9:20 AM… You’ve been added to the DeCrufter…”
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Ahh!
A couple more points related to the Ukraine crisis:
>>> Putin made the move on Crimea while Obama was in office. Then he patiently waited until Trump was gone to go for the rest of the pie.
>>> With the breakup of the old USSR, the fledging new countries had to move quickly to get established. For several reasons, Ukraine put off joining NATO.
> Ukraine put off joining NATO.
Economical with the truth once again, Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
Tell me where Viktor lives now.
Besides, you forget something important:
http://www.sirjournal.org/research/2022/1/22/impediments-to-ukraines-accession-to-nato
One standard is having no territorial dispute.
Vlad might very well be contesting chunks of Ukraine for this specific reason.
Finding sources that support my comments is good Willard, even if you don’t understand them.
Growing up is just one baby step after another.
Being economical with the truth does not make you right, Pup. And you forgot the other side of the coin: how NATO works.
But then what would you not say to lick teh Donald’s boots.
What makes me right is that I’m right, as confirmed by your links. And subsequently confirmed by your failed effort to misrepresent me.
As Swenson might say, “Carry on.”
> What makes me right is that I’m right
That might be the most powerful argument you provided at Roy’s over your decade of trolling at Roy’s, Pup. The links don’t mention Obama or teh Donald. NATO isn’t the US of A, and American exceptionalism looks really weird when speaking to an international audience, weirder in fact than your usual Dragon crank crap.
Willard, you’re unable to develop a cogent thought, again.
Pup,
You said “A, because A.”
If that’s the best argument you provided so far in your trolling career, that means something about the power of your arguments.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
That’s NOT what I said child. Here’s my exact quote: “What makes me right is that I’m right, as confirmed by your links. And subsequently confirmed by your failed effort to misrepresent me.”
You’re too uneducated and incompetent to understand any of this.
Here’s what you said, Pup:
“What makes me right is that I’m right”
That translates into A because A.
If you insist in adding your “as confirmed” armwaving:
A because A, *waves arms*.
Your armwaving adds NOTHING.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
clint…”For several reasons, Ukraine put off joining NATO”.
***
The reason is now becoming clear. In 2015, they passed a law honouring war criminals like Stepan Bandera as Ukrainian heroes. The European parliament refused to accept the decree because they know the so-called heroes were war criminals. Bandera was wanted at Nuremberg and he managed to escape till the 1950s, when he died.
I presume NATO and the European parliament work together. I don’t think the EU and NATO are overly crazy about countries that overthrow a democratically-elected president, even if he has pro-Russiand sentiments.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
It is amazing to read the bullshit of people who spend hundreds of lines to tell us about a few Nazis in the Ukraine, but perfectly hide or ignore
– how many Nazis quietly and secretly left Germany after WW2 with the help of the Catholic Church, among others, and emigrated via Rome to South and North America, from Chile to… Canada;
– how many old Nazis and ultra-right Neo-Nazis are quietly up to mischief in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, North and South America and… yes: even Russia.
Of course, Russia did NOT invade Ukraine to cleanse it of a few Neo-Nazis, to end a genocide allegedly committed against Russian-Ukrainians and to liberate the allegedly oppressed population.
Putin’s Russia has invaded Ukraine because it has long thirsted to show the US and NATO that it is not afraid of even a nuclear conflict in enforcing its territorial claims.
*
The crazy thing is that countless Russians really believe that their country is saving the Ukrainians from the Nazis, as it did for Germany and Europe in the past. They are proud of their land, their army.
The Russians do not even know that the Russian army is waging its dirty war almost exclusively against the civilian population, by indiscriminately destroying numerous residential buildings, supermarkets, theaters and even maternity clinics and hospitals with rockets, because reporting about all that is punishable by long penalties.
“It is amazing to read the bullshit of people who spend hundreds of lines to tell us about a few Nazis in the Ukraine, but perfectly hide or ignore”
Most actual Nazis are dead. Though the KKK of dem party do still exist- and our US president, Joe, was fan of them. And as his vice president suggested, he is racist. She is rather simple minded, but it doesn’t mean she was wrong about that.
What one call modern Nazis [HISTORICAL:
“a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.] Can not exist, as the German lefty political party do not exist.
So Nazis are an religion.
One advantage of any established Religion is it should minimize people having other religions in addition to their more established
religion. But established religion are weaker and more stupid, as the current foolish Catholic Pope demonstrates in a constant how to guide of how to wreck religion. Pope Francis seems to more believer of climate change, than Jesus Christ. The fire and brimestone preacher is more their fame, then doing anything for the faith.
Of course there are still Nazis in Germany, for example.
It is true that they were not yet born at the time of the Nazis; but their thinking and actions rather reflect the past, and thus are very different from those of the Neo-Nazis.
*
Besides, the Nazis never had anything to do with socialism.
They took all the communists and socialists who rebelled against them to the GESTAPO dungeons, where they tortured and murdered them.
At the very beginning, in the 1920s, the original Nazis ganged up in the ‘Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei’ (NSDAP); they stayed true to that name.
This in no way prevented them from constantly supplying the German big industry, which was very pleased about this, with hundreds of thousands of Jews and other politically or socially persecuted people – as unpaid and extremely brutally mistreated workhorses.
–Besides, the Nazis never had anything to do with socialism.
They took all the communists and socialists who rebelled against them to the GESTAPO dungeons, where they tortured and murdered them.–
That’s what socialists do.
{Have you not paid attention?}
That’s what unlimited government does.
That’s even what governments which supposed to be limited, do.
Governments, do this.
{Churches which are governments might have done even more of this}
Currently US prisons are very badly governed.
As are all the governmental run schools.
As are the CIA and FBI.
And corporate news is corporate news [what would you expect??]
It seems US is best government, and that says something about governments in general- now and in the thousands of years of past]
I don’t worship some past US government- I want a better future government.
[[And that government could be a Martian government.]]
I don’t have an excessive amount of hope for future Earthly governments.
And since I am excessively optimistic, that is saying, something.
This notion that Nazis weren’t socialists is comical. Nationalism and Socialism were so important to Hitler that the German Workers’ Party became the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He modeled the Party after Mussolini’s Fascist Party which was a National Socialist Party. Mussolini was a Marxist but became disenchanted with the globalist nature of Marxism and founded Fascism which was National Socialism.
Also, the Nazis fought against the Marxists because they disagreed with the globalist nature of Marxism. They did not want to be controlled by Stalin. They were foremost Nationalists. They revered the Fatherland, The Reich, not Russia.
> This notion that Nazis weren’t socialists is comical.
Sometimes historical facts are funny:
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert
–Hitler addressed the group, saying “private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.” He also told the men that he would eliminate trade unions and communists. Hitler asked for their financial support and to back his vision for Germany.
According to Robert Jackson, the former Supreme Court Justice and chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, “[T]he industrialists…became so enthusiastic that they set about to raise three million Reichsmarks [worth about $30 million today] to strengthen and confirm the Nazi Party in power.”–
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-big-business-bailed-out-nazis
Socialism.
All your editorial is arguing is that industrialists helped Nazis, gb. That does not imply what you make it imply:
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Learn to read, or stay in your lane.
–All your editorial is arguing is that industrialists helped Nazis, gb–
Article explains why industrialists “helped”, Hitler.
[One could say, they bought Hitler as cheap “investment”. A gamble with very large pay out]
–private enterprise cannot be maintained in a democracy.–
[[A foolish basis of socialism is that private competition is “wasteful”.
Bernie Sanders will explain endlessly, why competition is wasteful.
The Industrialists also don’t want private enterprise to exist, either, if they are being the government {or NOT, the private enterprises which can not be maintained.}
I think in the end, some industrialists manage to be heroes by claiming their slaves were “essential workers”.
> Bernie Sanders will explain endlessly, why competition is wasteful
Here he is:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
Srsly, gb.
“Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only candidate for president willing to name the real crisis confronting America.
Too many underarm spray deodorants.”
This notion that Nazis weren’t socialists is comical
The German National Socialist German Workers’ Party wasn’t Socialist? Really? Then what were they? Free Market Individual Liberty Conservatives?
National and International Socialists differed by only 1 word. The National Socialists wanted to maintain their National Identity, the Communists or International Socialists wanted World Socialism.
Both were oppressive tyrannical authoritarian totalitarian regimes. They were the Biggest of Big Government Systems. They were Welfare States on Steroids. Simply Google Communist Goals 1963 Naked Communist Congressional Record.
The greatest allies Communism has in America today is the Political Left, especially the Environmentalists.
The one thing ALL Socialist Variants share is a hatred of Free Market Capitalism and Individual Rights.
> The one thing ALL Socialist Variants share is a hatred of Free Market Capitalism and
Since you like words, Life:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/
Next you’re gonna argue that the GOP is really Republican or that Britain is great.
Binny,
Time –
Article headline “They Called Ukraine Home. But They Faced Violence and Racism When They Tried to Flee.”
From the body –
“Groups of Nepalese, Indian and Somalian men described to TIME how they were kicked and beaten with batons by Ukrainian guards who later begrudgingly allowed them to cross over, on foot.”
No Nazis, I suppose. Just the usual Ukrainian hospitality offered to non-whites.
The US should follow the Ukrainian example, and ban media from using any language other than English. Schools. police and health workers etc., to use only English. Anybody who doesn’t speak English should learn the language, or go back to where they came from. Likewise, Canada should pick one language, and severely harass anybody anybody who wants to continue using any other language in public.
Only joking, of course. People are people. Countries are countries. The USA has around 5% of the world’s population, but seems convinced that the other 95% should do as the USA decrees.
Unfortunately, the times they are a-changin’.
Maybe you should go to Ukraine and join the fight for freedom. As long as you are white, you will apparently be welcome.
I hope you are fluent in Ukrainian. Look up the recent laws relating to language before you go.
And you, Flynnson, should read comments before you post your completely stoopid & stubborn replies:
” It is amazing to read the bullshit of people who spend hundreds of lines to tell us about a few Nazis in the Ukraine, but perfectly hide or ignore
– how many Nazis quietly and secretly left Germany after WW2 with the help of the Catholic Church, among others, and emigrated via Rome to South and North America, from Chile to… Canada;
– how many old Nazis and ultra-right Neo-Nazis are quietly up to mischief in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, North and South America and… yes: even Russia. ”
No one thinks that the Ukrainians are angels, you idiot.
Be happy that you aren’t in Mariupol or elsewhere in the Ukraine.
You are such an arrogant dumbass.
Binny,
You wrote –
“No one thinks that the Ukrainians are angels, you idiot.”
What are they, then? Glorious freedom fighters – symbols of democracy? Or just people, like the rest of us?
You also wrote –
“Putin’s Russia has invaded Ukraine because it has long thirsted to show the US and NATO that it is not afraid of even a nuclear conflict in enforcing its territorial claims.”
You claim mind-reading abilities, now.
You also wrote –
“The crazy thing is that countless Russians really believe that their country is saving the Ukrainians from the Nazis, as it did for Germany and Europe in the past. They are proud of their land, their army.”
Why are citizens of a country crazy to be “ . . . proud of their land, their army.”, as you acknowledge? Facts are facts. You say that no one thinks that the Ukrainians are angels, so why all the fuss about them getting invaded? Are all Russians devils, perhaps?
Maybe that’s why the US is doing its best to support the glorious ultra nationalistic Government of Ukraine – anti Russian, anti non-white, and all that goes with it. I’m certainly not in favour of paying “the cost of freedom” if that involves galloping inflation, and unintended consequences of unforeseen disruptions to various supply chains around the world.
I can’t see what’s wrong with living a quiet life, but I certainly have no intention of bullying anyone into following my example. As far as countries go, as you have alluded to, the nuclear threat (only used as a weapon of mass destruction by the USA to date) is ineffectual when your imagined opponents possibly have more nukes and better delivery systems than you do.
Off you go now. You don’t seem inclined to assist the Ukrainians physically, but I suppose you can come up with all sorts of excuses to avoid practising what you preach.
CO2IsLife, Anderson etc etc
You are exactly the same kind of absolute ignorant as Robertson.
The Nazis never and never were Socialists. They killed all Socialists who were courageous enough
Everyone claiming that insane nonsense is a historically uneducated dumb ass.
You alleged ‘knowledge’ about the Nazis (manifestly coming for the main part from Google searches), is incredible, probably very typical for Americans.
None of you CONUSians has ever experienced what is a dictatorship, and it shows.
“The Nazis never and never were Socialists. They killed all Socialists who were courageous enough”
Bindy, you are totally clueless. The National Socialists were Socialists, that is why they called themselves Socialists. There are many versions of Socialism, but they all share one two things 1) a hatred of Capitalism and Free Markets and 2) hatred of Democracy and Individual Rights. Socialism is anti-Capitalism and collective good communal rights. That is why they call themselves Socialists and not Capitalists. The battle of the 1917-1945 was National Sociaism vs International Socialism.
Nothing you can identify having to do with NAZIs or Communists are applicable to today’s Conservative Small Government Constitutionally limited individual rights centric. The closest thing in America are the Democratic Brownshirts that Burned out Cities to sway an election. Jan 6th was very similar to the staged Burning of the Reichstag to crush the political opposition.
The NAZIs vs the Communist ANTIFA was an inter-party fight much like Hillary vs Bernie, they were all fighting for the SOcialist SUpport. Once SOcialists take power they always eliminate the political parties, that is what totalitarians do. You do see Repuiblicans speaking fondly of Cuba and Canada.
> The National Socialists were Socialists, that is why they called themselves Socialists.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, Life:
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Not everyone is a clueless Newscorp drone here.
Please desist.
Pinhead,
Linking leftist propagandists who’ve relabeled Nazis as right-wing since the end of WWII doesn’t work. The Nazis were socialists, National Socialists. Blinny is a propagandist and an ignorant twit. There is nothing right-wing about Nazis.
Have another cookie, Troglodyte:
> In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US. Henry Ford, the leading industrialist and auto maker, was a great admirer of the nazis. When Henry Ford announced that he might run for president in 1923, the little-known Hitler told the Chicago Tribune that he would like to send shock troops to Chicago to assist in the campaign. Later in 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest civilian award given by the nazis. Ford accepted it with pride, and Ford’s company collaborated with the nazis as late as August 1942. General Motors, Standard Oil, ITT, and Chase National Bank (later Chase Manhattan Bank) among others also had major financial investments and collaborations with Nazi Germany.
https://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html
Willard, the whole context of these comments are focused on the proper application of the term “Right-Wing” to both the Authoritarian Totalitarian NAZIs and today’s Small Constitutionally Limited Government Pro-Democracy and Individual Right Conservatives. Please compare and contrast Today’s Conservatives and the NAZIs, and then compare them to the Democrats, especially the Environmentalists. Here is a hint Google Communist Goals Congressional Record 1963 Naked Communist.
The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term “National Socialism,” a self description of the Nazis. “National Socialism” includes the word “socialism”, but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for “illegal socialist activity” in 1936.
The above is from Willard’s source. Williard, you clearly are completely ignorant of the history of SOcialism, both National and International. The Russian Revolution KILLED FELLOW RUSSIANS and Fellow Communist Russians. Look up who the Menchivichs were. SOcialism is legendary for Paranoid power-hungry Leaders and “purges.” Trotski was murdered. Killing fellow Socialists is simply the cost of doing business in a Totalitarian socialist system. Under those systems, all parties are outlawed, and their elections are always rigged.
> The Russian Revolution KILLED FELLOW RUSSIANS
Sure, Life.
And Muricans killed 250K Vietnamese, so they’re obviously socialists.
> the whole context of these comments are focused on the proper application of the term “Right-Wing” to both the Authoritarian Totalitarian NAZIs and todays Small Constitutionally Limited Government Pro-Democracy and Individual Right Conservatives
You’re conflating the minarchist wet dream with the Right-wing politics, Life.
Fascists are from the Right. Deal with it.
Blinny,
You’re argument that socialists “wouldn’t kill other socialists’ is idiotic. But what else should we expect from an ignorant twit? That would be the same argument as “Protestants wouldn’t kill Catholics” or “Muslims wouldn’t kill Muslims” or “Monarchies wouldn’t kill Monarchies.” Stupid.
At least Binny has an argument, Troglodyte.
The Kristalnacht indeed refutes your empty claim, which you mindlessly drone.
Kristalnacht doesn’t refute anything, Pinhead. Yap,yap,yap,yap…..
By your Logic, Troglodyte, neither would be the ban of collective bargaining.
stephen…”the Nazis fought against the Marxists because they disagreed with the globalist nature of Marxism…”
***
The Nazis did not fight against the USSR due to their political ideology, they invaded the USSR to get at their natural resources. Hitler was losing the Battle of Britain and he refocused his efforts on Russia, who he thought would be a pushover.
They were a pushover till the brutal Russian winter caught the German army without proper winter gear and supplies. Foolishly, Hitler drove them to persist in the face of insurmountable conditions and the invasion failed.
There is no such thing as Marxism. Some weenies who used some of the ideas of Karl Marx called themselves Marxist, but the ‘Marx’ in their name was the closest they came to the ideology of Marx.
I have no interest in supporting communism, nor do I have an interest in supporting capitalism that is so extreme it negates the needs and interests of most people in a country.
Karl Marx lived in an era when the working class was treated brutally. Children were forced to work. He was German but lived much of his live in England. His writing was about the plight of a working class that was seriously abused by employers. The theft of his work by Russia and China had nothing to do with what he envisioned. They stole the basics and created their own forms of fascism.
Marx hated the concept of socialism and any use of the word in the name of Marx is applied incorrectly, usually as a lie to deceive people as to the real intent of the users. He grew up in Germany where the word socialism got it start and he related it to handouts from the wealthy to the poor. When Engels offered to call their work socialism, Marx rebuked him.
The USSR called themselves socialist and soviets like the Ukraine became socialist republics. They had nothing to do with socialism, they were brutal environments related to fascism.
Today, some people use the word social democracy because they are afraid to say they are socialists. Unfortunately, social democracy has been infiltrated by special interest groups like eco-weenie alarmists, gay and lesbian interests, etc., and the socialist part, which is supposed to be about humanitarianism, has been watered down to the level where humans no longer matter.
When I hear people using the word socialism today, they are referring to the illegitimate claims of the USSR and China that they are socialists. They associate the left and socialism with the USSR and China.
Anything claimed to be socialist that is not democratic is not socialism. As I said, socialism is about central government wherein people are free to vote out a party they don’t like. Canada is a socialism even though it is run largely on behalf of right-wing interests.
Today, a socialism of the democratic type represents a government in which certain functions are centralized, like pensions, health care, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, etc. That kind of socialist state allows free enterprise to operate essentially unfettered while giving corporations huge tax breaks as incentives. Of course, the corporations give little in return.
I am talking about the likes of Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany and much of Europe, along with Australia and New Zealand. In the UK, there has always been a concerted effort to move to the right and people are suffering.
Your true colors as a left wing fascist are showing.
> Marx hated the concept of socialism
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190695545-e-50
Gordo,
I was referring to the Marxists in Germany during the ’20s and ’30s. They were antagonists of the National Socialists. The Marxists in Germany were supported by Lenin and then later Stalin. Lenin also supported Mussolini when he was a Marxist in Italy.
The Nazis and the Marxists had a different vision for Socialism. The Marxists adhered to Karl Marx’s theory that Proletariat would rise against the Burgeiousise worldwide. There would be one world order. If none of you understand this, you haven’t read Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto. He spells it all out in his writings.
Karl Marx did not understand the Perito Principle or the nature of man.
If you guys don’t think leftists will kill each other, look at the history of the Bolsheviks or the Maoists.
Another leftist, no doubt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
Pinochet certainly wasn’t for small, limited government that promoted individual liberty. Yes, he was a leftist.
Another leftist:
Wait, Troglodyte – isn’t that your favorite guru6
Your true colors as a left wing fascist are showing.
Lefties are always liars, by necessity and by definition. That is not because they are somehow inherently evil-minded, but rather because they use a completely different system of moral reference. They are if you will, not immoral, they are amoral or perhaps more precisely ‘differently-moral’ but there is no short nice term for that that i’m aware of. Thus the true leftists are compelled by their own faith to twist and distort the truth when conversing with someone not of their own, not unlike the ancient sect of historical order of assassins.
“compelled by their own faith to twist and distort the truth”
Sounds like Fox News, Donald Trump, the Tea Party and all the other alt-Right offshoots of the Republican Party.
Sorry Ent, but it’s you cultists that are so quick to pervert reality — Passenger jets fly backwards, ice cubes can boil water, Earth has a “real 255K surface”….
The solution to the 255K problem that bugs you just as it bugged all your other sock puppets is quite easy, Pup:
https://tinylink.net/WP74d
haha, yeah, many people are guilty of that. That’s what ‘polarization’ is all about – the disappearance of the common moral grounds for the country. What looks right from one’s point of view, is a *crime* from the others’ point of view. And I am not kidding, I literally mean that. That’s the state of your country. I just used ‘the lefties’ as an example because unlike the historically young tradition of the american conservatisms, the leftism is a very old traditions soon to score bicentennial in a few decades.
yah, and because of that, the traditional ‘leftist deception’ may be more familiar to people outside of the usa who are not following the us struggle.
Newscorp certainly has no monopoly over reactionary talking points.
About time we get up to speed with Eastern Eurotrash.
@willard
i usually don’t reply to your comments as to me you fall into the same ‘paid raving bot crisis actor’ category as swenson, clint r, dremt and GR, but here i’m not following you.
Of course you don’t, cot:
> In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which that person believes possessed positive characteristics absent from contemporary society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
Lack of vocabulary does not stop at the US border.
as usual, my assessment of you as a bot confirmed. bye.
The Left lies by definition, the “common moral ground” is disappearing, and I’m like to Dragon sock puppets.
You’re not very subtle, guy with a strong accent.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–HELSINKI — Chinese state-owned entities are developing a growing range of solid rockets to meet growing launch demands and contribute to a wider strategy of making China a fully-fledged space power.
Jielong-3, also known as Smart Dragon-3, is expected to make its first flight in September according to recent state media reports. It will be able to launch from land or sea, with new maritime launch facilities both providing greater flexibility and reducing pressure on China’s main spaceports.–
https://spacenews.com/china-is-developing-new-solid-rockets-to-boost-overall-space-capabilities/
–“This very much fits with China’s long term doctrine of becoming a full-fledged space power, for which it is essential to master a wide array of capabilities,” Tomas Hrozensky, a researcher at the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI), told SpaceNews.–
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Will China become a full-fledged space power?
Will other countries become a full-fledged space power?
Will the FAA get off it’s ass??
Just what we need, another positive feedback.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60782084
EM,
Luckily, “brown carbon” has only about 30% of the warming capacity of “black carbon”. Presumably, that’s because it lets 70% more sunlight reach the surface! [cynical laughter].
Do any of these morons actually realise what nonsense they write?
Probably not, if they believe in “climate science”.
https://imgur.com/a/Z2ldKzJ
What happened in the Northern Hemisphere in 2000?
GISS v4 for those who are interested.
Republican WV Gov. Jim Justice: God “will give us time” to fix climate change, so keep drilling!
March 18, 2022
https://youtu.be/jnr9HU5dbFw?t=1061
That’s good advice — Drill, baby, drill.
Gods (any one of them) has nothing to do with science and vice versa.
But even the Bible says that we are to be STEWARDS of the Earth, so screwing it up is within our power, and protecting it is a Christian obligation.
Imagine this conversation:
God: What?! What did you DO?! I was gone for like 2 millennia, what happened?! What’s all that black shit all the polar bears are covered in?
Man: It’s.. it’s oil OIL?!
God: OIL?! Why the fuck is it on the surface I put that underground!
Man: We wan… we wanted to go fast.
The Christian Bible is a book composed in the Middle ages and is mostly myth.
RLH, that nonsense, plus $5, will get you a donut most places.
The donut costs $1.
That black shit the polar bears are covered in is Greenie propaganda.
And stop burning trees.
For those of you who may still be self-medicating with Livestock Dewormers:
Ivermectin didn’t curb COVID-19 hospitalizations in largest study to date
Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3815030-ivermectin-had-no-clinical-benefit-against-covid-19-in-largest-study-so-far
“Ivermectin had no clinical benefit against COVID-19 in largest study to date – WSJ”
Mar. 18, 2022
Maybe lose some weight, get some sunlight and/or get some vitamin D.
So, take a walk in a park, once in while.
Its really unfortunate that we cannot purchase Ivermectin intended for human consumption.
There are as many proponents of Ivermectin as there are antagonists. I’d rather try it than take the clot-shot.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf
Tractor Supply. Easy to calculate your dosage.
Every good Trumpist should overdose on Invermectin and stick an ultraviolet lamp up their arse.
I actually understand math and dosage rates. I know math isn’t your forte but you can do it. I do have to commend you, though. You’re not repeating the Trump injecting bleach lie. I think an ultraviolet light up your arse might do you good.
Hey,
You leftists want to forget about the Hydroxychloroquine though. Don’t hear you guys talking much about that.
Are you using the standard 150 micrograms/kg recommended for onchocerciasis, the 200 micrograms/kg for strongoloides or something else?
Did the guy at the rightmost end of the far-right Americans notice these reports on success wrt Hydroxychloroquine?
– https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-health-watch/henry-ford-study-hydroxychloroquine-covid-quietly-shut-down
– https://www.science.org/content/article/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
– https://leaps.org/the-only-hydroxychloroquine-story-you-need-to-read/particle-5
*
Apparently, people like you ignore everything what they don’t want to see.
The very best is Forbes’ article about this stupid French boaster Didier Raoult:
– https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/07/19/hydroxychloroquine-europe-turns-away-from-doctor-who-championed-drug-with-irresponsible-study/
I’m not keen to take 23 milligrams/day of a strong drug like Invermectin just in case of problems from a mild infection like Omicron, which I had in February.
It seems disproportionate.
Hey Blinny,
In those studies, they didn’t use hydroxychloroquine with zinc. It is the zinc that actually inhibits the viral transcriptase. Hydroxychloroquine is only a zinc ionophore. Do you know what an ionophore is? Probably not. Slight omission from so-called scientists.
Ken at 11:11 AM
“…we cannot purchase Ivermectin intended for human consumption.”
You can always get a prescription from your doctor. One brand name is Stromectol, indicated as follows:
What part of “Ivermectin had no clinical benefit against COVID-19 in largest study to date” did you not get?
There are other studies that don’t support that study. Do you understand how Ivermectin works? It works to inhibit the Importin protein from transporting the viral protein into the nucleus. I know several who’ve used it with positive results. I used Quercetin and Zinc with positive results. How many so-called scientists wrongly characterized hydroxychloroquine therapy, a zinc ionophore like Quercetin?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/
What part of “Ivermectin had no clinical benefit against COVID-19 in largest study to date” did you not get?
This from the link I posted:
quote CONCLUSION
Based on the totality of the existing evidence above, the FLCCC strongly recommends ivermectin be used in both the prevention and treatment of all phases of COVID-19 in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. unquote
Clearly the subject is not exhausted.
From the link I posted.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3815030-ivermectin-had-no-clinical-benefit-against-covid-19-in-largest-study-so-far
“”There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, a lead investigator of the trial and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
The findings have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, and on Friday, Dr. Mills is scheduled to present the data at an event sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
The latest trial conducted in Brazil involved 1,358 adults with COVID-19 symptoms. All study participants were at risk of developing the severe form of the disease with a history of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or lung disease. Half of them received Ivermectin pills for three days, and the other half received a placebo.
Dr. Mills and the team looked at their hospitalizations rates within 28 days. In addition, they gathered data on how fast the patients cleared the virus, how soon their symptoms improved, whether they were in hospital or were relying on ventilators for less time, and the differences in death rates.
For accuracy, they analyzed data in three different ways, and in each scenario, ivermectin was found to have no impact on the improvement of patient outcomes”
Well, let’s hope we have access to the study. Wonder why they chose three days? What were their dosage rates?
Lots of normal use Invermectin side effects.
abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting
Using it to kill parasitic worms in my eyeballs might be worth the risk, but it’s not worth it to reduce my risk of severe covid.
@ E-man
here’s a list of side effects of aspirin (tken from the mayo clinic website)
Abdominal or stomach pain, cramping, or burning
black, tarry stools
bloody or cloudy urine
change in consciousness
chest pain or discomfort
confusion
constipation
convulsions, severe or continuing
dark urine
decreased frequency or amount of urine
diarrhea
difficult breathing
drowsiness
fainting
fast breathing
feeling that something terrible will happen
fever
general tiredness and weakness
greatly decreased frequency of urination or amount of urine
headache
heartburn
increased thirst
indigestion
irregular heartbeat
light-colored stools
loss of appetite
loss of consciousness
lower back or side pain
muscle cramping and weakness
muscle tremors
nausea or vomiting
nervousness
numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips
panic
rapid, deep breathing
restlessness
seizures
skin rash
stomach cramps
swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
upper right abdominal or stomach
vomiting of blood or material that looks like coffee grounds
weakness or heaviness of the legs
weight gain
yellow eyes and skin
Some side effects may occur that usually do not need medical attention. These side effects may go away during treatment as your body adjusts to the medicine. Also, your health care professional may be able to tell you about ways to prevent or reduce some of these side effects. Check with your health care professional if any of the following side effects continue or are bothersome or if you have any questions about them:
Incidence not known
Acid or sour stomach
anxiety
belching
dizziness
dry mouth
hyperventilation
irritability
shaking
stomach discomfort, upset, or pain
trouble sleeping
unusual drowsiness, dullness, tiredness, weakness, or feeling of sluggishness
Aspirin side effects:
Abdominal or stomach pain, cramping, or burning
black, tarry stools
bloody or cloudy urine
change in consciousness
chest pain or discomfort
confusion
constipation
convulsions, severe or continuing
dark urine
decreased frequency or amount of urine
diarrhea
difficult breathing
drowsiness
fainting
fast breathing
feeling that something terrible will happen
fever
general tiredness and weakness
greatly decreased frequency of urination or amount of urine
headache
heartburn
increased thirst
indigestion
irregular heartbeat
light-colored stools
loss of appetite
loss of consciousness
lower back or side pain
muscle cramping and weakness
muscle tremors
nausea or vomiting
nervousness
numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips
panic
rapid, deep breathing
restlessness
seizures
skin rash
stomach cramps
swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
upper right abdominal or stomach
vomiting of blood or material that looks like coffee grounds
weakness or heaviness of the legs
weight gain
yellow eyes and skin
The veterinary dosage is 150-200 micrograms/kg/day as is the dosage for vermicide treatment in people.
My thinking is that COVID has never been the pandemic it was cracked up to be. People can make all sorts of claims about the statistics of how many people died and whether or not vaccines, ivermectin, vitamin D, or Granny Clampett’s secret recipe made any difference.
Its really hard to take any of the studies seriously when COVID survival is 99.9% and symptoms of anyone who is infected vary from sniffles to extreme illness with no regard for any treatment taken before or during the infection.
Sure. 6.07M deaths is not important. Not enough to worry about. ‘Tis but a scratch.
8 billion people that live to average age of 50
Means that 8 billion/50 will die every year. 160 million.
6.07 million doesn’t even amount to a scratch.
6.07M EXCESS deaths
Ken: I think you have your maths wrong.
“About 60 million people die every year”
By a factor of 100 million.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/04000/Expression_of_Concern_for_Kory_P,_Meduri_GU,_Varon.10.aspx
There is only one truly and fully fascist country in today’s europe – RUSSIA.
Alors là, je suis d'accord à 150 %.
Except that we should not confound a country with its brutally leading minority.
There is only one truly and fully fascist country in todays europe RUSSIA.
Include Asia and you forgot China and the Uyghurs.
i’m not familiar with asia
Oh oh CO2IsLife…
Why did you forget to mention… Tibet?
*
Moreover, it is my opinion too since years that the exactions of the Han Chinese against the Uyghurs are absolutely villainous.
But to compare the oppression in Xinjiang to a warlike invasion of the Ukraine, where entire cities are razed to the ground, hundreds of civilians are killed and millions have had to flee their country, leaving behind everything they had: there is a gap that none of us should cross.
Bindi, thanks for the reminder, add Tibet to the list. I can’t remember any MAGA Administrations rounding people up and making them disappear.
Freedom Fighters have a short-term memory:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/30/500-000-kids-30-million-hours-trump-s-vast-expansion-of-child-detention
But I can remember everything that the “Dark Men” of the USA did – together with Nazis who quietly and secretly emigrated after WW2 – to help anti-democratic tyrants in their bloodthirsty wars against their ‘inner enemies’, in a highly professional manner.
Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay… all countries that bloody and murderous dictators could never have ruled and gag without the CIA in the last century.
binny…”all countries that bloody and murderous dictators could never have ruled and gag without the CIA in the last century”.
***
That’s right, the CIA, then the OSS, enabled Nazi war criminals by hiding them. That’s part of my beef about the Ukraine today. One of their war criminals, Stepan Bandera, is being feted as a hero pf Ukrainian independence yet he was a war criminal hidden by the CIA. Bandera had nothing to do with Ukraine’s independence, it was the Russians who formed them and set them free.
The CIA does have a good side and it’s history has been variable with regard to its dark side. They provide an invaluable service to the US but unfortunately they are often allowed to take actions without being accountable. One good action was taking out bin Laden, with the help of the Navy Seals, but they have committed questionable acts like taking out Salvatore Allende in Chile.
In other words, the CIA have tended to represent US business interests at the expense of democratically elected governments.
> it was the Russians who formed them and set them free.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-20th-century-history-behind-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-180979672/
Charity and stupidity are two different things.
coturnix…”There is only one truly and fully fascist country in todays europe RUSSIA”.
***
That’s what we are told in the West and we have been raised on that propaganda. The truth is that none of us have the slightest idea what actually goes on in Russia.
I read a book recently by a US author who traveled to Siberia via Moscow, where he visited acquaintances. He had absolutely no problem getting into Russia or traveling through it. He found the people to be helpful and friendly.
Could he have done that in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy? Don’t think so.
I see it differently. Hating Russians because they are Russians, based on propaganda from the past, is getting us nowhere. We need some compassion and empathy for what they have been through for 70 years under a Stalinist regime and what they are going through now.
When the USSR broke up circa 1991, Russians were thrust headlong into looking out for themselves after 70 years of government control. That applies to the Ukraine as well, where we tend to regard Ukrainians as people like ourselves from a western background.
Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have similar backgrounds to us in the West. Anyone of them born since 1991 is no more than 40 years old. Even people 20 to 30 years older experienced a milder form of Stalinism, but it was not democracy. They raised their children in a world of confusion and uncertainty.
When the USSR broke up, it was chaos for most Russians and we in the West did nothing to help them with the transition to democracy. As a result, a few people in Russia became super wealthy and an underground of criminals became the norm. Also, states like Chechnya and Georgia began revolts to get independence.
That’s what Putin has been trying to deal with. He was appointed by Yeltsin, a serious drunk, who was struggling to bring some kind of order into the chaos. Meantime, Putin faced an age-old paranoia from the West about the Commie menace.
Putin grew up as a KGB agent in East Germany and all he knew was that kind of life. Yet, Gorbachev claimed he was a decent person. Gorbachev pointed out that he could have reverted to the old ways of Stalin but that he did not.
I do not condone what is going on in Russia but I can understand it in a way. It has to be seriously hard to convert from a Stalin-based fascist state to a democratic state. They are not there yet, and maybe not even close, but we are not helping in the West by failing to understand the issues in Russia that Putin is facing.
Rather, we have idiots like Hillary Clinton taking shots at anything Russian.
C’mon, Gordo.
Where’s your compassion and empathy for Hillary?
co2…”binny…The Nazis never and never were Socialists. They killed all Socialists who were courageous enough”
Bindy, you are totally clueless. The National Socialists were Socialists, that is why they called themselves Socialists. There are many versions of Socialism, but they all share one two things 1) a hatred of Capitalism and Free Markets and 2) hatred of Democracy and Individual Rights. Socialism is anti-Capitalism and collective good communal rights”.
***
I agree with Binny, the Nazis threw socialists and communists in concentration camps dating back to the early 1930s. Ironically, the Bolsheviks did the same thing as they formed the USSR. That’s right, the so-called soviet socialist republic sent communists and socialists to gulags.
Neither the Nazi state nor the communist states of Russia or China were anything remotely close to a socialism.
Socialism has its roots in Germany, as pointed out by Marx, a German. He hated the word because it represented handouts from the wealthy to the poor. The idea of those better off helping the poor is a basis of socialism. However, when wealthy people offer handouts, it takes the dignity away from the poor, and Marx objected to that.
And, no, socialists don’t hate capitalists as a general rule. Here in Canada, a socialist state, many socialists, and I mean practicing socialists, are millionaires and they have businesses. One Canadian, Maurice Strong, is a billionaire and claims to have socialist sympathies.
Claiming socialists hate democracy and individual rights is ludicrous. There are several social democracies in the world and social democracy is a politically-correct name for socialism. They cherish democracy and individual rights.
You are associating the word socialism with the despotic regimes of Stalinist Russia, China, and Nazi Germany. They stole the name socialist to give credence to their tyrannies. They tried to make it look like their horror shows were workers’ movements.
A socialism today is a reference to a democratic centralized government, which has a certain amount of control over infrastructure that affects all citizens. Nothing to do with what you describe. When the governance changes hands from a left-leaning government to a right-leaning government, the infrastructure remains intact.
” Bindy, you are totally clueless. The National Socialists were Socialists… ”
That is the ignorance of people like Robertson who read a few articles on the Net and think they know what Nazis are.
You are such a dumb ass, Robertson, like Anderson and a few other far-right-wing US guys.
And the very best is
” …, that is why they called themselves Socialists. ”
That is more than ignorance: that is total stupidity.
You are a naive idiot, Robertson.
No Nazi at the top of the NSDAP did ever believe to be a Socialist!
They killed Communists and Socialists by hundreds of thousands.
You are trashing this blog below the imaginable.
Once again Bindy, state the Characteristics of a Fascist Big Government and compare and contrast them to today’s MAGA Small Government Constitutional Conservatives. Once again, Google Communist Goals 1963 Congressional REcord Naked Communist. Simply define what a Fascist/Communist/Totalitarian/Socialist Government does.
> MAGA Small Government
Very, very small:
http://stats.areppim.com/ressources/usxbudget_1789x2019_572x412.png
Source: https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_usxbudget_history.htm
Pinhead,
85-86% of the US Budget is built-in, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Departmental Budgets, Federal Employees, etc. Did you want Trump to cut defense spending? Then we couldn’t protect your sorry European asses.
I ain’t no Euro, silly Troglodyte, and it’s been a while since Muricans defended any European territory. Considering how you “defended” Latin America and the Middle East, Euros are all the merrier for it.
The long and the short of it is that the US budget never really decreases from one government to the next, and that minarchism is an online fantasy that turns every single government known to mankind as leftist.
binny…”” Bindy, you are totally clueless. The National Socialists were Socialists… ”
That is the ignorance of people like Robertson who read a few articles on the Net and think they know what Nazis are”.
***
If you were not such an idiot you’d have seen I was quoting someone else. I said below that I agree with you.
I said…
“I agree with Binny, the Nazis threw socialists and communists in concentration camps dating back to the early 1930s. Ironically, the Bolsheviks did the same thing as they formed the USSR. That’s right, the so-called soviet socialist republic sent communists and socialists to gulags.
Neither the Nazi state nor the communist states of Russia or China were anything remotely close to a socialism”.
Gordo,
25 Point Nazi Party Platform. Socialist or not?
The Program of the German Workers Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.
5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.
6. The right to vote on the States government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.
7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.
8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.
9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.
20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the notion of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
21. The State must ensure that the nations health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary [i.e. professional] army and the formation of a peoples army.
23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
25. To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.
The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlesslyif need be to sacrifice their very livesto translate this program into action.
Slow on the uptake, Troglodyte:
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
I wonder which party stands for “positive christianity” in the US of A.
‘Nazi’ has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.
> Socialism has its roots in Germany
Cmon, Gordo:
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude-Henri_de_Rouvroy_de_Saint-Simon
It’s simple rule, lefties always eat their own.
But murderers murder murderers.
Thieves steal from Thieves.
BUT murderers don’t always eat murderers
nor thieves don’t always eat thieves.
So, murderer and thieves, tend to be a bit
more civilized.
ken…”My thinking is that COVID has never been the pandemic it was cracked up to be. People can make all sorts of claims about the statistics of how many people died and whether or not vaccines, ivermectin, vitamin D, or Granny Clampetts secret recipe made any difference.
Its really hard to take any of the studies seriously when COVID survival is 99.9% and symptoms of anyone who is infected vary from sniffles to extreme illness with no regard for any treatment taken before or during the infection”.
***
I agree with you 100% on covid. If they had scrapped the tests in the first place we’d never have gotten into the mess. All they had to do was observe and deal with those suffering the most.
BTW…I think Granny Clampett’s secret recipe had something to do with possums. Willard’s a possum.
C’mon, Gordo.
https://dangerousspeech.org/dangerous-metaphors-how-dehumanizing-rhetoric-works/
maguff…”In a trial of nearly 1,400 COVID-19 patients, those who received the antiparasitic drug ivermectin didnt fare better than those who received a placebo, The Wall Street Journal reported March 18″.
***
The trouble with these studies is they use about 100th the dosage recommended then claim it doesn’t work.
When Pauling and Cameron claimed to have experienced positive results with terminal cancer patients, Mortell of the Mayo clinic repeated the study and claimed it didn’t work.
Pauling contacted him to see why. Moertell admitted to Pauling that he had only used 250 mg of C whereas Pauling and Cameron had used 10,000 mg after an initial IV using 25,000 mg.
The thing that had Pauling aghast, however, is that Moertell confessed to keeping his terminally ill cancer patients on chemo. An incredulous Pauling asked, why!!!????. Moertell, the idiot, replied that it looked better. Made it look to the terminally that something was being done Duh!!!!
Imagine using serious poisons to give the impression something is being done. The first antiviral for HIV was AZT, a drug so toxic it was discontinued for chemo. Witch-doctors are alive and well in modern medicine.
BTW…vitamin C in doses at the bowel tolerance (usually 8 – 10 grams = 8,000 – 10,000 mg) level (ie. forces you to hit the can for a brown blizzard) are effective at controlling any virus. That dose is supposed to be repeated every 4 hours till the symptoms abate.
Obviously the Pauling/Cameron study used vitamin C.
Large doses of ivermectin are dangerous. Sure lets kill them all then they wont get Covid.
Large doses of water are dangerous too.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 29
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.25×10^10 W Neutral
{Keeps going up}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.1% High
48-hr change: +0.6%
{not doing much}
The relationship between Nazism and socialism has provoked considerable debate. The majority of historians contend that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, they argue, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.
Despite this, some conservative historians argue that Nazism is a factional offshoot or bastardised form of socialism. They point to nomenclature (“National Socialism”), Nazi control and regulation of the German economy and their vast public spending programs. This line of argument has, in recent times, been repeated by many conservative and far-right political pundits.
How are any of those characteristics consistent with modern conservativism? Maximize state power? Social Control? Militaristic? Redistribution of Wealth? Social Welfare Programs?
Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one… Adolph Hitler
https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/
You’re hiding the lede, Life:
What do all these toxic forms of Socialism share? They divide a Nation and pit one group against another to create chaos and instill a dictator. Marxism divides by class and killed millions, NAZIs divided by race and religion and killed millions. Anytime you base a political party on demonizing one group of people so you can redistribute their wealth it won’t end well.
> Anytime you base a political party on demonizing one group of people
Right on:
Show me when Conservatives use the GOvernment to frame people like happened on Jan 6th, and then released Brownshirts after they looted, rioted, and burned over $2 billion in damages? Unless you were living under a rock, the Marxists have been rounding up the “Deplorables” and doing everything possible to entrench their tyrannical power.
Democrats Admit Jan. 6 Committee Is All About Midterms
https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/19/democrats-admit-jan-6-committee-is-all-about-midterms/
You’re in no position to ask for any sammich, Life:
https://news.yahoo.com/she-went-undercover-maga-she-100139599.html
Dick Uihlein ain’t on your side. He’s just happy that tools like you lend a hand.
The alt-Right are refusing to wear masks or vaccinate. They are dosing themselves with inappropriate medicines. As a result their group has the highest Covid death rate in the USA.
Think of it as evolution in action.
You are worried about a few nutjobs that will never ever impact your life while ignoring headlines like: The Case for Declaring a National Climate Emergency
Bidens move to ban Russian oil imports shows he can act boldly when he wants to.
https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/biden-climate-emergency-dpa/
Case you didn’t notice, Hunter’s Laptop is real, and 50 in the Intel community lied to get Biden elected.
https://rumble.com/vxum9h-20-minutes-of-fake-news-media-lying-about-hunter-biden-laptop-and-russia-di.html
Implications
https://rumble.com/vxwvw5-lara-logan-sets-the-record-straight-on-ukrainerussia..HTML
BTW, why did France win WWI and collapse in weeks during WWII? The French wouldn’t fight for their Nation.
Most Democrats Say Theyd Flee, Not Fight, a Ukraine-Style Invasion
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-of-the-brave-rip-war-poll-democrats-fight-enlist-vietnam-soldiers-invasion-ukraine-patriotism-culture-war-isolationist-military-recruitment-11646929607?mod=hp_opin_pos_5
Imagine that, and Joe Biden bragged about those Maternity Flight Suits.
Something so big and powerful cant be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within.
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1505341342712573952?s=20&t=zLa7l32VHHhOBd0wov9jTw
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Max Planck.
The alternative hypothesis is that the long term effects of vaccine are not known and may have far reaching health effects.
You may be right; evolution in action.
Fast evolution…
Ivory hunting drives evolution of tuskless elephants
In Mozambique, the selective poaching of elephants with tusks has led to a higher number of females being born without them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02867-y
We may never get the truth, but the evidence is mounting that the mRNA is defeated by a healthy immune system. A healthy immune system actually “kills” the vaccine. But the combination of the mRNA, Covid, and a weak immune system is deadly.
At best you’re spinning your “A = A” argument, Pup:
https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covid-19-deadly
Science needs to go beyond identity slogans.
Ken
I understand your fear of the unknown. It has happened before.
https://www.themorgan.org/blog/cow-pock-or-wonderful-effects-new-inoculation
Nice.
That should discourage any “dewormer” rhetoric.
Might as well use these silly episodes to post scientific tidbits:
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2022/02000/Meta_Analyses_Do_Not_Establish_Improved_Mortality.11.aspx
Its the bits that are known and are not told what bothers me.
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
Recall it required a court order to get this information released.
Very Big on transparency:
https://who.is/whois/phmpt.org
Italy or Germany: $2.4/litre = $9.12/Gal
Arrgggh wrong place..
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
–
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Once contrarians latch onto a new way to cancel climate science, they never let go! They never never ever ever admit error.
Christos is a poster child for this behavior.
Five years ago AGW denialist Richard Lindzen sent a letter to then President Donald Trump claiming to show signatures from “300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals” who think “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant” and recommending the US withdraw the Paris Climate Agreement.
Interestingly, the average age of the Lindzen “300” was over 71.
So, why are climate skeptics generally so old?
Is it because they went to school before the science of global warming was widely known?
Old dogs, new tricks?
Many of them spent their lives working in oil and gas, coal mining, or other emissions intensive sectors. Maybe it’s hard to come to terms with a lifetime of pollution?
Or could it even be that at their age they just don’t care?
It could be that their careers are no longer in jeopardy so they don’t need to worry about some green fascists taking away their livelihood and can say what they think is true.
I have an alternative explanation:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/mr-personality/201410/why-are-older-people-more-conservative
In all fairness to Dr Spencer (# 266 of the Lindzen 300), over the last 25 years his temperature predictions have slowly risen from negligible warming to almost matching the consensus estimates; and his view about the role of carbon dioxide in this warming have moved up from none, to some, to half, to most.
Spencer has had to change his position several times to keep up with the data and has moved closer and closer to the published science.
P.s.: I don’t even deny recent warming could be mostly human-caused.
August 10th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TM, there is no “science of global warming”. It’s all a belief. It ain’t science. Read Dr. Spencer’s title above: Why Blaming Recent Warming on Humans is Largely a Matter of Faith.
To believe the AGW nonsense, you must also believe that ice cubes can boil water. And, if you believe that utter nonsense, you probably should be under adult supervision at all times.
Clint R
You are far from reality with you stupid point that AGW equates to boiling water with ice. Such incredible nonsense.
GHE and AGW are based upon the same idea. You have a radiant barrier from surface to space. The surface does not lose heat to space as freely as it would without an GHG atmosphere so the Solar input will raise the surface to a higher temperature. Basically because visible light penetrates through the atmosphere well while IR emitted by the surface does not.
You don’t have to believe “ice cubes boil water” to grasp the fundamental physics of GHE. It is real and you are in denial of basic science.
Wrong again, Norman.
This has all been explained to you before, but you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
So just keep trolling me. At least you’ve got plenty of company….
Clint R
You are wrong again. Normal for you. You just can’t understand radiant energy or how it works.
You explain stupid points, true, but you have supported none of them. Not one. You ramble on and on with your foolish opinions and act like some expert. Sadly you can’t understand how insulation works.
GHE is real. You can’t understand it no matter how often it is explained. That is why I doubt you are a human and just a bot.
You can’t understand what a radiant surface is. No matter how many examples you have. You can’t understand the Earth emits and average of 240 Watts/m^2 to space but the surface is emitting around 390 W/m^2. No evidence can convince you. That is why my claim you are a bot seems more logical than you being a human. You have programmers who step in from time to time to make you seem more human.
Trolling again, huh Norman?
Nothing but your usual false claims and accusations. You can’t understand my explanations because youve never studied any real physics or thermodynamics. And you’re so braindead you can’t understand the simple analogies and examples. You’re obsessed with pretending and making things up. You’re a proven phony.
Now, troll some more. I find your fanatical and irrational devotion to your cult most informative and revealing.
Clint R
Seems more an more likely you are not a human poster. Just a programmed bot. Your last post was a “nothing burger”.
You just spout out programmed responses without engaging in the topic. Maybe your human programmer will step in to give you the appearance of a human. As it stands you are more bot than human.
Here’s a “topic” for you, troll Norman:
You’ve claimed you always support your nonsense, with textbooks. So where’s your textbook support for 315W/m^2 from two sources being able to raise something to 325K.
You can’t provide anything, because it’s all nonsense, and you’re an ignorant troll.
Prove me wrong.
Global warming should be rejected because it is “all a belief”?
Then you should show the courage of your convictions and reject Christianity which is also “all a belief”.
There’s nothing wrong with personal beliefs. But beliefs ain’t science. It’s important to distinguish between your beliefs and science.
And when you strive to pervert reality, like claiming passenger jets fly backwards, then your beliefs put you in a cult.
I don’t believe in global warming. Not do I believe in plate tectonics, a roughly spherical Earth, DNA or Ohm’s Law.
I don’t believe in any of them. I have something better: evidence.
Sorry Ent, but you’re just throwing your beliefs in with some REAL science, hoping to gain credibility by association. Your beliefs are nothing but nonsense, no matter how you try to camouflage them.
Passenger jets do NOT fly backwards and ice cubes do NOT boil water.
Eman is using the old anti-science argument. If you don’t believe in global warming you don’t believe in gravity. I do believe in global warming Eman, natural warming.
Eman,
There are all kinds of evidence for Ohms Law and a Spherical Earth. Why don’t you explain that carbon cycle?
Global warming is when Earth goes rapidly from glaciation period to peak interglacial temperature. Global air temperature within 1000 years increase by 10 C.
But “global warming” is cargo cult.
Or our peak Holocene was more than 5000 years ago, when we had ice free polar sea ice and a green Sahara desert- mostly grassland with rivers, lakes, and forests {and human settlements- which fished and hunted, herded- and traded for a living}.
Or our peak was about 8000 years ago.
One might ask, will the Holocene have a double peak, which never occurred in the past, but there some reasons it is possible.
Main reason was the beginning of Holocene “appeared” to different and of course, we could just get lucky.
So, anyhow, I have explained why Earth does have rapid increase in global average surface temperature from glaciation period low temperature with really low CO2 level to peak interglacial period maximum thermal conditions within short period of time [with sea levels rising as much as 1 meter per year].
This has been a mystery for long time.
Can anyone else, explain it?
Keep in mind, can’t be from CO2 levels.
And can’t be only due but I would say related [or definitely a
correlation] to the Milankovitch cycles.
I would say just Milankovitch cycles, is too weak of a forcing effect- too weak for this “dramatic” and quick result.
Oh, I would say it sort of like a magic trick:)
But main problem is the focus on land, and Earth global climate in controlled by the ocean. Or like a drunk looking for keys under a street lamp “because it’s night time and that is where the light is”.
But I guess first, does anyone deny this global warming, about 10,000 year ago, actually happen? Like I guess, that you believe Earth is only 6000 year old or some other “reason”. Another reason could you believe it’s all a simulation or something.
Ever wonder what happened during the last interglacial? I don’t think we really know.
Well there are ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
“The Eemian climate is believed to have been warmer than the current Holocene. Changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere.[citation needed] During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 C higher than today. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 7110′21″N 2547′40″E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
They don’t seem to mention the Sahara desert was mostly grassland, like it was during our warmest peak of the Holocene interglacial.
Ie:
Abstract
The greening of the Sahara, associated with the African Humid Period (AHP) between ca. 14,500 and 5,000 y ago, is arguably the largest climate-induced environmental change in the Holocene; it is usually explained by the strengthening and northward expansion of the African monsoon in response to orbital forcing. However, the strengthened monsoon in Early to Middle Holocene climate model simulations cannot sustain vegetation in the Sahara or account for the increased humidity in the Mediterranean region. Here, we present an 18,500-y pollen and leaf-wax δD record from Lake Tislit (32 N) in Morocco, which provides quantitative reconstruction of winter and summer precipitation in northern Africa. The record from Lake Tislit shows that the northern Sahara and the Mediterranean region were wetter in the AHP because of increased winter precipitation and were not influenced by the monsoon. ”
I wonder if they included in there models a ice free polar sea ice.
The cargo cult seems to understand that ice free artic sea ice in the summer would have huge effect. But other than end of the world, not many details are given.
And most of concern centers upon the polar bear [which has survived many interglacial periods which don’t any polar sea ice].
Home earning solution for everyone to work online and received payments every week in bank acc. earns every day more than $500 and received payments every week directly in bank acc. My last months earning was $16390 and all i do is work for maximum 2 hrs a day on my pc. easy work and regular earning are awesome with this job.
More info________________ http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
> there is no “science of global warming”. It’s all a belief.
Wrong again, Pup:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
Worthless Willard found another link he can’t understand.
That link is to the IPCC, which swallowed the CO2 warming nonsense whole. And worthless Willard uses “blockquote”, not because he has anything of value, but because he desperately seeks attention.
He has nothing else going in his life except trolling. That’s why he’s so worthless.
> Willard uses “blockquote”
Perhaps you’d prefer:
“The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report is the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science, and combining multiple lines of evidence from paleoclimate, observations, process understanding, and global and regional climate simulations.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
Does not look like a belief to me!
It’s all based on belief, troll.
CO2 can NOT heat the planet. This is all WAY over your head. Your best bet is to just remain a worthless troll.
> CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
So? You should read the fine print, Pup:
http://www.imgur.com/a/G6rU8
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
“Its all based on belief, troll.
CO2 can NOT heat the planet. ”
You believe that it cannot.
The rest of us have evidence that it does.
Wrong Ent, you “believe” you have evidence. Your bogus GHE nonsense violates the laws of physics. You just make up stuff and believe it is “science”. You made up the nonsense that passenger jets fly backwards. You pervert reality, just like your cult.
“passenger jets fly backwards”
Relative to the air or to the Sun? Context maters.
Now, lets have a look at two of Jupiters moons:
Io has satellite measured Tmean =110K
and
Ganymede has satellite measured Tmean =110K
They both have the same satellite measured Tmean =110K.
Io has Bond Albedo a =0,63
Te =95,16K
Ganymede has Bond Albedo a =0,41
Te =108,7K
Europa and Calisto are also Jupiters moons.
Europa has Bond Albedo a =0,63 (the same as Io)
Te =95,16K (the same as Io of course)
But the satellite measured mean surface temperature for Europa is Tmean =102K (much less than the Tmean =110K for Io).
Calisto has Bond Albedo a =0,22
Te = 114,26K
Tmean =13411 K
Conclusion
All planets and moons without-atmosphere have a Te lower than the Tmean.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So I decided to write a song about the moon issue. Maybe we should discuss the moon in the comments under the video rather than here. Just a thought.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
P.S: Like and subscribe!
Great effort, DREMT! That’s likely to be a hit.
I can’t “like” on youtube because I’m not set up to log in, so I have to “like” here.
How come our side has all the talent?
😊
Thanks! Altogether now:
Intro Chorus:
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Verse One:
On its own the moon don’t spin
Its only axis of rotation is within the Earth itself
Like a ball on a string
Same side always to the center rides a horse on carousel
Stop the ride, the horse can’t turn
Start it up, it’s not rotating on its axis still, you see
That’s when you start to learn
What orbiting without spinning is really meant to be
Chorus (x2)
Verse Two:
For centuries, we’ve all been told
That an object purely orbiting keeps one face to a star
But Perigal and Tesla saw
That revolution is rotation ’bout an axis set apart
Like a child you twirl around
You’re the body being orbited and they’re the satellite
Teach that kid, inside you now
Only youthful and free-thinking minds can put this all to rights
Chorus (x4, with repeat of Verse One over the top as outro)
“the devil has all the best tunes”
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-devil-has-all-the-best-tunes.html
Worked out why the moon issue transcends reference frames yet, E Man?
Buzz off clown.
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Good to see Ftop_t was back commenting further upthread too.
Repeating something does not make it correct.
It doesn’t make it incorrect either. Now, scroll up to my original comment at 1:56 PM. Click on the link, and leave any comments you might have there. We’ll have no more moon discussion at Dr Roy’s, thanks.
You are just wrong as you usually are.
Now, scroll up to my original comment at 1:56 PM. Click on the link, and leave any comments you might have there. Well have no more moon discussion at Dr Roys, thanks.
Great stuff Dremt. Well sung, well written, well presented. Ignore Ken’s comment, he’s obviously having a bad hair day.
Thanks, he’s probably just upset that the “Spinners” don’t have their own song.
Did you ever wonder about the Great Reset song?
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today, I
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
So keep on with the lunartic crap. Unless you are one of the idiots who thinks you’ll own nothing and be happy, you’re wasting time on this drivel.
You agreed with the “Non-Spinners” until you had some bizarre “epiphany” for reasons that nobody, not even your fellow “Spinners”, truly understand. You were right, then convinced yourself you were wrong for some stupid reason that not even the other “Spinners” agree with. That’s a shame for you, but I never gave you any grief for it. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever said one negative thing about you. Still, lash out with your completely unnecessary hatred all the same.
Kiddo never insult anyone:
https://youtu.be/88ZfRsgBaC0
Willard, please stop trolling.
Global warming , then Climate change , has been renamed once again ,
now “CRIMATE CLISIS”
Yes you read it right
https://youtu.be/6IGYALBiemI
The real crisis is the mental illness crisis perpetuated by gullible people who believe the climate alarm. A Canadian politician blew it for them a few years ago when she declared that it does not matter if the science is wrong, it’s up to people to act against climate change.
In Canada, the former Environment Canada, who dealt mainly in weather, has been rebranded as ‘Environment and Climate Change Canada’. So much for science, science in Canada must now be politically-correct.
Environment Canada no longer talks in terms of science. They talk talk about ‘atmospheric rivers’. Found a definition for a river on the Net…
“A river is a stream of water that flows through a channel in the surface of the ground. The passage where the river flows is called the river bed and the earth on each side is called a river bank”.
Not to environment Canada which thinks there are streams of water running through the sky, complete with river banks. Normally, rain produces the water that flows in rivers but EC has that rain forming a river in the sky, presumably to help out Mother Nature so the river is complete before it reaches the ground.
Of course, this propaganda is aimed at scaring people into accepting the climate alarmist meme. They have the atmosphere ‘trapping heat’ and a trace gas changing climates.
Mental illness along the line of paranoid delusion. a form of schizophrenia.
> Global warming , then Climate change
https://climateball.net/but-word-change/
I thought that the IPCC had concluded that it was now CAGW.
“But CAGW” is the central Square:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
It belongs to contrarians like you, Richard.
Please own it.
But if it is not Catastrophic then what is the problem?
I blame the IPCC for calling it such.
> I blame the IPCC for calling it such.
A quote might be nice.
Well the IPCC said that if we didn’t get CO2 down soon, it would be catastrophic, hence CAGW.
“IPCC: We’ve Already Warmed the Planet to Catastrophic Effect, but the Level of That Catastrophe Is Up to Us”.
> the IPCC said
That’s not a quote, Richard.
Show me a real quote.
August 09, 2021 Jeff Turrentine
So you don’t have a source.
Got it.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Still desperately trying to get people to partake of your fantasy?
No takers so far? Not even if it is free?
That’s a bit sad. I hope you didn’t waste too much time and effort on something that you can’t even give away! Oh, wait. I lied. Waste as much time and effort as you like, on something completely useless. Nobody else cares, either.
That’s what climate cranks do.
Yet here you are, silly sock puppet.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
And . . .?
Moron. Look up the meaning of the word “relevance”.
If you can’t understand the relevance of my request, you are even more retarded than I assumed!
Carry on.
What request, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Im earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer~oy140~I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to PAY~oy140~Check further details by reaching this site
>>>>>>
Earlier, Norman wrote –
“GHE and AGW are based upon the same idea. You have a radiant barrier from surface to space.”
Unfortunately for morons who refuse to accept reality, there is also a radiant barrier from Sun to surface. In other words, atmospheric insulation is isotropic.
No magic energy accumulation, which is obvious to anyone who has observed that temperatures drop at night, in winter, or indeed over the past four and a half billion years or so.
So Norman may be a moron, but at least he has to reject reality to be one.
Maybe he should read a physics textbook.
Swenson
I think you have been told this one zillion times. Almost all of the visible light in the spectrum makes it to the surface through the atmosphere if there are no clouds. Your point is very poor but you keep making it.
Norman,
And you’ve been told there is no radiant barrier. Cold CO2 doesn’t heat a warmer surface through convection, conduction, or radiation.
stephen p anderson
I think I have gone over that with you already. There is a radiant barrier, that is a fact. If you choose not to believe in facts that would be on you. Energy emitted by the Earth surface (large amount, nearly all of it) is absorbed by the atmosphere. Only a fraction makes it directly to space from the surface (atmospheric window). It is around 10%.
Again, the science does not state cold CO2 heats a warmer surface. That is what the anti-science people claims the scientists say (which they do not). The science says the GHG in the atmosphere lower the amount of radiation emitted to space. (I know I linked you to an article that gave the average OLR from the Earth to Space).
The GHG reduces the amount of heat the surface loses. Like insulation. Insulation DOES not heat a hot object but it will allow a heated object to reach a higher temperature than a non-insulated heated object. Again I appeal to you to get away from the Right-Wing lies you swallow and get back to a scientific mind frame.
Norman, radiative gases do NOT lower the amount of radiation to space. They only restrict the amount in certain wavelengths. CO2 15μ photons don’t make a difference to a 288K surface.
So your belief that “GHG reduces the amount of heat the surface loses”, is bogus. The surface emits based on its termperature and emissivity. And you continue to confuse the bogus GHE with insulation. You can’t learn.
Again I appeal to you to get away from the Left-Wing lies you swallow and try to learn some science and accept reality.
Pup does not always restrict the amount of radiation in certain wavelengths, but when he does it does not lower the amount that flees into space.
Dragon cranks are that good.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman,
You keep stating your theory, but you don’t present any evidence. You offer a vague hypothesis. Also, your hypothesis isn’t the GHE hypothesis. The GHE hypothesis is that back radiation from CO2 warms the surface. There is nothing about a “barrier.” You need to consult with the IPCC. That’s because they know that is a nonstarter.
> The GHE hypothesis is that back radiation from CO2 warms the surface.
Citation needed.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You really should stop playing with yourself so much. You quote ” . . . bringing together the latest advances in climate science, . . .”.
I should point out that climate is the statistics of past weather, and is a matter of historical curiosity.
No science there. To make it even worse for imbeciles who believe in “climate science”, the IPCC itself states that it is not possible to predict future climate states – using real science, of course!
The IPCC accepts some reality, but of course you and your fellow climate crackpots do not.
Carry on with your denial. It wont change anything, you moron.
Whoops. Wrong place, but who cares?
We all care about you, Mike Flynn.
Have you found your Insulation Effect Theory yet?
Wistful Wee Willy,
Still obsessing about non-existent “Theories”, are you?
Is the “Insulation Effect Theory” like the “Greenhouse Theory”, or do morons like yourself not understand the scientific method?
There is no Insulation Effect Theory, you numbskull, nor is there a Greenhouse Theory.
That might explain why neither you, nor any other climate crank, can produce either one.
Carry on being retarded.
Wait, Mike – are you suggesting that you have no theory to replace the one about the greenhouse effect?
Aw diddums!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote
“Wait, Mike are you suggesting that you have no theory to replace the one about the greenhouse effect?”
What are you babbling about?
There is no Greenhouse Theory, you fool! That’s why you can’t produce it – it doesn’t exist!
[gleeful chortling]
So you say, Mike. So you say.
Here’s where you mention insultation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/canada-is-warming-at-only-1-2-the-rate-of-climate-model-simulations/#comment-599791
Did I said “insultation” again?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wearisome Wee Willy,
That would be imaginary insulation which Mike Flynn mentioned?
Like the imaginary “Theories” you keep on about.
Best keep on with whatever makes you ejaculate “Oh! Oh! Oh!”.
Have fun.
Everybody here knows that you are Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet.
Perhaps not Martin, but who cares about the always polite Martin.
Willard, please stop trolling.
N,
You wrote –
“I think you have been told this one zillion times.”
Either your thoughts are really confused, or you are intentionally lying. Which is it? A zillion times? Really? Moron.
You also wrote –
“Almost all of the visible light in the spectrum makes it to the surface through the atmosphere if there are no clouds.”
Who cares (apart from climate crackpots, of course)? Still no “energy accumulation”, is there? Otherwise, the surface would not cool at night, in winter, or since the surface was molten, would it?
Dribbling nonsense a zillion times will not turn fiction into fact. As Baron Fourier (considerably smarter than you) pointed out, during the night the Earth loses all of the heat it received during the day, plus a little of its primordial heat. Which is why the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, whether you like it or not.
It’s called “reality”, moron.
> Really?
Yes, Mike. A zillion times. Vintage 2015:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-193113
You might have missed it, for you did not reply with your usual joie de vivre.
Here’s your chance!
Wasted Wee Willy,
Most rational people understand the notional concept of numbers, and realise that a zillion nominally represents a number larger than one. You apparently do not, which indicates a severe degree of mental retardation, or delusion.
I see you have cut and pasted nonsense from some anonymous nitwit to Mike Flynn, for some bizarre reason clear only to yourself.
Your anonymous correspondent is obviously unaware of the phenomena called “cooling”.
Do you think he may be in a deep dungeon, or locked in an air conditioned madhouse, where he is unaware that the surface temperature drops at night?
I see you ignored my suggestion to acquaint yourself with the meaning of “relevance”, but I admit I expected no more from a delusional retard.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike
Most rational people understand what “warming” means.
Perhaps not Dragon cranks.
The commenter I quote is the one to whom you responded above.
Too bad, so sad.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You are off with the fairies again, calling me Mike Flynn, presumably because in your fantasy you imagine you are achieving something. What might that be, retard?
Indeed, rational people understand what warming means. Rational people also realise that climate crackpots are delusional, and are convinced that slow cooling is warming. It’s not, of course.
No rational person understands what a “Dragon crank” is, apart from it being a nonsense phrase invented by a moron trying to appear intelligent.
You may quote any delusional nitwit you like, as you often do.
You might be better off playing with yourself. You would have a reason for ejaculating “Oh! Oh! Oh!”, in that case.
Off you go, now. Give it a try.
> You may quote any delusional nitwit you like
My pleasure:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248272
You sure like to hump Gavin!
Wanking Wee Willy,
Gavin Schmidt seems quite capable of playing with his big red knob all by himself.
You wrote –
“You sure like to hump Gavin!”
What are you dribbling about? What form of mental retardation leads you to think that anybody except you and your ilk would be entranced by bearded balding bumbling buffoons pretending to be scientists?
You’re definitely a strange one, Wee Willy.
Over your decade of trolling this site, Mike, you must have mentioned Gavin at least a zillion times.
What a sad clown you make.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”Interestingly, the average age of the Lindzen 300 was over 71.
So, why are climate skeptics generally so old?
Is it because they went to school before the science of global warming was widely known?”
***
They went to school when real science was being taught, not the current consensus-based pseudo-science.
When Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, now the head of NASA GISS, was offered the opportunity to debate Lindzen, he ran for the hills. He did not have the guts to debate Lindzen one on one because he knew Lindzen would blow him out of the water.
The same happened to Bill Nye the science guy, when he was stupid enough to debate Lindzen. Nye made a complete fool of himself.
maguff…”Interestingly, the average age of the Lindzen “300” was over 71.
So, why are climate skeptics generally so old?
Is it because they went to school before the science of global warming was widely known?”
***
They went to school when real science was being taught, not the current consensus-based pseudo-science.
When Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, now the head of NASA GISS, was offered the opportunity to debate Lindzen, he ran for the hills. He did not have the guts to debate Lindzen one on one because he knew Lindzen would blow him out of the water.
The same happened to Bill Nye the science guy, when he was stupid enough to debate Lindzen. Nye made a complete fool of himself.
C’mon, Gordo.
It was Roy, not Dick.
And it was not an invitation, it was a setup.
Witless Wee Willy,
Does that make Gavin Schmidt (pretend “climate scientist”) exceptionally stupid for falsely claiming to be a “climate scientist”, or just for being a gullible sucker?
At least he may not be a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, like his erstwhile fellow-traveller Michael Mann.
C’mon, dummy, pull your head out of your ass, and accept reality – for a little while, at least.
No, Mike Flynn, it rather makes Gordo look stupid.
Why would Gavin waste his time with Roy if Roy can’t even produce his challenges openly and directly?
It’s like having to deal with sock puppets.
Oh, wait.
Winsome Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Why would Gavin waste his time with Roy if Roy can’t even produce his challenges openly and directly?”
Because Gavin Schmidt is a pretend “climate scientist”, perhaps?
Or just really, really, stupid.
I really don’t know, and I assume Mike Flynn doesn’t know why Gavin Schmidt pretends to be a “climate scientist”, either. Maybe you should ask Mike Flynn. Insisting that I am a figment of your imagination doesn’t seem to be achieving much, but of course, your fantasy may be telling you something else!
Gavin Schmidt seems to be a gutless pretender and a fraud (or maybe just a fool).
A perfect role model for climate cranks to follow – cannot stand up to scrutiny, and so needs dimwits like you to defend him.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike, let me get this straight –
Scientists should fall for Newscorps setups because they are idiots?
Hmmm.
Are you sure you thought your insult through?
Not that it matters, silly sock puppet!
“Gavin Schmidt seems to be a gutless pretender and a fraud”
Then why would Lindzen want to debate science with Schmidt?
Lindzen’s desire for a debate indicates that Lizden regards Schmidt as a a legitimate climate scientist.
Wrong again, Ent. Lindzen wants to debate so he cn correct Schmidt.
How?
Lindzden has had forty years to produce paradigm changing evidence to falsify AGW and climate change.
What has he produced?
Nothing.
Well, Dick isn’t shy of producing Old Man Shout at the Sky rants, which works until it does not:
http://archive.ipe.net.au/pdf/Climate%20Change%20Analysis%20-%20Lindzen,%20Happer,%20Cohen%20v%20Nordhaus%20-Apr%202012.pdf
Ent, the science that falsifies got GHE nonsense is out there. You avoid it. When you can’t avoid reality, you try to pervert it. That’s why you claim that passenger jets fly backwards. You’re trying to pervert reality to protect your cult. And, you won’t admit it.
That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
Eman,
YOu’re a funny little man. Berry has produced evidence that falsifies the IPCC’s carbon cycle. He’s falsified the CO2 increase from 1750 is due to man and is mostly from nature. Salby has falsified that CO2 causes the temperature increase and is in fact the other way around. You’re a funny little man.
> Berry has produced evidence that falsifies the IPCC’s carbon cycle.
I would not call a model evidence, Troglodyte.
“YOure a funny little man. Berry has produced evidence that falsifies the IPCCs carbon cycle. Hes falsified the CO2 increase from 1750 is due to man and is mostly from nature. ”
And you are a foolish sycophant. A few days analysis of Berry’s work was enough to show the Berry took a belief that the CO2 increase was natural and wrote a model which told him what he wanted to hear, rather than what actually happened.
Nope…it was Dick Lindzen and this was the format.
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/global-warming-not-crisis
When Schmidt had the opportunity to go one on one with Lindzen, he took a runner.
To a sceptic a scientist can’t win.
If he debates he is accused of compromising his scientific objectivity by becoming a political activist.
If he does not debate he has “done a runner”.
In practice public debate between scientists and sceptics tends to be unproductive.
The scientist debates like a scientist, with data; the sceptic debates like a politician with rhetoric.
Ent, “science” is reality. Your cult does NOT have any science. Your cult perverts reality and calls it science. Your cult claims passenger jets fly backwards, ice cubes can boil water, and CO2 can heat the planet.
You’re in a cult, you pervert reality, and you can’t learn. That makes you a braindead cult idiot.
Imagine that we debate on television.
I produce evidence that CO2 has increased due to human activity and has caused increasing temperatures.
You produce insults.
Why bother debating?
Ent, the ONLY real evidence you have is the 40 year warming trend indicated by UAH. And that trend may have peaked. Earth has trends. That’s science. But your claims, made-up stories and perversions of science ain’t science.
Identifying you as a “braindead cult idiot” is NOT an insult. It’s reality.
> Earth has trends. That’s science.
😀
Earth has cycles too. Thats science.
Nobody dispute seasons.
From the A in AGW one can derive that cycles ain’t enough.
You mean CAGW, otherwise it isn’t a problem.
CAGW is more of a contrarian meme, Richard:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Also mind the goalposts between “it’s all cycles” and “unless it’s catastrophic there’s nothing to worry about.”
Nothing is a straight line in climate, only in OLS.
It’s never too late to realize that reality and our representation of it are two different things, Richard.
C’mon, Gordo –
Click on Transcript:
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/global-warming-not-crisis
Gavin won that debate, BTW. Click on Results.
Willard, please stop trolling.
stephen…”Gordo,
25 Point Nazi Party Platform. Socialist or not?”
***
What they said and what they did were two different things. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia and Lenin declared all sorts of noble intentions. What they did had nothing to do with what they stated as intentions.
In this day and age we should be moving away from labels and looking at what people need. I find the labels left and right to be awfully misleading. They are anachronisms that mean little in modern democracies.
I associate the left with humanitarian. It’s a generalization, of course, since many people labeling themselves as left wingers, like eco-weenie alarmist are anything but humanitarian. Having said that, there are governments calling themselves social democrats who are nothing more than politically-correct weenies.
How about you, do you care about people, especially those who are hurting? The question is meant more rhetorically than one for which I seek an answer.
The Nazis cared about no one, nor did Stalin.
Gordon, it may be different in Canada, but in the US, Leftism is associated with big government and reduction of individual freedom. Leftism is anti-Constitution. That’s why they want Leftist judges on the Supreme Court so they can interpret the Constitution to their benefit.
Here too, they preach “humanitarian concerns”, but that just means you don’t have a choice as to what they believe is good for you.
Canada: Left Wing Fascists. Trump has it right.
ken…here in BC we have always been split between left and extreme right. Right now, we are in a lull with a wannabee left-wing government and, typically, they are doing their best to change that back to the right-wingers.
Horgan and the NDP have bought into the climate action plans laid down by the liars at the IPCC. They are planning to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, a sure fire way to get yourself voted out of office.
They have backed the status quo on covid, alienating close to a million unvaccinated people.
The left-wing in BC has been terminally-naive and I don’t see any improvement in the offing.
Ken
You can’t imagine how disgusting and incompetent your words are.
Left wing Fascists were, for example
– Pol Pot, Cambodia
– Abel Guzman, Peru
or are, for example
– Bashar al-Assad, Syria
That you identify the Canadian government in words with such bloodthirsty people, shows us what kind of person you are: a Right wing Neofascist, exactly like Marjorie Taylor Green, Madison Cawthorn and all people who gullibly believe in their absolute trash.
I do exactly identify the Canadian government in words with such bloodthirsty people. Because its coming.
We haven’t gotten to the atrocities level yet but we are well past the point of ‘unvaccinated may not sit here’. The subsequent erosion of rights is ongoing.
See the video:
Holocaust Survivor’s Warning About ‘Othering’ Will Give You Chills | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report. The point is made that Auschwitz didn’t just happen; it was a long step-by-step erosion of rights, similar to what is experienced now in Canada.
> We haven’t gotten to the atrocities level yet but
C’mon, Kennui.
Willard,
Read International Covenant for Civic and Political Rights.
Articles 1 7 9 21 in particular pertain.
Criminal Code Canada ‘Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act’.
-Taking away people’s ability to earn a living by shutting their business
-Crushing the right of legitimate peaceful protest using violent thugs in police uniforms
-Freezing people’s bank accounts because you don’t like their politics
-Unreasonable detention for political reasons. See Tamara Lich and Pat King for some discussion
Unreasonable lockdown of healthy people in their home for days weeks and months
-Unproven medical treatments such as mask mandates
-Coercing or otherwise forcing people to take an experimental medical treatment (COVID Vaccine aka clot shot)
-Firing people on the basis of vaccine status
-Right to travel is disallowed on the basis of vaccine status
-Not allowing people to leave the country on the basis of vaccine status
These are crimes against humanity as defined in ICCPR
This is before we get into discussion about Canada’s Charter Rights and Freedoms which the courts are now telling us only apply when the government wants them to apply. Our Constitution isn’t worth the paper its printed on.
Have a look at Struggle Sessions. Have a look at how Germany got to the point of exterminating people in concentration camps. Have a look at how Stalin initiated his great purge. Have a look at how Pol Pot got people to go along with his Agrarian Reform program. Like I said, we are way past the leading indicators of atrocities to come.
Trudeau admires authoritarian regimes like China. He has stated he wants to use the pandemic as an excuse to trigger a great reset. A ‘great reset’ where ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ cannot happen without atrocities.
This is batshit crazy stuff, Kennui.
Get a grip.
The only thing that is bat-shit crazy is the lie that Wuhan flu comes from bat soup.
I thought it was a figure of speech.
clint…the reason I liked Trump is that he was politically-incorrect. He called NATO right, most countries in it are not paying their fair share, including Canada.
I used to support the Democrats in the US till the Clinton scandal, then Obama, who I regarded as nothing more than a fast talker. The current Dems have completely lost touch with reality.
I felt elated when Hillary Clinton was defeated, mainly because of the ignorance she expressed toward John Christy of UAH at a senate hearing. John is a good person and pays his own way to such hearings. She was absolutely ignorant to him and having her dealing with Putin scared me..
I am posting a good, but long, video by a US university professor talking about the Ukraine situation in 2015. He explains the situation leading up to 2015 and prety well called the results we are seeing today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&ab_channel=TheUniversityofChicago
> Leftism is associated with big government and reduction of individual freedom.
A word from our leftist sponsor:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/24/us-conservatives-campaign-books-ban-schools
Critical Race Theory has no place in our schools primary or secondary. They need to stick to three R’s.
Right, right and right.
[PUP] Leftism is associated with big government and reduction of individual freedom.
[TROGLODYTE] Critical Race Theory has no place in our schools primary or secondary.
[HALL MONITOR] Right, right and right.
Right, right and right wing.
“I associate the left with humanitarian. It’s a generalization, of course, since many people labeling themselves as left wingers, like eco-weenie alarmist are anything but humanitarian. Having said that, there are governments calling themselves social democrats who are nothing more than politically-correct weenies.”
I associate the left with anti-human.
I think of politics as an industrialized process- and I mean industrialized in a bad sense, a mechanical process done to humans.
Propaganda is de-humanizing.
Humanitarians are those left, picking the pieces, from wholesale destruction from lefty politicians.
The left wants to mobilize people.
Which doesn’t mean that people should have cars.
People can’t even have horses.
Nope, it’s having people carry them.
Lefties are politics, and hard make the case that they improved politics in any way.
Liberals have improved politics.
American Left, killed the American liberals.
What comes my mind in terms of politician being humanitarian is
Jimmy Carter.
The third worst US president. I didn’t know what make of that, maybe, I am just victim of good PR.
But in terms of effective, it seems Ford by making cars for “middle class” seems pretty effective.
But in terms countries, US seems a powerhouse in terms humanitarian effort- and American left hates the US.
One could say you have to destroy to create, but the left only seems to create misery.
They are immoral.
But let’s make a list of the greatest humanitarians.
Why not google it:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/greatest-humanitarians
Though it’s probably the not famous and it’s the many.
It seems it’s the teach them how fish, rather than giving them fish.
Good teachers. Boy scouts. And maybe US military.
Though emergency rescue should also be big on the list.
So Doctors without borders.
You know something like Gofundme {which is a hot mess- so NOT Gofundme] which can organize very fast could be created for emergency rescue humanitarian type things.
But doesn’t seem to me, the Left is helping in any amount and in any fashion. About the complete opposite, it seems.
Proper control of US southern border would be humanitarian.
Harris could been been hero, instead, all she has, is that dreadful giggle/laugh. She does represent the Left.
The left-right spectrum exists nowhere in the real world.
You know what does?
The cost of gas, groceries and homes.
“The cost of gas, groceries and homes” is too expensive, because
of the left-right spectrum that does exist.
Who doesn’t want the price of gas, groceries, and homes too be
cheaper.
Well obviously those who are selling them- those that make and get it to customer.
Now, gas, groceries, and homes are somewhat cheap, but it seems to me they could be a lot cheaper and politics or “the left-right spectrum” causes them to be more expensive.
And I think ocean settlements can be low income housing.
And maybe living in Venus orbit could be lower cost than living on
Earth- even cheaper than ocean settlements.
Though life on the beach might nicer in some ways.
What is far more important is cheaper and better education.
Cheaper than “free education”.
Free education is very expensive.
But perhaps you can’t imagine things cheaper than “free” so
let’s just say, education could be better.
Monday Bindiclown forecasting fail update
When Bindiclown realized his epic second year La Nina forecasting fail he tried to spin it into some kind of dispute how strong it was going to be , something that nobody argued about ,
Only problem , he declared La Nina to be over and tried to compare it to the previous ones long before it ended
he is in for some surprise again,
https://i.postimg.cc/nryRRcvm/19nino34-Mon.gif
the funniest thing is he keeps trying to pass himself as some ENSO expert forecaster
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747886
Unfortunalely, this century’s greatest forecast genius Eben was not at all able to predict what happens these days at the South Pole:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/2797774b-634e-457e-a12d-268347fbab02/9e7cb7928abed6f44d4f91feea8ad9b2/8695b0bf-bf53-4678-b4a8-2eb5cd0e0dee.png
leading to temperatures up to 30 C above the 1981-2010 average in Vostok, Dumont d’Urville, Concordia and many others.
*
And now, I await the usual Warmistas blaming that unexpected warming on Climate change :- )
Excellent 2015 video by a US professor Mearscheimer who explains the cause of unrest in the Ukraine and pretty well nailed it with his prediction of the future. The question and answer period at the end is worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&ab_channel=TheUniversityofChicago
Who wants to live in a buffer State?
US involvement in Europe or NATO was to stop Europe from getting
into wars, and US instead is causing wars.
I guess North Korean is a buffer state. North Korea is a whorehouse
for China. It seems buffer States are suppose to be hellscape of depravity, a place where people have no human rights.
A comment (in its entirety) from Whacky Wee Willy Willard –
“Pup does not always restrict the amount of radiation in certain wavelengths, but when he does it does not lower the amount that flees into space.
Dragon cranks are that good.”
Wee Willy is confused. He is obviously talking in tongues, having become confused about which sect he is trying to promote!
Or maybe he has got his gibberish generator running again.
Who knows?
Mike, Mike,
What I said is not that hard to understand once you read the exchange.
Have you?
No?
That’s what I thought.
Ta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nuclear Fusion Illusion. Is it time to park the pipe dream?
https://youtu.be/5PLP807Ja00
Just have a think.
The Sun is a big enough fusion powerplant.
All we have to do is lower the launch cost from Earth.
NASA told itself it wanted to lower launch cost, and did the opposite.
As general rule, this is what all bureaucracies do, suppose to do
X and do the opposite of X.
The bureaucracies “researching” fusion, are never going to finish
their job.
Someone else will have to do it.
gbaikie…”The Sun is a big enough fusion powerplant”.
***
Where’s the proof that the source of solar energy is a fusion of hydrogen atoms to helium? Where did the hydrogen come from in the first place and what ignites it?
Thus far, no one has been able to prove this relationship between hydrogen and helium. Methinks it’s just more thought-experiment bs like the Big Bang. That’s what we need, the sci-fi mysterious conversion of empty space to all the mass in the universe.
Do you agree the Sun is hot.
Has been hot for long time and a good guess it will hot for millions years?
What do think about nuclear bombs- specifically Hydrogen bombs-
“weapon whose enormous explosive power results from an uncontrolled self-sustaining chain reaction in which isotopes of hydrogen combine under extremely high temperatures to form helium in a process known as nuclear fusion.”
Oh, great!! Now Maguff is pushing the views of Dave Borlace on nuclear fusion. A guy who is studying for a technology degree from the Open University.
The presumption is that fusing lighter atoms to form heavier atoms will release more power, in fact, an amplification of power. Sounds like a contradiction of the conservation of energy principal and the results thus far seem to prove that. You have to input far more energy than you get out.
Even if we get the 1.1 advantage Dave talks about, where do we get the power input to convert it to a 1.1 output, and what’s the point?
One has to wonder about the point of this. If we use free water falling out of a dam at height, and the weight of that water can be harnessed to produce electricity, then we have a win-win situation. When water is not available, then fossil fuels are used, we burn fossil fuels to power a generator.
To a limited extent, we can store electricity in batteries and use them to power vehicles. I’d like to see them do that to power an airliner or a ship. Good luck.
The point is, we have no replacement for fossil fuels yet we have idiots running around waving their arms and screaming that we need to abandon fossil fuels. In the video supplied by Maguff, someone with no experience in nuclear fusion is telling us it is a pipedream. So, we are left with nuclear fission.
Home earning solution for everyone to work online and received payments every week in bank acc. earns every day more than $500 and received payments every week directly in bank acc. My last months earning was $16390 and all i do is work for maximum 2 hrs a day on my pc. easy work and regular earning are awesome with this job.
More info________________ http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
Most climate scientists no longer regard it as worthwhile to debate with climate change sceptics for the same reason that no-one now debates with Flat-Earthers.
Why legitimise the sceptics’ pseudoscience?
Your cult won’t debate without distorting reality. You see that right here on this blog. Your cult MUST distort reality because science is against the nonsense.
Passenger jets don’t fly backwards, ice cubes don’t boil water, and CO2 doesn’t heat the planet.
The only ones who are worth debating are those who do the Pole Dance Experiment, Pup.
“But Debate Me” is overly silly:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
Science is a race, not a boxing match.
“Passenger jets dont fly backwards”
Relative to the air or relative to the Sun? Context matters.
“Passenger jets don’t fly backwards”
Relative to the ground, RLH. Clint R is proven wrong again by evidence. This plane is a jet & it has a passenger thus evidence shows passenger jets can fly backwards relative to the ground (flag pole):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmbwyGkNJQ
Don’t ever believe what Clint R writes is true unless Clint offers proper experimental evidence; Clint is just here for entertainment not proper physics.
However, Clint R did correctly explain DREMT is wrong that the moon issue transcends frames of reference so Clint has been helpful on physics issues at least once.
Braindead4 knows so little about science he’s found a video he doesn’t understand. He’s so ignorant he believes a Harrier jet is “proof” that passenger jets fly backwards.
Harrier jets are designed so that the thrust from their jet engines can be redirected. There is NO violation of the laws of physics.
Passenger jets have no such capability. Passenger jets can NOT fly backwards. The cult idiots MUST attempt to pervert reality to protect their false religions.
(Braindead4 is also the one that claims ice cubes can boil water.)
And just for the record, DREMT and I have no disagreement about Moon’s lack of rotation. We both clearly realize Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.
Ball4 continues to make stuff up because, like the rest of his cult, he has NOTHING.
“Passenger jets have no such capability.”
The Harrier which can fly backwards is a passenger jet Clint as I already explained. Also, thanks Clint for explaining to DREMT why the moon does NOT rotate on its axis when observed in Clint’s own words from “inside of it orbit”.
I know, Clint R. Ball4 is the most dishonest commenter there has ever been at this blog. He really is a desperate and pathetic liar.
Are ya winning, Kiddo?
When your opponents sink to the depths that Ball4 goes to? Of course.
That’s how we recognize trolling, Kiddo.
Please stop.
Ball4 is the troll.
Relative to the Sun, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis. Relative to the Earth, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis. Relative to the inertial reference frame, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis. Relative to the accelerated frame, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis.
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
You are as wrong as you usually are.
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
You are still wrong.
#2
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
Yes RLH. Clint R provided the explanation that location of observation explains why DREMT is wrong about the moon issue transcending frames of reference since:
Relative to the Sun, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis as observed from Earth (“inside if it orbit” per Clint R). Relative to the Earth, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis as observed from Earth. Relative to the inertial reference frame, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis as observed from Earth. Relative to the accelerated frame, the moon rotates about the Earth, not on its own axis as observed from Earth.
Evidence: earthshine is incident on only one side of our moon, sunshine is incident on all sides of our moon.
#2. You are still wrong.
#3
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#3. You are still wrong.
#4
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#4. You are still wrong.
Begging for comments won’t help.
#5
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#5. You are still wrong.
#6
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#6. You are still wrong.
P.S. 0 comments.
#7
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#7. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
#8
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#8. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
#9
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
#10
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+1. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
#11
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+2. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
P.S. I can do this all day.
#12
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+3. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
P.S. I can do this all day.
#13
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+4. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
P.S. I can do this all day.
#14
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+5. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
P.S. I can do this all day.
#15
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
#n+6. You are still wrong.
And desperate that someone (anyone) will give your trash a comment.
P.S. I can do this all day.
#16
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
> the moon
The Moon.
Look who is trying to start the Moon Dragon crank food fight once again.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. I want the fight off Dr Roy’s for good, and into the comments at YouTube. Click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
> That couldn’t be further from the truth.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1217464
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216617
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1204015
And passim.
I want the fight off Dr Roy’s for good, and into the comments at YouTube. Click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
There is no idea further from the truth than
My wish to discuss this issue
No point in discussing it further
Here
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
There
I will be back tomorrow to tell you
That there is no idea further from
The truth than my wish to discuss the issue
Here
It’s all your fault
You make me do it
Some day you will let me know what exactly it is I did that upset you so much.
Until then, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
Willard, there is no point in lyric commenter DREMT remaining here after being explained to be wrong on lunar motion by even Clint R so best to let DREMT and puppets take the bus out of town somewhere else like Carol Brown and others did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cGoDns8wTA
There is no idea further from the truth than
My wish to discuss this issue
No point in discussing it further
Here
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
There
I will be back tomorrow
To remind everyone that
I do not wish to discuss
Furthermore the issue
Here
It’s all your fault
You make me do it
Some day you will let me know why
I upset you so much
Meanwhile
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
W
You are such a kidder.
DREMT is SO desperate to get comments on his YouTube video that he begs on here for people to do so.
So far, 0 Comments
Just trying to get the discussion off Dr Roy’s, but so far nobody is interested. They would rather all continue to discuss it here, whilst complaining that the discussion is happening at all. You’re an odd bunch…impossible to satisfy. Willard is offended by anything I say on any subject, no matter what I say he has a problem with it, Ball4 simply lies through his teeth about past discussions with no shame whatsoever, and RLH always gets the wrong end of the stick on everything.
> offended by anything
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
…no matter what I say he has a problem with it…
DREMT is SO desperate to get comments on his YouTube video that he begs on here for people to do so.
There is no idea further from the truth than
My wish to discuss this issue
No point in discussing it further
Here
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
There
I will be back tomorrow
To remind everyone that
I do not wish to discuss
Furthermore the issue
Here
Some day you will let me know why
I upset you so much, are offended
Or have a problem with when
I probe your mind like this
Meanwhile
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
Willard – you really do struggle to convey a coherent point. I have no idea what your problem is.
RLH – comment, don’t comment, I couldn’t care less. I just thought that maybe people wanted the discussion about the moon to take place somewhere else. If they want it to continue here then fine, continue it here. You can start by actually explaining what you think is wrong with anything I’ve said.
There is no idea further from
The truth than my wish
To discuss this issue, no
Point in discussing it further
Here
Please click on my name – you
Are all welcome to comment over
There
I will soon come back
To remind everyone that
I do not wish to discuss
Furthermore the issue
Here
You really do struggle to convey a coherent point.
Some day you will let me know why I upset you
so much when I probe your mind like this.
I have absolutely no idea what your problem is.
Meanwhile
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep, Willard has certainly summarized DREMTs extreme hypocrisy and ridiculousness at work here.
Willard says:
“DREMT is a bad person for having an opinion with which I disagree and for trying to get the discussion about that topic, that irritates me so much, off this blog”.
“That couldnt be further from the truth. I want the fight off Dr Roys for good”
But ‘I also must have the last word here’
Thus the pickle.
Willard says: “I will criticize others for always wanting the last word whilst I always demonstrate how much I want the last word myself. Then I will call those others hypocrites”.
So sez the dude who’s bad behaviors, like Last Wording, are always somebody else’s fault.
To whom it may concern:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
In the comments at that video I will be happy to debate anybody.
Anybody. Even those who I no longer respond to on this website.
Enough with the insults.
Where’s your evidence? You talk endlessly of science and reality but can produce neither.
Just in case of misunderstandings, my 10.56 comment was addressed to Clint R and not DREMT.
Ent, the evidence is in almost every one of your comments. You reject reality. You make up nonsense. You have no respect for truth. You can’t learn.
You lost the argument about Moon, long ago. Yet you still hold on to your nonsense that passenger jets fly backwards. You reject reality. You have no respect for truth. It’s all about your cult.
It’s not an insult to identify you as a braindead cult idiot. That’s reality.
“the evidence is in ”
It is, and it says that our CO2 emissions are causing the observed warming.
You keep talking abou the sceptics’ evidence, but somehow it never appears.
You can’t make the sammich. You have no ham, no rye and no mayo.
Ent, that’s just one more comment where you reject reality.
If you were able to falsify my world view you would not need to insult me.
Since you continue to insult me I, and any lurkers watching, can only conclude that you cannot falsify the AGW hypothesis.
Ent, your rejection of reality falsifies your world view. You can’t face reality, that means you know you’re wrong. Your mission then requires you to attempt to pervert reality to fit your world view. But, reality always wins.
And, you end up insulting yourself by being a braindead cult idiot.
Here’s the only reality you deserve, Pup:
https://youtu.be/tzYPr9w22VU
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> the science that falsifies got GHE nonsense is out there.
https://giphy.com/gifs/x-files-the-truth-is-out-there-RU4272BITNQ2c
WUWT Contest Winner, General Audience, 1st Place – “Is There Really a Climate Crisis?”
“My discussion will be centered on two ideas. First, although global temperatures have risen since the turn of the 20th century, the current temperature regime does not represent anything unusual compared to the past. Second, despite media reports to the contrary, catastrophically rising temperatures in the coming decades are not likely to occur.”
https://tinyurl.com/2p8s6sj7
It’s as though there are all comparing notes. Or they are merely
educated.
It seems what need to do, is avoid the cold periods.
It should be noted that the Cargo Cult even says, global warming
causes cooling.
So, everyone is right. But why and how to “fix it”.
As I have posted before, we can fairly cheaply stop the next glaciation period.
Only the dumbest idiots on this blog will identify me with what you all the time name ‘Cargo Cult’.
Nevertheless, let me tell you that already over 20 years ago, US oceanographers warned us all about what happens when the Northern Atlantic ocean is increasingly fed with salt-free water originating from sea ice and land ice sheet melting.
They identified similar water pattern sequences in ice cores which were followed by drastic cooling periods.
At the time reading this in documents found using Google, I was naïve enough to believe that the information found on the web would stay with me forever.
Hence, no link. Sorry.
Bindidon, are you leaving the cult?
If so, that’s good to hear. And if you can avoid the cult, maybe you can start accepting reality?
“But Religion” might not be the best Bingo square for those who keep pushing for Dragon ID crap, Pup.
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
Yes worthless Willard, your false religion is a problem for you.
Everything is like a religion, Pup.
Except religion, which is like a language game.
Plus bête tu meurs.
Oh I see: I wrote too many comments at WUWT, where the blog publishes the comment on was replying to.
The target of the comment above
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1217761
was of course this blog’s dumbest denier-of-everything.
Freshwater is easier to freeze.
I don’t accuse anyone one of having a religion.
But I would say something like, the Pope does really seem
like a Catholic.
So, one could “run” the climate cargo cult and not even believe it.
And you could have someone who not Catholic, talk about the Pope
🙂
IIRC the bulk flow through the Greenland Sea portion of the thermohaline circulation has decreased by 11% since 2011.
Living in Northern Ireland at 54N I experience a climate considerably warmer than most land at my latitude, mainly thanks to the Gulf Stream. The current trend here is towards warmer wetter Winters and warmer drier Summers.
I declare an interest. If the Gulf Stream continues to decrease we may end up more like Alaska.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/why-is-the-gulf-stream-slowing-down-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-future-of-the-uks-climate/
“The Gulf Stream-European climate myth
The panic is based on a long held belief of the British, other Europeans, Americans and, indeed, much of the world’s population that the northward heat transport by the Gulf Stream is the reason why western Europe enjoys a mild climate, much milder than, say, that of eastern North America. This idea was actually originated by an American military man, Matthew Fontaine Maury, in the mid nineteenth century and has stuck since despite the absence of proof”
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
“We now know this is a myth, the climatological equivalent of an urban legend. In a detailed study published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society in 2002, we demonstrated the limited role that ocean heat transport plays in determining regional climates around the Atlantic Ocean”
In Ireland we have just had a 16C day.
Across the Atlantic at the same latitude polar bears hunt on the ice of Hudson’s Bay.
If the temperature difference is not due to the Gulf Stream I would welcome an alternative explaination.
Seager’s contention, which seems reasonable enough, is that the temperature differential between North Western Europe (15-20 C) is mostly down to the prevailing wind coming off the ocean which is an enormous heat reservoir. The effect of the Gulf Stream current is to raise the absolute temperature on both sides of the Atlantic by a few degrees over what would be seen with a hypothetical current-free ocean.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/PlantsmanSeager2008.pdf
Thanks to Mark B for finding a more human readable version of what I showed.
https://imgur.com/a/vaPbcQL
Mark B: Your link only works if I copy it first. Just using it gives a page error.
Try this
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/PlantsmanSeager2008.pdf
A Google search for “richard seager gulf stream”:
https://www.google.de/search?q=richard+seager+gulf+stream&newwindow=1&hl=de&source=hp&ei=ltk4YvK_L5qXxc8Pyby4oA4&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYjjnpsRlMYX-M7HD8wRRkNs0UXOCL2uA&oq=Richard+Seager+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYBTIECAAQEzIECAAQEzIECAAQEzIECAAQEzIECAAQEzIICAAQFhAeEBMyCAgAEBYQHhATMggIABAWEB4QEzIICAAQFhAeEBMyCAgAEBYQHhATUNQMWOoZYMhPaAFwAHgAgAGRAYgBlAKSAQMwLjKYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQA&sclient=gws-wiz
give the impression that your ‘knowledge’ sounds perfectly like Gordon Robertson about
– no lunar spin
– no viruses
– no time dilation
etc etc etc
Which basically says that what I said is true. It is the prevailing SW wind that keeps Europe warm because it blows over the ocean. Sure that water is slightly warmer than others because of the ‘Gulf Stream’ but that does not account for the differences in temperatures, East Coast of America to the UK as Richard Seager observed.
Oh, and the Rocky Mountains help too.
https://imgur.com/a/vaPbcQL
I have never claimed there are no viruses I have only claimed, based on a revelation by a viral expert, Dr. Stefan Lanka, that none of the popular viruses, including covid and HIV have ever been physically isolated.
I guess you were out of the country in 2016 when Dr. Lanka proved to a German high court that no scientific evidence is available to corroborate that the measles virus was isolated. The court had appointed their own expert and he agreed with Lanka, based on the scientific papers presented by the plaintiff. BTW, those papers are all there are, and one of them represents a good chunk of modern viral theory.
Lanka has offered 100,000 Euros to anyone who can prove the measles virus exists, based on the current literature. That’s what I call putting your money where your mouth is.
That there is no such thing as time dilation is a no-brainer. Time was officially defined circa 1929 as the period of one rotation of the Earth. Since the Earth’s rotation is basically constant, that means time has to be a constant, ergo it cannot arbitrarily change in the length of an interval, like a second. It also means that Newton was correct when he claimed time is absolute.
Anyone who thinks time has an alternate existence than this definition needs to find that existence and reveal it. Einstein, in his thought-experiment based mind seemed to think so but I am reasoning that he simply befuddled himself by applying kinematics involving accelerations only while ignoring the force and mass that produces such acceleration.
You forgot to add that I think evolution is pseudo-science, actually, more like sci-fi.
Lanka is a liar who refused to accept all the papers that showed he was wrong because all of his criteria were not in any single paper.
When, in time, did Had, GISS, Berkley, etc. switch from using Tmiddle, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, to Tmean (a true arithmetic mean of all of the temperatures)?
Satellite series are all composed of true averages (means) for all of their figures.
” Satellite series are all composed of true averages (means) for all of their figures. ”
Which satellite series do you mean, elementary school teacher?
UAH ???
Tell us everything! We are all ‘amazed’.
All satellite series are composed of means/averages of individual scans into 2.5 degree cells ‘world wide’. UAH and RSS are for sure.
Unless you know some magic that is done instead.
“For each of these four atmospheric layers, there are monthly 2.5 deg. latitude and longitude absolute and anomaly Tbs produced. Global and regional averages are subsequently calculated and provided within the netCDF data file”
https://imgur.com/a/Ec9aXn2
https://imgur.com/a/RnWZnbj
from
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Mean_Layer_Temperature-UCAR(Upper_Trop_&_Lower_Strat)/AlgorithmDescription_01B-14.pdf
Sorry – I meant
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/sds/cdr/CDRs/Mean_Layer_Temperatures_UAH/AlgorithmDescription_01B-10.pdf
RLH, You are getting there. Now tell us how UAH went from a 1×1 degree grid for the MSU data to a 2.5×2.5 degree grid. That’s a non-integer transformation, which would have been simple to do for a 1×1 grid to a 2×2 or a 1.25×1.25 to 2.5 grid. and, given the greater resolution of the AMSU’s, why didn’t they simply continue with the 1×1 deg grids, with the resulting greater resolution? Don’t forget that they previously “smeared” the MSU data to fill in the grid locations that resulted in the 1×1 degree grids.
Oh, don’t forget, there’s no mention of the method they used to produce their LT equation, first shown in section 2.1 on page 7. Where did that come from? What assumptions did they make to arrive at that equation?
Crickets.
ES: Resampling to different grids is done all the time in computing science. It does not result in any gross errors.
“The computation of a new multi-channel averaging kernel for the LT product uses a linear combination of the MT, TP, and LS channels to maximize sensitivity to the lower troposphere while minimizing sensitivity to the lower stratosphere. The result is shown in Fig. 2, for both the MSU and AMSU LT averaging kernels. The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2, 3, 4 or AMSU5, 7, 9 (MT, TP, LS):
LT = a1MT + a2TP + a3LS
where a1=1.538, a2=-0.548, and a3=0.01.
As seen in Fig. 2, the new multi-channel LT weighting function is located somewhat higher in altitude than the old LT weighting function, which could make it sensitive to cooling in the lower stratosphere that might potentially mask global warming effects (Fu et al., 2004). To quantify this, we applied the old and new LT weighting functions in Fig. 2 to the vertical profile of average global temperature trends from two radiosonde datasets, RATPAC (Free & Seidel, 2005) and RAOBCORE (Haimberger, 2007), also shown in Fig. 2. The resulting net difference between old and new LT trends is small, less than 0.01 C/decade. This is because the slightly greater sensitivity of the new LT weighting profile to stratospheric cooling is cancelled by greater sensitivity to enhanced upper tropospheric warming, compared to the old LT profile.”
Do you have any specific questions or is it you just do not understand what was done and why?
“Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset includes substantial changes in methods and procedures from previous versions. Compared to Version 5.6, the global-average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) trend is reduced from +0.14 C/decade to +0.11 C/decade (Jan. 1979 through Dec. 2015), within our previously stated margin of error (+/- 0.04 C/decade).
We now have more confidence in the geographic distribution of the LT trends, which have inherently higher spatial resolution than previous versions, owing to a new method for computing LT that uses only data from a given gridpoint to compute LT at that gridpoint. While the new LT weighting function has slightly more sensitivity to lower stratospheric cooling, it is even more sensitive to enhanced upper tropospheric warming, which according to radiosonde based calculations cancels out the stratospheric cooling effect on the final trend.
We have described the major changes in processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging which uses all of the footprint data at the various view angles, yet eliminates the need for limb correction; a new multi-channel (rather than multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product which requires an additional
tropopause (TP) channel to be used; and a new empirical method for diurnal drift correction.”
RLH wrote:
Do I need to repeat myself again? Look at the weights:
a1=1.538, a2=-0.548, and a3=0.01
Where do those weights for MT, TP and LS come from and what assumptions were used to produce those values?
They also wrote:
As described above, by the time they calculate the monthly gridpoint averages, they have already “binned” the data from each scan position in each swath into stacked grids with the grid location corresponding to the location of that scan’s “foot print”, which is not at the nadir gridpoint. There’s no guarantee that the monthly grid point calculations using the polynomial fit represent reality, given that the layers for each grid point are not “aligned” in time.
I’m trying to imagine how UAH’s grid data would look like if they had any access to any ‘true average’.
OMG.
UAH doesn’t even manage to publish daily data, but… the elementary school teacher tells us about ‘true averages’.
This, of course, is definitive proof that he never processed any UAH data (other than his ridiculous “low-pass” additions to what the UAH team is providing us with anyway).
Unless you believe they just ‘imagine’ their figures, please tell me how they get from multiple scans each day into 2.5 degree cells?
https://imgur.com/a/Ec9aXn2
https://imgur.com/a/RnWZnbj
RLH, Read their 2017 paper. They build a set of stacked grids, one layer for each scan position. There’s a bunch of scan positions for which no data is entered for any particular day. As a result, they don’t end up with complete coverage at each level on a daily basis, they must “bin” the data from each daily scan and then do their calculations at the end of the month with the resulting averages.
When they do their monthly calculation, they take vertical “slices” thru the stacked grids at each grid point, then fit a polynomial and select a “temperature” using a fixed scan position on the polynomial curve, giving the “monthly average” at that grid point, etc. Funny thing, the values in the stack above any grid point are all from different days in the month compared with the lowest point. Think about it.
Do you really want to bet the planet on this stuff?
I understand the limitations with the scanning of areas and have their most recent paper for v6 to hand dated November 2016 titled
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products:
Methodology and Results.
I think you do not have their new method for computing LT involving a multi-channel retrieval correct.
“the resulting average calculation for a gridpoint location is based only upon data from that location”
RLH, Yes, that’s what they wrote in that piece, but the actual data is computed from the stacked grids with one level for each scan position. Since the scan positions are offset from nadir, the off nadir data is binned into grid locations corresponding to the appropriate ground position, not nadir.
Read their 2017 paper.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
Dr. Spencer, I’ve made the case for plotting your South Pole Data as a graphic. The reason is that it isolates the impact of CO2 on temperature by removing the UHI, Albedo, and Water Vapor. RSS did that and it highlights my point. Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in the South Pole? Nope. CLearly, something other than CO2 is causing the warming elsewhere in the world. Would you consider borrowing the Code RSS is using for their graphing? I hate having to use the RSS Site to make my points.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Here is the S Pole Graphic.
https://images.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Polar_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png
I’d love to hear all the “experts” explain why CO2 increased by 25-30%, and Antarctica didn’t warm at all.
Roy does Antarctica too
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
RLH, how much more evidence do you need than multiple data sets of the same observation showing that there is no warming with an increase in CO2? What kind of science doesn’t control for exogenous variables? Both UAH and RSS show no warming in Antarctica with an increase in CO2. Dr. Spencer should feature the Antarctica Chart, and then layer in Exogenous factors to explain the warming. CO2 isn’t the cause of the warming.
CO2isLife, Vostok Station elevation in Antarctica is reported above 11,400′ and Amundsen-Scott above 9,300′. A lower atm. pressure means CO2 radiative properties as a component of the GHE are lower. In the global stratosphere, added ppm CO2 reduces the stratosphere global median temperature.
You will want to verify & then take that information into consideration.
Added atm. ppm CO2 isn’t the overall, or even measured as the main, cause of surface warming after year 2000 in the satellite and ARGO era.
“On average, about 40 percent of the Arctic Ocean’s winter ice cover remains at the summer minimum, whereas in the Southern Ocean only about 15 percent does. Because so little Antarctic ice persists through the summer, the majority of Antarctica’s sea ice is only one winter old at most. As a result, Antarctic sea ice is relatively thin, often 1 meter (about 3 feet) or less. (In the Arctic, multiyear ice that survives at least one summer is generally 3 to 4 meters thick, and even seasonal ice that formed since the previous summer can often reach about 2 meters in thickness.)”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
“Sea ice waxes and wanes with the seasons, but minimum and maximum summer and winter extents vary. Compared to the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice shows lower variability in summer, and higher variability in winter. These changes largely result from the geographic differences mentioned above, namely Antarctic sea ice’s distance from the pole (sea ice can melt back all the way to the coast in summer, making for less year-to-year variability) and unconstrained growth potential in winter. Weather events often drive variability, but have different effects in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Weather exerts a greater influence on the Arctic minimum, and the Antarctic maximum.”
What I say: Antarctica cooled first. And it will be the last to warm.
Why did Antarctica cool first. Land cools and ocean warms.
One would expect land at the poles to cool the most.
The tropical ocean is a heat engine that warms the world.
Or it warms Antarctica.
One might say doesn’t do a great job as Antarctica is pretty cold.
The tropical ocean regulates it’s temperature.
The tropical ocean gets the most sunlight, it’s got the most water vapor {greenhouse gas}. If tropics is not heating as much in the rest of the world, the tropical ocean can dump lot of heat into space.
Or if tropical for whatever reason is heating the rest of world “more”, the tropical ocean dumps less heat into space.
I could make simple, tropical ocean is constant and so is Antarctica. But one might ask what going to make Antarctica colder.
Or I would say the tropical ocean is always constant [tens and hundreds of millions of years], but Antarctica apparently can get much colder.
It doesn’t seem the coldest Antarctica winter “can” get colder.
🙂
Or what seems possible is Antarctica summer “can” get colder.
What be like if the winter polar sea, doesn’t melt back to the continental land region in the Summer- other than emperor penguin
needing to nest somewhere else.
It seems Antarctica would get more uniformly cold. And average winter in all of Antarctica being colder.
What determines global average surface air temperature is the average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C.
And if ocean temperature was about 3 C, then Antarctica winter ice should not melt back to Antarctic land and polar sea ice would get thicker.
And what happens if ocean is 4 C? It seems one have less winter polar sea ice.
And look at northern polar region.
3 C ocean will result in all arctic ocean being frozen all the time. And winter artic polar sea getting down England.
And tropical ocean probably doesn’t dump heat into space, much.
And Europe is very cold.
Lifer guy, Look at the RSS graph, it does not cover the South Pole, only 60S to 70S. If you had a half a brain, you could plot Roy’s data from their monthly LT results.
Anyone who draws a number-crunched straight trend line then superimposes real temperature data on it are blatant liars. We know RSS sold out when they joined the alarmist cheaters at NOAA.
There is no way to depict satellite warming since 1979 as RSS has done. There was a re-warming trend from 1970 – 1997 then a flat trend for 15 years from 1998 – 2015. The IPCC confirmed 12 of those 15 years of flat trend.
In early 2016 we had a super El Nino that drove global temps to nearly 1C and for some reason they remained high on an off foe 4 years, even though that trend was flat. Recently there has been a negative trend.
RSS are misleading people with such chicanery.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
CO2isLife: “Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in the South Pole?”
Well, there *is* actually one important factor you overlook.
The greenhouse hypothesis is about GHGs reducing the emissions of IR to space, especially about CO2 reducing the emissions in the IR band near 15 um. The idea is that the ‘warm’ surface emits “bright” 15 um IR, but this radiation is absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiation that does escape in the 15 um band comes instead from the cool CO2 up near the tropopause.
If you haven’t spotted the important concept here, the tropopause is about -60C at the south pole, while the surface averages about -50 C. There is little or no “GHE” at the south pole because the surface and the tropopause are similar temperatures.
So while the *laws* are the same, the *conditions* are different at the poles. The lack of warming at the poles says nothing one way or the other about the validity of the GHE.
Tim,
Complete nonsense. The atmosphere doesn’t change at night, but the temperature falls anyway. As it does during winter, and has done over the past four and a half billion years or so.
You can’t even say where this suppose Greenhouse Effect may be reliably observed, quantified, and documented, can you? You just pretend you have a falsifiable hypothesis, but your fantasy is not reality.
Waffling about the tropopause and the temperature differential between it and the surface, is about as stupid as claiming that the surface should be uninhabitable because it is subjected to temperatures in excess of 2500 C from the thermosphere!
Gee, how many W/m2 must that be!
You’re delusional Tim, but keep trying to create fact from fiction.
Swenson says: “The atmosphere doesnt change at night, but the temperature falls anyway. ”
When you start by claiming ‘the atmosphere doesn’t change, but it changes’, that is not a good start.
At its simplest, the ‘testable’ GH hypothesis has a blackbody object in the vacuum of space lit by a uniform light source. The temperature is measured. Then the object is surrounded by a thin layer slightly above the surface of the object that is transparent to the incoming visible light, but opaque to the outgoing thermal IR. Measure the surface temperature now. If the two are different (which they will be) then the GH hypothesis is confirmed (which it is).
Does the temperature at night fall faster with or without clouds?
Folkerts, you’re such a pathetic idiot.
If CO2 can’t warm the South Pole, it can’t warm ANY part of Earth.
So, CO2 can’t warm Earth.
Now you’ve learned something.
Clint, the point here is about the LOGIC, not the theory per se. The initial statement simply does not address whether or not the GH theory works or not. GH theory requires a difference in surface and upper air temperature to work. That is not present at the South Pole.
Similarly your logic is faulty. You can’t argue “Some A is not B. Therefore all A is not B”. It only works the other way around. You would need to argue “All A is not B.”
Think how silly it sounds with other phrases.
“A USB charger can’t charge my car battery. Therefore can’t charge any battery”
“Gravity can’t pull a helium balloon down the the floor in my room, therefore it can’t pull anything down to the floor.”
Showing that something fails in a special case is NOT evidence that it falls in all cases.
Wrong Folkerts, the point here is that you are trying to pervert reality, as usual. And endless time abusing your keyboard doesn’t change anything. You’re a known perverter of physics. But your efforts only fool other idiots like Norman and Ball4.
An argument would be nice, Pup.
When will you find one?
Roy’s readers have waited long enough.
If tropics had an average surface temperature of -50 C could C02 cause it to be warmer.
To get tropics somewhere this cold. Let’s say Earth doesn’t have oxygen [so no ozone] and Earth rotated at 1/10th it’s speed, so 240 hour day. And it was a bit further from the sun- far enough from Sun to make tropics have -50 C night time temperature.
Clint R, gets hung up on the difference between isn’t and can’t.
Good for not passing the logic class.
But passing the perverting, rejecting, and thinking class.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
stephen p anderson
Above: (before the Moon rotation topic consumed multiple posts)
YOU: “Norman,
You keep stating your theory, but you dont present any evidence. You offer a vague hypothesis. Also, your hypothesis isnt the GHE hypothesis. The GHE hypothesis is that back radiation from CO2 warms the surface. There is nothing about a barrier. You need to consult with the IPCC. Thats because they know that is a nonstarter.”
Not my hypothesis and lots of evidence has been given to you.
Have you read the scientists describe GHE?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=The%20greenhouse%20effect%20is%20the,it%20would%20be%20without%20them
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
The backradiation from the atmosphere does not warm the surface. You need the Solar input for this. It acts as an insulation so that the incoming solar energy will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature.
The Global energy budget graphs clearly show this.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/330px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
The surface emits 398 W/m^2 in this graph and receives back 340 W/m^2 from the atmosphere. The surface still loses energy but the Heat loss (net energy loss via radiant energy) has been reduced from 398 W/m^2 down to 58 W/m^2. The atmosphere does not “warm” the surface. It lowers the heat loss so the incoming solar will raise it to a higher temperature.
Norman,
This is different from what you stated before. You stated that greenhouse gases act as a radiation insulators. Now you’re saying back radiation from the atmosphere warms the Earth. Neither happens. There is no evidence that either happens.
stephen p andreson
I am NOT stating the back radiation from the atmosphere warms the Earth. I am failing to see how you make this connection from what I posted. Help me understand how you process information.
What annoys me about you is that I have provided evidence for both yet you claim I don’t. Not sure what rational you use to justify these points.
You want evidence of “back-radiation” more commonly referred to as Down-Welling IR.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_62392e218d6b7.png
These are measured values. The Upwelling IR is greater than the Downwelling but because of the DWIR the Heat loss of the surface is only around 200 W/m^2 instead of 500 W/m^2 (without GHG).
Radiation insulator.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/best-of-ceres/lw_jja_180.png
This is a long term series of Outgoing Longwave IR. You can see that over the Nevada desert the energy is around 300 W/m^2 but in the measured values of the emitted surface IR it is at least around 500 W/m^2.
That is real evidence of a radiant barrier. The surface is emitting average of 500 W/m^2 but the energy emitted to space is only 300 W/m^2.
Not sure what you think evidence is but at least consider these links. Look them over, think about them.
Both the statement you say “Neither happens” most certainly do based upon evidence.
Conclusion is that your post is incorrect and you should reconsider your position on this topic.
Norman, you’re ruining another keyboard trying to pervert reality.
You’re so confused you don’t even understand your own cult nonsense. Just settle down and do what you claim — support your nonsense with textbook physics: Show how 315 W/m^2 from two different sources can raise an object to 325K.
Put up or STFU. You’re such a phony.
Norman,
You wrote –
“The backradiation from the atmosphere does not warm the surface. You need the Solar input for this. It acts as an insulation so that the incoming solar energy will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature.”
Moron. Insulation works both ways. That’s why the Moon gets so hot – and so cold.
No insulation from the Sun’s radiation, nor to slow cooling in the absence of that radiation.
Read a textbook or two.
At least you have realised this “back radiation” is just mythical rubbish promoted by “climate scientists”.
Now think about why the surface cools at night.
I think Norman’s smart enough to realize there are problems with GHE so now we have Norman’s GHE. It isn’t the IPCC’s GHE but leftists like Norman offer moving targets. Norman’s science book isn’t bound like a normal book binding but has three-ring binders so pages can be removed and replaced easily.
> leftists like Norman
Another one!
\o/
Pinhead,
You don’t have a conservative bone in your pinhead body.
I’m more conservative than you ever will, Troglodyte.
Not only do I abide by conservation laws, but I abide by conversation laws.
“(before the Moon rotation topic consumed multiple posts)”
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
0 Comments
So?
Everybody agrees that you are an idiot.
You think zero comments on a video proves that everybody agrees I am an idiot? How does that work?
DREMT
We do you the courtesy of debating your mistaken views here, but I see no point going to a venue devoted to them.
Why waste time on a video which is wrong?
Do you comment on every video promoting a flat earth, alien abduction or Scientology?
If I commented on every wrong You-Tube video I would have no time for nothing else.
Entropic Man, you have conclusively failed to show that the “Non-Spinners” are wrong, either here or in the comments at my video. On the rare occasions that you comment, you demonstrate that you do not understand our position, lose the argument, then disappear for a while.
Because you are not worth anyone’s time or comments.
You continually prove the opposite with the amount of time you spend responding to me.
You think zero comments on a video proves that everybody agrees I am an idiot? How does that work?
Let me count the ways.
I don’t, for instance, comment on cat videos.
I’d rather watch a cat video.
“Let me count the ways.”
You haven’t found one so far.
I’ve been posting occasional comments related to some investigational work I have done. Thought I would repeat it here. The net effect of what I found is that warming from increased CO2 is extremely limited.
CO2 has two ways of warming according to climate science,
1) Absorbing surface IR energy in the atmosphere and
2) raising the effective emission height to a colder part of the atmosphere which would reduce outgoing energy.
In the early 1990s Dr. Heinz Hug demonstrated that all the CO2 relevant (15 micron) surface IR energy is already being absorbed within 10 meters of the surface. There’s no more energy available to produce any warming. Called the saturation effect, it was pooh-poohed by the climate field as true but irrelevant due to point 2) which they claimed was the important way CO2 emissions warmed the planet.
In 2010 Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi completed a set of papers based on 60 years of NOAA data. In effect, the data demonstrates that CO2 emissions cannot raise the emission height because of Kirchhoff’s Law.
The basis of the paper is a 200+ year old finding called Radiation Exchange Equilibrium (REE). What REE tells us is the radiative energy shared by two adjacent layers of the atmosphere is equal. The amount of energy radiated by one layer and absorbed by the other layer is exactly the same as the energy going the opposite direction.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
The paper itself was never refuted but was ignored because the data used was not considered to be of high quality. However, what has never come to light is that REE was shown to exist all the way throughout the atmosphere in all the data including recent higher quality data. The discussion starts on Page 6.
Once this is known then all the papers which compute climate sensitivity based on downwelling IR are wrong. That includes the W/H paper many skeptics like to quote.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/
You cannot look at downwelling IR by itself because REE tells us the increases in downwelling IR must be met with identical increases in upwelling IR. What the climate field has done is cherry picked just part of a cooperative process while ignoring the other part which would completely negate their claims.
Essentially, the enhanced greenhouse effect doesn’t exist and can’t exist due to Kirchhoff’s Law. Instead, the emission height for CO2 is fixed. It is independent of CO2 levels.
richard m…at the link you provide for WUWT, the article states…
“According to the second law of thermodynamics, a thermally isolated atmosphere will reach a constant temperature throughout its height if entropy remains constant. For a closed system that does not exchange heat or work with the surroundings, entropy can only increase. Earths atmosphere is not closed, since it is being heated by the Sun and losing heat by radiating to space”.
***
This is not a statement of the 2nd law and the author is confused about entropy. As defined by Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law and defined entropy, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transferred at a temperature, T. Clausius wrote that as:
entropy = S = integral dq/T
If T is kept constant it can be taken outside the integral sign as …
S = T.integral dq.
Entropy is nothing more than the total amount of heat transferred at temperature T.
One can see that writing an integral as ‘integral dq’ makes no sense. The integral is undefined. Clausius was a whiz at math and he had no intention of presenting entropy as an exact amount, he meant it only as a relative expression of heat transfer. He stated that in a reversible process, entropy = 0, since over the cycle no heat is transferred. In an irreversible process, entropy = +ve.
That’s it, entropy is either 0 or +ve.
Clausius said nothing about open or closed systems because they don’t apply. Furthermore, there is no such thing as constant entropy. I wish people would stick to the basic definition of the 2nd law which states…heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler object to a hotter object.
That immediately rules out the notion of back-radiation heating the surface to a temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy. The atmosphere is, in general, equal to or cooler than the surface temperature. Back-radiation cannot transfer heat to the surface. Quantum theory support that claim.
The notion of an adiabatic column of air existing in the atmosphere is nonsense. That is basically used to define the lapse rate out of some form of stubbornness in which those applying it refuse to admit that gravity orders gas molecules in the atmosphere into a negative pressure gradient with altitude.
The Ideal Gas Law has been systematically ignored in the atmosphere. The atmosphere can be regarded as a constant volume with a constant number of air molecules. If someone does not like the pressure gradient, they can break the atmosphere in layers and examine one layer of costant volume. The IGL can be applied to that one layer.
I realize the atmosphere is dynamic and that pressure can vary in different places. Still, we can examine it as a static body in a theoretical sense to get a message across.
IGL is PV = nRT
with r,V, and n constant it can be written
P = (nRV)T
Therefore, the IGL tells us there is a direct proportionality between temperature and pressure.
The IGL is made up of equations/relationships from several scientists. One of the relationships is Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures, which states that the total pressure in a gas is the sum of the partial pressures of its constituent gases.
If pressure is directly proportional to temperature, there must be an equivalent relationship between the total temperature, or measure of heat quantities, and the partial heat quantities contributed by each gas.
In other words, nitrogen and oxygen with combined partial pressures of around 99% of the total pressure should contribute close to 99% of the heat in the atmosphere. Where does that leave CO2 with a partial pressure close to 0.04% of the total pressure.
It doesn’t take a lot to see that the heat contributed by CO2 must be constrained to its mass percent of about 0.04C per 1C rise in temperature.
Doubling the amount of CO2 can increase its heat concentration to no more than 0.08%.
GR is just an idiot. Ignore him.
Gordon, as you note, the 2nd Law says the entropy can only increase, never decrease. “That’s it, entropy is either 0 or +ve.”
As an application, suppose you have a warm object (high entropy) and a cool object (low entropy) [which are otherwise isolated from the rest of the universe]. If you put them together, the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy) and the cool object will warm (increasing its entropy). The net result is always that entropy increases when this happens. Entropy is maximum when the two temperatures are the same and thermal equilibrium is achieved.
This can be extended to multiple objects or a continuous gas. Entropy will increase until thermal equilibrium is achieved, ie a uniform temperature.
Which is exact the statement you said was wrong to begin with!
PS. The equation you wrote as “entropy = S = integral dq/T” is actually the equation for the CHANGE in entropy. And accordingly, you should have said “That’s it, entropy CHANGE is either 0 or +ve.”
Yes, what call global warming is mostly about entropy.
But also because we have an ocean. Though one call the ocean a hell of lot of entropy.
“If you put them together, the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy)…”
No.
Tim you need to brush up on the peculiarities of entropy. For both heating AND cooling processes in, say, your “continuous” ideal gas, the entropy of the universe increases.
Also, a uniform gas temperature is not the highest entropy, as a higher universe entropy has been found with a certain T(z) by various authors.
Ball4, you are the one here who needs to brush up.
Suppose you have 2 objects.
One starts at 200 K, the other at 400 K. They are put in contact. 1000 J of heat leaves the hot object and enters the cool object.
The change in entropy of the hot object is (approximately)
Delta(S) = (-1000J)/(400K) = -2.5 J/K
The change in entropy of the hot object is (approximately)
Delta(S) = (+1000J)/(200K) = +5.0 J/K
The change in entropy for the universe is
Delta(S) = +5 J/K – 2.5 J/K = +2.5 J/K
This is EXACTLY as I claimed:
” the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy)
and the cool object will warm (increasing its entropy).
The net result is always that entropy increases… ”
You can use any values you like.
“a uniform gas temperature is not the highest entropy, as a higher universe entropy has been found ”
I would be fascinated to see the paper you claim that provides this result. Here is one paper that concludes (yet again) at isothermal is best for an isolated system in thermal equilibrium.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/61/8/1520-0469_2004_061_0931_omep_2.0.co_2.xml
“…the basic definition of the 2nd law which states…heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler object to a hotter object.”
Gordon, that is not the basic definition of the 2nd thermodynamics law.
“Back-radiation cannot transfer heat to the surface.”
No Gordon. Back-radiation can transfer thermodynamic internal energy from atm. to the surface.
“If T is kept constant..”
Temperature of a fixed volume ideal gas reservoir can remain constant while its entropy changes. This ought to cause Gordon some irritation but not those who have passed a first course in atm. thermodynamics.
Tim, read more closely, “Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing” where “in the case of convective mixing-an isentropic profile results” with T(z) given by (18) not T(z) = constant so not an isothermal profile at max. entropy which was the classical solution not the modern one given by (18) which has higher universe entropy than the classical isothermal solution.
Tim: “Suppose you have 2 objects.”
Tim’s solution is faulty since Tim didn’t conserve total energy in his universe. What are their ideal gas volumes? Volume of gas matters because Cv1 and Cv2 matter since total thermodynamic internal energy* has to be conserved if the two volumes are an isolated universe.
If T is the final temperature: delta S1 = Cv1 * ln(T/T1) not ignoring volumes while holding their combined internal energy constant. Universe delta S = delta S1 plus delta S2.
Hint: You can make the real solution task simpler if take the limiting case of an infinite reservoir where by supposition that reservoir is hotter than the other smaller volume V1 of gas thus have a heating process in which entropy of universe increased to determine delta S in the limit as Cv1/Cv2 goes to zero.
Then universe delta S = Cv1*(ln (T2/T1) + T1/T2 – 1)
N.B.* to hold total internal energy constant constrain: Cv1*T1 + Cv2*T2 = Cv1*T + Cv2*T
If do this for a cooling process T2/T1 < 1 find universe entropy also increases.
Ball4, read more closely.
“Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing…”
The words “process” and “convective” and “actual atmosphere” tell us this is NOT an about an isolated, equilibrium state. The original statement was about isolated systems tending toward an isothermal state. That statement is still true and Gordon (and you) are still wrong to object. (For non-equilibrium states, then sure, pretty much any conditions could occur, like the thermal gradient you refer to.)
And when I said “If you put them together, the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy)”, this (et seq.) is indeed correct and you were (again) wrong to object.
“Tim’s solution is faulty since Tim didnt conserve total energy in his universe. ”
Incorrect.
The hot object loses 1000 J of heat and its internal energy decreases by 1000J.
The cold object gans 1000 J of heat and its internal energy increases by 1000J.
The net change in internal energy for the “universe” is +1000 J – 1000 J = 0 J
“The words “process” and “convective” and “actual atmosphere” tell us this is NOT an about an isolated, equilibrium state.”
The isolated column in the work you cite is made up of the actual standard atm., Tim, so nature”s mixing producing entropy in the troposphere is appropriately included in (18).
If you want to understand added details see R.A. Akmeav’s more formal extension of the work you cited in QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: pp 187197 (2008):
“Applied to the atmosphere, the classical concept of thermodynamic equilibrium as the state of maximum entropy results in different temperature profiles depending on the constraints imposed. This has been a source of confusion, especially in view of possible influence by the planetary gravity field. Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere. On the other hand, dynamical dissipative processes dominating in the lower atmosphere ‘feel’ the presence of gravity, and produce entropy subject to other conditions, such as conservation of the column potential enthalpy. The maximum-entropy solution under this condition is the dry-adiabatic profile.” Which is observed in much of the non-stormy dry atm.
“The net change in internal energy for the “universe” is +1000 J 1000 J = 0 J”
No, you are not careful enough Tim, so being more careful you need to use the 2 reservoirs individual heat capacities as I wrote: to hold total internal energy constant constrain: Cv1*T1 + Cv2*T2 = Cv1*T + Cv2*T – thus final T can be found and then delta S1 and delta S2. Note: the dimensions of entropy are the same as those of heat capacity.
Once you are careful enough, find for ideal gas heating AND cooling processes, the entropy of the universe increases.
Ball4.
1) Your source includes the following: “Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere.”
Period. End of story. Gordon was wrong.
Sure, you could further increase the entropy by adding mixing or adding external energy sources, or any number of other actions, but that is not what was being discussed.
2) “you need to use the 2 reservoirs individual heat capacities … ”
Still no.
My example was a system composed of a hot object and a cold object isolated from the rest of the universe. The ONLY possibility is that when the hot object loses any amount of heat, Q, the cold object must gain that same amount of heat. By definition, there was no other heat exchange with anything else in the universe, ie “[which are otherwise isolated from the rest of the universe]”
Period. End of story. This is true no matter what the initial temperatures were. This is true no matter how large Q is. This true no matter what the masses or specific heats might be. This is true no matter whether the objects are solid, liquid, or gas.
PS. I think part of the misunderstanding is that you seem to be assuming that the process has gone all the way to thermal equilibrium; that the two objects reached the same temperature by exchanging Q = 1000 J. That was not my intent at all. In fact, stating something like “Delta(S) = 1000 J / 400 K” implies T id approximately constant”. Perhaps I should have explicitly sated that, since it confused you.
Tim, not sure what you mean by using: “this” if you clarify I can respond.
I’ve been trying to show you “If you put them together, the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy)…” is wrong as an unforced ideal gas cooling process increases universe entropy. I’ve given enough clues to enable you to find the proper work out in the atm. thermodynamics text of your choice. Heat capacity Cv of the warm gas and the heat capacity Cv of the cool gas you combine do matter for final T and you have noticeably provided neither of their Cv in your problem statement.
The Gibbs isothermal T(z)=constant solution has less entropy at max. than the modern solution because of the realization that the isolated column continues to produce entropy above the Gibbs max. by mixing making T(z)=non-constant (DALR) nature’s solution which is observed in the earthen natural dry troposphere much of the time.
Gibbs classic solution is more appropriate for the earthen dry stratosphere where convective mixing mostly ceases because the fluid is kept warm from above so that the standard atm. column does become isothermal for about 9 km. of lower stratosphere height.
And I have been trying to tell you that you are wrong when you say ‘Ive been trying to show you “If you put them together, the warm object will cool (lowering its entropy)” is wrong’.
[We will get lost in recursion if this continues much longer!]
An individual object’s entropy DOES decrease when it gets cooler. I am not sure why you continue to object to this.
If an object at temperature T has a heat flow of δQ, its change in entropy is δQ/T.
* If δQ is positive and the object warms up, the object’s change in entropy is positive (ie its entropy increases).
* If δQ is negative and the object cools down, the object’s change in entropy is negative (ie its entropy decreases).
Exactly as my statement claims. The entropy of an object decreases when it get cooler.
[The entropy change for the entire universe is a different matter. That value is indeed always positive.]
“The Gibbs isothermal T(z)=constant solution has less entropy at max. than the modern solution because of the realization that the isolated column continues to produce entropy above the Gibbs max. by mixing … ”
Still no.
The “modern” solution is for a system not in thermodynamic equilibrium. If you let the system come to equilibrium, you get the classical Gibbs isothermal answer.
You can’t ‘mix’ an isolated system (because ‘mixing’ by definition involves an interaction with the outside universe!). If you ‘mix’ a system already in thermodynamic equilibrium, then it is no longer in thermodynamic equilibrium.
The *external mixing” produces additional entropy. The isolated column does not produce additional entropy.
“* If δQ is negative and the object cools down, the object’s change in entropy is negative (ie its entropy decreases).”
See the delta sign on Q? Where does the internal thermodynamic energy go? You haven’t accounted for it. That energy can’t simply disappear out of existence which would then of course allow for the cooling object’s entropy to decline as you write but energy cannot be destroyed. A real cooling process always increases universe entropy.
If you make your cooling object your entire universe, the object can’t cool so it cannot lower its entropy. This should inform you that entropy is more peculiar than you write. For entropy delta, you always need to consider the universe. Sir Eddington was right.
“The entropy change for the entire universe is a different matter.”
Your cooling object always exists in a universe since it can’t make its lost thermodynamic internal energy simply disappear out of existence. Your warming object received its added energy from somewhere else in the universe, that energy wasn’t simply created within the object.
“The “modern” solution is for a system not in thermodynamic equilibrium.”
‘mixing’ by definition involves an interaction with the outside universe!”
No. Tim, the isolated column being considered wherein the mixing is occurring is a universe to itself. Gibbs did not consider an entropy increase from that mixing in the classical solution. Realizing in modern times adding that entropy results in a higher max. entropy solution T(z) non-constant than Gibbs and others had found at T(z) constant.
Verkley & Gerkema (& Akmaev) inform you the solutions are for thermodynamic equilibrium at entropy max. (heat death): “The above calculations show that the result of the maximization process depends on the constraints that are used.”
Gordon, the paper I linked to is irrelevant to the discussion of REE. I simply referenced it to point out that many authors don’t understand REE.
“What REE tells us is the radiative energy shared by two adjacent layers of the atmosphere is equal. The amount of energy radiated by one layer and absorbed by the other layer is exactly the same as the energy going the opposite direction. ”
Only for a closed atmosphere at equilibrium. There is a pressure gradient and the Ideal Gas Law keeps the energy content per kilogram constant.
The real atmosphere energy is not at equilibrium. Energy radiates to the atmosphere from the surface and from the top of the atmosphere to space.
The air near the surface has a higher energy /kg than the top of the atmosphere. This creates an energy gradient throughout the atmosphere. Each layer has slightly less energy than the layer below and slightly more energy radiates upwards than downwards.
EM, you aren’t understanding REE. It is talking about the energy shared, not the energy that may be passing through and not absorbed by the layers in question.
In addition, energy does not radiate from just the top of the atmosphere to space. It radiates to space from every point in the atmosphere as well as the surface. In fact, the radiation to space occurs proportionally at all altitudes and is fixed due to REE.
It is true the atmosphere is never at equilibrium due to convection. However, it is this fixed mode of radiation based on altitude that is always seeking to return equilibrium.
Miskolczi (2010) theorizes that atmospheric CO 2 increases cannot lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect and therefore cannot be a cause of global warming. We show his theory to be incorrect both in its application of radiation theory and from direct atmospheric observations.
Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory Rob van Dorland1 and Piers M. Forster2 1 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands 2 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Miskolczi’s work is not a theory. It is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s Law. Your claims MUST then violate Kirchhoff’s Law. Sounds like you need to do more work.
It’s true that convection, water vapor and clouds will disrupt the structural equilibrium that Miskolczi uncovered. However, that is always temporary. It is in fact a physically demanded process that returns the atmosphere back to the REE state.
It appears from my initial reading that you don’t understand REE.
The Miskolczi work on REE is not a theory. It is a direct result of Kirchhoff’s Law. Your claims MUST then violate Kirchhoff’s Law. Sounds like you need to do more work.
It is true that convection, water vapor and clouds will disrupt the structural equilibrium that Miskolczi uncovered. However, that is always temporary. It is in fact a physically demanded process that returns the atmosphere back to the REE state.
Richard M at 7:57 PM
Note that Dr Spencer reviewed Miskolczi’s paper on this site on August 10, 2010. Miskolczi even participated in the discussion, but then suddenly disappeared leaving Dr Spencer’s key question about his work unanswered!
The title of the blog post is: Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory and can be found here, https://tinyurl.com/Spencer-on-Miskolczi
Yes, I noted that in my comment. The big problem is that the Miskolczi paper covers a lot of claims. Some of them are debatable. What is not debatable is REE. I wish Miskolczi had separated the discussion of REE in his paper from the rest.
REE is the key to understand why the enhanced greenhouse effect is impossible. Dr. Spencer was wrong and it is easy to see why in the example he provided.
Since there appears to be some confusion, REE only applies to well mixed gases. The primary one of course is CO2. When you start looking at water vapor, which isn’t well mixed, you will lose sight of the real effect CO2 has on the atmosphere.
rlh…”Passenger jets dont fly backwards
Relative to the air or relative to the Sun? Context matters”.
***
Why do you guys have so much trouble with reality? A passenger jet has engines that propel it in a forward direction no matter what reference frame you use.
If you want to play games, redefining reality, so forward is backward, you are restricted to playing such games in your minds. Although forward and backward are terms relative to a human observer, as far as we know, humans are the only one who use passenger jets and when they fly in them, they are moving forward.
There have been twits over the years who thought Mercury orbited backwards through part of its orbital path. They even called it retrograde motion. Some hypothesized as an explanation of retrograde motion that Mercury was performing loops in its orbits, causing the retrograde motion observed.
It did not occur to any of the twits that the retrograde motion was an artefact of the human mind. Because the mind of the observer was in motion in Earth orbit, the mind saw Mercury as moving backward relative to Earth. So, they leaped to the conclusion that it must be moving backward.
Here we are in the year 2022, and other twits think the Moon rotates around a local axis. Despite the fact they know the same face always faces the Earth, their twit minds cannot conceive of the fact that their minds are playing games, concluding that lunar rotation is taking place when rotation is impossible under such conditions.
> Although forward and backward are terms relative to a human observer, as far as we know
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s all there is to it. You’re just falling for Pup’s bait.
You should discuss the translation issue with Kiddo. It looks bad on both of you.
C’mon Wee Willy.
You’re a moron. That’s all there is to it.
If your brains were dynamite, you wouldn’t have enough to blow your nose.
Still here, Mike?
“You should discuss the translation issue with Kiddo. It looks bad on both of you.”
Who says we haven’t discussed it already?
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
0 Comments
So?
Still begging for comments I see.
RLH is wrong as usual.
Anyone can click on the link (or your name) and see that what I say is correct.
Idiot.
I didn’t say you were wrong about the video having zero comments. I’m saying you’re wrong that I’m begging for comments. The video gets zero comments, then the message of the video remains uncontested. I win. The video gets some comments, then maybe we can finally move this discussion off Dr Roy’s. Everybody wins.
Either way, I win.
” The video gets zero comments, then the message of the video remains uncontested.”
Wrong as usual. Everybody thinks you are an idiot and does not waste their time commenting on your trash.
You don’t speak for anyone but yourself, RLH…and the fact that you spend so much of your time responding to me makes a mockery of what you’re saying, anyway.
No comments on the video, and the message of the video remains uncontested. I win.
In your own mind only.
An uncontested video is a win in reality, which I will rub in your face constantly.
☺️
An uncommented video will fail YouTube’s algorithm. As you well know. Hence the desperation.
On the contrary, I have seen videos do well with little to no comments, and videos do badly with comments. There is more to the algorithm than just comments. The video is bound to not do very well, anyway. Who cares?
“The video is bound to not do very well, anyway. Who cares?”
You do as you keep promoting it.
I can assure you I have very low expectations for the video. Of course it would be nice to see it do well, but I don’t really care either way. I will continue to link to the video throughout the next month, at least, because it is easy to do, free, and I spend a lot of time on here anyway so I might as well. Plus an uncontested video is a win in reality, so every time I link to it is another victory.
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own a-a-xis.
uNConTESteD
https://youtu.be/88ZfRsgBaC0
No comments on my video = uncontested.
Another delicious win.
DREMT is an idiot. No contest to that.
Sure, Tesla was an “idiot” too, no doubt.
Tesla also believed in a lot of pseudoscience, like the aether and eugenics.
And didn’t believe is such things as atoms and electrons.
And he was in love with a pigeon.
In fairness, Nikola might have been on the spectrum.
Whereas Kiddo…
Here comes the smear campaign. My only point was that Tesla was not an idiot.
Poor Kiddo. Always the victim.
The smear is all in his mind. The richest man on the world is on the spectrum. His online presence still reveals he’s an oblivious troll.
Kiddo should stop trolling. He can’t.
My response was directed to bob, Willard, the smear campaign referred to was against Tesla, and has nothing to do with being on the spectrum.
“My only point was that Tesla was not an idiot.”
Really?
I thought your point was that Tesla supported your sides lunar crankery.
“In fairness, Nikola might have been on the spectrum.”
I think that is possible, noting many people are.
Yes, bob. He was not an idiot, and he was a “Non-Spinner”. Well done.
I never said Tesla was an idiot, to the best of my recollection.
However, he did believe in a lot of things that today puts him in with the crack-pots.
If you believe him on the Moon lunacy, do you agree with him on electricity, the aether, and eugenics?
The non-spinners have a serious lack of observation skills.
If you are walking in a circle, you have to rotate your head around the axis of your spine, to keep facing the center of the circle.
That’s a simple observation.
If you just scroll up, bob, you can see the conversation is all written out for everybody to see. I was not saying that you said Tesla was an idiot. I was just pointing out that he agrees with us, and is not an idiot, and I said that because RLH keeps calling us all idiots for thinking the moon does not rotate on its own axis. I do not have to agree with Tesla on anything else he believed in.
You have a strange way of walking in a circle, then, bob. Most people walking counter-clockwise in a circle would keep their left shoulder always oriented towards the center of the circle.
> My response was directed to bob
[R] Kiddo is an idiot. No contest to that.
[K] Sure, Nikola was an “idiot” too, no doubt.
[B] Nikola was a crank, so there.
[W] In fairness, Nikola might have been on the spectrum
[K] Here comes the smear campaign.
Being on the spectrum is characterized by poor pragmatic/social use of language.
We cross-posted, Willard. I did not even see your 11:31 AM comment when I posted my 11:35 AM comment. You are wrong, as usual.
Chartmaster Infurion,
Moron, I said facing the center of the circle.
Even if it is your shoulder pointing towards the center of the circle, you still have to rotate your body to keep your shoulder pointed towards the center of the circle, and to do that you have to rotate your body around an axis through the body.
You have a strange way of making observations.
It has all been discussed to death, and you are still wrong.
Interesting observation: Chartmaster Infurion got more views from this site than all his other pages. Pretty much defines a loser.
Are you Chartmaster Infurion or his he just your stooge?
bob rages at the failure of his own analogy and then lashes out with passionate hatred at my music hobby. What a guy.
They tried this “walking in a circle” example over a year ago. Then, it was walking around a table, or walking around a tree.
The fact that they can’t understand such simple motions is proof of how braindead they are.
Chartmaster Furion,
“bob rages at the failure of his own analogy and then lashes out with passionate hatred at my music hobby. What a guy.”
No you are wrong, I didn’t lash out with hatred, just observing the number of views your music is getting, it’s pretty pathetic.
You got a couple more views. The best part is what came after.
And I made an observation, not an analogy, you should know the difference.
Apparently you don’t.
Clint R,
“They tried this walking in a circle example over a year ago. Then, it was walking around a table, or walking around a tree.
The fact that they cant understand such simple motions is proof of how braindead they are.”
Yes it is well documented you don’t understand that when you walk around something you have to turn your body as you do so.
Rotating on your axis is a required motion to keep one part of your body pointed towards the inside of the circle you are walking around.
So simple, I could explain it to a four year old.
Gravity steers an orbiting body through the resultant of the vectors acting on the body. It’s the same as how the string steers the ball, in the ball-on-a-string analogy.
In walking in a circle, the feet must provide that steering. The model of orbital motion is not affected, as one side of the person walking always faces the inside of the orbit.
The braindead have never been able to understand such simple concepts.
Nearly two thousand views for my most popular cover. Not great, but not too bad. You cannot expect too much for original songs on YouTube. How and why would anyone search for a song they have never heard of? So that is why those originals are so low. They just do not even get heard by anybody in the first place. Over 11,000 views for the channel overall. Not the best, but OK I guess. Only a hobby. When you write, perform, record, arrange, produce and release your own music playing all the instruments yourself, let me know how it goes, bob.
“Gravity steers an orbiting body through the resultant of the vectors acting on the body”
Gravity exerts no turning vector on a perfectly spherical body other than causing an orbit. It operates on the COG of the body.
Any other effects take millennia to have any outcome.
Correct RLH, gravity does not produce a torque on Moon. It only changes its direction.
It’s the same motion as modeled by a ball-on-a-string. Like we’re been teaching you for over a year now.
Cult idiots are slow learners. Verrrrrry slow….
Gravity is nothing like a ball-on-a-string as you have been told many times and the fact that gravity makes orbits does not make things ‘face inwards’.
RLH, the ball-on-a-string is ONLY about “orbital motion without axial rotation”, as you have been told many times. If there is no axial rotation, then the same side will always face the inside of the orbit — like Moon, and the ball-on-a-string.
Thanks for being such a great example of a slow-learner.
Chartmaster Infurion,
“When you write, perform, record, arrange, produce and release your own music playing all the instruments yourself, let me know how it goes, bob.”
Been there done that, except playing all the instruments myself.
Lead Screamer, we didn’t have a lead singer, and the drummer were booking agents so we got gigs.
Opened for these guys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Seconds_(band)
and others
Here is a cut off the CD I produced for the good-time gangsters AKA the Mighty Pranksters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rKrdAX7wB4
https://www.smilepolitely.com/music/c-us_goodtime_gangsters_were_a_musical_treat/
😎
So why claim that the motion is the same as a ball-on-a-string when gravity does not operate like that at all. Are you an idiot? Obviously.
If there is no axial rotation then the motion will be like MOTR as everybody sensible knows.
MOTL.
Just because Graham likes to distort reality does not make it happen.
MOTL, not MOTR.
> Who says we haven’t discussed it already?
Linky or it does not exist.
Assume it does not exist, then. Do you know how hard it is to find specific discussions amongst multiple thousand-comment threads spanning several years? I am not even going to bother looking.
What’s Zipf Law?
https://youtu.be/88ZfRsgBaC0
Another delicious win.
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own a-a-xis.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
There is no idea further from
The truth than my wish
To discuss this issue, no
Point in discussing it further
Here
Please click on my name – you
Are all welcome to comment over
There
I will soon come back
To remind everyone that
I do not wish to discuss
Furthermore the issue
Here
You really do struggle to convey a coherent point.
Some day you will let me know why I upset you
so much when I probe your mind like this.
I have absolutely no idea what your problem is.
Meanwhile
Please click on my name
You are welcome to comment
Let me sing you the song instead
Another delicious win
Poor Willard. Somebody is getting more attention than he is.
DREMT is an idiot. No contest to that.
Sure, Tesla was an “idiot” too, no doubt.
Speaking of Nikola:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1189946
In the third paper, yes. Then again I suspect he was just trying to make a clear distinction between what the moon is doing, and axial rotation.
You comparing yourself to Tesla? Some hope.
[KIDDO] No comments on my video = uncontested. Another delicious win.
[ALSO KIDDO] Poor Willard. Somebody is getting more attention than he is.
Hard for Kiddo not to win with a double bind of Kafka traps.
“You comparing yourself to Tesla?”
Wrong again, RLH.
DREMT: is an idiot.
So you keep saying, RLH.
You just keep proving it true.
OK, RLH.
DREMT: is still an idiot.
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own a-a-xis.
Dis Kiddo:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/5xhHFChEOx6iikZDQTt9JL
It most certainly is.
U sure:
https://www.facebook.com/ChartmasterInfurion
Graham D Warner it is.
DREMT.
Kiddo.
No…DREMT.
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Graham for sure.
No. DREMT.
You can wriggle all you like. Graham it is.
Yawn.
You tired Graham?
Bored. As is everybody else, by this pointless back and forth. Nobody cares.
You apparently do, Graham.
To prove I do not care, I will stop responding to you on this sub-thread.
“A passenger jet has engines that propel it in a forward direction no matter what reference frame you use.”
So an airplane can go faster than the Earth rotates?
Idiot.
As the one who started this hare running let me remind you of the logic.
A passenger jet cruises Eastward along the Equator at noon. It is propelling itself through the surrounding air at 600mph.
That air is being carried Eastwards at 1050mph by the rotation of the Earth. The aircraft is therefore travelling Eastwards at 600 + 1050 =1650mph.
The Earth is revolving in orbit around the Sun, travelling Westwards at 66,600mph.
The aircraft is therefore travelling Westwards at 66,600 – 1650 = 64,950mph.
A passenger jet pointing East while moving Westwards at 64,950mph is moving backwards.
I know. But GR cannot do vector addition.
Indeed.
GR and Clint R are what is known as local thinkers. They cannot move beyond their own direct experience. About 90% of the human race share that limitation.
The other 10% are known as universal thinkers. They can consider the universe from different viewpoints outside their own experience.
GR and Clint R are known as idiots.
I must remind Ent and RLH that neither was able to solve ANY of the simple physics problems presented. In fact, RLH couldn’t even understand the solution to one.
They’re both ignorant of physics, and have NOTHING going in their lives. So they troll here all day.
Clint R is just a idiot.
In China they go straight down. Explain that one while you’re at it.
Ouch.
Isn’t that backwards?
Isn’t the China Syndrome when a melting nuclear reactor in America goes straight through the Earth and comes up in China?
Hard to view.
Why not say that you see thru planets but not airplanes.
> The lift that these wings provides means that the An-2’s minimum speed is remarkably slow. A pilot can still fly the plane under full control at around 25mph (40km/h). In fact, its flight manual does not have a published stall speed. An average Cessna, by comparison, will stall if the airspeed drops below 50mph (80km/h). This makes the An-2 very popular with parachute training and skydiving schools, and it also means the aircraft can essentially hover a favoured trick of An-2 pilots during airshow displays. To do so, the pilot flies into a headwind, and if the wind is strong enough, this manoeuvre can make the plane move backwards very slowly while still under full control.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150415-the-plane-that-can-fly-backwards
If a planet can seem to move backward, so can a plane.
More handwaving from sourceless Nate. So typical. Nate saying its a scientific no-no holds absolutely no water. May as well be asking Joey Tribbiani.
Here’s one of Nate’s cites:
https://tinyurl.com/2e84pbjb
??? what does that have to do with anything?
Read your first sentence again, Bill.
Your funny Willard.
Based on your criteria of what a source is here is another source.
https://youtu.be/KTJQdbvCMag
It is actually one, Bill!
It is not a source Willard, its a ‘link’ to a URL. For a link to a URL to be a source it must support the argument of the person providing the link.
So you offered a link and you lack an argument that link supports an argument.
Woods for Trees is indeed a source, Bill.
Back to you.
W4T could be a source. But does what you link to support an argument or does it support the other side of the argument? Or is it even relevant?
A Mickey Mouse cartoon can be a source also. But one must put it in context to show what assertion it is a source in support of. For all I know what you linked to was Nate copying somebody else’s support for their argument. Kind of like what Nate did when he linked to http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
All it does is provide the support that an orbit isn’t a real motion if its not a rotation.
yo willard! a source for what? if you don’t have a ‘for what’ its not a source. it’s just a url.
Only in Texas, or “This how you ride a tornado!”
https://youtu.be/kd6Lae_zNXc
Only in Texas, or “This how you ride a tornado!”
Part 2.
Fort Worth dealership gifting new truck to teen caught in tornado
Chevrolet posted about the gift to Leon on social media Thursday night, saying he will be getting a 2022 Silverado 1500 LT All Star Edition in, you guessed it, cherry red. Leon and his family will be presented the new truck on Saturday at the Bruce Lowrie dealership.
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/fort-worth-dealership-gifting-new-truck-to-teen-caught-in-tornado/
Home earning solution for everyone to work online and received payments every week in bank acc. earns every day more than $500 and received payments every week directly in bank acc. My last month’s earning was $16390 and all i do is work for maximum 2 hrs a day on my pc. easy work and regular earning are awesome with this job.
go here for more info________________ http://cashon24.blogspot.com/
https://www.engadget.com/space-oneweb-agreement-220556058.html
SpaceX will launch OneWebs satellites following Russia’s ultimatum
— OneWeb will turn to a competitor to ferry its remaining first-generation internet satellites to space after Russia’s Roscosmos space agency issued an ultimatum to the company at the start of the month. On Monday, OneWeb announced an agreement with Elon Musks SpaceX. The private firm will ferry the remainder of OneWebs constellation fleet, with the first launch scheduled for later this year.
We thank SpaceX for their support, which reflects our shared vision for the boundless potential of space, OneWeb CEO Neil Masterson said. With these launch plans in place, were on track to finish building out our full fleet of satellites and deliver robust, fast, secure connectivity around the globe.–
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Elon to the rescue. Tha’s great.
rlh…”GR…A passenger jet has engines that propel it in a forward direction no matter what reference frame you use.
rlh…So an airplane can go faster than the Earth rotates?
***
I repeat, normal aircraft always move in a forward direction.
Amazing that someone with a Master’s degree cannot fathom this basic logic. What does the Earth’s rotational speed have to do with an airliner moving backwards?
An airliner flies within the atmosphere, and since that atmosphere is largely connected to the Earth via gravity, the airliner is not fighting it as a 1000 mph wind at the Equator. The atmosphere itself neither aids nor resists the speed of an aircraft unless there are local winds aiding or resisting its flight speed.
Since most winds it encounters are well below 100 MPH, and the average jet airliner flies upward of 600 MPH, there is no issue. If there are no head or tail winds blowing, an airliner moves through the atmosphere without anything more than normal air resistance.
You and entropic are seriously confused about the mechanics of this problem. I posted a link to an article a while back in which a pilot explained the difference in airliner speed between flying due east or due west. The problem is with the jet stream, since modern passenger aircraft fly high enough to be affected by it.
The jet stream flows west to east and it can slow or speed up an airliner flying in it. Aircraft flying westward into the jet stream are likely to lose 0.5 to 1.0 hours travel time.
C’mon, Gordo:
Even you get understand what you write from time to time.
Did I mention that terms relative to the human mind are usually illusions? Like sunrise and sunset. You, rlh, bob d, entropic, ken, tim and maguff, and other spinners, likely think the Sun actually rises in the east and sets in the west as it orbits the Earth. You fail to understand that the Sun’s apparent motion is caused by an observer moving relative to the Sun on a rotating planet
You guys are all caught up in the illusions creating by the human mind, observing relative motion and reaching incorrect conclusions. Anyone with the slightest bit of awareness, a natural process by which humans can see past the illusions, would immediately question that the Moon, always keeping the same face pointed to the Earth, can also rotate on its axis once per orbit.
Tesla saw it, Clint sees it, Dremt sees it, and I can see it. Yet the rest of you spinners are also caught up in the illusion that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause catastrophic global warming and climate change.
Time for a reality check, spinners.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here’s a reality check:
https://youtu.be/bJMYoj4hHqU
Your taxes paid for that film. Rejoice.
Weepy Wee Willard,
C’mon dimwit, linking to anonymous nonsense (presumably), hoping that you can make people waste their time, is the mark of the climate crackpot.
You do realise that not everything on YouTube is necessarily correct, don’t you? There might even be morons on YouTube claiming that a GHE exists, heating the planet!
You can’t help linking to irrelevant stuff because you are totally ignorant of physics.
Have you found the Greenhouse Theory or the Insulation Effect Theory yet? No?
That’s because you are a delusional climate crank. Even Norman is starting to accept reality. You really believe your fantasy is reality, don’t you – just like every other sufferer from delusional psychosis, Michael Mann being a prime example.
Carry on. I’ll humour you.
“I repeat, normal aircraft always move in a forward direction.”
No Gordon, normal aircraft can move in a backward direction wrt to the earth surface.
> (presumably)
The less you know, Mike, the more you can presume.
No wonder you presume so much!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You apparently keep presuming that I am Mike Flynn, God only knows why.
I’ll keep humouring you.
The fairly obvious fact that you have not objected to my presumption that anything you link to Is either nonsensical or irrelevant, indicates that that my presumption was sound.
My knowledge seems evident, and well-proven.
Yours, on the other hand . . .
Keep at it. Maybe you can come up with some reason for continuing to insist that I am Mike Flynn, but I doubt it. How are you going with your search for the Greenhouse Theory, by the way?
Maybe if you say “Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn” often enough, you can blame him for your failure to find the Greenhouse Theory!
Mike, Mike,
I don’t pretend you’re Mike Flynn –
I *argue* that you are his sock puppet.
Wasteful Wee Willy,
And for no reason at all!
You are a moron, if you argue just for the sake of argument.
The mark of a delusional psychotic, who believes physical fact comes about as a consequence of debate.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike –
You’re like a four-year old who discovers why questions.
But instead of just asking why you insult.
It’s been ten years now.
Find another hobby.
“the Sun actually rises in the east and sets in the west as it orbits the Earth”
No-one thinks that the Sun orbits the Earth. Except you apparently.
Idiot.
entropic…”GR and Clint R are what is known as local thinkers. They cannot move beyond their own direct experience”.
***
When you study engineering, you must remain grounded. By that, I mean you must centre yourself in the reality with which you are dealing. We accomplish that much of the time by creating freebody diagrams of a problem, a process in which forces acting on a body are replaced by vectors.
With regard to most problems on Earth, whether the problem be a statics problem like a bridge, or a dynamics problem like a piston engine, there is no need to use a reference frame. It is understood.
When we notate a problem like the Moon’s orbit, there is no need for a reference frame, it is understood to be an Earth-centred reference frame. In fact, any study of the universe by astronomers is based on an Earth-centred reference frame. No need to observe wrt the stars or any other POV.
One can create a simple freebody diagram of a circular orbit with Earth at the centre of an x,y plane. Astronomers create a frame in which the stars rotate about the Earth.
We don’t need to draw an ellipse for most purposes unless the aim is to launch a spacecraft into orbit. If we simply want to observe the Moon’s orbit wrt the Earth, all we need is an x,y plane with Earth and centre and the Moon somewhere on the X,y plane on an orbital path.
That’s what I did, I applied my engineering training to the problem, no reference frame required. It became apparent, almost immediately, that it was not possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed to the Earth while rotating once on a local axis per orbit. I demonstrated that clearly, as has Clint and Dremt, especially in his excellent YouTube video.
Yet, the spinners continue to talk about different reference frames without offering so much as an example of how the Moon can rotate locally while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
The analysis offered by entropic above is exactly the opposite of what he claims. Entropic cannot even exist within his own experience let alone go beyond them.
> I demonstrated that clearly
C’mon, Gordo. You did no such thing. Here’s a simple demonstration as to why:
https://youtu.be/DbYapFLJsPA
Worthless Willard found another source he can’t understand.
He must know it’s irrelevant since he didn’t use blockquote.
Show me, Pup.
Alternatively, show me your Pole Dance Experiment.
Clearly nobody (on either side) is using an “Earth Centred Earth Fixed” frame when visualizing the moon’s motion. Think of the GIF POV – an inertial frame with the origin centred on the Earth. That is what is being used.
Gordon writes incorrectly: “..there is no need for a reference frame…”
That’s wrong, Gordon, because there is no absolute motion, all motion is relative.
ball4…”because there is no absolute motion, all motion is relative”.
***
Only to a human observer. No on else cares about relative motion making all motion in the atmosphere absolute.
Why do you spinners have so much trouble with this? A body in motion is a body in motion, It’s motion has nothing to do with relativity.
A rotating body spinning on an axis or around a COG has angular momentum. If it has angular momentum it has angular momentum in all reference frames. The Moon has no angular momentum around a local axis or a COG. Therefore it has no angular momentum in any reference frame.
“A rotating body spinning on an axis or around a COG has angular momentum”
Therefore the Moon has angular momentum as well as orbital momentum.
RLH, you have no understanding of any of this.
Moon ONLY has linear momentum. Angular momentum does NOT apply with no mechanical attachment in a vacuum.
So how come there are Coriolis forces on the Moon?
RLH, if you weren’t braindead you could look up “Coriolis Effect” and learn something about it. Then you would know it has not relevance to this discussion.
But, you can’t learn.
“Moon ONLY has linear momentum. Angular momentum does NOT apply with no mechanical attachment in a vacuum.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Im pitching this as a new show on TLC.
So are you saying that there are no Coriolis effects on the Moon?
I’m glad Gordon now admits all motion is relative…Only to a human observer. We are all human observers so Gordon’s motion as a human observer in the atm. would be relative to the atm.
Inertially though, our moon has angular momentum about its r and angular momentum about R(theta) in elliptical orbit.
Clearly Kiddo could be challenging Gordo’s “there is no need for a reference frame” as it goes against his own belief:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1170429
But he isn’t done with trolling Roy’s.
Clearly nobody (on either side) is using an “Earth Centred Earth Fixed” frame when visualizing the moon’s motion. Think of the GIF POV – an inertial frame with the origin centred on the Earth.
Clearly Kiddo has once again found an irrelevant point as a chorus.
Gordo’s “demonstration” would refute Mercury’s tidal lock.
Willard often just sort of says things that he hopes sound coherent and on-topic but which usually turn out to be absolute nonsense. I suspect this is one of those times.
After trying to pretend he was quitting Moon Dragon crankitude at Roy’s and to seal himself into lyrical wins, Kiddo returns to gaslighting.
The most decent troll we have.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“After trying to pretend he was quitting Moon Dragon crankitude at Roys and to seal himself into lyrical wins, Kiddo returns to gaslighting..
Presumably, this means something to you. Not to any rational person, unfortunately.
Keep the gibberish coming.
My suspicions were confirmed.
“After trying to pretend he was quitting Moon Dragon crankitude at Roy’s”
No, I am giving people the opportunity to move the debate somewhere else…into the comments here:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
because there are lots of people who complain about the debate taking place here at Dr Roy’s. Lots of people that complain, but who do nothing about actually making a change happen.
But Graham keeps on wittering on here continuously even though he has been proven wrong time and time again.
Who started this thread, RLH? Not me.
So what Graham?
Sew buttons, RLH.
Sure. Graham.
OK. RLH.
> Who started this thread
Gordo, Kiddo.
Gordo.
Correct. Not me.
You can’t hide under Gordo’s trolling, Kiddo.
That’s the kind of responses that shows either you have problems with pragmatics or that you’re just a little sleazy troll.
I am not responsible for the moon discussion continuing. That was my point. I am only responsible for my own comments. If others start threads on the topic, I may choose to comment on those threads. I personally would rather the discussion continued in the comments under my video.
A Moon Dragon crank started that thread, Kiddo.
You, a Moon Dragon crank, jumped in that thread to defend a fellow Moon Dragon crank. Along Pup, another Moon Dragon crank.
Moon Dragon cranks are responsible for the food fights they create.
Please own it.
I was not defending Gordon, I was criticizing you. You had linked to a video which did not make the point you seemed to wish it to make. In correcting you, I thought it could be a moment where you finally learned something important. Unfortunately, that did not happen. You never learn, you just automatically dispute anything I write.
Gordo make a crappy comment about his “demonstration.”
I replied to Gordo.
You replied to me.
Either you have a problem with pragmatics, say because you are in the spectrum, or you’re a sleazy troll.
The alternatives are not mutually exclusive.
You never learn, you just automatically dispute anything I write.
Sure thing. Graham.
Look, Kiddo. Here are two things you said:
[K1] I am only responsible for my own comments.
[K2] I am not responsible for the [M]oon discussion continuing.
What if I told you that your own comments were taking part to the Moon discussion?
Every time you disappear we stop having the Moon discussion. Gordo can’t stir up things that much, for he’s tilting at windmills. Pup’s jabs are too weak. Nobody cares about Mike Flynn’s spit.
So once again, either you are oblivious to what you’re doing here, or you’re a manipulative prick.
Which is it?
See?
1) You all ultimately blame me for the moon discussions, regardless of who starts them.
2) You all act like this is a problem, that you do not want it discussed here.
3) I give you the opportunity to get the discussions off the blog, and into the comments at my video.
but
4) Not a single one of you will comment at the video.
See, Kiddo?
You keep insinuating that Gordo is sole responsible or that I am blaming you alone for what is happening right now.
Neither are relevant or true.
You always duck and weave using these silly quantifier games.
That’s now how adults behave.
If you really wanted out, at the very least you’d do as Cristos do. Something like a daily drive-by, with a short back-and-forth and a thank you.
As far as I am concerned, 1) to 4) is all completely true. I do not insinuate that anybody is solely responsible, quite the opposite in fact. And it is you lot that try to insinuate that I am solely responsible. One such remark is here:
“Every time you disappear we stop having the Moon discussion.”
You people want action to happen but you all want someone else to be the one to start it.
[W] You keep insinuating that Gordo is sole responsible or that I am blaming you alone for what is happening right now. Neither are relevant or true.
[K] And it is you lot that try to insinuate that I am solely responsible
[WILLARD] You keep insinuating that…I am blaming you alone for what is happening right now. [That is] not relevant or true.
[ALSO WILLARD] Every time you disappear we stop having the Moon discussion.
Yes, and the correct inference is that
[K2] I am not responsible for the [M]oon discussion continuing.
is false.
Your “I didn’t start it” is puerile, Kiddo.
[K2] is only false if the moon discussion would not continue without me.
You sure?
Read again.
If "I am not responsible for the [M]oon discussion continuing".
is false, then:
"I am responsible for the moon discussion continuing".
Since I do not agree that I am responsible for the moon discussion continuing, I am challenging you to prove that the moon discussion would not continue without me, which I think is a necessary condition to show that I am responsible for the moon discussion continuing. Especially in light of the fact that you claim:
"Every time you disappear we stop having the Moon discussion. Gordo can’t stir up things that much, for he’s tilting at windmills. Pup’s jabs are too weak. Nobody cares about Mike Flynn’s spit.
So once again, either you are oblivious to what you’re doing here, or you’re a manipulative prick."
Let me put you out of your logical misery, Kiddo:
Gordo is responsible for having mentioned his “demonstration.”
I am responsible for having responded to it by citing a video showing that frames of reference and point of view are two different things.
You are responsible for having responded to me.
Richard is responsible for saying you’re wrong and an idiot.
See? Simples.
Please refrain from silly “but he started it” excuses.
It’s been three years now.
Don’t be so pathetic.
So you’ve got absolutely nothing. No surprises there.
I’ve given you enough chances, Kiddo.
Good bye.
Hello.
‘When you study engineering, you must remain grounded. By that, I mean you must centre yourself in the reality with which you are dealing. We accomplish that much of the time by creating freebody diagrams of a problem, a process in which forces acting on a body are replaced by vectors.’
Yes, that is correct. You have to factor in all the forces that will significantly influence your problem.
The problem with the considerations of too many posting here, including you, on how the moon moves ignores the rather significant influence of the sun on the moon in the sun-earth-moon system.
If you’re going to make assumptions about the movements of the moon you must consider the influence of both the sun and the earth.
In all reasonable considerations of the sun-earth-moon system the sun is the center of the universe.
The only universe in which the moon does not rotate around its axis is in the reference frame where you are center of the universe and everything revolves around you. Its a rather boring megalomaniac viewpoint.
I know this isn’t going to change your thinking. Any further discussion here is like explaining a rainbow to a blind man. I can only sympathize that you, and several others who post here, can’t see the whole picture and unfortunately, unlike the blind man, will not consider that you can’t see the whole picture.
“The only universe in which the moon does not rotate around its axis is in the reference frame where you are center of the universe and everything revolves around you. Its a rather boring megalomaniac viewpoint.”
…and a truly ridiculous straw man.
I can only sympathize that you can’t see the whole picture and unfortunately, unlike the blind man, will not consider that you can’t see the whole picture.
I do see the whole picture…and nobody is looking at the issue as though the Universe revolves around them. That is a ridiculous straw man.
Ken, you seem extremely confused. This is so far over your head. You obviously have no science background, at all.
Thankfully, there is help. The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string makes it so easy even a child can understand. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis as it is swung in a circle. If it were rotating, the string would wrap around it.
See how simple it is?
If ball were rotating more or less than once per orbit, the string would wrap around it.
Simple it is.
If the ball were rotating the string would wrap around it. If the ball were rotating faster, slower, or at the same rate as its orbit, the string would wrap around it.
You can’t accept reality Ball4, because you’re a braindead cult idiot.
But at least you’ve fooled Norman. That’s not much, but it’s better than Willard. He can’t fool anyone.
If the ball were rotating as located observing from “the inside of it orbit” as Clint R writes, then the string would wrap around it.
Since the ball “presents different faces to the outside of its orbit” as Clint R writes it is rotating once on its own axis per orbit to keep the string from wrapping as observed from that outside location.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Nor has there ever been a demonstration of a workable prototype system that could achieve net zero emissions with only wind, sun and storage, even for a small town or an island.”
This is all that needs to said about it.
Lefties won’t care about it, because you do is stuff which is
unrelated to reality {they live in fantasy reality. Some might say I live in fantasy reality- but I just want NASA to do it’s job- and NASA is getting enough tax dollars to do it’s job- NASA feels it’s victim of not getting enough tax dollars. I would say NASA would get a lot more tax dollars, if it would do it’s job, and constantly undercutting themselves. So I would talk about what might happen is space was actually explored, rather focus on pretty pictures [which cost far more than they are worth].
Anyhow:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/more-confirmation-of-the-infeasibility-of-a-fully-wind-solar-storage-electricity-system/
25 seems to acting like 24:
Sunspot number: 30
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 11.93×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.5% High
https://www.spaceweather.com/
And it seems if like 24, there won’t much time that Solar Max
conditions related to space activities occur. Lower space radiation
{GCR} and increased orbital drag. Increased orbital drag might considered “bad”, though it does clear up orbit in regards to space debris.
Oh , don’t let Bindiclows see this , he insist 25 will be mucho más grande than 24 and he has his own misaligned chart to prove it.
Gbaikie
This group get pretty close.
https://cat.org.uk/
So, it seems it’s doomed, then?
One thing about a Mars town.
It should cause one to have not use fossil fuel.
Except, idiots do call natural gas, a fossil fuel.
And Martians would probably make a lot a natural gas.
And could even find natural gas on Mars.
Though I doubt they we find any fossils on Mars.
Europa could have life, but might not find fossils there, either.
And probably/possibly to find methane, on Europa. And methane is everywhere in Space.
DREMT
We stopped using the “Earth Centred Earth Fixed ” reference frame in 1543 when Copernicus published his heliocentric theory.
Yes, exactly. As I said, clearly nobody (on either side) is using an “Earth Centred Earth Fixed” frame when visualizing the moon’s motion. Think of the GIF POV – an inertial frame with the origin centred on the Earth. That is what is being used.
This GIF:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Without axial rotation of the Moon, it would be MOTR.
“Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Wrong. Again.
“Orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation” is the MOTL. The ball-on-a-string is the simple analogy.
“Orbital motion WITH axial rotation” is the MOTR. A bicycle pedal is the simple analogy. The pedal is rotating on an axle so that is can always face the rider, as it “orbits”.
> The pedal is rotating on an axle so that is can always face the rider, as it “orbits”
Where’s the rider in the GIF, Pup?
The pedal is like MOTR.
Yes, the pedal is like the MOTR. It is rotating about its axis.
I pity the biker’s knees whose pedal would rotate, Pup.
The pedal arm rotates on its axis. The pedal stays flat to the ground. Just like MOTR.
Yes, the pedal is like the MOTR. It is rotating about its axis.
That’s why the pedal has an axle.
An axis and an axle.
Two for the price of one!
The pedal arm rotates on its axis at the center. The pedal stays flat to the ground.
The pedal does NOT rotate wrt the ground.
RLH, the correct phrasing is the crank arm revolves around the sprocket axle and the pedal rotates about its own axle. There are two axles involved because there are two motions involved — revolving (orbiting) and rotating (spinning).
The pedal MUST rotate in order for the same side to always face the ground. It’s the same basic motion as the MOTR. It is both orbiting and rotating.
Moon only has one motion, like a ball-on-a-string, or the MOTL.
… as viewed from “the inside of it orbit” as Clint has pointed out.
The crank arm revolves around the sprocket axle/axis. This causes anything that is fixed wrt to the ground to rotate wrt to it.
All motion is relative.
The crank and its pedal are not like the Moon and the Earth.
In the same way that a ball at the end of a string is not like them either.
The Moon and the Earth orbit around the Moon/Earth barycenter which neither of the above do anything like.
The pedal rotates as it revolves.
Just like the MOTR, which rotates as it orbits. Both have two motions.
Moon only has one motion — orbiting.
> The pedal rotates as it revolves.
It’s been a while Pup exercised.
Let’s help him:
https://youtu.be/Uj1ykZWtPYI
Moon only has one motion – orbiting as observed from being located “inside of it orbit” as Clint R correctly writes.
Willard, Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gbaikie
Have you thought this through.
The corollary to “civilization cannot function without fossil fuels” is “civilization ends when the fossil fuels run out”.
You can take it granted I through this though.
Most of history of civilization has had slavery.
I think slavery is bad.
I also don’t like idea of making effort [wasting time, and mostly causing misery and etc with solving the non problem of human over population. This insanity is connected to idea of a lack of resources. And/or is murderous tendency among humans or in particular the semi-humans commonly called politicians.
–The corollary to civilization cannot function without fossil fuels is civilization ends when the fossil fuels run out. —
This civilization will end. Human life and animal life will end.
Unless it becomes spacefaring. OR becomes a lot smarter.
If we have more human population there is a chance human might get smarter. But with current population of humans, if less are in poverty, there likewise a chance of humans getting a lot smarter.
But I have not had enough coffee.
You can take it for granted, I have thought this through.
{Besides that, it’s my first post, today. I need to warm up. And generally bad at writing/typing anything}.
So, anyhow. I have little faith in NASA exploring space, well enough. And certainly better ways to do all the exploration that humans need to do in regards to Space. There is huge amount exploration we need to do, on Earth. But my obsessive, is why are going nowhere in terms of Space Exploration. I started with premise that government could manage to do it. And I have learned some reasons for this failure.
DREMT
There is an old joke in England.
How does pop star Liam Gallagher change a light bulb?
He stands on a chair, holds up the light bulb and the universe rotates around him.
You are arguing as though you are Liam Gallagher, which is not appropriate to our scientific discussion.
It is Graham not DREMT. Roy didn’t appoint him. He stole that moniker.
You are still not getting it, Entropic Man. I am not using an “Earth Centred Earth Fixed” frame. Nobody is. Please stop attacking the same straw man over and over again.
Just reporting things as seen from the surface of the Earth.
Wrong. Reporting things as seen from the same POV as the tidal locking GIF.
> Reporting things as seen from the same POV as the tidal locking GIF.
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
He’s not reporting, but interpreting a GIF on spin-orbit lock using an incorrect physics module.
He’s conflating an inertial frame of reference with a first person shooter perspective.
“He’s conflating an inertial frame of reference with a first person shooter perspective.”
Completely wrong, as always. The GIF shows the moon’s motion wrt an inertial reference frame with the origin centred on the Earth. If the Earth was actually correctly shown in the GIF, it would be rotating. Whereas if it was an “Earth Centred Earth Fixed Frame” the Earth would appear motionless and the rest of the Universe would appear to be rotating around it.
Graham admits that the GIF is wrong.
It is not remotely to scale, either. So what? It does not need to be to get the point across.
> The GIF shows the moon’s motion
The Moon.
And Kiddo still does not get it: he’s not reporting, but interpreting a GIF on spin-orbit lock using an incorrect physics module.
And here’s why he’s also wrong about his transcendental argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Introduction
He’s wrong about the meaning of transcendence, but since that’s a complex concept, we’ll cut him some slack.
As I have explained countless times:
When I say the moon issue transcends reference frames I mean 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. That conclusion is false.
The issue simply comes down to whether “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL or the MOTR. The GIF is irrelevant other than it serves an illustrative purpose for those who struggle to visualize the motions.
> When I say the moon issue transcends reference frames I mean that it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to
The Moon.
And Kiddo still does not get it:
People are not arguing it’s impossible to make the Moon Dragon cranks’ mistake. It’s a pretty understandable one. We all see the Man on the Moon.
An issue does not “transcend” frames of reference just because one can come up with a different interpretation within one. Worse, the need for a reference frame is transcendental:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendental-arguments/
Without a reference frame, no interpretation of movement is possible. Kant knows it. The brain knows it. We all know it, except for Moon Dragon cranks.
I use an inertial reference frame centred on the Earth. What reference frame do you use, Willard?
With a proper physics module, it would be easy to understand how the switch from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerated one might solve the Moon Dragon cranks problem.
Nobody’s arguing that it is impossible for Moon Dragon cranks to apply an improper physics module.
Errare lunam draconem crankum est.
What reference frame do you use, Willard?
Since you will not answer, I will answer for you: the same.
Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem from the same reference frame. Thus the difference between the two positions must go beyond reference frames. Another word for “go beyond” is “transcend”.
Notice how Kiddo constantly dodges the point about interpretation. The point about reference frames is to explain and correct the Moon Dragon cranks’ mistake. It is not to make it impossible.
Here might be a reason why it has been invoked in the first place:
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
Kiddo should switch his physics module on, and stop trying to reduce physics to geometry.
Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem from the same reference frame. An inertial reference frame centred on the Earth. Thus the difference between the two positions must go beyond reference frames. Another word for “go beyond” is “transcend”.
Moon Dragon cranks are misinterpreting a GIF. Within a proper framework, it would be possible to correct that mistake. That involves switching frames of reference.
Simpler is to note how they misapply their geometric intuition to a physics problem.
Witness Gordo’s “demonstration,” which I bet Kiddo can’t recall.
No switch of reference frames is necessary, because:
Both “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem from the same reference frame. Thus the difference between the two positions must go beyond reference frames. Another word for “go beyond” is “transcend”.
A hammer can nail nails, but a rock can nail nails, so nailing a nail transcends hammers.
That works.
The see if the Moon spins, one needs a frame of reference. It is impossible to interpret the Moon’s motion without one. This is a transcendental argument.
That works too.
In one frame of reference, one can see the Moon spin, or not. Therefore the fact that the Moon spin or not transcends reference frames?
That does not work. It’d be like saying:
You can nail nails with a hammer, but I can’t, therefore nailing a nail transcends hammers.
“That does not work”
Of course it does. Since we are both using the same reference frame to visualize the problem, the issue is not that each of us is using a difference reference frame.
Remember: some “Spinners” argue that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and not on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame. Look at Entropic Man’s comments, for instance. He keeps trying to imply that the “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem from the accelerated frame. We do not.
> Since we are both using the same reference frame to visualize the problem, the issue is not that each of us is using a difference reference frame.
The issue is that Moon Dragon cranks are misinterpreting what they visualize. To correct that misinterpretation, they would need to use another frame of reference. That’s all there is to the frame of reference argument.
A reference frame isn’t just a point of reference anyway, which is another thing that passes above Kiddo’s head.
Imagine him arguing:
Look, since we are both using deductive logic, that we are not reaching the same conclusion isn’t because we’re using a different logic.
Graham admits that Graham is his real name.
“The issue is that [“Non-Spinners”] are misinterpreting what they visualize.”
No, we are not.
“To correct that misinterpretation, they would need to use another frame of reference. That’s all there is to the frame of reference argument.”
So you want us to use an accelerated frame rather than an inertial frame? Why would that be? In what way would it “correct the misinterpretation”? What is the “misinterpretation” in the first place?
Just more nonsense from Willard, that he will never explain.
In fairness, Richard, that was rather cool of Kiddo to show his humanity.
I wouldn’t mind if he replaced his silly nick with “DREMT.” I’d use it.
> So you want us
I don’t want anything from Moon Dragon cranks about frames of reference except that they understand the damn argument made. But Kiddo’s not listening. He’ll keep repeating his chorus of the moment to keep evading the points being made:
A frame of reference is necessary to interpret motion. A frame of reference does not reduce to a perspective. There are proper ways to interpret motion relative to a frame of reference, and there are improper ones. These misinterpretations can be correct in another frame of reference.
Moon Dragon Cranks obviously misinterpret the physics behind the GIF. My own explanation is that they try to reduce physics to geometry.
“A frame of reference is necessary to interpret motion.”
OK.
“A frame of reference does not reduce to a perspective.”
OK.
“There are proper ways to interpret motion relative to a frame of reference and there are improper ones. These misinterpretations can be correct in another frame of reference.”
This is as vague as you could possibly make it. Just more nonsense from Willard, that he will never explain.
Let’s try it Kiddo’s way:
Imagine him arguing:
Look, since we are both using deductive logic, that we are not reaching the same conclusion isn’t because we’re using a different logic.
Willard has no explanation for his remarks. He will not elaborate or clarify. So we know it is just more nonsense from him.
Kiddo has no counter to a very simple point:
Imagine him arguing that, since we are both reaching different conclusions using deductive logic, we cannot be using a different logic.
Therefore our dispute transcends logic.
To counter your point all I need to do is point you in the direction of both my 8:38 AM comment and my 10:04 AM comment, and ask you to stop misrepresenting me.
I guess you will never elaborate or clarify, so this discussion is at an end.
More puerility from Kiddo.
Imagine if he argued that deductions transcend logic because people make bad inferences.
It’s as if he did not realize that frames of reference came with a physics module.
…so this discussion is at an end.
Now that we enjoy our delicious win, let’s be gracious and expand the earlier quote:
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
Kiddo should be asking Tim for pointers instead of wearing himself out of his own disputations.
Imagine him arguing that Graham’s an idiot. We’ll all agree and that will be that.
I am correct on this issue, RLH.
P1) Some “Spinners” argue that the “Non-Spinners” are wrong because they visualize the problem wrt an accelerated frame.
P2) The “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem wrt an inertial reference frame.
C) Those “Spinners” who argue as per P1) are wrong to do so.
Graham is never correct on anything.
Well, the conclusion obviously follows from the premises, so which premise do you dispute? P1 or P2?
Kiddo really ought to ask Tim kindly, after making amends:
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
Which premise do you dispute? P1 or P2?
Imagine if Kiddo argued that deductions transcend logic because people make bad inferences.
As if he could not conceive that frames of reference came with some physics.
Willard, rather than searching for things you will never understand, try something that’s easy to understand:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
If you could just get something right, you wouldn’t be so worthless.
“These are forces that a person in the accelerated frame thinks exist”
The “Non-Spinners” are not visualizing the problem from the accelerated frame. So your 11:34 AM quote and 12:17 PM follow up link are not germane.
[KIDDO] so this discussion is at an end.
[ALSO KIDDO] Which premise do you dispute?
True, the discussion was at an end when you refused to elaborate or clarify your position, but you kept on responding (even after I tried to move on to talking to RLH), so here we are.
Unless and until you get me what I want
This discussion is at an end
And I will continue to ask
Until I get what I want
What you say is nonsense
Unless and until you get me what I want
So I will continue to ask
Until I get what I want
In return, I will give you nothing
Else than my repetitive questions
I’m such a decent person
You are so mean to me
So you don’t explain yourself, and somehow that’s my fault!? Amazing.
Communicating with an idiot, such as Graham, is pointless.
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
You keep quoting from a source on accelerated frames despite the fact that as I have already explained, "Non-Spinners" are not visualizing the problem from the accelerated frame. It’s beyond stupid.
DREMT really go to the idiots, with his video. Willard and RLH are trying everything they can to go after him. And he calmly brushes them off.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint and Graham are both idiots.
Thats why this is so much fun.
[W] “(relative to an inertia frame)”
[K] You keep quoting from a source on accelerated frames
So much fun!
Yes RLH, feel free to copy/paste my exact words.
Who knows, maybe you can learn something?
“Find the fictitious force felt by the mass”
“This is similar to the [M]oon rotating once on its axis for every revolution is makes around the [E]arth, thereby causing the same side to always face the [E]arth.”
“Words in quotes”.
“Newton’s laws hold only in inertial frames of reference. However, there are many non-inertial (that is, accelerated) frames of reference that we might reasonably want
to study, such as elevators, merry-go-rounds, and so on.”
Yes, poorly written. A MGR is not an accelerated frame, obviously. Nor is it automatically associated with an accelerated frame. Its motion can be visualized wrt an accelerated frame, or an inertial reference frame.
Clint R and the rest of his tiny clique cannot learn anything from anyone else but describe all science that is not from them as not science at all.
Idiots all.
> A MGR is not an accelerated frame, obviously
Oo
A MGR is an object. A reference frame is a coordinate system.
> A reference frame is a coordinate system.
This is poorly written:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
“The reference frames used in dynamics are known as coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin.”
“an observational frame of reference is characterized only by its state of motion./
#2
“The reference frames used in dynamics are known as coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin.”
“To be quantitative about all this, we’ll have to spend some time determining how the coordinates (and their derivatives) in an accelerated frame relate to those in an inertial frame.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
An observational frame (such as an inertial frame or non-inertial frame of reference) is a physical concept related to state of motion.
A coordinate system is a mathematical concept, amounting to a choice of language used to describe observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
————
Willard when you use the internet to look for answers you need to consider that your initial opinion might be wrong rather than just look for stuff you think supports your point of view.
The first sentence of your reference above says:
”In physics and astronomy, a frame of reference (or reference frame) is an abstract coordinate system with an origin, orientation, and scale specified by a set of reference points”
But you skip over the fact that DREMT is right and try to find something that might appear to support your point of view.
You find something but you have to first skip over more than above you have to skip over what an observational frame of reference actually is.
Einsteinian relativity has nothing to do with this argument even though the spinners have a hard time understanding what the nonspinners are saying.
We are NOT saying the moon is not rotating as one might imply from an earthbound point of view. We are saying the moon is rotating from the same perspective as spinners. We only argue about the location of the axis. Thats why the issue at hand transcends frames of reference. So the frame of reference argument is irrelevant. We have no difference in frame of reference. We only have your side making stuff up about what nonspinners are thinking to support your argument. . . .All that is made up because nonspinners do believe the moon rotates and in the frame of reference you accuse us of using. . . .the moon does not rotate.
RLH
My children are professionals and an occasional Internet search relevant to them brought up my hobby of “Speaker to Weirdos”.
They asked me to use a nom de plume to avoid further embarrassment.
Similarly a number of high profile climate scientists use a nom de plume online to clearly separate their individual opinions from their professional communications.
If DREMT prefers to be DREMT , I don’t mind.
Kiddo has no business piggybacking on Roy’s name. Trolling Roy’s for years ought to be enough.
If he wants people to use “DREMT,” let him sign with it.
My children are professionals also.
Were your wives friendly with the mailman?
How conservative of you, Troglodyte.
Idiot.
New here. And I may not be back, due to the amount of infantile name-calling going on in the comments. Seriously? Probably 90% of those commenting are older than me yet even when I disagreed with a point someone was trying to make, I never felt any need to insult them. It feels very odd to say such a thing to adults but grow up. If you feel the need to insult someone for a differing opinion or view of data accumulated, then either you want them to disregard your point of view or you don’t have a good enough stance to make them listen.
Case in point:. Richard Greene, Nate was actually correct. In your link to elonion, the post with only three charts, the first two charts were indeed labeled as “Degrees Centigrade”, however in the Newsweek chart it was clearly labeled “Degrees Fahrenheit” and the Newsweek chart is indeed the one showing the .6 degree drop while the two in Centigrade only show a .3 drop. Details matter, and either you weren’t paying attention to the details of the charts you posted or you chose to ignore them.
Mouse, if you stay around long enough you will discover the battle is between those that accept reality, and those that attempt to pervert reality. Those that seek to pervert reality have NOTHING, so they must resort to insults and false accusations. They constantly demonstrate their lack of understanding of science and physics. They belong to a cult. And, they can’t learn.
Stick around and see for yourself.
“those that accept reality” which does not include Clint R and his merry band.
RLH must make false accusations like that because he has NOTHING.
Clint R is just an idiot. That is not false.
Mouse
Thanks for coming. And please try to keep online, despite the ” infantile name-calling going on in the comments “, to which I unluckily contribute each time a poster insults me just because I have an opinion s/he doesn’t share.
Bindidon, are your ineffective ankle bites due to being insulted by someone, or is reality insulting you?
You’re not Reality, Pup.
Worthless Willard, even Norman sees through you.
That’s puts you at the bottom, down there with the lowest whale dung.
Norma has his own issues, Pup.
The betas here are the Dragon cranks.
mouse…”New here. And I may not be back, due to the amount of infantile name-calling going on in the comments. Seriously?”
***
None of us bother with insults or ad homs. It’s generally taken in good humour. The point is to make the insult/ad hom a small part of the post and not the gist of it.
You are coming in late in the game. Many of us have been discussing science related to physics and some of us are presenting the physics correctly while others are not. Hence, we tend to refer to the pseudo-science types as idiots for their narrow-minded approach to science. Of course, some have adopted our practice and call us idiots incorrectly.
rlh has a basic problem with this in that he is dependent on an appeal to authority and afflicted with terminal terseness. He has been demoted to ‘intelligent imbecile’ even though he has a Master’s degree in something or other.
I think the first declared idiot was Bindidon, aka binny, over two years ago.
A few of us like Clint, Dremt, Swenson are of genius calibre and would apply to Mensa but we feel they are all idiots at Mensa. Not only that, we’re all good looking.
> None of us bother with insults or ad homs. […] He has been demoted to “intelligent imbecile”
C’mon, Gordo.
Gordon, don’t forget our obvious, and over-flowing, humility….
clint…I am too humble to be aware of such things. ☺
What was it Mack Davis said in his song?
Some folks say that I’m egotistical
Hell I don’t even know what that means
I guess it has something to do
With the way that I fill out my skin tight blue jeans.
A few of us like Clint, Dremt, Swenson are idiots.
Gordon,
I was prepared to nominate that for comment of the year, but you left me out!
Mouse,
In my neck of the woods, we call guys like you a pussy. But, you’re lower than a pussy, you’re a mouse.
Conservativer and conservativer, our Troglodyte.
ken…”The only universe in which the moon does not rotate around its axis is in the reference frame where you are center of the universe and everything revolves around you. Its a rather boring megalomaniac viewpoint”.
***
Why have you leaped to such a conclusion? There is a far simpler solution using basic calculus that negates your statement.
I am not affected by ad homs or insults, the only way to affect me is to prove me wrong based on a rebuttal of what I am about to prove…again.
When I say basic calculus, I mean it employs tangent lines which can be easily calculated at any point in an orbit by taking the derivative of the orbital curve equation. It would be a lot easier using a circular orbit for that reason. Whether using a circle or an ellipse, it makes no difference to the mechanics of the problem other than a trivial amount.
The focus has to be on the fact that the Moon always keeps the one side (near-face) always pointed at the Earth. The Sun has no bearing on this, it’s strictly about Earth’s gravity and the Moon’s linear momentum. Using a circular orbit, we draw a radial line from Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre to track the lunar motion. Then we draw a tangent line at the near face, a line perpendicular to the radial line where it cuts the near-face.
As that radial line with its perpendicular tangent line rotates, it should be immediately apparent to you there is a problem with your claim above.
Tangent line to what? First, we need to define what is meant by an orbit. Is it the path traced out by the Moon’s centre of gravity or is it the entire path-width traced out by every particle on the Moon? I am using the latter. So, the near-face traces a circle, the COG traces a circle, and the far-side traces a circle, all concentric, hence parallel. All points in between trace their own concentric circle.
You can now remove the Moon from the drawing. Simply draw a radial line rotating with three tangent lines representing the near-face, COG, and the far-side. All three tangent lines, which can be momentum or velocity vectors, must always move in parallel, ruling out the possibility of local rotation about the COG.
This is a QED, no possible rebuttal, of which I am aware or which has been presented here by any spinner.
What you and other spinners are doing is mistaking the constant change in angle of the near face tangent line, wrt the x-axis, for local rotation. That is an illusion. The change in orientation of the near face tangent line is a property of the curvilinear translation, without rotation, mentioned by Newton.
The near-face is most definitely constantly changing orientation wrt the stars but not around the lunar axis. A tangent line representing the lunar axis/COG is always moving in parallel with the near-face tangent line. That can be easily observed in Dremt’s MOTL gif, especially if you download the gif and separate it into its component jpg files (using the free Irfanview viewer).
It becomes blatantly obvious when the gif is examined frame by frame that all parts of the Moon along a radial Earth-centred line are always moving in parallel, an impossibility if the Moon is rotating around a local axis.
So a roundabout, where all tangents drawn through it are always moving in parallel, cannot rotate on its local axis.
Wrong.
Idiot.
Except, Gordo, that your “radial lines” do not always point toward the Earth. The Earth-Moon vector is along the line between the focus of the orbit’s elliptical path and this line is only parallel to your “radial lines” at apogee and perigee. The result is that the view of the side of the Moon as seen from the Earth is constantly changing as the Moon rotates with a constant rate. That’s the cause of the Librations seen around the orbit which present more of one edge half way around and then the other edge during the remainder of the orbit.
And libration is one of the reasons we know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
Which libration, Pup?
There are many.
This is too far over your head. Don’t even try to understand.
You’re nothing more than a worthless troll.
You’re just trolling, Pup.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
You ignorant troll, you still haven’t learned how to spell “pole”.
Here’s a great tune you can dance to:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
You are the troll here, Pup.
About time you notice that I alternate spelling FYEO.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie….”Except, Gordo, that your radial lines do not always point toward the Earth. The Earth-Moon vector is along the line between the focus of the orbits elliptical path and this line is only parallel to your radial lines at apogee and perigee”.
***
I know that Swannie but the variation away from parallel is only a few degrees. We can tell that by the amount of longitudinal libration, the number of degrees we can see around the edge of the Moon at certain points in it’s orbit.
The lunar orbit is very close to circular and I think it’s safe to represent it as a circle for our purposes.
Besides, what I’m talking about is not affected by what you’re talking about. At all points on the elliptical orbit, the parallel nature of the near-side, COG, and far-side tangential vectors is the same for both circles and ellipses.
> The lunar orbit is very close to circular and I think its safe to represent it as a circle for our purposes.
What purpose would that be, Gordo – another round of Moon Dragon crank trolling at Roy’s?
Things don’t quite match our favorite theory so we’ll fudge things to make it OK.
And we catch you doing that all the time, RLH.
If you’re not making stuff up, you’re insulting or falsely accusing. Science, reality, truth and honesty mean NOTHING to braindead cult idiots.
The clique does not respect reality or science.
Gordo wrote:
It’s true that the instantaneous velocity vectors are parallel, but the motion of the COM is an ellipse, thus the instantaneous center of rotation at all COM positions around the orbit can not be a single point. Because of this, the Moon’s motion can not be described as a rotation about a fixed point. However, the Moon does rotate once an orbit around it’s COM.
> This is a QED, no possible rebuttal
C’mon, Gordo. This has been rebutted a thousand times.
Gravity does not pull the near side of the Moon, so your argument is invalid.
> All three tangent lines, which can be momentum or velocity vectors, must always move in parallel, ruling out the possibility of local rotation about the COG.
Those tangent lines will always be parallel in the bicycle pedal (aka MOTR) model as well, Gordon, so your geometric proof isn’t.
Notice that the velocity vectors are different lengths in any scenario other than MOTR, including MOTL. The only way for that to be true is that the Moon is deforming and/or it is rotating
What are you talking about?
A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
> A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
All motions can be, and are, represented by velocity vectors, Clint. Every point on a non-rotating, non-deforming object will have the exact same velocity vectors. Not so when the thing starts spinning.
The velocity vector of an orbiting body has NOTHING to do with whether the body is rotating or not.
A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
> The velocity vector
There are multiple points, Clint.
One body, one velocity vector.
A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
You don’t have a clue about any of this.
> One body, one velocity vector.
Take it up with Gordo, Clint:
Converting the *three* tangent lines to vectors (plural) representing velocity we find that all three differ in magnitude, raising three possibilities:
1) The Moon is deforming
2) The moon is rotating
3) Both (1) and (2)
Choose.
I’m taking it up with you, worthless troll.
A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation.
You don’t have a clue about any of this.
brandon…”Converting the *three* tangent lines to vectors (plural) representing velocity we find that all three differ in magnitude, raising three possibilities:
1) The Moon is deforming
2) The moon is rotating
3) Both (1) and (2)
***
You forgot the other choice…
4) None of the above.
Or ..
4)The Moon is performing curvilinear translation without local rotation.
> 4)The Moon is performing curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Drive your car in a perfect circle, Gordon. Tell me with a straight face that it isn’t constantly changing compass heading.
It is just like the transmographer demonstration never happened, eh, Brandon!?
An object that you rotate about an external axis, without you rotating it about an internal axis, already changes its orientation whilst it moves. It already moves as per the MOTL. With no rotation about an internal axis. The MOTL has only one axis of rotation. As proven by the transmographer.
“A velocity vector has NOTHING to do with axial rotation”
So a velocity vector at the surface of a top has nothing to do with the top rotating.
Idiot.
Correct RLH, a velocity vector at the surface of a top has nothing to do with the top rotating. The top may not even have a velocity. You may be confusing angular speed with velocity.
And, correct again, you are an idiot, a braindead cult idiot.
So if I touch the surface of a rotating top there is no velocity under my finger?
Idiot.
Correct RLH. The top may not even have a velocity. You may be confusing angular speed with velocity.
And, correct again, you are an idiot, a braindead cult idiot.
So disc brakes don’t work then? Idiot.
No, disk brakes typically work just fine, RLH.
It’s your head that doesn’t work. Your brain has locked up.
Brakes work on differential velocity to create friction which slow things down.
> changes its orientation
Otherwise known as rotation, DREMT.
> The velocity vector of an orbiting body has NOTHING to do with whether the body is rotating or not.
No wonder Pup can’t shoot straight.
"Otherwise known as rotation, DREMT"
Sure, as I said:
An object that you rotate about an external axis, without you rotating it about an internal axis, already changes its orientation whilst it moves. It already moves as per the MOTL. With no rotation about an internal axis. The MOTL has only one axis of rotation. As proven by the transmographer.
> Sure, as I said:
No you didn’t, DREMT, as you perennially abuse the distinction between revolves (orbits) and rotates (spins). The fact that the Moon changes orientation as you put it is all the proof you need that it spins on its own axis at the same time it orbits the Earth.
Another proof is that different points on the Moon have different velocities. Since the Moon is not deforming, this means it must be spinning.
C.f. properly operating, non-deforming bicycle pedals — each point on the pedal is moving at the same velocity as any other.
The transmographer proves me correct on rotation, Brandon. Sorry for your loss.
> As proven by the transmographer.
2+2=4, therefore 1+3!=4.
As proven by the calculator.
Sorry for your loss, Willard.
I can toast one slice of bread, therefore I can’t toast two.
As proven by the toaster.
Sure, Willard. You don’t understand rotation, and never will. That’s fine by me.
One can solve a Rubik cube in less than 15 seconds while riding a bicycle, therefore it can’t be solved in more than 15 seconds.
As demonstrated by my Rubik Cube Solver:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/chennai-boy-solves-rubik-s-cube-in-14-32-seconds-while-riding-bicycle-sets-guinness-world-record/ar-AAVcpzw
Nobody has a clue what Willard is on about any more. He just sort of waffles away to himself.
Kiddo can’t grok what I’m saying, therefore what I’m saying makes no sense.
As proven by my Sense Maker, Kiddo.
You’re just bashing straw man after straw man. As you always do.
Now I suppose we’re locked into another interminable back and forth.
An object cannot rotate about an external axis, only an internal one.
An orbit around a barycenter proves that.
"The axis of rotation need not go through the body"
One could fold their tees in one fell swoop:
https://youtu.be/XUZfsohErgY
Thus is is IMPOSSIBLE to fold it in more than one movement,
As prove by my Mary Komodo Understander.
It is possible to represent the motion of the Moon using one single rotation.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to represent the motion of the Moon using more than one rotation.
As proven by Kiddo’s transmographer.
“The axis of rotation need not go through the body”
in geometry, not in real life.
In real life, RLH, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round rotates about an axis that is external to the wooden horse.
Did someone mention merry-go-round:
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
Graham you may have failed to to notice that we have replaced fixed horse (which just makes it part of the MGR) with a rotating platform such as is found on a lot of fairground rides so that it is independent of a fixed connection but instead has its own axis to rotate about.
That platform can also have tangents drawn through it independent of the MGR.
The wooden horse is not rotating about an axis going through the body of the horse itself, as you agree. The axis of rotation for the horse is thus external to the horse. So real life objects can rotate about external axes.
Kiddo as a point particle:
https://youtu.be/EmGcBNUJOd0
So real life objects can rotate about external axes.
The wooden horse on rotating mgr is not rotating wrt to the mgr about an axis going through the body of the horse itself. The axis of rotation for the horse is thus external to the horse. So real life objects can rotate about external axes.
The wooden horse on rotating mgr is rotating on its own axis wrt to the room containing the mgr.
I was thinking of more like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zcYT8DYiY
> So real life objects can rotate about external axes.
DREMT, you repeat a false dichotomy and again abuse the distinction between revolving (orbiting) and rotating (spinning). Hint: an object can do both simultaneously, neither, or one or the other.
Like the locked bicycle pedal or carousel horse, any arbitrarily defined piece of a rotating disk is spinning about its geometric center at the same rate the entire disk spins about its central axis.
Suppose we actually break up a spinning disk into arbitrary pieces. First-year physics tells us that angular momentum must be conserved, hence each piece continues rotating on its own geometric center same as it always was:
https://youtu.be/n-DTjpde9-0?t=515
"DREMT, you repeat a false dichotomy"
No, I don’t.
"and again abuse the distinction between revolving (orbiting) and rotating (spinning)."
No, I don’t.
"Hint: an object can do both simultaneously, neither, or one or the other."
I 100% agree, and have never argued otherwise.
"Like the locked bicycle pedal or carousel horse, any arbitrarily defined piece of a rotating disk is spinning about its geometric center at the same rate the entire disk spins about its central axis."
Absolutely not. Any arbitrarily defined piece of a rotating disk is rotating about an axis in the center of the rotating disk, and not on its own axis, as the transmographer demonstrates.
> Any arbitrarily defined piece of a rotating disk is rotating about an axis in the center of the rotating disk, and not on its own axis, as the transmographer demonstrates.
Model MOTR as a yo-yo. Cut the string. According to the physics of your universe, the yo-yo will depart on a tangent and continue spinning clockwise. YET: prior to its release every point of the yo-yo was moving at the same instantaneous velocity.
Explain.
"According to the physics of your universe, the yo-yo will depart on a tangent and continue spinning clockwise"
I don’t think that will happen, so there’s nothing to explain. Similarly, I agree that the pieces of record fly off at a tangent rotating on their own axes. Prior to the record breaking apart, however, they are not rotating on their own axes, since such rotation is impossible. They can be conceived as translating in a circle and rotating on their own axes before disintegration of the record, which is where your confusion about angular momentum arises, but this is an abstract conception. There is no true axial rotation of the record pieces before disintegration, since that is impossible.
DREMT,
> I don’t think that will happen, so there’s nothing to explain.
Since it was spinning before the string was cut, inertia dictates that it will continue spinning after the string is cut. So there *is* something to explain: why inertia does not apply in this case.
You explained it yourself: prior to its release every point of the yo-yo was moving at the same instantaneous velocity.
brandon…”Those tangent lines will always be parallel in the bicycle pedal (aka MOTR) model as well, Gordon, so your geometric proof isnt.
Notice that the velocity vectors are different lengths in any scenario”
***
Have not been following the argument on bicycle pedals. However, if you replaced the pedal on the end of the pedal level with a sphere welded to the lever arm, to represent the Moon, it would not rotate about its COG as it rotated about the axle attached to the lever arm. Same as the real Moon.
As far as velocity vector lengths, that is irrelevant. The length represents the magnitude, or scalar quantity, whereas we are talking strictly direction here. When several vectors facing in the same parallel direction are rotating around an external axis, they cannot rotate about a common COG at the same time.
When we talk about vectors related to an orbit, we are always talking about their instantaneous direction. The Moon is always moving instantaneously with a linear/rectilinear motion, as indicated by Newton, therefore any point on the Moon, at any instant is always moving in a linear, tangential direction and parallel to any other point represented by a velocity vector.
type…”if you replaced the pedal on the end of the pedal level…” should read…
“if you replaced the pedal on the end of the pedal lever…”
> As far as velocity vector lengths, that is irrelevant.
It’s entirely relevant, Gordon, since an object whose points all move with the same velocity is neither deforming nor rotating.
An object moving as per the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis in one direction, whilst rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction, at a rate of once per orbit.
The object moving as the MOTR is like the pedal, not rotating wrt to the ground (fixed stars).
Ah yes, the pedal.
A locked pedal physically cannot rotate on its own axis, and thus moves as per the MOTL.
An unlocked pedal is able to rotate on its own axis, and thus moves as per the MOTR.
An unlocked pedal does not rotate wrt the the ground (fixed stars) only wrt the the pedal arm. Just like the MOTR.
You’re still not getting rotation. It’s not a "wrt" thing. It’s a "it happens or it doesn’t" thing.
This discussion would be much more productive if everyone recognized that there is a HUGE difference between:
* Axle = 3D, solid, metal object
* Axis = 1D, abstract mathematical line
Accordingly, there could be two very different answers to:
* Does the petal rotate on its AXLE?
* Does the petal rotate on its AXIS?
[Personally, I would definitely say “Yes, a ‘locked petal’ DOES rotate on its AXIS as the crank arm turns” and I would be fine saying “No, a ‘locked petal’ does NOT rotate on its AXLE as the crank arm turns.” But that would also require agreeing on a definition for “rotate on”.]
> It’s not a “wrt” thing.
Oh no:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Astronomy
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1220043
Allow me to explain, then.
The locked pedal (MOTL) can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis.
The unlocked pedal (MOTR) can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis whilst rotating about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
b) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Kinematically, those are the options…and if you think about it, those options transcend reference frames.
Do you agree with those four options, Tim?
The locked pedal becomes part of the pedal arm. You could make the whole thing as just one part. It has no axis because it is not separate.
Exactly, RLH. The locked pedal has no axis of rotation going through the pedal itself. Most normal people understand that, but we have to be careful with the likes of Tim et al. They are "specially trained" to have forgotten such obvious things.
Tim, a locked bicycle pedal is NOT rotating about its axis. It can’t. It’s LOCKED.
That’s the same mistake you make with Moon. You can’t learn.
> Allow me to explain, then.
Oh noes, Kiddo is wriggling away!
RLH,
> The locked pedal becomes part of the pedal arm.
I have been waiting for someone to mention this. Define any axis on the crank parallel to the central axis of rotation. If the crank is not rotating about that axis, it isn’t rotating about any axis.
DREMT says: “a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.”
If you change that to either of the following I could be on board.
a1) Rotating about an external axis with no ADDITIONAL rotation about an internal axis.
a2) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal AXLE.
Amen, Brandon.
And conversely, if the crank IS rotating about that central axis, it IS rotating about any of the parallel axes.
Clint, a locked bicycle pedal is NOT rotating about its AXLE. It cant. Its LOCKED TO THE ROTATING AXLE.
But an AXIS, being a non-physical 1D line, doesn’t have any orientation and can’t be “locked” to the petal.
No, Tim. There is no need for that "additional". The locked pedal can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis.
There is only one axis of rotation for the locked pedal, and that remains true if you go with either a) or b). If you go with a), the axis of rotation is the central one (external to the pedal itself). If you go with b), the axis of rotation is within the pedal itself.
“There is only one axis of rotation …”
Why? How do you define your terms?
An “axis” is simply a line. That line may or may not be moving.
A “rotation” is a change in orientation relative to an axis (without changing the distance from the axis).
So I choose a line through the center of the locked petal. I choose a point on the petal. Does it change orientation with respect to the axis I chose? Well at some instant, that point is in front of the axis; at some other instant, that point is above the axis; later behind; then below.
Unless you can propose some other definition(s), the locked petal is “rotating” about my chosen “axis”.
(And also rotating about the central axis. And about an axis through the center of the OTHER petal. And … )
Tim, Google "online transmographer". Click on the "Shodor" link. Click on "New Triangle" until you have a triangle that is not passing through 0,0 at any point.
Now, repeatedly rotate the triangle around point 0,0, 45 degrees at a time. It moves as per the locked pedal (MOTL).
This is one command.
One motion.
One axis of rotation (at 0,0).
Note that you can also rotate the triangle "around center", which rotates the triangle on its own axis.
This is a separate command.
This is a separate motion.
This is another axis of rotation (an internal one).
Without using the "around center" command, and only using the "around a point" command, the object moves as per the locked pedal (MOTL).
The locked pedal (MOTL) can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis.
Both a) and b) can be proven using the transmographer (there is also a "translate" command).
The locked pedal has no axis of rotation. Period. It is part of the pedal arm which has its own sperate axis.
The unlocked pedal remains fixed wrt to the ground. The pedal arm rotates wrt it.
*separate
Tim, a “locked” pedal can NOT rotate about its axle OR its axis.
And BTW, the correct spelling is with a “d”. A “petal” is a flower leaf.
It is possible to represent the motion of the Moon using one single rotation. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to represent the motion of the Moon using more than one rotation.
Kiddo’s transmographer is a Very Powerful tool.
If I glue a picture of the Earth and of the Moon on the surface of an old record, have I achieved anything useful?
DREMT, since you are skipping over details of the meaning of “axis” or “rotation”, let’s re-focus on your “transmogrifier” and build on your thoughts there, instead.
Real orbits are ellipses. Try to write the steps to create an accurate motion for a moon in an elliptical orbit.
It will be (relatively) a piece of cake to start with “translate along an ellipse (at varying rates)” and add in “rotate around the center of the triangle (at a constant rate)”. It will be a nightmare (basically impossible) to try anything like your approach (without resorting to ad hoc features like epicycles).
Yes, your approach is nominally easier for a perfect circle. But since your approach will fail for an ellipse, it is or no actual use.
Tim, the transmographer proves that:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the MOTL.
2) If you add rotation about an internal axis to the motion in 1), you will no longer have motion like the MOTL.
If you can accept that 1) and 2) are true, and are prepared to say that here publicly, then we can go on to discuss elliptical orbits.
> If I glue a picture of the Earth and of the Moon on the surface of an old record, have I achieved anything useful?
Only if you are willing to accept that it already represents an orbit without spin, Richard, and that if you add spin to your picture of the Earth you won’t get the same representation.
Which means you need forget you could synchronize the spin and the orbit of your picture, but I’m sure you can forget that, otherwise we can’t discuss elliptical paths.
Folkerts essentially admits he can’t program a computer to represent an elliptical orbit. He obviously has no knowledge of even the basics. (An elliptical orbit can be programmed in EXCEL! You can’t get any more basic than that.)
We already know Folkerts can’t even spell “pedal” correctly.
And Norman worships him?
> Folkerts essentially admits he can’t program a computer to represent an elliptical orbit.
He did no such thing, Clint. What Moon Dragon Cranks don’t admit is that for MOTL to work with elliptical orbits the Moon has to not rotate at different rates as translates around the ellipse.
Which is, of course, absurd.
Tim runs away.
Kiddo has yet to reveal what lies behind his “already” in “is already motion.”
The Moon Dragon Crank position is not unlike EM’s test question about apples:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1222319
Willard felt obliged to comment.
DREMT: “Tim, the transmographer proves that:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the MOTL.
2) If you add rotation about an internal axis to the motion in 1), you will no longer have motion like the MOTL.”
I think that is all in agreement with everything I said. The “MOTL” got a tidally locked moon in a perfectly circular orbit can be described as:
a) a single rotation about an external axis (about the center of the orbit) [your preferred description]
b) a translation around a circle + a rotation(about the center of mass of the object) [my preferred description].
So the ball is in your court. Tell us now how you would handle elliptical orbits.
The transmographer easily shows an object rotates once on its own axis while orbiting the central 0,0 point keeping one face toward 0,0 during each orbit. You know, just like our moon and the MOTL.
"I think that is all in agreement with everything I said"
I hope Willard is paying attention.
DREMT: you really shouldn’t make snide comments about “running away” when that is what you are planning to do. Where is your promised follow up about elliptical orbits?
Clint: You really shouldn’t make snide comments about programming skills when you lack programming skills. Or prove me wrong my programming an Excel spread sheet to generate an elliptical orbits that sweeps out equal areas in equal times.
Tim, elliptical orbits have been discussed many a time, just like every other aspect of the moon issue. All I need to say to you is: Ftop_t. That should remind you where we got to last time. Everybody has moved on now, further down-thread. If you would still like to go over the same old arguments again, why not drop a new comment, right at the very bottom of the thread, and if so inclined I will join you there.
> That should remind you where we got to last time
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1166147
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perhaps one day Kiddo will realize that if Tim agrees with what he says, that means he has no contradictory stance at all to offer.
Pure, unadulterated, darnedest trolling.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Why have you leaped to such a conclusion?”
The only universe in which the moon is not rotating is the one where you are at the center of the universe, a rather megalomaniac viewpoint because clearly you are not at the center of any universe where the moon matters. In such a narcistic universe, we can leap to that conclusion that the moon does not rotate around its axis because the moon always faces you.
The reality is the moon appears in the sky in different phases depending on the point of orbit around the earth. New Moon, 1st half, Full Moon, 3rd half. The sun is always shining upon the sphere that makes up the moon. It does not always shine on the side that always faces you.
The only conclusion that one can leap to is that the moon is rotating with respect to the universe in which the sun lies at the center.
Doh.
The universe in which I exist has this big yellow thingy at its center that radiates energy. The energy from the big yellow thingy drives climate change on earth. We call it the sun.
Forgive a certain pedantry.
The Sun drives climate on Earth, but it is not driving climate change.
The climate has always changed.
Volatility isn’t risk.
The risks that the climate would change has not altered that much in the last few 1000 years.
Speed kills.
Idiot.
ken…”In such a narcistic universe, we can leap to that conclusion that the moon does not rotate around its axis because the moon always faces you.
The reality is the moon appears in the sky in different phases depending on the point of orbit around the earth. New Moon, 1st half, Full Moon, 3rd half. The sun is always shining upon the sphere that makes up the moon. It does not always shine on the side that always faces you”.
***
Don’t like the Earth as a centre? Let’s look at a hypothetical Earth that does not rotate on its axis as it orbits. The Sun is now the centre of focus. We are observing the Earth’s orbit from our insulated compartment in the Sun.
Suppose North America always faces the Sun. It gets super hot and the opposite never gets any solar radiation.
You are filled with venom. Forget me, or proving me wrong, focus on the mechanics.
Picture the Earth at 0,0 on an x,y plane. The Sun sits down the x axis say at x = 100. The Moon is in a circular orbit with R = 10.
When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun along the x-axis, the Moon is lit on the solar side (far-side) while the near-face is dark. When the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth, at x = -10, the near side is lit.
When the Moon is above the Earth at y = 10, you see a diagonal crescent lit, sloping down the way toward the -ve x side. When the Moon is below the Earth at y = -10, you see a diagonal crescent sloped in the opposite direction.
None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about even though NASA presents it as proof of local rotation.
Earth rotates about 365.25 per orbit of the Sun. The Moon rotates once per orbit of the Earth.
Difficult isn’t it?
“Spinners” think the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit of the Sun. “Non-Spinners” think 365.25 times.
As seen from the Earth it is as close as required to 365.25 for an orbit. Just like the Moon is at once per orbit as seen from the Earth.
Only idiots think that the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit. Like you.
Poor RLH embarrasses himself yet again. The "Spinners" believe the Earth rotates about 366.25 per year. Look up "sidereal time".
I think it rotates about 365.25 times per year.
In the Julian calendar, a year contains either 365 or 366 days, and the average is 365.25 calendar days.
Correct, RLH. Now look up "sidereal time", as I suggested.
Graham can’t even get the Sidereal year correct.
“The sidereal year is 20 min 24.5 s longer than the mean tropical year”
"There are about 366.25 sidereal days in one Earth orbit period."
Sorry RLH, but the earth DOES rotate 366.25 times each year (relative to the most useful, most fundamental frame — the non-rotating, inertial, ‘fixed stars’ frame).
By your own words, you realize “The Moon rotates once per orbit of the Earth.” Based on your reasoning, the earth would have to rotate once per orbit of the sun to keep one side to the sun. It would have to rotate an ADDITIONAL 365.25 times to make the sun rise 365.24 times per year.
Or stated another way, the *sun* rises 365.25 times per year (once every 24:00), but the *stars* rise 366.25 times per year (once every 23:56).
“The sidereal year is 20 min 24.5 s longer than the mean tropical year”
RLH can never admit he’s wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_year
PS. I don’t want to get into details about 365.25 vs 365.24 vs 365.26 etc. That is a distraction from the main point here.
It is about the number of sidereal days in one Earth orbit period, RLH. It is not about a sidereal year.
“The *sun* rises 365.25 times per year (once every 24:00), but the *stars* rise 366.25 times per year (once every 23:56)”
Correct. But the sidereal year is 20 min 24.5 s longer than the mean tropical year.
…which is irrelevant.
What I said is true also. The sidereal YEAR is just slightly longer than a tropical YEAR.
> That is a distraction from the main point here.
Hence why Kiddo is having so much fun!
Right…but you also said "only idiots think that the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit. Like you".
You were wrong.
Well, in a way, you were right. It is true that only idiots think that the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit. It’s just that those idiots are all on your side of the debate.
I said that, as seen from the Earth it is as close as required to 365.25 for an orbit. Just like the Moon is at once per orbit as seen from the Earth.
Wriggle away.
Sidereal Day is 23 h 56 min 4.0905 s = 1436 minutes = period of rotation of earth around its axis.
Day is 24 h.
365.25 days = 8766 hours = 525960 minutes = period of one earth orbit around the sun
525960/1436 = 366.26 rotations around the earth axis per orbit.
We might as well mention the Julian year, the tropical year, and the Great Year.
As seen from the Earth’s surface it is 365.25 (approx) turns per orbit.
"Only idiots think that the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit."
– RLH
“Only idiots think that the Earth rotates about 366.25 times per orbit.”
Which from the Earth’s surface is true.
Wrigglers will wriggle.
[KIDDO] “Non-Spinners” think 365.25 times.
[ALSO KIDDO] Reporting things as seen from the same POV as the tidal locking GIF.
“As seen from the Earth’s surface it is 365.25 (approx) turns per orbit.”
Only in those strange extradimensional delusional places where you are the center of the universe.
If this were true, Columbus would still be looking for America.
If heliocentrism made me live a few hundred years, I might embrace it!
I’ll grab my coat.
Correct, Willard. As seen from the same POV as the GIF, with the Sun in the center and the Earth orbiting it, I would conclude that the Earth rotates 365.25 times per orbit.
> As seen from the same POV as the GIF, with the Sun in the center
Wrigglers will wriggle.
Willard misses another opportunity to learn something.
I found Kiddos frame of reference:
https://teletubbies.fandom.com/wiki/Baby_Sun
Ken: Only if you define a ‘day’ to be 23:56.
> Let’s look at a hypothetical Earth that does not rotate on its axis as it orbits.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re proving once again that Moon Dragon cranks want to reduce physics to geometry.
“Lets look at a hypothetical Earth that does not rotate on its axis as it orbits.”
Now you’re getting silly because you know you don’t have any reason in your logic regarding the moon.
An earth that does not rotate on its axis is not the same as an earth where North America always faces the sun. By definition this is one rotation about the axis per orbit. Just like the moon. Doh!
Actually, by definition it would be just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. That is what “orbit without spin” is…motion as per the MOTL, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
“Actually, by definition it would be just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis.”
By the definition declared of the cult, that no one else anywhere uses.
This is how we recognize trolling.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
A song is not proof.
What proof do you require, RLH? If you require proof that "orbit without spin" is defined as motion as per the MOTL, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, watch the video at 1:24.
Orbit without spin is as per the MOTR. As Newton agreed.
The Wikipedia entry is wrong then, to say that orbital motion is a rotation around an external axis?
It refers to a quote that says:
“Rotation is a circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation”
Apparently we are supposed to ignore that part!
It is just astonishing that this kind of denial of reality just keeps on happening for years on end.
nice
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The Egg.
We don’t care where The Egg came from. Probably from some wanker choking his chicken.
The Egg.
A chicken is an egg’s way of making extra copies of its DNA.
The egg appeared before chickens.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/sites/default/files/images/sketchingscience-chicken-or-egg-evolution.jpg
The egg came from the wet market located across the street from the Wuhan Lab.
The egg was around long before China.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/sites/default/files/images/sketchingscience-chicken-or-egg-evolution.jpg
The egg had to be fertilized by something.
Fish.
Aren’t you a Christian Conservative or something?
Parthenogenesis?
Virgin Mary?
It’s probably one of these.
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-insights-family-tree-modern-turtles.html
Dinosaurs had eggs (probably).
Think pool of unlikely chemicals and a bung of lightening forking through it.
Our Moon spinning on it’s axis, would wreck the Moon.
If the Moon was spinning on it’s axis, one could increase or decrease it’s spinning speed.
If you think the Moon is spinning on it’s axis, then one can remove or add to it’s spin rate
How much energy can get by reducing in spin rate by .01% or how much energy do you need to increase it’s spin rate by .01%?
With earth spinning at about 1000 mph, .01% is .1 mph and that energy is enormous. But Moon is 1/81th Earth mass, and one should be imagining that it spins at slower speed than Earth.
Hmm, looking someone who did math how much rocket launch effects Earth spin [the rough answer is by very tiny, tiny amount], only thing I could find is effect of a impactor {much, much bigger than rocket launch}:
“An asteroid less than a kilometer wide impacting the earth could noticeably affect the rotation rate.”
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11833/if-an-asteroid-was-to-strike-the-earth-would-it-affect-the-earths-rotation
“The rotation rate of the earth is known to within ω=1e−13 radians per second https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation . So we would notice via GPS measurements if the rate changed by more than that.”
> Our Moon spinning on its axis, would wreck the Moon.
Hence why the Earth can’t spin.
Does anyone see it spinning?
I surely don’t.
The point is, can it spin.
Can the Moon be wrecked, by bad luck, or deliberately?
If ask some people, they could say, no worries, it’s tidally locked.
So, if and when we need a lunar space elevator- and it could cost billions of dollars- is there monetary risk of the Moon spinning somehow?
Even tiny amount of spin over time, would wreck it. And rule out a way to generate a lot of electrical power for the Lunatics and having oceans of water on the Moon.
If the Earth could spin, one could increase or decrease its spinning speed.
Probably at the same time.
The clique has no problems with impossibilities. They use them all the time.
Even tiny amount of spin over time, would wreck Moon Dragon cranks.
Moon Dragon cranks are imaginary creatures.
You’re not imaginary to me, cranky gb.
Good to know.
So, you not as delusional as I suspected.
Are sure I am not a bot??
As that would be an imaginary creature.
Fess it, gb.
You wish you were a bot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I have wondered if one could have ideal transparent planet.
I guess one could ask transparent to what.
Earth is basically transparent to neutrino flux, but I was thinking some kind electromagnetic radiation, like light.
“There are several examples of materials that achieve near-perfect transparency in specific wavelengths (like the optical fibers mentioned in other answers), but in my opinion, the material that has the best transmitivity across the broadest range of the electromagnetic spectrum is diamond.”
And:
“The closest thing would be something like an artificial sapphire, aluminium oxide, but is no longer a metal in this form but a crystal. Many transparent materials contain components that are metals, but when oxidised may become a ceramic and no longer a metal.
A boule produced using the Kyropoulos method is shown below, it may be ground (cut), precision ground to shape and polished as a single crystal. Boule of up to around 200kg can be created. I understand Apple was exploring this but seem to have abandoned the R&D, there are a few manufacturers of this material which is largely used for specialist applications. I hope one of the phone manufactures adopts it, it would mean screens would be much less prone to cracking and hugely scratch resistant. Its an amazing material.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-clear-transparent-material-in-the-world-solid-liquid
rlh…”So a roundabout, where all tangents drawn through it are always moving in parallel, cannot rotate on its local axis”.
***
We covered that a while back. We considered a wooden horse attached to the floor of a MGR, so the horse cannot rotate about its COG. Draw a radial line from the centre of the MGR through the horse so it is perpendicular to a tangential line extending from the horse’s nose to its tail. All parts of the horse represented by tangential lines will have all tangential lines moving in parallel at all times.
Classical case of curvilinear translation without rotation. Same as the Moon, and a ball on a string.
There are fairground rides where a seat is attached to a pivot on the roundabout. They can certainly rotate on that axis. They can also have tangents drawn through them.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits or gravity or barycenter.
There are several benefits to the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string.
1) It demonstrates “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
2) It proves that something can NOT both orbit and rotate, while keeping one side facing the inside of its orbit.
3) We get proof of just how braindead the cult idiots are.
1. No it doesn’t.
2. No it doesn’t.
3. No it doesn’t.
3) We get proof of just how braindead the cult idiots are.
The clique only needs to look at itself to find idiots.
rlh…why do you resort to red-herring arguments rather than address the problem at hand? The Moon has no pivot bearing upon which it can rotate and there are no forces on it that would cause it to rotate. On a Ferris wheel, people sit in gondolas that pivot on a bearing so they always remain upright.
The Moon has only rectilinear translation, as Newton pointed out in Principia. It has no angular momentum, otherwise it could not keep the same face pointed to the Earth.
If the Moon did rotate exactly once per orbit, which would be a wonder to behold due to the high unlikelihood that it could align itself at the correct rotational speed to pull that off, it would have to turn a full 360 degrees in one orbit.
So, we start with the Moon flying over the Greenwich meridian, somewhere nearly over the Equator, and we have astronauts lay out a huge ‘X’ on the near side for a reference point. That side with the ‘X’ must rotate through 360 degrees in one orbit. Therefore, by the time the Moon moves across a few lines of longitude, the ‘X’ must be part way into its rotation.
By the time the Moon is on the far side of the Earth, directly across from the Greenwich meridian, that ‘X’ must be on the far side of the Moon and not visible on Earth.
That is not what is going on. That ‘X’ is visible to everyone, no matter where they are located on Earth. That can mean only one thing, the Moon’s motion is equivalent to a car driving CCW around a track or a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a MGR. Or, to a ball on a string.
> If the Moon did rotate exactly once per orbit, which would be a wonder to behold due to the high unlikelihood that it could align itself at the correct rotational speed to pull that off, it would have to turn a full 360 degrees in one orbit.
Exactly:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
So all you got left is incredulity, Gordo.
Sorry, no – skinny jeans and incredulity.
Worthless Willard, you can’t understand physics. Fortunately someone has made it all simple enough a braindead cult idiot should be able to understand.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
(Dancing is optional.)
That’s not Physics, Pup.
Here’s Physics:
https://youtu.be/ZzUsKizhb8o
Willard, please stop trolling.
This information is meaningful and brilliant that you have shared here. I am impressed with the detail you shared in this post and it shows how well you understand the subject. – second hand tractor price
Anyway, as I was saying…
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Still desperately begging for comments (and visits).
I comment here all the time, so it would be strange for me not to take advantage of the fact that I can link to my own video on a subject which is also discussed here all the time. Get used to it, I will be linking to it constantly over the next month or so. If that annoys you, oh well.
Just as I will point out that you are attempting to garner comments and visits.
That’s generally the point of promoting a video.
Graham desperately needs comments and visits. As he shamelessly acknowledges.
I don’t "desperately need" anything. It would be nice to have some comments and visits, sure. Why would you make a video and not want it to get comments and visits? However, my expectations for the video are low, as I explained before.
I’m just going to promote my video on here, so get used to it.
Idiot.
Calm down, old boy.
Idiot Graham.
Just because I showed you were wrong earlier, there’s no need to lash out.
As viewed from the Earth, what I said is correct.
OK, RLH.
RLH says:
As viewed from the Earth, what I said is correct.
——————————-
Which is fine. Spinners though are stuck on a definition of rotation such that rotation can only occur exactly at COM. Sort of makes them a card carrying member of a very small minority.
Not really, Bill.
Your Holy Madhavi is fine with me.
“Spinners though are stuck on a definition of rotation such that rotation can only occur exactly at COM”
Not really. The same observation can be made anywhere on the surface through to the COG/COM.
Thats fine Willard. We have already determined that you are in fact a non-spinner.
RLH says:
Not really. The same observation can be made anywhere on the surface through to the COG/COM.
—————————
Yes very really RLH. The definition of spinners of an orbit being a the sum of a rotation and a translation would apply to all axes not located exactly at COM.
From space ignoring the translation of the axis at COM around the real axis, the motion would appear precisely dead center COM.
When allowed to see the real axis, that is defined as a different motion as being a translation around the actual real axis.
We have seen that in how the MOTL has been repeatedly presented without being able to see the actual axis of rotation.
Prfct, Bill.
I’m glad we all agree on the basics:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Bill: The Moon both orbits the Moon/Earth barycenter and rotates once on its own axis per orbit. However you define that.
RLH says:
Bill: The Moon both orbits the Moon/Earth barycenter and rotates once on its own axis per orbit. However you define that.
————————
I just that was the claim of spinners RLH.
They claim a rotation on an imagined axis located at COM while ignoring that that very imagined axis is rotating around the earth.
Further the argument for such is precisely an argument that can be applied with equal force to any object rotating on an offcenter axis.
And it doesn’t matter if the axis is external to the object or if it inside of an object and the axis is not at COM.
All one needs to do is look from space and imagine an axis at COM and then claim that the imagined COM axis is translating around the actual axis.
Bill: There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is concerned. A barycenter requires at least 2 objects to make it.
RLH says:
Bill: There is no such thing as an external axis where gravity is concerned. A barycenter requires at least 2 objects to make it.
—————————
Correction: There is no such thing as an axis at a barycenter RLH.
And while you can proclaim there is no external axis where gravity is concerned. . . .you will need to provide a reliable source or an argument as to why you are making such a proclamation for it to be convincing to anybody.
The moon does not rotate around the barycenter it rotates around the COM of earth.
It’s more like, wanting to get the truth out, RLH.
That’s something you oppose.
Clint R and Graham (ands others) wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them.
Exactly, Clint R. Wanting to get the truth out, and to promote one of my videos at the same time. It’s a win-win.
Idiot.
What exactly is your problem, RLH?
Richard is learning his role.
Being a good Hall Monitor is hard.
I don’t have a problem Graham, you do.
No problem here.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Still your idiotic self promotion. Continuously.
Yep.
So you agree that your self promotion is idiotic.
No. I just ignored your "idiotic" word. You use it so much that it sort of fades into the background after a while.
But your continuous self promotion is idiotic.
Your relentless personal attacks are idiotic.
Sure Graham.
I am glad you agree.
I agree that you’re an idiot.
RLH, since you’re trying to be so agreeable, try to agree with some reality:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
That’s not Reality, Pup.
Here’s Reality:
https://youtu.be/Uj1ykZWtPYI
Willard, please stop trolling.
Anthony Watts’ (WUWT) pitiful effort to pay people to write climate disinfo posts that he’s far too burned out to do himself has yielded a 1st place winner for the general audience submissions for the topic asking “is there really a climate crisis?” Notably, the student category got not one single entry. Zero! Zip! Zilch!
Disappointingly, and unsurprisingly, the winning essay was a regurgitation of ancient talking points without even an attempt to rebut the physics of carbon dioxide’s warming effect.
Worthy of note is that the author of the winning post uses a name and writing style that are eerily reminiscent of professional denier C. Monckton.
Yes, WUWT has always avoided physics. (Monckton is an example.) One has to come here to get a complete debunking of the bogus “carbon dioxide warming effect”. Including an understanding of the “Matter of Faith” issues involved. (Thank you, Dr. Spencer!)
WUWT falls into the category of wanting (needing) to keep the hoax alive.
Real science and maths is what the clique denies.
It seems to me [and it seems everyone agrees or claims it] that we living in an Icehouse global climate which is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and last couple millions has been the coldest Earth has been in tens of millions of years.
And nearly all of the increase in global temperature is warming our 3.5 C average temperature of the ocean.
And it’s easy to show or understand that warming this cold ocean would require thousands of years and over last 5000 years, the ocean has slightly cooled.
Most people die from cold conditions rather than warm conditions and
an air temperature of 15 C, is cold air.
It seems possible increasing CO2 could cause in increase in global average temperature. And that 300 ppm of CO2 increases global average air temperature as compared to zero CO2.
But if had no oxygen in atmosphere, one would also have colder air temperature. And both are required to live.
So, Earth is cold and it seems all life would do better if it was warmer- most of life has lived in much warmer global temperatures, and 1/3rd of all land area is deserts.
The only thing with less life than a desert is a ice sheet, and Earth will have more ice sheets in the future.
No one knows have much doubling of CO2 will cause in terms of warming global temperature, but none imagine enough to cause our Earth to become warm enough.
We are currently living in an interglacial period that has already lasted more than 11,000 years. The present day average temperature is about 9 C warmer than during the last glacial period.
Doubling today’s CO2 puts it at the same level as that of the Eocene epoch, 60 million years ago. The Eocene was the last time that Earth was without polar ice caps, and thus sea level was about 150 feet higher than it is today.
TM, sea levels 150 feet higher still won’t give me “beach front property”.
How much CO2 do you need to get sea levels up about 1500 ft?
(I want to be able to launch my boat from my back yard.)
Thanks.
Eocene wasn’t a global icehouse global climate
“The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.
It is Earth’s current ice age or icehouse period. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
“Doubling today’s CO2 puts it at the same level as that of the Eocene epoch, 60 million years ago. The Eocene was the last time that Earth was without polar ice caps, and thus sea level was about 150 feet higher than it is today.”
Eocene was a period without polar ice sheets.
It could of had polar ice caps and it certainly had glaciers.
Higher CO2 levels have little to do with global climate, other than icehouse climate have a low temperature ocean, which can absorb more CO2, than the much warmer ocean during Eocene.
Or Higher CO2 levels do not cause us to leave the icehouse global climate.
But since have ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C, it’s unlikely we will double current CO2 levels.
It’s unlikely we get as warm as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Which was colder interglacial peak temperature as compared past interglacial peak temperatures within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
{and of course, anytime within the Eocene}
Find me one person claiming we could leave our icehouse global climate within 1 million years.
Eocene conditions would be nice, but we are certainly going to continue to live in an icehouse global climate.
how about a link so we can follow along?
Omar Alghabra, Minister of Transport Canada, just announced hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to a private 5 billion battery factory in Windsor. The actual amount is secret.
Given the price of Lithium, above 50 000 per metric ton, how long will this business last?
So, in a nutshell:
https://climateball.net/the-bingo/
A nut talking about nutshells.
Yep Stalin had his own bingo card he used to identify folks he wanted to get on a train to the Siberian ‘train station’ whom he felt were standing in the way of his implementation of Lysenkoism (a form Lamarckism that suited Stalin’s aversion to genetics) agricultural policies that ended up killing some estimated 20,000,000 people due to starvation. Am I surprised that Willard has one? Nope not a good soldier like Willard!
Slow down, Bill:
https://climateball.net/but-politics/
You are over clocking contrarian tropes.
I didn’t bring this stupid topic up.
I thought you mentioned Stalin, Lysenko, and agricultural policies, Bill.
My mistake.
I was just noting Willard that they also had their own bingo boards identifying threats to their uniform briefcase drill team social agendas. You are the one who brought up the topic of a bingo board identifying threats to your social agenda.
Sure, Bill.
And this has nothing to do with politics.
When did I say it wasn’t politics.
Social agendas are nothing but politics.
Here is where you did, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1221719
You know, you become indistinguishable from Mike Flynn when you start playing dumb like that.
So you are in denial that a social agenda is political?
The Bingo is not society, Bill.
Climateball is not a society game yet.
Stop giving me ideas!
right Willard. J Edgar Hoover didn’t make bingo lists for the fun of it.
Exactly, Bill.
And Hitler was a vegetarian.
Being a vegetarian serves a purpose. What purpose does making bingo lists of beliefs you don’t believe in serve?
I very much appreciate the idea of having cheap, clean and renewable energy.
–
What worries me though is a single characteristic of them that is not susceptible to dealing with them: that they are intermittent, that is, wind and sunshine do not appear either constantly or predictably.
–
This feature has important consequences, as in the final scenarios of the green transition, renewables should be proposed only as the fossil fuels saving factors.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“This feature has important consequences, as in the final scenarios of the green transition, renewables should be proposed only as the fossil fuels saving factors.”
I believe this is only reason govt wastes money on them, with this hope. But it’s not happening.
All you got is a future hope which is very unlikely to happen.
And you have made is a toxic wasteland.
The only thing that has worked is nuclear energy- it’s proven to have worked.
But nuclear energy is being done… not well…
There is some hope nuclear energy could lower cost of electrical power. Or as far as I know, South Korea has done nuclear energy, better. And it seems we could do even better than South Korea has been doing it.
If “renewables” save fossil fuel, then they would lower CO2 emission- and they have not done this, and probably have increase CO2 emissions.
Nuclear energy has significantly lowered CO2 emission and nuclear energy has lower global pollution- and lowered total deaths related to making electrical power vs any other way to make electrical power. But only South Korea has made competitive with will say coal power plants. But I think coal is pretty expensive in South Korea. Whereas US coal is very cheap. Due to powerplant near source of coal and US has cheapest means of transporting coal. But even with cheapest way to transport coal, coal gets more expensive the furthest one has to transport it. Unlike natural gas which can piped. Pipelines are cheapest way to transport tons of stuff.
Or water is cheap because you ship it with pipes. Or truck or rail transport of water would make water more expensive- or done much. Though walking a mile carrying water is very costly compared to using a truck.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10648545/Ivermectin-effective-against-Covid-areas-parasitic-diseases-endemic.html
“Ivermectin was only effective against Covid in areas where parasitic diseases were endemic, which explains why the drug falsely showed up as being effective in clinical trials, expert says”
brandon…”GR…> 4)The Moon is performing curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Drive your car in a perfect circle, Gordon. Tell me with a straight face that it isn’t constantly changing compass heading.
***
We have covered that in the past. If a driver in the Daytona 500 is driving around a track CCW, the driver side always faces the inside of the track. Just like the Moon.
Certainly, the driver side faces each direction of the compass but the car itself is not rotating about its COG. The change in orientation of the driver side is a product of curvilinear translation without rotation.
If the driver loses control, the car can rotate a full 360 degrees about its COG, which means the tires lose traction and the rear of the car rotates around its COG. That is rotation about a local axis/COG.
BTW, I experienced that once on a water-logged freeway. My car started hydroplaning on surface water and I turned a full 360. Luckily there were no other cars nearby.
As long as the tires have traction on the surface of the track, and the car is always moving forward, the car is translation without rotation.
> The change in orientation of the driver side is a product of curvilinear translation without rotation.
C’mon, Gordo.
Were that the case, the driver would not need to steer his wheel at all.
Think.
willard…”Were that the case, the driver would not need to steer his wheel at all”.
***
You need a smack in the face with a red herring. There is always something fishy about your replies.
Steering is not the issue. The point is, the driver is alone on the track and all points of the mass representing the car are moving in parallel lines at the same angular speed. The car does not have to weave in an out between other cars, it can just follow a line around the track.
You can argue that the wheels move side to side and the steering wheel turns but that would be pretty obtuse, ignoring the point of curvilinear translation.
> You need a smack in the face with a red herring.
C’mon, Gordo. You might be good looking, but are not swift enough in those skinny jeans.
And crying “red herring” won’t do – to explain how the Moon might not spin while orbiting is the critical part of your armwaving.
The geometrical fact to which you cling has no bearing in physics.
Try again, this time with more feeling.
So do the wheels on the inside of the track cover less distance than those on the outside?
Does the winner’s car remain intact?
We are not concerned with what the wheels are doing, only the platform mounted on them. If you start at a starting point, say half-way down one side of a straightaway, and you do one lap, all points on the car perform the lap in the same time.
Doesn’t matter that the inside wheels travel less distance or the outside wheels have to move faster in curves. The whole platform does a lap in the same time. That’s a property of a rigid body.
Please don’t split hairs by claiming the front of the car does it faster.
> We are not concerned with what the wheels are doing
C’mon, Gordo.
Of course we do:
https://youtu.be/ZwBg4d7Wx1s?t=350
Willard, please stop trolling.
So you agree that the wheels on the outside of the track travel further than the wheels on the inside. If one were to reduce the radius of the inside to 0, then the car would turn around its inside edge.
entropic…”The Sun drives climate on Earth, but it is not driving climate change”.
***
What do you mean by climate, and by climate change? As Tony Heller pointed out in his video, there is no hard and fast definition of climate in science. Some claim that climate is the average of weather IN A LOCATION over a 30 year period.
By weather, they usually mean the amount of precipitation.
This thing you call climate change does not meet either one of those definitions. The term climate change is actually a gross generalization dreamed up by climate alarmists to represent the equivalent of global warming. They discarded the idea of global warming since it was not doing the trick. The alarmists needed something undefinable that could more easily scare people into believing their propaganda.
Show me anywhere in the world where weather patterns have changed significantly or catastrophically in the past 30 years? If they have not changed significantly in the past 30 years why should we believe they will change suddenly in the next 30 years?
Here in BC, Canada, we have a strong contrast in climate near Vancouver over 150 miles. Near the coast, we have a rain forest climate but 150 miles away, across a mountain range, we have a desert climate complete with sage brush and small cactii.
There has been no significant change in either climate the past 30 years and likely over the past 100 years.
Where is this climate change of yours going on? And if there is any claim change, it is bound to be very local with not a shred of proof to associate it with trace gases in the atmosphere.
Evidence produced by alarmists like droughts in California have been recurring for at least 150 years. Melting glaciers are claimed to be caused by warming due to trace gases yet the alarmists conveniently ignore the fact that we recently had the Little Ice Age where glaciers grew enormously in places.
Gordon Robertson
What do you mean by climate, and by climate change?
Some claim that climate is the average of weather IN A LOCATION over a 30 year period.”
There is no Spanish Inquisition enforcing precise definitions.
If there were, you would probably demand its removal.
Your definition of climate is close to the working definition used in the trade. I doubt that many would disagree.
Similarly climate change is a change in those averages over time.
Then here is my definition –
Global warming is defined by when Gordo puts on his skinny jeans.
chic bowdrie…”Gordon,
I was prepared to nominate that for comment of the year, but you left me out!”
***
Sorry, Chic, I have added you to the list as both a genius and good looking.
Thanks. My appreciation for Canadians goes up another notch.
On accelerated reference frames.
In a recent post by Willard, he linked to an article on accelerated reference frames.
https://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%209%20Accelerated%20Frames%20of%20Reference.pdf
The article begins…
“Newtons laws hold only in inertial frames of reference. However, there are many non-inertial (that is, accelerated) frames of reference that we might reasonably want to study, such as elevators, merry-go-rounds, and so on. Is there any possible way to modify Newtons laws so that they hold in non-inertial frames, or do we have to give up entirely on F = ma?”
This is sheer nonsense. In engineering, we studied problems like elevators and MGRs using straight Newtonian equations and without any reference to inertial or accelerated reference frames.
What’s the difference between an elevator dropping from a stopped position down several floors and a car accelerating from a red light?
The article continues..
“Imagine that you are standing on a train that is accelerating to the right with acceleration a. If you wish to remain at the same spot on the train, there must be a friction force between the floor and your feet, with magnitude Ff = ma, pointing to the right. Someone standing in the inertial frame of the ground will simply interpret the situation as, The friction force, Ff = ma, causes your acceleration, a.
How do you interpret the situation, in the frame of the train?”
***
More nonsense. One has to get it that a distinction between the train as a separate reference frame from the ground on which an external observer is viewing the accelerating frame is purely a hypothetical space produced by the human mind. In reality, there is no distinction between the two. The difference is in the inability of the human mind to observe the train’s motion without confusing itself.
In engineering, we simply stop the train for an instant and analyze the forces, masses, accelerations, whatever. Newton II applies to any such situation.
This is how Einstein confused himself, and the world, with his nonsense about accelerated reference frames. He IMAGINED a person standing inside a box, which could be either attracted by a gravitational force or raised by a skyhook and accelerated upward. Einstein asked how that person would know whether he was being accelerated downward or upward.
That’s what led him into his nonsense about relativity and time dilation…kinematics applied incorrectly. He lived in a world of the mind via thought-experiments without getting it that we humans invented time based on the period of the Earth’s rotation…a constant…or that forces and masses are the basis of kinematics.
When we studied kinematics, it was after being introduced to what causes velocity and acceleration. The only way we learned to observe motion was on a piece of paper with a freebody diagram USING REAL MASSES AND FORCES. Once you have it established that a force of sufficient magnitude applied to a mass produces an acceleration OF THE MASS, you can replace the force with the acceleration it produces and study accelerations as vectors in kinematics.
Einstein bypassed forces and masses as the cause of acceleration and related acceleration to its time factor. He defined time as the hands on a clock, an idiotic statement suggesting time is an independent phenomenon equivalent to force and mass.
Then, in his coup de grace, he mentally INVENTED a multiplier based on the speed of light that allowed a non-entity, time, to dilate. That dilation applied to distances as well.
Now, we are stuck with this theoretical nonsense about accelerated reference frames and space-time. One needs to OBSERVE the physical nature of a problem and understand how forces and masses interact. Einstein simply bypassed that observation.
No one needs an accelerated reference frame or even an inertial reference frame. Just freeze the action and examine what is going on in any instant. You can study any kind of relative motion doing that but obviously there are times when you need an equation that relates the motion of one body to another. We learned how to do that without using Einsteinian relativity.
GR thinks he knows better than Einstein.
Sure thing.
rlh…there you go again, appealing to authority. Are there no original thoughts available in your mind?
rlh…I just pointed out why he is wrong. Have you any scientific evidence to rebut what I’ve said? Of course not, if big E. said it, rlh accepts it.
If you stand in an elevator going up then your weight first will increase, stays the same and then decrease showing the acceleration/steady state/deceleration that occurs during an accent.
I have no problem with that description, but the article referenced in the link of the original post claimed it requires f = mg needs to be amended to understand that.
They are confusing the elevator mechanics with Einstein’s man in a box thought experiment. In his thought-experiment gravitational force and the vertical lifting force are undefined. He went on to generalize that theory into his theory of relativity.
Wal Thornhill, an astronomer, has this to say about Einstein…
“Einstein’s general theory of relativity continued this trend. The theory has nothing to say about why matter should affect empty space. Clearly, the mathematical concept of three dimensions being warped in a fourth dimension is meaningless in the real three-dimensional universe”.
Try to read is theory on the electric universe.
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-real-theory-of-everything/?article=gdaqg8df
> the article referenced in the link
C’mon, Gordo. Not again!
A chapter. From a book.
Search for “David Morin.” Even you should find it.
Take your time.
“They are confusing the elevator mechanics with Einsteins man in a box thought experiment”
Einstein took the first part of elevator/lift observations where apparent weight increases and wondered what would happen if that acceleration was constant.
So either you deny what everyone can observe with a lift and a scale or you propose that the acceleration cannot be constant.
Gordon insists we shouldnt appeal to Einstein’s authority on relativity, instead we should appeal to the authority of Wal Thornhill..
Who?
You mean the Electric Universe guy?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
RLH,
> You mean the Electric Universe guy?
Yes, the crank magnetism is strong with this one.
Does GR follow the thinking of Thornhill?
Apparently:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1221934
That proves that GR is an idiot then.
GR: 3 dimensions covers space, either in x, y, z or r, alpha, delta. So we are left with time to make a 4th. It is not the same as the others but it exists.
added thought…
Claiming that the ability to stand on the floor of a moving train requires a friction between the soles of your feet and the train floor is somewhat naive. It’s obvious, however, what is not so obvious is that the forces described will be used in the article to create a parallel universe.
In the article referenced at the link in the previous post, they go on to talk about fictitious forces, admitting they have no physical existence. Why??? Why do people convolute reality to create an alternate reality that has no physical meaning?
There is no physical reality behind the concept of space-time yet it is being taught in universities today that gravity is not a force but a space-time anomaly. Teaching this is the height of ignorance since all that is being done is used the real phenomena gravitational force and acceleration to satisfy some egghead’s notion of the universe as a dimension with no physical existence.
What’s the point?
If you stand in an elevator going up then your weight first will increase, stays the same and then decrease showing the acceleration/steady state/deceleration that occurs during an accent.
see reply above.
Do you deny that what I said will happen? You can confirm it for yourself with a scale and a lift.
GR, you’re engaging in verbal diarrhea again. Pointless BS and obscure nonsense that do nothing to support whatever the hell it is that your point is about.
Baffling by Bullshit indicates only that you know nothing about anything.
Your ravening maunderings amount to nothing but a completely unreadable waste of time.
ken…”you’re engaging in verbal diarrhea again”.
***
And you have still not explained your objection to anything I have said other than through ad homs and insults. I have presented my case using verifiable science, how about responding in kind?
C’mon, Gordo.
Here’s a good example of your revening maundering:
Do you really believe that this is verifiable science?
“And you have still not explained your objection”
My objection is pretty much the fact that most of what you write is completely incomprehensible due to lack of organization and poorly thought out arguments. Ravening Maunderings is the phrase that best describes.
Try writing your blather then reading what you write to see if it makes any sense. Do some severe editing and read it again. Then cut the word count by at least half. Then consider whether the point your trying to make is worth anyone’s time to read it. As it stands right now, you’re obviously not doing any of it; a really poor writer.
I’m sure you are a sterling fellow, but your writing skills suck slough water.
The Electric Universe is not science.
> an article
C’mon, Gordo. It’s a chapter.
When was the last time you read a chapter from an article?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alright.
I’m now convinced:
https://youtu.be/ZDOI0cq6GZM
Praise the Monorail Model of the Moon’s Motion!
And if that’s not enough:
https://www.everythingselectric.com/wallace-thornhill/
Electrifying!
Sounds like GR!
Braindead cult idiots get tested…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmI6YpGew1w
That’s not a Test, Pup.
Here’s a Test:
https://rr.noordstar.me/the-moon-does-not-rotate-3c4ee417
Test.
It failed Graham.
I’m sure it didn’t fail Graham.
Your post failed Graham.
I’m sure my post didn’t fail Graham.
You mean your are not actually called Graham in real life?
*you’re
I was making a point about punctuation. It went over your head, as most things do.
So you are actually called Graham in real life.
I’m sorry the point went over your head, Richard.
You don’t do points, only nonsense.
OK, RLH.
This is a test.
Bob has seven apples.
Alice takes away three apples.
Does Bob now have
a) five apples
b) three apples
C) two apples
The answer is, either b) or c) is correct. Only a) is incorrect.
If you start with 7 apples and lose 3 you have 4 apples…but if you have 4 apples you also have 3 apples (plus 1 to spare)…and if you have 4 apples you also have 2 apples (plus 2 to spare).
You fail.
The test was of your acumen rather than your arithmetic; your ability to recognise that the test itself was badly designed.
Yes, it was poorly designed in that multiple choice questions are generally supposed to have only one correct answer. I recognized that. Guess I passed the test then.
But why didnt you say so first?
Climate science and climate change denial are both full of tests claiming to validate or invalidate some aspect of the science.
A useful knack for anyone in the debate is the ability to judge the validity of the test itself.
Why didnt you say so first?
Climate science and climate change denial are both full of tests claiming to validate or invalidate some aspect of the science.
A useful knack for anyone in the debate is the ability to judge the validity of the test itself.
I thought it went without saying that the test was poorly designed.
These tests within a test can be fun.
The y ask army officers “How do you gig a hole?
The correct answer is
I say, “Sergeant, dig me a hole.””
This is a test.
I have a straightedge and a compass.
The only numbers that exist are the ones I can reach on a line with my tools in a finite number of steps.
Therefore the only numbers that exist are constructible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_number
Take that, infinitists!
Now do it for 1/x.
Take that for infinitesimals.
Willard, I have said many times before that the motion of the MOTL can be described as a translation plus an internal axis rotation, most recently, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1221497
What it cannot be described as is a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation. As the transmographer proves.
You do not listen.
Unfortunately for DREMT the transmographer shows it (MOTL) can be described as a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation.
Trolls will be trolls.
This is a test.
Kiddo has a transmographer.
He can represent the Moon motion using one rotation.
Will he claim that we can’t represent the Moon motion using two rotations, or will he backtrack to the idea that his model is “already motion,” whatever that means?
You cannot represent the motion of the moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis, as the transmographer demonstrates. A rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the moon, you see. So if you add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, at any rate and in either direction, you will no longer have motion like the moon.
So simple even a child could understand.
> You cannot represent the motion of the moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis, as the transmographer demonstrates.
At least Kiddo is pinning himself down.
Too bad he’s forgetting that a transmographer is a constructive tool, which means it can’t prove that it can’t do is impossible.
A good thing, if you ask me:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Just good ol’ simple, basic, irrefutable logic.
P1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL.
P2) If you add rotation about an internal axis to this motion, you will no longer have motion like the MOTL.
C) You cannot represent the motion of the moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis.
The transmographer shows P1) and P2) to be true. However, most people would understand that P2) logically follows from P1) being true anyway.
P1) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL as observed from the center object of the MOTL which Clint R pointed out months ago.
C) You can represent the motion of our moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis as shown by the transmographer long ago.
"You can represent the motion of our moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis as shown by the transmographer long ago."
Off you go then, Ball4. Use the "around a point" command to rotate the object about an external axis, and the "around center" command to rotate the object about an internal axis. Making sure to use both commands, try and get the object/moon to be oriented the correct way when it is halfway around the orbit. Have fun.
That’s already been done by ftop_t think it was DREMT showing the correct lunar orientation keeping one face toward the center.
No need to repeat.
I’m just going to ignore Ball4, he’s in "lie through his teeth" mode.
Where’s the proof DREMT? You would show it if you had it.
Ignore Ball4.
Anyone can Google "online transmographer", click on the Shodor link, try the challenge I set in my 1:12 PM comment, and see for themselves.
> Just good ol simple, basic, irrefutable logic.
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong:
The premises are not strong enough to support his conclusion, as they only contain geometric elements.
The premises are also unsound, as the transmographer does not support them.
The transmographer proves the premises are true. For a simple demonstration, Google "online transmographer", click on the Shodor link, try the challenge I set in my 1:12 PM comment, and see for yourself.
> The transmographer proves the premises are true.
That’s clearly false.
For a simple demonstration, notice the operative “is motion like” in the premises, which is clearly. Also, recall that a transmographer is limited to a single rotation, i.e. a circular motion.
So in effect Kiddo is asking readers to believe that because his tool can’t do one thing, no other tool can. In fact he claims that his tool proves that it would be impossible to “transcend” it.
The following animation shows this is false:
https://moon.nasa.gov/moon-in-motion/overview/
So not only Kiddo can’t do physics and can’t do geometry, but he can’t do logic.
> which is clearly.
… worded weasily, like the slimy troll he is.
I am happy that my 1:12 PM challenge will prove to anyone that tries it, that my premises are correct.
Then even DREMT should be able to do it but DREMT isn’t able or DREMT would do it and show the steps in the work.
As I said, just ignore Ball4, and do the challenge for yourself. You will not be able to get the object/moon oriented the correct way when it is halfway around the orbit.
Dunham Jackson might be able to explain Kiddo’s problem:
http://www.jstor.org/view/00029890/di991259/99p1550p/0
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/chasles-theorem.207229/
DREMT, the transmographer is way over their heads. Stick with something they can understand.
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
No problems here. The transmographer proves that the premises are correct, as anybody can test for themselves.
Let me see if I can dumb it down for you, Pup:
https://youtu.be/ZwBg4d7Wx1s?t=481
DREMT,
Willard’s citation contains some useful definitions. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree please state your reasons for same.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/instantaneous-rigid-body-motion-pdf.12170/
No need to go any lower, worthless Willard — you’re already at the bottom.
Those definitions are valid, Brandon. That’s why we know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
"Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree please state your reasons for same."
No, I will not do so. Thank you.
"DREMT, the transmographer is way over their heads."
It appears so. Shame. Oh well, with the rotation issue settled, I guess that’s that. Another easy victory.
> No, I will not do so
Kiddo is at last acknowledging that he’s purely trolling.
Not at all, Willard. There’s just no point discussing definitions of rotation and translation. It’s been done. We all know what they are. If Brandon actually has a point, let him make it.
> We all know what they are.
The gaslighting continues.
Turns out Brandon didn’t have a point.
Turns out Kiddo was trolling.
Who would have thunk?
Both Brandon and Willard could talk to Clint R about it, given his 5:52 PM comment…but they are both apparently too obsessed with me to do so.
Here, BG:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-552147
And he just said implies that Chasles’ theorem is IMPOSSIBLE.
Willard, you cult idiots were making this same mistake two years ago.
Chasles’s theorem comes from kinematics. Kinematics can NOT be applied carte blanche to orbital motion.
You can’t learn.
Willard, Chasles’ Theorem involves describing motions as the sum of a translation and a rotation. Here, we were talking about whether you could describe the motion of the moon as a rotation about an external axis plus a rotation about an internal axis. So Chasles’ Theorem is not germane to the discussion.
The discussion is over, because the transmographer proves my premises correct, and settles the rotation issue.
There is no such thing in gravity as rotation about an EXTERNAL axis.
There is only an orbit about a barycenter.
All rotations are about an internal axis.
The transmographer can only do one rotation at a time, and only works for perfect circles, but it refutes Charles Theorem.
Kiddo is a genius.
Willard never listens.
Graham, your music sucks. It wouldn’t even qualify as elevator music in Trump Tower..
[VLAD] AHA! I found it!
[ESTR] What?
[VLAD] The PROOF!
[ESTR] What proof?
[VLAD] Check this:
*He rotates a bucket around him.*
You see? My bucket with a red dot on it proves that it can’t rotate!
[ESTR] How?
[VLAD] The only way for the red dot to always face me is if it does not spin on itself!
[ESTR] Wait. Doesn’t that refute Chasles’ Theorem?
[VLAD] Chasles’ Theorem is not germane to the bucket discussion.
[ESTR] Of course it is: the theorem stipulates that “the most general rigid body displacement can be produced by a translation along a line followed (or preceded) by a rotation about that line.”
[VLAD] So?
[ESTR] That means your rotation can be produced by a translation along a line followed by a rotation about that line.
[VLAD] What?
[ESTR] It can also be produced by a translation along a line preceded by a rotation about that line!
[VLAD] Which one?
[ESTR] An infinity of them, more or less.
[VLAD] So it’s not germane.
[ESTR] That’s where you’re wrong, Vlad.
Willard, I have said many times before that the motion of the MOTL can be described as a translation plus an internal axis rotation, most recently, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1221497
What it cannot be described as is a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation. As the transmographer proves.
You do not listen.
Unfortunately for DREMT the transmographer shows it (MOTL) can be described as a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation.
Kiddo keeps on trying to beat a theorem with equivocation.
My 2$ is on the theorem.
Once we accept that any motion M can be represented using rotation R and translation T, we need to accept that R and T can in turn be represented using other rotations and translations. And that includes the motion of our Moon, which isn’t circular nor always keeping the same exact side facing the Earth.
Kiddo’s transmographer only shows that we could model the motion of our Moon as a single rotation. It does not show that we can’t model it otherwise.
Anyone can Google "online transmographer", click on the Shodor link, try the challenge I set in my 1:12 PM comment, and see for themselves that I am correct.
Sure DREMT 11:38 am.
When that string is googled, translate the square so its centered on 0,0, put 90 into rotate, click on rotate, and the square rotates on its own internal axis about 0,0.
Then translate the square 3 units on X (enter 3 into x and click on translate). Push rotate again the square orbits an external axis thru 0,0 once whilst keeping the same face toward 0,0 rotating on its own internal axis once per orbit like the MOTL and our moon.
Thus, the transmographer shows it (MOTL motion and lunar motion) can be described as a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation proving DREMT is wrong and has been wrong for over 3 years.
Ball4 translates the square, then calls that rotation. Hilarious.
DREMT,
Let’s review the definitions I posted earlier, which you refused to accept or dispute. First the definition of translation:
By this definition, MOTR (aka a properly functioning bicycle pedal) is not rotating. Obviously you cannot agree with this definition because it is contrary to your numerous prior assertions that MOTR spins opposite its orbital revolution. Thus your only recourse is to evade. That is my point.
Brandon, just like the MOTL, there are two kinematically acceptable options for the MOTR:
a) It is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction. b) It is translating in a circle, with no internal axis rotation.
I accept that b) is an option. You do not accept that a) is an option. That is where you disagree with Tim Folkerts, and some other "Spinners".
You’re the unreasonable one.
Clicking on the translation button is translation DREMT.
Clicking on the rotation button is rotation DREMT.
DREMT 11:59 am simply confuses the two motions which is understandable given DREMTs confusion on the moon issue demonstrated over several years.
Now DREMT is confused by DREMT’s own link. Funny and true.
Ball4, the 1:12 PM challenge involved using only the "around a point" rotation command (for rotation about an external axis) and the "around center" rotation command (for rotation about an internal axis). You should not be using the "translate" button at all, was my point.
DREMT,
> a) It is rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction. b) It is translating in a circle, with no internal axis rotation.
The sum of velocities in (a) net to (b), so from a maths standpoint they are the same, and thus I can accept both definitions with one caveat: (a) should read, “[MOTR] is
rotatingrevolving about an external axis […]”, where “revolve” is a more expedient way of saying “translating in a circle”.That said, if there are two ways of describing the motions of MOTR, there must also be two ways of describing MOTL. Yet you only accept one.
Talk about unreasonable.
Brandon, you also pay absolutely no attention to what people say. I’ve already said, many, many, many, many, many times before that the MOTL can also be described in two different ways.
I do not accept your caveat, because it’s absurd. It boils down to you saying that the MOTR can be described as:
a) Translating in a circle, with internal axis rotation.
b) Translating in a circle, with no internal axis rotation.
Which is clearly ridiculous. This is correct:
a) Rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction.
b) Translating in a circle, with no internal axis rotation.
and for the MOTL:
a) Rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle, with rotation about an internal axis.
DREMT,
> Ive already said, many, many, many, many, many times before that the MOTL can also be described in two different ways.
You’ve also said many (ad infinitum) times the transmographer PROVES one and only one correct description.
It’s not absurd to insist on a distinction between revolution and rotation:
https://tinyurl.com/83b98xpa
Two reasons why NASA and anyone else concerned with modelling the movements of celestial bodies make this distinction are a) axes of rotation are pretty much never perpendicular to the orbital plane and b) orbits are pretty much always non-circular ellipses.
You keep threatening to discuss the implications of these real-world cases. Now’s your chance.
DREMT: “You should not be using the “translate” button at all, was my point.”
Then don’t use the translate button DREMT if it confuses DREMT, using that only keeps the center at 0,0 for ease of understanding. Just use rotate with 90 in the box and the random starting center of the square is now the orbital center point.
Push rotate again the square orbits an external axis thru random center point once whilst keeping the same face toward that random center point whilst rotating on its own internal axis once per orbit like the MOTL and our moon.
Thus, the transmographer shows it (MOTL motion and lunar motion) can be described as a rotation about an external axis plus an internal axis rotation proving DREMT is wrong and has been wrong for over 3 years.
"You’ve also said many (ad infinitum) times the transmographer PROVES one and only one correct description."
No, Brandon, I haven’t. I have said that the transmographer proves that the motion of the MOTL can be described as either:
a) Rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle, with rotation about an internal axis.
and that most importantly, it proves that the motion of the MOTL can not be described as a rotation about an external axis, plus a rotation about an internal axis.
"It’s not absurd to insist on a distinction between revolution and rotation"
I agree, Brandon, but that’s, again, not what I was objecting to. You’re not very good at following discussions, are you?
"Push rotate again the square orbits an external axis thru random center point once whilst keeping the same face toward that random center point whilst rotating on its own internal axis once per orbit like the MOTL and our moon."
Incorrect, Ball4. The "around a point" rotation command is one single motion, not two. It is just a rotation around the external axis, with no rotation about the internal axis. Using that command alone, you already get motion like the MOTL.
I call art:
[BG] You’ve also said many (ad infinitum) times the transmographer PROVES one and only one correct description.
[KIDDO] No, BG, I haven’t. I have said that the transmographer proves that the motion of the Moon can not be described as an orbit and a spin.
Using that button the square does not orbit a center point or object at all whereas the MOTL IS orbiting a center object.
No DREMT, around a center point check mark does not show motion like MOTL. You are so confused, remain wrong, and have been wrong for over 3 years on the moon issue.
Willard twists my words, as usual.
Kiddo is wriggling once more, this time trying to bypass the fact that there’s only one motion of the Moon to describe and explain, and it’s the one he calls the MOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Also, he keeps speaking of rotation on an internal axis instead of spin, and rotation on an external axis instead of orbit.
Compare and contrast:
Moon. Spin. Orbit.
MOTL. Rotation on an internal axis. Rotation on an external axis.
Kiddo’s smokescreen isn’t that thick.
As usual it’s three against one, and not one of the "Spinners" seems to be able to debate honestly.
Wrigglers will wriggle:
[KIDDO’S VERBOSE VERSION] You cannot represent the motion of the Moon using
a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis orbit and spin, as the transmographer demonstrates.[VERSION WITH LESS LINGUISTIC RIGIDITY] You cannot represent the motion of the Moon using orbit and spin, as the transmographer demonstrates.
What you are missing, Willard, is that to the "Spinners", "orbit without spin" is translational motion (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR), and to the "Non-Spinners", "orbit without spin" is a rotation about an external axis (motion like the MOTL).
Kiddo wriggles once more:
The issue BG raises is not about so-called Spinners, a class that includes Tesla, Gordo, and excludes me. It is not about the MOTL, but the Moon. It is about what the transmographer proves.
Here is Kiddo’s claim:
The transmographer demonstrates no such thing, as we have a ton numerical models of the Moon’s motion using orbit and spin.
Worse, by Kiddo’s logic, his transmographer demonstrates that Chasles’ theorem fails for the Moon.
Perhaps he forget the SIMPLES line in the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument:
(SIMPLES) The simplest way to describe the Moon’s motion is as ONE rotation about the Earth-Moon center of mass. Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
My point is that you cannot replace "rotation about an external axis" with simply "orbit", because whether or not "orbit" means "rotation about an external axis" is precisely what is being contested, overall.
DREMT,
What happens when you tilt the Moon’s rotational axis out of its orbital plane.
> because whether or not “orbit” means “rotation about an external axis” is precisely what is being contested
Kiddo wriggles a little more, but this time he’s losing his footing.
First, what is being contested is if the Moon spins. That’s why Kiddo created the category of Spinner and non-Spinner. And spin refers to an internal rotation.
Second, an orbit can only be described as an external rotation in a very loose sense, as orbits are elliptical.
But get this: even if we grant that an orbit is a rotation, that does not tell us anything about spin!
Kiddo should stop wriggling.
As I said before, Willard never listens.
DREMT,
Speaking of elliptical, a 24 period orbit with an eccentricity of 0.5. The orbital body rotates on its own axis with the same period.
https://i.imgur.com/SbzNkkP.gif
A second time, what happens when you tilt the Moon’s axis so that it is no longer perpendicular to its orbital plane?
Ask as many times as you like, Brandon, I will not be answering. No diversions from the sub-topic under discussion will be followed. You have not responded to my 1:45 PM comment. Do you understand and agree with what I said there?
Kiddos will kid.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> You have not responded to my 1:45 PM comment.
I wonder why.
Me: Willards citation contains some useful definitions. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with them, and if you disagree please state your reasons for same.
DREMT: No, I will not do so.
I don’t wonder why, Brandon. It’s because you know I’m right.
I think Katanji Brown Jackson is going to be the AOC of the Supreme Court.
She can’t give a meaning for ‘woman’. Yet another token appointment thanks to Biden.
And forming a new Supreme Court Squad.
The rules define the tactics.
Republican presidents appoint Republican judges.
Democrat presidents appoint Democrat judges.
If you don’t like it, change the Constution.
Is that a British MO or just your caricature of the US system?
The POTUS often, especially recently, appoints people who best represents their party’s views. There have been exceptions, most notably George HW Bush’s appointment of David Souter who routinely voted with the liberals on the court. Justice Roberts was nominated by GW Bush and was the key vote enabling Obamacare to become law.
All law’s are necessarily evil in the sense of denying freedom which is why the Constitution contains the Bill of Rights. I do support a Convention of States for the purpose of amending it. One of the considerations would be term limits on Supreme Court justices and possibly an alternative to Presidential appointments.
Bottom line, I don’t like Democrat presidents or the progressive liberal justices they appoint. But I prefer to continue to work on electing Republican presidents who are more likely to appoint morally, spiritually, and legally conservative judges.
You know we have a problem when the current nominee can’t even define what a woman is.
We struggle with that in the UK too.
The Gents toilet is marked with a picture of a man in trousers and the Ladies toilet with a picture of a man in a kilt.
In the UK judges are appointed by the Civil Service. The criterion is professional competence rather than political views.
I have a rather dim view of the Constitution. I suspect that Benjamin Franklin had seen too many “great leaders” and deliberately set out to design a dysfunctional federal government.
> The POTUS often, especially recently, appoints people who best represents their partys views
Funny that Chic has not been seen whining about teh Donald’s latest clown shows on the matter.
E man,
You’re just jealous because we rejected King George before you did.
Eman,
Why don’t you teach Jackson some biology? XX
There was a day when I thought Kagan was a leftist. Now, I think she’s going to be the center.
entropic…” Republican presidents appoint Republican judges.
Democrat presidents appoint Democrat judges”.
***
This is way beyond that. They are now appointing judges based on political-correctness. Biden has a Black vice-president, out of political correctness and now he is appointing a Black judge for the same reason. If the best they can do is appoint a judge who is non-commital with the definition of a woman, she is definitely not sharp enough to be a Supreme Court judge.
It seems some think a higher price of oil will make solar and wind power more viable.
That is crazy, no?
There is nothing which will make solar and wind more viable.
A simple answer is if one had better batteries- if you ignore that such better batteries would helpful for anything which generates electrical power.
One could say the greatest weakness is the sporadic power generation of solar and wind power, but they also have “other problems” which also make them non viable.
But we don’t need the sporadic power generation of alternate energy to create a market for cheap electrical power storage as this was always needed for any electrical power generation.
Or peak and low power demand/use is always been an issue. And there always been a +trillion dollar market, if one do it.
Similar to battery issue, is being able transmit electrical power over a much longer distance. Better battery or being able to transmit over very long distance both solve this matter, and both would needed for any kind of electrical power generation- there has always been huge market/demand for it.
Grumpy
Have you noticed how things have changed at the BBC?
Ten years ago every climate thread was swamped with denialists swapping climate change denial memes and voting each other likes.
Now you are the only regular denialist left and all you get are dislikes.
I’ve noticed it on a number of sites. The rational sceptics with whom one could properly debate the science were gradually converted by improving evidence and disappeared. All that remained were the hardliners like yourself, whose minds could only be changed with a trespassing tool.
Make that a trepanning tool.
(Bloody intelligent spell checker!)
Trespassing tool has a certain ‘Je ne se quoi’ feel to it.
je-ne-sais-quoi, Ken
que sera sera, W
I’m sure you can do Italian version, Pozzo.
Gracias Willard. Otro viente a~os, voy a hablar frances muy bien.
Is this the British Broad.casting Corporation run by “an independent 12-member panel, governed by a chairman, that oversees day-to-day operations?” I’m wondering how much more independent they can be compared to the almost completely left-wing US media that only recently acknowledged the Hunter Biden laptop exposing the Biden crime family?
Were the “rational sceptics” converted or simply silenced?
> the almost completely left-wing US media
Sometimes, all you can do is laugh.
Willard, we are discussing a man who thinks that Fox News is Left Wing.!
The BBC has a charter committing it to politically neutral reporting, and an independent commissioner whose job is to enforce that neutrality on all television stations.
Not like the USA where you can start a TV channel to support anything you want. For some reason Fox News comes to mind.
There is a UK equivalent of Fox News called GBTV, but it has a low audience and nobody takes its propaganda seriously.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/12/what-does-impartiality-mean-bbc-no-bias-policy-being-pushed-to-limits
“Who exactly gets to define what impartiality means?”
This is my question for the British audience. Do you prefer to have your news filtered by others who decide what is impartial enough to be aired? I prefer to get unfiltered news and decide for myself whether or not its impartial or even true or consequential. The process of someone deciding for me is a form of slavery.
In the words of William Wallace, “Alba gu brth” or Mel Gibson, freeeeeeedom!
Online Freedom Fighters look sillier than usual with real ones in Kyiv:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/sergiy-stakhovsky-ukraine-russia-kyiv-war-b2040395.html
chic…”In the words of William Wallace, Alba gu brth or Mel Gibson, freeeeeeedom!”
***
Puleeeze…don’t use William Wallace and Mel Gibson in the same sentence?
******************
“I prefer to get unfiltered news and decide for myself whether or not its impartial or even true or consequential”.
***
Agreed. Or have the ability to verify it for myself. All we are getting about the Russian invasion is propaganda. A nuclear war is on the line, I am concerned.
Only if Putin pulls the trigger.
entropic…”The BBC has a charter committing it to politically neutral reporting…”
***
Good news. When do they plan to start?
Good one. LOL
Leftist propaganda works. That’s why you guys play the long game. The government is always the last bad actor.
In the US the news is filtered. Each station sends out what its paymasters, its politicalbcontrollers and/or its advertisers want its audience to hear. wants to hear.
On the BBC the audience often sends out what it’s audience does not want to hear.
The Left complain that the BBC is biased to the Right. The Right complain that the BBC is biased to the Left.
This suggests that the BBC balance is about correct.
I’ve read American complaints that Fox News has a Right bias, but none that Fox News has a Left bias, which probably puts it out to the Right.
You are correct that all news is filtered everywhere, not just in the US, in the sense that all news is biased by its writer or speaker.
I am not familiar with much about BBC or GBTV and maybe you have other choices. I have many choices of “filtered” news and that is what I like. I don’t have to watch the mainstream media here. It’s not just bias, but the selective omissions that are bothersome. Fortunately, we have alternatives even more right leaning than FOX. God bless the USA.
NBC just disgraced itself again by the Today Show’s photo-shopping a picture of a transgender swimmer to make that “person” look more like a woman.
You probably won’t get that news on British or US mainstream media.
Anyone born with male ‘equipment’ is a male. Only extreme politically-correct idiots could buy into the argument that a male has a female trapped inside.
I would expect such an argument from CNN, a station rife with sexual oddities.
And those that are born with both don’t exist?
Im making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . Ive not ever imagined like it could even JHGv achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try
HERE ___________ http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
Breaking news is following car chase with a helicopter. Some one standing in weather. Someone one standing with a war backdrop.
Cat videos get more eyeballs. News is gotten from twitter. Twitter is endless stupid.
News is best when it’s shorter.
For Ukraine war, I like this news:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+Speak+The+Truth
{doesn’t have very many commercials}.
But I like blogs for news. I usually check out:
https://instapundit.com/
And will watch local news for weather.
gbaikie…”For Ukraine war, I like this news:”
***
It’s blatant propaganda for the simple reason it overlooks the real problem in the Ukraine.
For example, he talks about Mariupol as if the Russians are deliberately targeting citizens there. He does not mention the Russians are after neo-Nazi volunteers fighting for the Ukrainian army who are holding Russian-speaking hostages in Mariupol, threatening to shoot any who try to leave.
Mariupol is in the region Russia is negotiating to be independent. Why the heck would they attack people they are defending?
There has been a civil war going on in the Ukraine since 2014 when a democratically-elected, pro-Russian president was forced to flee during a coup. What kind of democratic country allows a coup? The coup is known to have been initiated by a neo-Nazi faction who hate Russians, and everyone else except Aryans. The pro-Russian people in eastern Ukraine objected to the coup and vied to withdraw from the Ukraine to form independent states.
This stems back to WW II when eastern Ukrainians tended to support the Russian army while factions in western Ukraine supported the Nazis. Ukrainians formed several Nazi SS divisions, one of them SS Galatia, which is celebrated by some Ukrainians today as heroes. Stepan Bandera, considered a national hero by some in modern Ukraine, was a war criminal wanted at the Nuremberg trials.
I am asking, will the real Ukraine please stand up. Zelensky? The current president has dissolved the opposition and is now ruling like a dictator. He has censored the media. Meantime, he is pleading with everyone to help him out even though doing so could start a nuclear war. Zelensky could stop the invasion right now by offering independence to two small eastern states, recognizing the right to speak Russian, disarming, and dealing with his neo-Nazi affiliations.
Mariupol is in Donetsk province, one of the states vying for independence. The rebels there are pissed off because a pro-Russian president was run off in a neo-Nazi led coup. They appealed to the Russians for help and what we are seeing now is that help.
The Russians are intent on running off the neo-Nazi bastards who have volunteered and now form a battalion. It is estimated there is about 2000 of them. In Odessa, very close to Mariupol, neo-Nazis forced protestors into a government building and set it on fire, burning people to death. That’s a war crime, why are we not hearing about it?
The guy in your video is an uniformed idiot.
> He does not mention the Russians are after neo-Nazi volunteers
C’mon, Gordo.
You insufferable twat.
dullard…”> He does not mention the Russians are after neo-Nazi volunteers…”
***
That’s the point of my post, tweedle dum. Is there nothing you can comprehend?
I know that’s the freaking of your comment, Gordo.
You just keep repeating that propaganda crap over and over again, oblivious to the fact that it has been contradicted many times already.
I know people who have returned. Do you think they’re Nazis too, stupid asshat?
–Gordon Robertson says:
March 25, 2022 at 6:20 PM
gbaikie…”For Ukraine war, I like this news:”
***
It’s blatant propaganda for the simple reason it overlooks the real problem in the Ukraine.–
Yes, I don’t think he discusses at all.
But for me the problem in Ukraine is quite simple, Russia invaded Ukraine.
gbaikie…”But for me the problem in Ukraine is quite simple, Russia invaded Ukraine”.
***
That’s the obvious part, the reason is the question. Were they justified or not?
It’s not as if Putin was sitting around trimming his nails and suddenly got on the phone to his generals and said, “Let’s invade the Ukraine”. The invasion decision is a culmination of 8 years of dickering with the Ukrainian government to clean up their act re attacking Russian-speaking Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine.
During those 8 years I did not hear a peep out of the western media about what was going on. There were atrocities taking place in eastern Ukraine and nobody gave a hoot. War criminals were declared Ukrainian heroes by law. Fascists were running around threatening people and they caused a coup.
I realize I am amplifying the actions of a small group but a government claiming to be democratic allowed it to happen. Now they are crying for help.
“Thats the obvious part, the reason is the question. Were they justified or not?”
Of course they were not justified.
US is not invading Canada for your prime minister’s action.
“Were they justified or not?”
NOT.
Gordon forgets these were all the same tactics/excuses used by Nazi Germany to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Phoney baloney threats to German speaking people in those countries, and false flag operations.
History repeats..
Invading Finland turned out to be a bad idea. I wonder if Putin will remember that.
“Why the heck would they attack people they are defending?”
Because Putin just says that he is defending someone in order to attack.
GR is so idiotic he thins that the Electric Universe is a good idea.
*thinks
The BBC got into propaganda during WW II and has never let it go. They may have been able to justify it back then but today they spread every kind of propaganda just as our government funded CBC does in Canada.
The BBC has been a world-leader in global warming/climate change propaganda. They also spread propaganda during the covid nonsense, going so far as to censor anyone who disagreed.
Shameful waste of taxpayer’s money.
You got to hand it to Gordo.
At least he has an ethos.
This is a test.
I have a straightedge and a compass.
The only numbers that exist are the ones I can reach on a line with my tools in a finite number of steps.
Therefore the only numbers that exist are constructible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_number
Take that, infinitists!
I know of no one who claims infinity exists. In fact, the real number system has no existence except in the minds of humans.
Infinity is generally regarded in calculus as a limit that can be approached, but never reached.
C’mon, Gordo.
Don’t tell me you’re a finitist too!
In any event, I was being expedient:
Here’s a very cool presentation by Joel David Hamkins on the idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Jo4VGRq5M
I must warn you that it might make you think.
willard…I used to listen to math types like in your link till one day in an engineering math class the prof told us it’s possible to take the root of -1. At that, I called out “bull****”, and made a permanent enemy of the math prof.
You see, there’s a trick here. They start with x^2 + 1 = 0.
Naturally, that reduces to x^2 = -1 and x = root (-1).
When the prof at your link is talking about going beyond infinity, he is reliant on a new number system defined for that purpose. In other words, it’s bs.
If you try to divide 1 by 0, it is claimed to be undefined by any sane mathematician. That’s because, to reach zero you begin with ever-increasing smaller numbers that must be fractions between 0 and 1. As the fraction tends to 0, 1/0 tends to infinity. But, it can never be reached.
The math whiz in your video is calling the highest number reached omega (w) and he reasons there is always a number = w + 1 beyond that. That’s where I turned the video off because he is full of crap. Mathematicians have to justify their existence and that’s why they come up with such ridiculous theories.
With regard to the root of -1, another number system was developed called the complex number system. In that system the root of -1 is DEFINED as i. So, you now have an x-y plane where i is the equivalent of y.
To accomplish that, a complex number comes in the form:
Z = a + ib
where a is the real part and ib is the imaginary part.
This is used extensively in electrical engineering to calculate apparent power verses real power. In an inductive system like a motor or transformer, current is required to create magnetic fields and it is constantly being returned to the circuit by means of induction.
In EE, or even as an electrician, you want to know occasionally how much resistive (load) power is being used and how much inductive power is being used. It becomes important to the power utility since many inductive devices connected to the lines during peak hours creates what is called a power factor. The real power and imaginary power are out of phase and the phase angle determines the ratio of real power to imaginary power.
The phase angle needs to be corrected for peak efficiency and large capacitor banks are employed to narrow the phase angle as much as possible.
This has nothing to do with there being a root of -1.
GR: In the Electric Universe, anything is possible.
C’mon, Gordo.
Joel delves into issues of foundation of mathematics:
http://jdh.hamkins.org/
I’m not a fan of his Realism, but you really are out of your skinny jeans right now.
–The Biden administration sure is a font of good news. But hey, as Bloomberg told its Biden-supporting readers this past Saturday, Nobody said this would be fun.–
Dems are unfun.
If mayhem and foolishness is fun- that’s different.
Reps used to own, unfun.
Dems are stealing everything.
UAH vs. RSS
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/25/uah-vs-rss/
–Conclusions
Satellite temperature measurements are more useful than surface measurements in climate studies for several reasons:
The data used is all collected the same way and with similar instruments.
More atmospheric mass is included.
The temperature measured is mostly above the chaotic boundary layer of the atmosphere and is more stable.
Radiosonde data is available as an independent check on the calculations.–
“The temperature measured is mostly above the chaotic boundary layer of the atmosphere and is more stable”
I think I have made that point before.
Testing.
Why haven’t you mentioned this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60876858
Or this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60876857
Old news?
“Defence lawyers describe the plot as being angry talk and violent bluster rather than a real plan. They are also trying to compel the testimony of a key FBI informant who they allege acted as a ‘double agent’ while working undercover in the group.”
Check out the BBC and US mainstream media and see how much attention the FBI involvement gets.
Or this ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60871794
AR6 and Sea Level, Part 3, A Statistically Valid Forecast
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/
” A proper analysis of the data leads to a forecast of roughly 20 cm (~8 inches) of sea level rise by 2100. In the year 2100, our descendants will know who was right.”
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Figure-7.png
Who knows if this natural warming trend will continue, or end. Some believe Earth is in a long-term trend that will last for several millennia.
The only thing we know for certain is CO2 can not cause any warming.
Good for Clint R to admit the only thing Clint R knows for certain is wrong.
Ball4 believes such nonsense. He believes ice cubes can boil water. It’s all a Matter of Faith.
But, it ain’t science
That is just science of which Clint R isnt certain even though experimental evidence exists in science (no faith needed) proving Clint R is wrong as admitted by Clint R at 6:34 pm.
Ball4, do you realize that in your false religion, only 19 ice cubes would be needed to heat something to the temperature of Sun?
No wonder the polar ice caps are melting. There’s WAY too much ice….
Clint: Do you agree with GR that everything is explainable in the Electric Universe?
Does the “Electric Universe” indicate that Moon does NOT rotate about its axis? If so, then it gets that much correct.
… when the moon is observed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R previously explained.
Do you agree with GR that everything is explainable in the Electric Universe?
“Ball4, do you realize that in your false religion, only 19 ice cubes would be needed to heat something to the temperature of Sun?”
Added tons of ice experimentally warmed Alabama summer nighttime small foam tub of surface water by 0.1F at several inches deep so it would take way, way more than 19 ice cubes Clint.
Unless of couse your object was only 0.1F less than “the temperature of the sun” in which case the same tons of ice would work.
No acceleration. According to the stats.
brandon…”A translation is a motion in which all points have equal vector velocities; that is to say, in less technical but colloquially more descriptive language, the velocities of all points are equal and parallel. It follows from the definition that a translation is a rigid motion”.
***
All they needed to say was that a translation is motion from A to B. They are describing only one kind of translation, rectilinear translation. There is also a translation of axes, for example, an entire x-y plane can translate or rotate.
What if the translation is along a curve? Why do textbooks shy away from defining that translation in words?
Translation along a curve is curvilinear translation, yet when textbooks try to define it they offer the most stupid examples imaginable. One of them is a bus with its wheels removed and replaced with two lever arms which have axles at either end. That is not curvilinear translation.
Curvilinear translation is an analog of rectilinear translation in that both require points making up a rigid body to move parallel to each other. Whereas points moving parallel in rectilinear translation must have equal velocities, for obvious reasons, that requirement is not so obvious with curvilinear translation.
Since none of you spinners seem to understand the requirements of curvilinear translation, you mistake it for rotation. A body performing curvilinear translation along a curve, like a circle, has the property that the orientation of a line through the body will rotate through 360 degrees.
Newton was aware that the Moon was performing rectilinear translation that was changed to curvilinear translation by ‘something’. I think he may have said ‘something’ because Newton II does not apply to that something. It causes a change in direction without producing an acceleration in the direction of the applied force. I think he may not have wanted to muddy the waters.
With curvilinear motion we need an equivalence to parallelism and that is concentricity. We must examine vectors moving along concentric paths and that requires finding the tangent lines to those paths. If the tangent lines are parallel, then the paths are parallel AT ANY ONE INSTANT. We also have to demonstrate that the points making up the rigid body are moving at the same speed AT ANY ONE INSTANT.
Clint mentioned the other day that vectors don’t apply to rotation, and technically, they don’t. We speak of rotating vectors but how can a vector, which is nothing more than a line with an arrow, rotate? When we talk about rotating vectors, we are talking about the summation of instantaneous conditions of a moving body or particle.
There is no such thing as a curved vector, only straight-line vectors. If vectors are representing the motion of a particle on a circular path, we can only talking about the state of the particle one point at a time. If it is a uniform rigid body, then the motion of the body is represented by a vector at the COG of the body AT ONE PARTICULAR INSTANT.
A vector field can be curved but a field is made up of individual straight-line vectors.
With regard to each part of a body performing curvilinear translation having the same velocity, we have to talk about the angular ‘speed’ of a radial line connecting the individual particle vectors. The individual velocities of tangent lines representing particles in a rigid body are irrelevant. They are all joined together and orbit at the ‘speed’ of the radial line. Here, speed is the analog of velocity in rectilinear translation.
So, if you have a radial line rotating about 0,0 on an x,y plane and it has three tangent lines perpendicular to it representing three circular orbits of the near-side, COG, and far-side of the Moon, that is curvilinear translation without rotation. The motion is the curved analog of motion along a straight line.
> They are describing only one kind of translation, rectilinear translation.
Good grief, Gordo. This is ludicrous.
The paper is about rigid motion. It defines translation and rotation to buttress the claim that the most general rigid motion is either a translation or a rotation or the resultant of a translation and a rotation. It also needs to establish that the resultant of any two rigid motions is a rigid motion. From there it builds up a way to establish an analysis of general motion, cf. I-VI of section 3. I hope you know how to get the paper.
If you want more general than that, I already got you covered:
https://youtu.be/V4Jo4VGRq5M?t=463
You can reduce rotation and translation to reflection for all I care.
Click on my name for a better video.
Click on my name to see what happens when we cut the string of a ball-on-string.
…and yet, a ball on a string is not rotating on an axis going through the ball itself. Just ask Bindidon, Norman, RLH, or any of the other “Soft Spinners”.
“a ball on a string is not rotating on an axis going through the ball itself”
No it is rotating about the central axis.
Just like the Moon and the Earth are both orbiting their common barycenter and rotating about the own axis as they do so. The Earth 27 (approx) times faster than the Moon.
Funnily enough, the barycentre of the Moon-Earth system is beneath our feet.
It is as if Kiddo did not understand why physicists called that kind of things a system.
Thanks again for the support, RLH.
No support for you Graham. Do you believe, like GR, that everything is an Electric Universe?
Graham, The ball “on” the string can not rotate around the ball’s CoM because the string prevents this from occurring. There’s no string between the Earth and the Moon, only gravity, and thus the Moon does not always present the exact same face toward the Earth while translating around it’s elliptical orbit. I expect that you continue to disagree with these basic facts.
Swanson, the ball-on-a-string indicates how gravity steers an orbiting body. If the body is not rotating, the same side always faces the inside of its orbit. As Moon has a slightly elliptical/slanted orbit, we see slightly more of it than just one side.
You don’t seem to understand any of this, and you can’t learn. It’s the same for all braindead cult idiots.
E. Swanson, the ball “on” the string can rotate around the ball’s CoM once per orbit because the string prevents this from occurring more or less than once.
> If the body is not rotating, the same side always faces the inside of its orbit.
Cool story, Pup.
You and Moon Dragon Cranks are arguing the converse, however, which is false.
If the body is not rotating the same side always faces a fixed star. As Newton said.
Click on my name to see a fixed star.
Bad music doesn’t count.
Whoever the star, be it a rockstar or a nursery rhyme star, fixation is fixation,
Good to see Swanson is also on the list of "Soft Spinners".
Graham: Do you support GR?
Gram, aka, pups, Your ball moving in a circle isn’t the same as the Moon orbiting the Earth. The string acts like a solid connection, gravity does not.
…as discussed ad nauseam, Swanson. What’s far more interesting is that you’re a "Soft Spinner". Thank you for your support re the ball on a string.
It’s been about 2 years now, and poor Swanson STILL can’t understand the ball-on-a-string. He STILL believes it’s a model of Moon’s actual orbit. No matter how many times it has been explained to him, he still can’t understand. The simple analogy is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
He’s another perfect example of a braindead cult idiot.
True, Clint…but at least he gets that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. So that’s something. We can’t expect too much from them…
Do Clint and Graham support GR wrt the Electric Universe?
We can’t expect too much from them…
> The string acts like a solid connection, gravity does not.
Has Kiddo ever responded with anything else than the usual “but it’s not a model” wriggling, Eric?
I’m not the only person on this website, Willard. Try to become interested in others.
## THE MOON DRAGON CRANK MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 5.1)
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation. But it is only an illustration.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-376302
“Im not the only person on this website” who is an idiot. I have a clique of them who are just as bad.
Sigh.
Another source of (LIKE A BOS):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-932482
No idea what this Moon Dragon Cranks are doing with this distinguo, but here you go.
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of a ball-on-a-string.
gram is talking to itself again. At least it waited 5 minutes before posting another comment patting itself on the back. If “The simple analogy is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.”, then why does it continually insist on dredging it up when writing about the Moon? It ignores the fact that the Moon is a free body and rotates once an orbit.
Thank you for your support re the ball on a string, Swanson.
And another source:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-551086
Sometimes a simple illustration can become evidence.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A translation along a curve is normally called an orbit. It does not use any rotation of the body around a point. Like the MOTR.
The MOTR is both orbiting and rotating. It’s the same as the pedal on your tricycle.
The pedal is like the MOTR.
Which shows that it is not rotating wrt the ground.
But, it IS rotating wrt its axis. That’s why its attached to its axle with bearings.
In order to stay fixed wrt to the ground, there has to be a change in orientation between the pedal and its arm. So what?
All motion is relative. You might as well say that the arm is rotating wrt to the pedal.
The locked pedal (MOTL) physically cannot rotate on its own axis, so does not. The unlocked pedal (MOTR) physically can rotate on its own axis, and does.
As I said before, the moving pedal, which is fixed with regard to the ground, must rotate wrt the arm as the arm is rotating wrt the ground.
The pedal is just like the MOTR. It is not rotating wrt the ground.
…and as I said before, the locked pedal (MOTL) physically cannot rotate on its own axis, so does not. The unlocked pedal (MOTR) physically can rotate on its own axis, and does.
The locked pedal is just part of the arm. In fact you could make it all one part. It has no axis other than the ‘center’ of the arm.
Where the unlocked pedal and the arm meet, there has to be a rotating joint as one is moving wrt the other.
The unlocked pedal remains in the same orientation as the ground, just like the MOTR.
On another point, do you support GW wrt the Electric Universe?
Thanks for the support, RLH.
I have never even read about the Electric Universe. So I guess my answer is, no…since I have no idea (or much interest) what it’s even about.
But if GR thinks it is OK, you agree with him.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
"But if GR thinks it is OK, you agree with him."
Wrong, as usual.
Either you agree with GR or you disagree with him. Which is it?
12:22 PM contains my answer.
So Graham disagrees with GR on the Electric Universe but agrees with him about the Moon.
Ever though the cliques pet theory about that disagrees with Newton.
Everyone agrees with this.
I don’t. It’s crap.
You’re crap.
Youre and idiot with very poor taste in music.
*You’re an
RLH is soooooo jealous.
Nope.
Yup.
willard…”Dunham Jackson might be able to explain Kiddos problem:
The assertion that a rigid body is rotating about the x-axis with a certain angular velocity, and rotating at the same time with another angular velocity about they-axis, puts a strain on the imagination of a student meeting this form of statement for the first time”.
***
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon problem. The rigid body is rotating about the x-axis while rotating at the same time around the y-axis.
Comprehension please!!!
There is nothing here to suggest the Moon is rotating around its COG/axis, which is nowhere near the x or y axes.
> There is nothing here to suggest the Moon is rotating around its COG/axis, which is nowhere near the x or y axes.
C’mon, Gordo. Indeed there is:
https://youtu.be/eUJfS0Dpwmo
Quit begging silly questions.
The Moon and the Earth are not a single rigid body.
Click on my name to see a rigid body.
Bad music doesn’t work.
I know it’s a good song, so don’t even bother pretending otherwise.
Wrong as usual.
Well, I like it. Bet it’s got stuck in your head.
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own axis
Oh the moon does not rotate on its own axis
The moon does not rotate on its own a-a-xis
… when observed from “inside of it orbit”.
Nope.
P.S. You still haven’t said if you support GR.
Yup. It’s as catchy as anything.
DMEMT
The catchy tune comes from “The foot bone connected to the ankle bone” Same tune.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-pzzfcU–4
Not the same tune at all, Norman! How dare you, sir.
The best series ever.
Norman’s knowledge of music is as pathetic as is his knowledge of physics.
The clique’s knowledge of physics is non-existent.
That’s when you start to learn,
What orbiting without spinning is really meant to be…
This has all been covered up thread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216349
One axis of rotation at a coordinate
Start with a circle at centered at (10,0)
Axis of rotation at(10,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cpko82eksy
Now move the axis to the left
Axis of rotation at (9,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2ly7y3g8is
Axis of rotation at (8,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/deqdmtf3ik
Axis of rotation at (0,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
Each example only has one axis of rotation
Two axis of rotation
One is always in the center of the circle, but we can move the other axis
(0,0) https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mzj3feccap
(8,0) https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jhbi4ftvyw
(9,0) https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vpl0kusi0f
If we set the internal rotation to clockwise, we get a bicycle pedal
Two rotations, one clockwise and one counterclockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/gpxqozzwyl
Each example is two rotations
As I demonstrated here,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216407
At the scale and distance of the moon, it looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fvr6b9foin
1 AU = 149,597,870.7 km
If Earth was 1.1 AU from the Sun, how much colder would Earth be?
If universe is expanding, how much time is needed for Earth to be
1.1 AU from the Sun?
I doubt that the effect of the expanding universe has a detectable effect on the Earth’s orbital radius.
Back of the envelope.
If the orbital radius did increase by 1/10 solar input would drop by at least 10% from 240W/m^2 to 216W/m^2.
The accepted figure is that temperature changes by 0.27C/W/m^2.
The temperature would decrease by 24*0.27 = 6.5C from a global average of 15C to 8.5C.
Once again, Ent displays his ignorance of science.
Solar flux does NOT drop off linearly with distance. The INVERSE SQUARE LAW indicates how the solar flux would be reduced.
(Ent is also the one that believes passenger jets fly backwards.)
Passenger jets do fly backwards as shown on youtube. Clint R just ignores the video evidence.
“I doubt that the effect of the expanding universe has a detectable effect on the Earth’s orbital radius.”
If universe has been doubling every 10 billion year, then 1 AU distance in 1 billion years becomes 1.1 AU. Or 1 billion years ago
Earth was .9 AU distance from the Sun.
And could be wrecking ball to assumptions, if we were accurately measuring anything, which I tend to doubt. And I doubt the universe has doubled in 10 billion years.
But in terms of the climate matter of faith, how cold would Earth be if it was 1.1 AU from the Sun?
I have my own ideas about weak sun paradox, which I will probably cling to rather this expanding Universe fad. But since our galaxy might be old, it might suggest lots of planets have escaped their sun, though simple orbital mechanics suggest a star would toss out plenty of planets without needing include the factor of an expanding universe.
gbaikie…where is the centre of the universe from which we can measure the so-called expansion?
We here on Earth are a tiny speck somewhere in the universe, we have no idea where we are wrt the entire universe.
This propaganda about a universe expanding at so many AU per year is based on gas spectra emitted by stars. We observe them with radio-telescopes and check the spectral lines emitted. We know based on the compositions of most stars where the spectral lines should be. If they are toward the blue end of the spectrum we claim a Doppler shift, meaning the star is moving toward us. If it is shifted to the red end, the star is moving away.
This is nothing more than theory and is the entire basis of the Big Bang theory which claims the universe began out of nothing, producing all the mass we observe in the universe. Since then, the ludicrous theory concludes the universe is expanding.
Where is the centre where the Big Bang occurred and where are we wrt to the universe? Observing from the Earth and claiming the universe is expanding is one of the most stupid claims ever made. We have no idea how big the universe is.
The other part of the proof for the BB is a background radiation rated at +4K. Huge error. Radiation is not heat. You cannot measure EM radiation as heat.
“gbaikie…where is the centre of the universe from which we can measure the so-called expansion?”
It seems, the center of the universe is the place where you can see the past of our universe.
Or the stated reason to make big space telescopes is to see the past.
See past, so we can understand the present is the usual sales pitch.
I would rather we had explored the Moon, decades ago.
But maybe, big telescopes are see a wall with a sign that says, “this is where it ends”.
But if one see the past, maybe in past, one could see here.
And that perhaps, could be more useful.
So, have restaurant at beginning of Universe, guests look at menu, and then they go there.
So, going into past is no go, but seeing the future is you go, or a plan.
“Radiation is not heat”
All EMR is the same regardless of the actual wavelength. IR, which is radiated by all objects, is part of the EMR depending on their temperature. Visual light is also part of the EMR. Radio and radar is part of the EMR.
Only in the world of the Electric Universe is radiation not heat.
Idiot.
I estimate using your numbers that the expansion of the universe would increase Earth’s year by 0.0007 seconds/year.
Who’s paying the “skeptics?”
I know the obvious answer seems to be big oil. But major oil companies such as Shell, BP and Chevron seem to be planning on a move away from fossil fuels, and towards renewables, which makes sense.
So who’s paying climate change deniers? Fracking companies? religious groups that believe the climate has to be self-correcting? Car companies? And if it is big oil, then which companies? Because clearly not all of them are on board with the denialism.
A lot of “skeptics” have become proponents of nuclear energy. It is still possible that the fossil fuel companies are funding that lobby, because relying mostly on nuclear implies a slow phasing out of fossil fuels. That might be the oil industry’s preferred scenario.
I don’t think “nuclear companies” (it is not a very profitable energy source) are funding denialism. I think some oil companies are funding the pro-nuclear lobby.
TM, as your cult continues to melt down, you must resort to more and more perversions of reality. And, it’s going to get worse. Pretty soon you will be just another babbling psycho like Ball4.
You mean I’m supposed to be getting a check?
“You mean Im supposed to be getting a check?”
You could, if you wanted.
If you are not, that makes you an ego maniac or an ideological fool.
Judging by your role in Berry’s papers I would say the latter.
Wrong, the former.
You’re an ego maniac?
I must be, right? It couldn’t be that I recognize the truth? It couldn’t be that GHE is junk science that governments use to exert more control over their people and which their cronies and myrmidons willingly oblige? Hmmm, Emyr?
But the deniers are not all the same. They tend to fit into one of four different categories: the shill, the grifter, the egomaniac and the ideological fool.
The shills: they are paid by vested interests.
The grifters: they earn a living by grinding out contrarian articles for rightwing media outlets. Regardless of the strength (or weakness) of their convictions, they just count the clicks and wait for the paycheck.
The egomaniacs: they are the disappointed, frustrated, and desperate for recognition types. They just make attention-seeking extreme pronouncements.
The ideological fool: they are utterly blinded by inane political dogma. These are history’s useful innocents.
Yes, that pretty well categorizes you Reality deniers. And all of you also resort to perverting science.
…according to Clint R not nature by experiment.
Perverting science is what the clique does. Not everybody else.
Clint: Do you support GR?
Gordon is so far ahead of you braindead cult idiots that there’s really no comparison. If it were a foot race, Gordon’s already crossed the finish line, and you idiots don’t even know how to tie your shoes!
Oh Gordon? The commenter along with Clint R that also doesn’t agree with experiment thus both commenters are repeatedly wrong.
So Clint agrees with GR.
rlh…”Clint: Do you support GR?”
***
That’s not the point, which is why can you not prove me wrong? You offer ad homs, insults, and red-herring arguments but you cannot prove me wrong.
If you believe in the Electric Universe then I don’t have to prove you wrong. You are an idiot.
Its more likely people like us who read the papers, look at the empirical data, and understand there is no basis to climate change claptrap.
A more important question is where does the funding for the climate change claptrap come from? The answer should scare the willies out of you. https://www.globalshapers.org/
Fortunately, young people under 30 are far more interested in partying and following their hormones than signing up with a bunch of eco-weenies.
Fortunately, young people know that the Electric Universe is crap.
Ken at 12:31 PM
“Its more likely people like us who read the papers, look at the empirical data, and understand there is no basis to climate change claptrap.”
Can you point me to one of those papers? Preferably one in the peer reviewed literature.
Fill your boots:
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/publications/
Anything from a climate scientist? Must be hell having to dig so deep to find something that [purportedly] supports your position.
Here’s the one I’m currently working my way through:
An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Observations and Climate Models Using Different Energy Balance Frameworks.
By Chao and Dessler. December 2021.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usG28tTVX83bvg1C2Hoa4HzlGbsO_W3P/view
TM, you’re making the same mistake as your cult.
If you’re trying to prove CO2 forcing, you don’t go to a “paper” that begins with CO2 forcing. First sentence of Introduction: “When the Earth system is disturbed by a radiative forcing….”
That ain’t science.
You need to provide the physics that shows how CO2 can warm Earth’s surface. And, you can’t do that….
Click on my name for the physics that shows how CO2 can keep the Earth’s surface warmer than it would be if it was not there, Pup.
maguff…”Whos paying the skeptics?
***
Are you pathetic alarmist losers still using that age-old propaganda? Guess you are recycling old propaganda because your other propaganda has failed.
Something for Canadians:
https://postimg.cc/f32Qt9gt
Good one. Last I heard, he was in Europe giving lectures on democracy.
As I understand it h= was in Europe getting lectured about democracy. But that’s what you get if you listen to CBC for your misinformation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpXuoXGHZSI
Thanks for that link, Ken. Glad some Europeans can see through Trudeau. It was revealing that his speech to the Europeans was to a virtually empty house. In other words, there was no interest in what he has to say.
His popular vote in Canada was about 32% in the last election and I sure it lower right now.
EU chamber was full. Some 90% of the house left when it was his turn to speak. It wasn’t just a lack of interest in what he had to say; they shunned him.
Apollo 11, Day Five, NASA Radio Chatter.
https://youtu.be/fktWJ0M80QE
Spoiler alert: at around 7:15, “Houston, tranquility base here, the eagle has landed.” Goose bumpy stuff.
The best part of that, if you ever hear Walter Cronkite, covering it, was the fit he had when the astronauts failed to follow the script. He was stating the script step by step and when the first astronaut stepped down he was supposed to do something.
So, Cronkite was saying, “Now, he will do this…”. Instead, he started running around in the lighter gravity and Cronkite lost it. He was berating the astronaut for not following Cronkite’s script.
Poor Gordon Robertson’s lost the plot again.
Im making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . Ive not ever imagined like it could even JHGv achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try
HERE ___________ http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
You are traveling to a place you’ve never been. You come to a fork in the road. You don’t know which way to go, right or left. A boy is standing there that you know he has an identical twin. One of the twins always lies, the other always tells the truth. You know they know the correct way but will always only answer one question. What question do you ask?
Where’s Alice?
Who’s Alice?
You can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant.
… exceptin’ Alice.
“If you were the liar would you tell me that the left fork leads to my destination?”
If the boy answers “No”, go left.
If the boy answers “Yes” go right.
That’s two questions.
Just take the fork.
But, the liar would lie about being the liar in his answer.
Which way would your twin tell me to go?
Bingo.
stephen p anderson
Another puzzle you can devise is one in which Clint R could say something in a post that would prove he is a human poster and not a bot program. So far I have not been able to devise such a valid test. Sometimes Clint R seems human, most the time it responds as any bot program. Any thoughts on such a test?
Thanks for thinking about me 24/7, Norman.
I’m flattered, even though you are a worthless troll.
I think you’re in his head, Clint.
…and there’s plenty of empty space…..
Where’s that waitress, and when she comes back will she sit on my face.
You ask the boy what his brother would say.
nate…”Gordon forgets these were all the same tactics/excuses used by Nazi Germany to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland”.
***
Not even close to the same tactics. The aim of the Nazis was world domination and purifying the the races to keep Aryans and eliminate the rest. They overran Czechoslovakia and Poland to occupy them, then they overran the rest of Europe. Then they got stupid and tried to overrun Russia.
The Russians helped us defeat the Nazis and now they are peed off that idiots in the Ukraine are currently preaching the same ideology. In 2015, a law was passed to honour Ukrainian war criminals as heroes.
Russia has shown remarkable patience since 2014 when the Ukrainian civil war began. Hitler did not sit around for 8 years debating with nations before invading. Russian has never indicated an intention to occupy the Ukraine. In fact they have laid out their demands for leaving.
1)They want the neo-Nazi factions fighting for the Ukrainiane army and interfering internally in governmental decisions through intimidation, removed.
2)They want the Ukraine to disarm to prevent further action from the neo-Nazis
3)They want Crimea recognized by the Ukrainian government as part of Russia.
4)They want the two eastern-most states in Ukraine declared independent as desired by those states.
5)They want an assurance that the Ukraine will not join NATO.
The Russians were assured that NATO would not expand beyond Germany and we lied to them. If the Ukraine is accepted, it means Russia will be hemmed in by NATO nations pointing missiles at them at their border.
C’mon, Gordo.
Who died and made you Vlad’s boot licker?
You still forget an important bit of history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Conservative estimates put that genocide at half a holocaust.
Gordon Robertson
All your arguments fail with the ruthless and cold-hearted attack of Russia.
If you were at all a humane person you would cry out against Putin and his evil ways instead of trying to find ways to justify what he is doing.
I am most certainly hoping NATO expands everywhere and prevents another cold and ruthless human from devesting a border country.
I hope Putin is pulled from power and put on trial as a war criminal and spends the rest of his evil life contemplating his foolish action. He is no good and your defense of him changes nothing. He is still an evil ruthless person, in his old age the KGB training is wearing off and his true self is exposed.
Im surprised that they only get Russian State TV where Gordon lives.
Because he is repeating their talking points verbatim. And seems to trust that they are accurate and is unable to fact-check them.
He also doesnt seem to be the least bit bothered that in Russia you can now get lengthy imprisonment for protesting the war or even posting non-govt approved factual information about it.
Thus Russians interviewed and Gordon seem unaware of the actual events in Ukraine, like the extreme destruction and callous disregard for human life in Mariupol by their own army.
Maybe Gordon should reread the book ‘1984’ to help him understand whats going on in Russia.
Gordo might have some shadowboxing to do:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-secret-recording
Nothing new there: Le Pen, Strache, and Brexit campaigners were equally bribed.
> Kinematics can NOT be applied carte blanche to orbital motion.
You got to love teh Pup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics
We don’t apply carte blanche. We give them. How does giving carte blanche to a discipline work exactly?
Worthless Willard found another link he can’t understand.
All his time in keyboard school is paying off….
Clint R programmers, you need to update your bot program you have dubbed Clint R. It is too repetitive. If you want to make people accept Clint R as a human it would benefit you to have multiple program choices. This bot seems to have too limited choice and tends to use the same routine too often. I think the program has potential. Most annoying thing I have engaged with. Just maybe add some variance to the worn out dull routines. Any link posted and the bot replies “another link he can’t understand”. A mixture of alternate routines when a link is posted would give the bot more semblance of an actual human.
Norman, do you have a link you can’t understand to support all that nonsense?
Well Clint is an idiot for sure.
And speaking of support Norman, were you able to find anything to support your nonsense that two sources supplying 315 W/m^2 each to a surface could raise its temperature to 325 K?
Remember, you say you ALWAYS support your claims. Of course this isn’t your original claim. You’ve just swallowed Folkerts nonsense. It’s the same as when you swallowed Ball4’s nonsense about Earth having a “real 255K surface”. Your efforts to support that crap were ridiculously funny.
Speaking of support, Pup, did you do the Pole Dance Experiment?
Click on my name to see the Proof the the Moon does not spin.
RLH and worthless Willard jump in trying to save poor Norman.
They are all sinking on the same ship.
That’s what a cult does to cult idiots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
Still promoting the tiny, tiny clique I see.
You are all idiots.
Thank you for nice information. Visit us :
https://uhamka.ac.id/
Thank you for nice information. Please visit our web:
UHAMKA
This site is truly fascinating and it totally makes my point.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
It has multiple charts of warming based upon location. At each and every one of those locations CO2 is a constant, yet temperature varies wildly. How can constant CO2 cause temperature differentials based upon location? Do the physics of the CO2 molecule change with location? If yes, how does the CO2 molecule know where it is? Do any other molecules alter their quantum mechanics based up there location? How any real scientist would address this issue would to take Antarctica as the Null or a Placebo. It shows basically an atmosphere unimpacted by anything other than CO2. From that you would find a location what has humidity, and tease out the impact of H20, then find a place that is cloudy and a place that is sunny, and tease out the impact of clouds, and then find an asphalt and concrete city, and tease out the UHI effect. That is how a real science would address this issue. They isolate and quantify the exogenous models and then incorporate the exogenous variables into the models. Lastly, the relationship of CO2 to W/M^2 is log, not linear, so the “adjustments” to make temperature no linear doesn’t make any sense at all. You can deny the basic science and scientific method all you want, but it won’t change the facts. BTW, this climate change nonsense has on the verge of WWIII and Europe dependent upon RUssian oil. Time to grow up people.
CO2IL,
That is a good site and complements the site that Chic recently linked. CO2 causes no warming. CO2 is life. These mutton-headed myrmidons need to find another boogeyman. There are too many who have falsified AGW. The only thing going on now is Goebbels-level propaganda.
“How can constant CO2 cause temperature differentials based upon location?”
When looking at local weather as you do & not global climate.
“Do the physics of the CO2 molecule change with location?”
Radiative opacity physics of CO2 depend on pressure so consider if the locations have different atm. pressures.
“how does the CO2 molecule know where it is”
A CO2 molecule doesn’t have a brain, the molecule doesn’t know anything.
“Do any other molecules alter their quantum mechanics based up there location?”
Depends on what is meant by “quantum mechanics” e.g. CO2 molecules in the troposphere don’t encounter collisional energy high enough to raise their electronic state but in other locations they do so.
…tease out the impact of H20…clouds…sun… has been done by real science addressing them in the satellite and ARGO era & you can learn about those impacts just by reading up on the subject.
When looking at local weather as you do & not global climate.
Local weather has to obey the same natural laws as global weather.
Radiative opacity physics of CO2 depend on pressure so consider if the locations have different atm. pressures.
The radiative physics of CO2 is temperature-dependent.
A CO2 molecule doesnt have a brain, the molecule doesnt know anything.
You finally understand. A natural CO2 molecule is the same as a fossil fuel CO2 molecule.
Depends on what is meant by quantum mechanics e.g. CO2 molecules in the troposphere dont encounter collisional energy high enough to raise their electronic state but in other locations they do so.
IR radiation is due to quantized vibrational states. It has nothing to do with electronic states.
tease out the impact of H20cloudssun has been done by real science addressing them in the satellite and ARGO era & you can learn about those impacts just by reading up on the subject.
It stopped being real science when government got involved.
When looking at local weather as you do & not global climate.
Local weather has to obey the same natural laws as global weather.
Radiative opacity physics of CO2 depend on pressure so consider if the locations have different atm. pressures.
The radiative physics of CO2 is temperature-dependent.
A CO2 molecule doesnt have a brain, the molecule doesnt know anything.
You finally understand. A natural CO2 molecule is the same as a fossil fuel CO2 molecule.
Depends on what is meant by quantum mechanics e.g. CO2 molecules in the troposphere dont encounter collisional energy high enough to raise their electronic state but in other locations they do so.
IR radiation is due to quantized vibrational states. It has nothing to do with electronic states.
tease out the impact of H20cloudssun has been done by real science addressing them in the satellite and ARGO era & you can learn about those impacts just by reading up on the subject.
It stopped being real science when government got involved.
Of course, local weather you cite can be at different temperatures and pressures with different radiative physics than global climate since as you write the optical physics of CO2 in the atm. is temperature dependent AND pressure dependent. A CO2 molecule doesn’t carry a birth certificate.
Terrestrial IR radiation in the troposphere air can result from excited rotational and vibrational states of constituent molecules but not their excited electronic states as there isn’t high enough troposphere temperature, by far, to excite their electronic levels above base level.
Gov. must pay for some unprofitable science work as the last resort funding source so deal with it.
Ball4, all that rambling to contribute NOTHING.
You could have just admitted you are a braindead cult idiot.
Save blog space.
A lot of blog space would be served by Clint R, Graham, GR, etc. not posting at all.
Speaking of Germans, I get impression all Germans have solar panels
on the roof and fields solar panels. Sort of like where I live- but somehow, even worse. And with the houses here there doesn’t seem like much effort to have them placed to get much sunlight, but with the acres of them, I assume some actual effort was made in this regard.
But maybe it just the propaganda and everyone in Germany are not idiots. Rather it’s just lots money is “spent” by the Govt rather than lots solar panels everywhere
Also considering Germans can fairly smart in terms of engineering, perhaps the house solar are mostly solar thermal, which are a somewhat reasonable thing to do.
Solar thermal are viable, particularly if don’t have way to cheaply heat water {don’t have cheap natural gas}.
I was looking at this, and it seems rest of world does a lot more solar thermal than US. Or Europe does a lot, and so, I guess, Germany does also.
“When looking at local weather”
My site does not look at weather. In fact it uses 12 month and 15 year low pass predominantly which mean that weather is not even visible.
Well thank you. It is just data and what it shows.
> How can constant CO2 cause temperature differentials based upon location?
You always skip the part where it should, Life.
And CO2 ain’t constant:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/
CO2 can’t raise Earth’s temperature.
After more than a decade of trolling at Roy’s, Pup still can’t raise his game. He can’t even raise his body to do the Poll Dance Experiment. Heck, he can’t even see when I write “Poll” instead of “Pole” half of the times.
Yeah Worthless Willard, when you reject reality, you must also reject truth and honesty.
Reality has nothing to do with your righteousness, Pup.
Speaking of honesty, that’s your fifth or sixth sock at Roy’s, right?
Reality is reality, Worthless Willard.
Perverting reality involves distortions and dishonesty.
So you keep saying, Pup.
When will you be providing an argument?
So compare
CO2
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rate.jpg?w=500
and UAH LT temperature
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
> So compare
No need to notice an acceleration.
They match so well. Not.
If the atmosphere was pure CO2, you might have a point.
A pity you don’t.
For the last 7 years, CO2 goes up but the global temperatures go down : )
I’m sure you can produce more irrelevant factoids, Richard.
Well apparently we don’t need 100% CO2 to increase temperatures and whilst CO2 has been rising continuously, global temperatures have not.
rlh…”whilst CO2 has been rising continuously, global temperatures have not”.
***
And don’t forget the flat trend between 1998 and 2015. How does CO2 take 18 years off?
By cherry picking optimas, Gordo.
You’re welcome.
You’re ignoring facts Willard. You’re welcome.
You don’t have an infinite brain, Richard.
So No U.
Nate and Ball4 have been debating RichardM on Mickolczi’s “radiative exchange equilibrium law” which implies CO2 does not cause global warming and is supported by data.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1223460
That discussion spun-off from a discussion between Nate and I over the subjects of CO2 increasing atmospheric insulation and the ability of a layer at the TOA to block radiation to space. Nate invokes Tyndall’s experiments as evidence supporting his positions.
Tyndall’s experiments carried out at approximately standard temperatures and pressures do not apply to the full depth of the atmosphere and did not involve the ensemble of factors affecting energy transfer through the atmosphere. Nate claims, without data from anywhere other than MODTRAN, “The ability of the top layer of air to transfer heat to space is reduced with the addition of CO2” and “this is equivalent to adding a layer of insulation on top.”
Nate writes, “you do not have any scientific rebuttal to what Modtran finds.” The rebuttal is that a snapshot photo of the atmosphere, which is what MODTRAN is, does not capture the net result of a 24-hour period, let alone what happens as CO2 inches up gradually over the long term. Supporting data is suspiciously absent in light of the increasing trend in OLR. In his typical obfuscatory fashion, Nate writes, “Again you return to an ideological argument, while I am trying to keep this about science.” What can be more scientific than data to support a hypothesis?
Nate complains that I am “stuck in an ideological rut” while he promotes the ideological AGW hypothesis without stating it or providing definitive data to support it. Ironically, Nate wants “a logical discussion of the science” without me being ideological while he remains totally ideological.
The scientific approach is to falsify the null hypothesis, increasing CO2 will have no effect on average global temperature.
Always good to see more people coming to the conclusion that there’s no “enhanced GHE”. Thanks for the link!
Appreciate your non-hysterical climate work. I’m not educated in this area but I’ve wondered about the tremendous increase in irrigation of previously dry lands and also in suburban areas (lawns, campuses), and the increase in dammed sources of water. Wouldn’t these increase the atmospheric water vapor and contribute to the greenhouse effect as compared to historical measurements? Add to this the water vapor and waste heat from ICE’s and it seems that CO2 could be a much smaller player in the observed rises in annual temperatures that what it’s being credited for.
Gordon, indeed the increase in atm. water vapor component has contributed slightly more to the GHE surface warming than the increase in ppm CO2 component as measured since about year 2000 by data from satellite radiometers and surface thermometers.
No, the increase in temperature due to some natural cause has caused an increase in atmospheric gases. Their growth has not caused a temperature rise. How do I know this? It would imply an unstable planet, and we’re here.
The increase in global UAH temperature monthly reporting is due to some natural cause such as Gordon Q’s irrigation & dams which have caused a natural increase in atmospheric gases, sure, like water vapor.
Ball4 has NO understanding of science. He believes ice cubes can boil water. And he still can’t find his bogus “real 255K surface”.
B4 is a propaganda generator.
Clint R’s theory may be beautiful but since Clint R’s theory doesn’t agree with experiment that theory is wrong.
Propaganda does not depend on experiment which is why science goes with experimental results.
Do you mean like your real Earthen 255K?
The earthen global Te 255K is from experimental data so is the Mars Te 210K. Government funded experiment, but still experiment.
So, it’s experimental real Earthen 255K? Gotcha.
Data from experiment – to confirm theory.
Data from experiments doesn’t confirm theories.
clint…”Ball4 has NO understanding of science.
***
It’s worse than that, he makes it up as he goes along. I suspect, at times, that he posts to the blog when he’s out on a day pass from the facility.
Same with rlh. He seems to post when he has a day pass from the rest-home. His poor old mind can only think one sentence at a time and he has taken to repeating himself over and over. Seems to have reverted to the level of a child. Sad.
Only idiots believe in the Electric Universe. Like you.
GQ…”Wouldnt these increase the atmospheric water vapor and contribute to the greenhouse effect…”
***
Before you can answer that question you have to understand the question.
WV makes up only 0.3% of the entire tropopause.
Here’s the Ideal Gas Law that equates pressure, temperature, mass, and volume in a gas.
PV = nRT
Explain to me with that relationship how a gas making up 0.3 % of the tropopause could raise the gas temperature more than 0.3C. That’s just the math, it does not address how the WV can warm the other gases. There is a theory the WV can transfer heat to the other gases but that has never been observed or proved in the atmosphere.
As one wag put it, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
In climate models, where all the nonsense about climate change is derived, CO2 is given an arbitrary warming factor between 9% and 25%. It depends on the amount of WV and if it is absent, they claim CO2 has a warming factor of 25%, a value picked out of a hat.
Sheer nonsense, A gas making up 0.04% of a gas mixture cannot increase warming in the mix by 25%. There is no known mechanism by which it can do that.
Therefore, greenhouse theory and anthropogenic warming theory, based on the percent of CO2 and WV in the atmosphere is pseudo-science.
” Im not educated in this area”
That covers about everything as far as I can see.
Gordo will be sadz:
https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/russian-tank-manufacturer-shuts-down
All we are accomplishing with the sanctions is driving Russia back to communism. The tank factory will be re-opened soon as a commune-based enterprise.
Many Russians will likely be happy about that since it will increase their standard of living from the level to which it descended under a free-market economy. The oligarchs will likely have to give some of their money back.
We in the West made a huge mistake when we bypassed the opportunity to welcome Russia into the democratic world and help them with the transition. Rather than offer compassion we decided to punish them for their evil ways under Stalin, as if that had anything to do with the average Russian.
Ironically, our democracies in the west are being continually eroded as corporations push us to a global market. The other day, in the European parliament, a representative from a former communist regime, chided Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau for his undemocratic behavior. He was lambasted by a German right-winger as well.
The tank factory closed because of a lack of computer chips. I don’t think that any commune based enterprise is going to replace those any time soon.
They didn’t have computer chips, transistors or even computers during WW II and the tanks worked quite well. The problem we had with the Allies was providing our tanks with pea-shooters. They could not penetrate the frontal armor of the German Tiger tanks.
They were in the process of developing tube and relay-based computers when Alan Turing wasn’t chasing men around.
I like how you are celebrating the memory of one of the WWII heroes, Gordo!
Modern tanks are not like WW2. Much like you.
This video highlights why some people can be confronted with undeniable evidence and they still ignore the facts. It is as if they start with the conclusion and ignore anything that doesn’t support that conclusion. The OJ Trial, Climate Science, Origin of COVID, Russian Collusion and Hunter’s Laptop are just a few examples. Some people simply choose to live in a world that doesn’t exist. The problem I have is that those people vote, and now we are on the verge of WWIII because of all this climate nonsense.
https://rumble.com/vy2zqc-bonhoeffers-theory-of-stupidity.html
co2…is that the best you could come up with to support the propaganda behind catastrophic global warming/climate change? I have yet to see one scientifically-verifiable argument in support of the propaganda.
All the climate alarmists have is an experiment performed by Tyndall, circa 1850, which demonstrated that gases like CO2 could absorb infrared energy. Not one iota of evidence has been presented since to equate that lab experiment to the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not one iota of scientific evidence has been produced to support the Electric Universe either.
rlh…”Not one iota of scientific evidence has been produced to support the Electric Universe either”.
***
I have never implied at any time there is merit to the theory. All I did was link you to a comment by Wal Thornhill on Einstein. His page talks about the electric universe, not me.
Thornhill has other interesting comments on the universe if you take the time to crawl through his site. He is after all a valid astronomer.
If you are going to talk about the validity of theories, his electric universe theory is as valid as Einstein’s theory that the universe is held together as a space-time continuum. At least their is evidence that electrical currents do extend outward from the Sun as electron-proton plasma (solar wind). There is no evidence whatsoever, that gravity is a space-time continuum.
“I have never implied at any time there is merit to the theory”
You just linked to the person who created the idea. And, no, his ‘theory’ is not as valid as Newton’s or Einstein’s as it does not qualify as a ‘theory’ at all.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “There is no evidence whatsoever, that gravity is a space-time continuum.”
Another false statement. You seem to think this makes your posts credible as you do it often.
You may not accept the evidence but it is out there. Here is one set of examples. There are many out there if you were an actual researcher and not a contrarian. You are not interested in any sort of truth but accept whatever the latest crackpot tells you the truth is.
https://www.space.com/41020-putting-relativity-to-the-test.html
Gordon Robertson
Again you are wrong. There is evidence but you do not accept the evidence. I will give it to you again so that the next time you make such a claim you will be a liar.
https://tinyurl.com/2p853vv5
I was researching the Electric Universe Theory. It is kind of interesting but it is basically a bad idea at the core level. I emailed a person involved in this idea a while back. I asked him what runs the electric currents (our Sun is supposed to be powered by these electric currents flowing through the Universe). He did not have a good answer, just the way it is what I remember of the response. Really poor.
Gordon calls Big Bang bad but adopts a far worse idea. The Doppler Effect is real, it can be observed and measured. It is observed in galaxies and stars. There is no source of power to run massive electric flows. Once charges balance no more flow exists. One needs to have some source of energy to separate charges to create electric currents. I think Electric Universe is a horrible idea since it has zero explanation for its core assumption.
So Norman doesn’t like the EU cult, but he likes the CO2 cult.
He’s just searching. Maybe someday he will find reality.
But that will be a sad day for him. He will have to admit he’s been a braindead cult idiot for years.
Clint R
One has valid evidence for it (CO2 will increase the Earth’s surface temperature). The other has zero basis. Electric currents just continue to run through the Universe powering stars forever.
One is valid science the other is NOT. You are a non-human bot so it would be impossible to discern the difference.
Wrong again, Norman.
There is no valid evidence for it (CO2 will increase the Earth”s surface temperature).
That’s just your cult belief. You have NO science. You’re a fraud.
Clint is an idiot.
norman…your link leads nowhere. While you’re getting the proper link, how about stating your objection to my post in your own words.
Gordon Robertson
Maybe this one works.
https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4bd/4bd69bdd-8a7c-4d44-88b8-ed1fa34ff7e4/phpyzJ2gA.png
Norman, that’s just another link you don’t understand.
That’s just a model of Earth’s emission to space. It doesn’t mean CO2 is warming the surface. In you empty head, a hamburger is “proof” of AGW.
You have no understanding of science, physics, or thermodynamics. All you have is your keyboard.
You’ve got NOTHING.
“thats just another link you dont understand”
Your stock response to anything that YOU do not understand. You’re are just an idiot.
Clint R
Read under the graph. This one is not a modeled spectra. It is measured from a satellite.
Yes it does show CO2 warms the surface like a blanket warms a person. It adds a radiant barrier. The contribution to outgoing longwave radiant energy to space is much lower than what the surface is emitting at the same wavelengths.
Also that is not the point of my post. I was responding to Gordon Robertson’s post that there was no evidence that CO2 has any effect. The graph clearly shows his statement is false. CO2 has quite an effect in the bands it absorbs in.
Norman,
The graph you linked to is just a point in time. It does not show any effect. It does not show a difference in temperature at any place on Earth now compared to anything now that’s real or any hypothetical place on any planet that you dream up. You keep touting the same AGW dogma. Are you expecting a different result and, if so, what does that imply?
Yes Norman, that is the blah-blah you get from your cult, but it is WRONG. Just like the bogus
“energy balance” which attempts to balance flux, or the bogus concept that fluxes simply add. You’re being fed so much crap that you can’t figure it out. And your weak background in physics doesn’t help.
Did I mention you also can’t learn?
(Where’s your “textbook proof” that ice cubes can warming something above the temperature of the ice?)
> The graph you linked to is just a point in time
I suppose Chic be allowed to say that circa 1970-1972 is just a point in time.
Chic,
Surely you’ve seen this paper: Harries, et al. 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997.
And another doing the same thing from ground-based observation: Feldman, et al. 2015 Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010.
Yes, Brandon, I have seen those papers. They are two of the triad that David “red fruit” (still banned?) would post a lot here. My problem with them was the lack of actual temperature response that can be unambiguously attributed to the spectrophotometric evidence of the change in IR absorbing gases.
Chic Bowdrie
Unfortunately you are not interested in any evidence you just like to be contrarian. I have spent time providing evidence to you in the past but it is a waste of time.
You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
If I promise not to argue anymore, will you promise not to comment?
It is already the case that you don’t argue, Chic.
Here is a follow up to the above video:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6301892041001
nice
Im making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . Ive not ever imagined like it could even JHGv achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try
HERE ___________ http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
“All the climate alarmists have is an experiment performed by Tyndall, circa 1850”
The irony is that his experiment doesn’t do that. He used copper tubes that warms the air, much like a radiator heats a room. To do the experiment correctly you need IR transparent glass which he didn’t have.
In 1859, Tyndall showed that gases including carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat. His heat source was not the Sun, but radiation from a copper cube containing boiling water.
If that is the best the alarmists have they don’t have anything at all.
Tyndall did admit: “How must we close the receiver containing the gases through which the calorific rays are to be sent? ..a tube closed with glass plates would be scarcely more suitable for the purpose now under consideration, than if its ends were stopped by plates of metal.”
Prof. Tyndall realized: “Rock-salt immediately suggests itself as the proper substance; but to obtain plates of suitable size and transparency was exceedingly difficult” but not impossible since he obtained from several donors “good” IR transparent salt plates with which to enclose his tube ends.
Is there ANYONE so ignorant and/or naive to think that the one any only experiment related to IR absor.ption is 160 years old?
Of course this is not “the best” that anyone (on any side of any argument) can come up with! Science has advanced significantly since the mid 1800’s.
Folkerts, as usual you have NOTHING of value to contribute.
Science has advanced since Cassini but you still believe Moon is rotating about its axis.
Worse yet, you believe two sources providing 315 W/m^2 to a surface can raise that surface to 325K.
I await your desperate attempt to pervert reality….
Related:
Atmospheric Fingerprint
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/27/atmospheric-fingerprint/
“The draft of Chapter 8 that was agreed to by the chapter authors, including Nicholls, Karoly and Santer, in July 1995, did not claim the atmospheric fingerprint showed humans were contributing to global warming. It said that, to date, the warming was within the range of normal climate variability, so a human influence could not be detected. Later that same year, in November, the conclusions of Chapter 8, were changed at the insistence of politicians and without the permission of the scientists that had written the chapter.”
Tim,
Nobody has come up with any experiments that contradict Tyndall.
Your fantasy scenarios do not count. Putting any obstruction (including CO2 etc) between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, resulting in the thermometer getting colder, not hotter.
No reproducible experiments performed by anyone, anywhere, anytime, have shown otherwise.
You must live in a strange dream world if you think otherwise.
Lol, thermometers measure kinetic temperature not radiation, radiometers measure radiation.
“Putting any obstruction (including CO2 etc) between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation … ”
Yes. That all is perfectly true. But it has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect. It is a red herring.
The equilibrium temperature of the earth (or any object) depends on both the rate that energy arrives and the rate that energy leaves. When the two are balanced, the temperature is steady. The GHE is not about how the radiant energy ARRIVES (as you seem to think). The GHE is about how the radiant energy LEAVES.
You can’t link wiki or any other site on the internet, especially regarding somebody like Tyndall, and expect accurate information. The websites are going to be edited to fit the narrative of the people running the site. Wiki lost its objectivity a long time ago.
Gordo might appreciate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Perhaps Life too, as it’s not far from Galaxy Brain Bannon stuff.
ball4…”Terrestrial IR radiation in the troposphere air can result from excited rotational and vibrational states of constituent molecules but not their excited electronic states…”
***
All states are electronic transitional states. There is nothing in a molecule with charge other than protons and electrons. Since the protons are bounds to the nucleus, it is only the moving electron that can generate EM.
How else could a rotational or vibrational states emit EM if the radiation did not come from electrons?
Figure it out. EM = electromagnetic.
What can generate an electromagnetic quantum of energy? A particle with an electric charge producing a magnetic field.
Tada…the electron.
The electrons are in motion in both molecular rotation and vibration modes, Gordon. Even vibrational modes in a solid. This ought to be obvious.
Heating a piece of iron in a furnace until it glows yellow does not involve any change in the ‘electron states’ of the iron. It does increase the rotation and vibration modes though.
Yellow light would require electron transitions. A molecular vibrations can’t emit much shorter wavelengths than about 2μ. Yellow light emits about 0.58μ.
More for Gordo to chew on:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28229785
If he can stop licking Vlad’s boots, that is.
La Nina Shmanina
Contrary to Bindiclown numerous predictions it will not be gone by April
https://youtu.be/jEQeE2zW8dI
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
New Scott McIntosh presentation, still predicts SC 25 double the size of SC 24
https://youtu.be/GXmJAi57VIg
stephen a…”Depends on what is meant by quantum mechanics e.g. CO2 molecules in the troposphere dont encounter collisional energy high enough to raise their electronic state but in other locations they do so”.
***
Don’t need collisions. The electrons in the molecules can absorb EM at any time and transition upward to a higher energy orbital. Remember, a molecule is nothing more than an aggregation of electrons and their corresponding nucleii, which are bonded by electrons. There is nothing magical in a molecule that can absorb and emit EM other than electrons.
That is basically quantum theory. It’s about the interaction of electrons and the nucleus and the properties of the electron in that interaction. Electronics is based on quantum theory, as is basic organic chemistry. Some people have taken quantum theory into the sci-fi region but they can’t prove any of it.
The absorp-tions are frequency dependent and the intensity of the EM matters. That’s why nitrogen and oxygen are said to be unresponsive to IR radiation and they don’t emit it. They do absorb and emit but those frequencies at which they due tend to be in the ultraviolet range.
I don’t buy that argument. N2 and O2 are bound to absorb incoming solar since it has a broad spectrum of frequencies right into the UV range. Anyone with a sunburn can attest to that. Sunscreens are designed to block UV.
Therefore, the N2/O2 in the atmosphere, accounting for 99% of IR, should be warmed by incoming solar. I can accept the argument that they don’t emit in the IR spectrum and it seems alarmists are only looking for radiation in that spectrum.
R.W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, claimed the warming effect is due to N2/O2 gathering heat from the surface via conduction, then convecting the heat upward (heated air rises). Because neither can dissipate the heat via emission, the atmosphere remains warm till those gases get high enough to dissipate the heat naturally due to a dramatic decrease in pressure.
I have often wondered what happns to heated gases like N2/O2 when they encounter the frigid temperatures of the upper atmosphere. Makes no sense to me they would not transfer the heat to cooler molecules already there. There’s your collisions.
“The electrons in the molecules can absorb EM at any time and transition upward to a higher energy orbital.”
Wrong Gordon, not at any time, there isn’t enough EMR energy to absorb in the troposphere to allow the electronic transition. So the molecular air constituent electrons remain in their base level.
There is plenty EM energy though to first excite the quantum rotational and then the vibrational molecular excited states.
“There is nothing magical in a molecule that can absorb and emit EM other than electrons.”
Wrong Gordon, EMR carries both linear and angular momentum which the electrons do not have the mass to absorb, it takes the whole molecular structure to do so.
“the N2/O2 in the atmosphere, accounting for 99% of IR”
Wrong Gordon, N2/O2 account for way less than 1% of the outgoing long wave radiation. And, wrong again, R.W. Wood made no such claim.
Gordon Robertson
You are so wrong please stop peddling this false misleading information over and over!!
YOU: “There is nothing magical in a molecule that can absorb and emit EM other than electrons.”
Yes, the charge difference (dipole) created by one nuclei attracting electrons stronger the other nuclei. Water is a prime example. The 8 protons of oxygen pull on electrons more strongly than the single proton of the hydrogen nuclei. The result is a positive charge on the hydrogen part of water and a negative charge on the oxygen side.
When the nuclei move inward and outward the charge is changing which results in an electromagnetic field.
Mid-IR is NOT produced by electron transitions. You have been shown multiple times you are wrong on this but you keep your endless lying and misinformation going. Why do you do this? What is your goal in misleading and lying to people with intent. You could read up on it yourself and try to understand it but you will not and yet you come here and lie about it constantly. What drive you skeptics to constantly lie? Over and over with lies.
Norman, before you attempt to correct others, maybe you should correct your own nonsense.
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”?
Where’s your support that two sources providing 315 W/m^2 to a surface can warm it to 325K?
That’s why you’re a phony and a fraud. You can’t support what you claim.
Clint: Where the surface of a fog bank or a cloud?
Clint R
Since you are a bot and not human I can’t explain things to you at all.
Several times I have told you I am not the source of “real 255K surface” The poster going as Ball4 uses that terminology.
I claim there is 255 K radiating surface (edge of where radiant energy leaves the Earth system for space).
I could help you with the other one but you would not accept any form of evidence anyway then you would repeat the same request several times since you are a bot and run on programmed routines.
I have appealed to your programmers to update your routines as they are so repetitive and most your hundreds of posts are just endless repetitions regardless of any evidence presented.
Norman, your efforts to provide evidence of even a “255K radiating surface” failed miserably. You presented a computer generated model of infrared leaving Earth. A model is NOT “real”. Then, you provided a satellite measurement, but the satellite was at an altitude of about 500 miles! Radiant flux decreases with distance, according to the Inverse Square Law. An imaginary sphere, the size of Earth, emitting 390 W/m^2 would have an equivalent 240 W/m^2 at about 1000 miles above the surface. So you’ve got a real Earth cooling faster than the imaginary sphere!
Good work, you’ve just debunked the GHE nonsense!
You’re a complete fraud. You don’t know anything about science. I will not respond until you either provide “textbook proof” that ice cubes can heat something higher than the temperature of the ice, or admit you, and your cult heroes, are wrong.
You can’t do either….
> A model is NOT “real”.
Not sure what you mean by that, Pup. Are you suggesting it’s some kind of spiritual entity?
Besides, a model isn’t meant to replace what it models. Scientists are not seeking replicas or prothetics.
When was the last trip to the center of the Earth, BTW?
Clint R
I think all I did was prove you are a bot and not a human.
A human would know that those calculating flux from a satellite distance would use the inverse square law in the calculation to determine the flux leaving the TOA. Not sure you can grasp the intelligence of some of these scientists but they are much smarter than you give them credit for.
The Inverse Square Law is quite old.
You keep bringing me up in your bizarre ice cube fantasy. Why? I have never stated that ice cubes can heat a non-heated object to a higher temperature.
Also I have a simple thing you can test to see if fluxes add. If you have a window that allows lots of sunlight in, keep the shades drawn and get some ambient temperature. Then open the shades and see if the additional solar input warms the room above ambient.
Also you can have an object reach ambient temperature and then turn on a 300 W heat lamp and see if it warms above the ambient temperature.
If you really want to test change the ambient temperature before turning on the light and see what effect that has.
Sorry, Clint. You are wrong again.
Your problem here is that the satellites have cameras and lenses that provides a limited field of view. Consider a simple IR thermometer gun. The measured temperature does NOT depend on the distance from the hot surface. The thermometer simply finds an average over the entire field of view. Whether you are 0.01 m or 1 m or 100 m from a wall, the temperature will read the same (as long as the field of view is limited to the wall, of course). Try it!
So when an IR camera measures some part of the surface (say 1km x 1km), the measured flux and measured temperature will be the same whether you have a low, wide angle view (say from a helicopter) or a high, zoomed in view (say from a satellite).
Tim Folkerts says:
Sorry, Clint. You are wrong again.
———————————–
Clint could have better formulated his argument but the error you think you detected is irrelevant to the claim that two 315w/m2 heat sources can warm anything to a temperature that emits 325w/m2. So it would be good to stay on topic rather than chasing bunny trails.
Bill: “but the error you think you detected … ”
It is indeed an error. He applies the inverse square law incorrectly.
Bill>: “.. irrelevant to the claim that two 315w/m2 heat sources can warm anything to a temperature that emits 325w/m2”
First, I was replying to a specific point. So your response is irrelevant to *my* point, which is that Clint was wrong here.
Second, let’s actually address this old gem. The issue here seems to be that Clint (and others; perhaps including you) are fuzzy about what they mean by “315 W/m^2 heat source”. This could mean either:
A) a source that EMITS 315 W/m^2 from its OWN surface (eg a blackbody at 273 K)
B) a source that PROVIDES 315 W/m^2 to some OTHER surface (eg the tiny, hot filament of a 315 W incandescent bulb entirely reflected/focused onto a 1m^2 surface).
If you mean Case A, then no, there is no way to use only two of those surfaces to warm anything enough to emit more than 315 W/m^2 (273 K).
If you mean Case B, then yes, it is quite possible to warm a surface enough to emit more than 315 W/m^2 using two sources. Up to 630 W/m^2 in fact, or 325 K.
*THIS* is what Clint needs to formulate better. The ‘inverse square’ argument was simply wrong.
More for our own Man of Mystery:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/alexander-dugin-a-russian-fascist-who-helped-convinced-putin-to-invade,16145
de Benoist is a character Gordo will certainly come to appreciate.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
–
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
RLH says:
March 27, 2022 at 2:27 PM
For the last 7 years, CO2 goes up but the global temperatures go down : )
How much influence has ENSO had on the warming rate?
Was the change from El Nino in 2016 to La Nina in 2021/2022 enough to temporarily reverse the long term warming trend?
Show me the correlation between ENSO since 1950
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/oni.monthly.smoo_stro.png?itok=RzOs089F
and global temperatures.
You are the cycle buff.
I would argue that ENSO could not produce a 70 year 0.6C warming trend, but could produce a 7 year cooling trend.
I note that cyclic behavior spreads over far longer than 60 years. As has been shown by others consistently.
“Cyclical variations in the Earths climate occur at multiple time scales, from years to decades, centuries, and millennia. Cycles at each scale are caused by a variety of physical mechanisms. Climate over any given period is an expression of all of these nested mechanisms and cycles operating together”
RLH says:
March 28, 2022 at 5:42 AM
Show me the correlation between ENSO since 1950 and global temperatures.
This only goes back to 1979:
Foster Rahmstorf 2011 – table 2
but the code is available here if you wanted to run it for a different period.
Let’s play with the numbers.
El Nino tends to elevate temperatures by 0.2C.
La Nina tends to depress temperatures by 0.3C.
The long term trend is 0.13C/decade or 0.09C in seven years.
The total change from the 2016 El Nino to the 2021/22 La Nina whould be -0.5C due to ENSO and 0.09C due to the long term warming trend. -0.5+0.09C =-0.41C
This is what we got.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/trend
Note. I am referring to global temperature averages, not the Pacific sea surface temperatures used in the ENSO index.
The overall effect of both ENSO and the PDO is considered neutral, so your maths is wrong.
Neutral in the long term.
Seven years is the short term.
So when do you consider the cooling trend will reverse? This year? Next year? Afterwards?
P.S. If all the warming is due to the ENSO, what part does CO2 play?
P.S. If all the warming/cooling is due to the ENSO, what part does CO2 play?
P.P.S. Your numbers
“El Nino tends to elevate temperatures by 0.2C.
La Nina tends to depress temperatures by 0.3C”
Your words
“The long term trend is 0.13C/decade or 0.09C in seven years”
The PDO is considered the driver of ENSO.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg
So I had asked you guys, what renowned Princeton physicist/skeptic Will Happer has done wrong when he shows that physics requires a reduction in OLR with increasing CO2 . And what Modtran is doing wrong when it calculates exactly that.
And you offer no scientific answer (Chic) and no sensible scientific answer (Richard). But you guys are applying an ideological judgement that they must have done it wrong, anyway.
Richard claims erroneously that they do no ‘solid math’, but Modtran is built on solid math and physics. And Will Happer refers to the solid math and physics of the Schwarzschild eqn developed a century ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild%27s_equation_for_radiative_transfer
It “is used to calculate radiative transfer energy transfer through a medium in local thermodynamic equilibrium that both abs*or*bs and emits electromagnetic radiation.”
The equation clearly shows everywhere along the path of the radiation, the reduction in intensity is proportional to the density, n, of abs*or*bing/emitting molecules.
” According to Schwarzschild’s equation, the rate of fall in outward intensity is proportional to the density of GHGs (n) in the atmosphere and their abs*or*ption cross-sections (σλ). Any anthropogenic increase in GHGs will slow down the rate of radiative cooling to space, i.e. produce a radiative forcing until a saturation point is reached.”
And in the upper troposphere, at TOA, saturation is not yet reached.
Any ideological beliefs, or handwaving arguments cannot invalidate this thoroughly tested, solid physics and math.
For Chic and Richard M.
So, you contend that this has warmed the troposphere, which has warmed the surface?
Yep, as does Will Happer.
Well the Tropopause is quite flat
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_tp.jpg
despite any change in CO2.
RLH, As usual, you are assuming that the UAH product actually measures the “temperature” of the tropopause. I’ve asked that question before regarding the processing applied to the brightness temperature by UAH. Where’s your proof?
And, as usual, you don’t label your graph(s) with any of the important details, such as, is that graph global or for some other region? For example, why are the seasonal trends for the polar regions different, particularly so over the Antarctic with -0.14 K/decade for Summer half of the year and 0.04 K/decade for Winter half? What about the effects of the ozone hole, another man-made problem?
It measures the temperature of the O2 molecules at various heights. Do you have any evidence to suggest that that does not represent the temperature of the rest of the molecules surrounding them?
That graph is global data as the data source shows.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
And the tropopause is the boundary between a warming region, the troposphere, and a cooling region the lower stratosphere…
And they cannot really measure such a narrow slice. What they measure is averaging over upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.
So…what do you think it should be doing?
RLH wrote:
No, the instrument “measures” the received microwave intensity from the entire column of the atmosphere. The emissions peak at some level and drop off as the distance above or below increases. It’s claimed from theoretical considerations that the emissions are a function of temperature at different levels, with a weighting vs pressure which appears in a graph rather like a Gaussian curve plotted on a vertical coordinate. This is usually called “brightness temperature”, but S&C started calling it “temperature”, which leads to confusion like that which you exhibited.
The referenced file presents multiple columns of data and you did not specify which column you plotted. Seriously sloppy work for a science and technical blog. Also, the data is in Kelvin, not Celsius.
Responding to Richard,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1225470
“What I am referring to is what happens next. If you look at outgoing OLR at 1 km you will see lots of new 15 micron OLR in MODTRAN. This is energy removed from the atmosphere via kinetic collisions of CO2 with other molecules and radiated in all directions. Now follow the upward IR as you rise. You will find it stays the same. No reduction.”
No, this is still handwaving, not a calculation.
When you claim ” Now follow the upward IR as you rise. You will find it stays the same. No reduction.” obviously you havent actually bothered to do this.
Modtran clearly shows that the end result is a reduction of ‘upward diffuse’ radiation at 100 Km of nearly ~ 2.5 W/m^2 over the whole wavelength range for a doubling of CO2, when nothing else changes. Try it yourself.
This is all that matters.
I contend that the troposphere would have to be in thermal equilibrium with the surface to warm the surface. The troposphere just radiates its excess energy to space. I think what is happening is the surface is warming due to natural causes (Sun) and this is warming the troposphere through conduction and convection which is then radiated to space.
Which leaves you with a problem.
The modern maximum was in the 1950s above sunspot number 250.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASunspot_Numbers.png
Cycles 22,23 and 24 averaged 220,170 and 100 respectively.The
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASunspot_Numbers.png
If “it’s the Sun, stupid” why has a 60 year weakening trend in solar input produced a 60 year warming trend in surface temperatures.
I don’t know if it has anything to do with Sunspots.
Ent, your cult nonsense reduces solar to 163 W/m^2! 163 W/m^2 corresponds to a S/B temperature of -41.6C (-42.9F)! That’s just one more example of your perversion of science.
That’s why we always have to remind you “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Obviously, this is another obfuscation by the King.
Since I am no longer casting any more pearls before swine, who can be the first to explain Nate’s strawman?
Sorry to jump into this conversation that apparently started elsewhere. But, it’s important to realize that Happer wrote that article for people that understood the science. He started off with the assumption that the CO2 nonsense is real, then proceeded to show it doesn’t affect much even so.
I don’t agree with his technique because it allows the cult to easily twist things. I always like to keep it simple (KISS), so when they start twisting, distorting, and perverting, it is obvious to all.
CO2 can NOT raise surface temperature. You can’t get much simpler than that. Then when they attempt to “prove” the GHE nonsense, it’s easy to shoot them down.
“And you offer no scientific answer (Chic)….”
Apparently, you did not understand my scientific answer. My non-scientific answer is Proverbs 26:4, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be just like him.”
Still going with ideology over science, then? Too bad.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 24, 2022 at 7:47 PM
“…
Wal Thornhill, an astronomer…
Try to read {h}is theory on the electric universe”
but also
Gordon Robertson says:
March 27, 2022 at 6:52 PM
“I have never implied at any time there is merit to the theory”
Sure. Idiot.
We should warm the ocean.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
I believe the ocean is warmed during glaciation periods and it seems to take “forever” to warm the ocean. So spending many tens of thousands of years slowly warming the ocean.
Whereas humans at fairly low cost [and without “causing harm”] could warm the ocean within 1000 years.
The advantage of warming the ocean is to avoid the mile high ice sheets in the temperate zones. And to increase global water vapor, which will result in less deserts and droughts.
The crazy cargo cult imagines the tropics gets hotter with “global warming” but more than 90% of global warming occurs in the ocean.
Global warming in terms climbing out of glaciation period is not warming the ocean, rather it’s a warm ocean triggered by Earth orbital changing, which causes the polar sea ice to retreat which allows the warmed ocean to cause massive “global warming”.
So at moment our ocean has cooled for more 5000 years and is about 3.5 C. And a peak interglacial period has ocean of about 4 C. And ocean which around 4 C would good, and we make ocean warm by few tenth of degree.
If you raised the bulk ocean temperature by 1C thermal expansion would raise sea level by 1.2 metres.
You happy with that?
AR6 and Sea Level, Part 3, A Statistically Valid Forecast
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/
“A proper analysis of the data leads to a forecast of roughly 20 cm (~8 inches) of sea level rise by 2100. In the year 2100, our descendants will know who was right.”
Only 203 mm/8 inches by 2100 is projected by the statistics.
8 inches is unlikely. If sea level rose continuously since the days of Christ sea level would have risen 160 inches; 2000 years at 8 inches per century. Clearly it hasn’t done that anywhere. No reason to expect it will continue rising now.
Yes, but we could cause 8″ within century, if we try to terraform Earth- and then more, after this.
But should start soon. Do this forcing warm tropical water into the deep depths. And if don’t do too much of this, it shouldn’t lower global average surface temperatures, by too much.
Emyr,
Do you think Mother Nature is going to keep us right here in this “sweet spot” if we don’t mess with things?
Most of our civilization’s infrastructure was built after WW2 when the global average temperature was 14.0C. That was our sweet spot.
We left that sweet spot behind fifty years ago and are now 1C above it
Holocene is the interglacial sweet spot. The alternative is mile high ice sheets over North America. The proxy data shows cycles that indicate Mother Nature isn’t going to keep us in the Interglacial much longer.
My house is at 60 meters. Bring it on.
I think Rome is in the same spot it was 2500 years ago, the same as most of the other ancient cities in the Mediterranean. Hey, but, we skeptics are “deniers” and “cultists.”
4 – 3.5 = .5 C
And I think that is about 12″ rise in sea level
As compared to getting a mile glaciation ice- or losing sea level by meters, which would be far worse than 12″ gain.
Of course if one gets a lot more rainfall in Sahara desert, for decades of time, the result could also be a loss in sea level.
Of course globally we have drawn water from water tables, which caused maybe 1″ in sea level rise, so by having more global water vapor we could replace that loss and then add more than we had in the water tables. So lose say 2″ from sea level. And then adding to deserts, also {so making the fossil water in deserts, no longer fossil water}
Science in this century, has become a complex endeavor. As scientific knowledge expands, the goal of general public understanding of science becomes increasingly difficult to reach.
That’s true, TM.
And that’s why you cult idiots believe ice cubes can boil water. You don’t understand the basic physics.
Clint R is one of the reasons no one wants to read about science anymore. Who wants to continually participate in a discussion where some ‘stupid’ yells at everyone about ‘brain dead idiots’ and ‘ice cubes’. Get lost Troll.
Six reasons why the moon does not rotate on its own axis:
Reason One
Reason Two
Reason Three
Reason Four
Reason Five
Reason Six
All the same and all wrong.
You’re all the same and all wrong.
Not true.
First of all, the links are not all the same…so you’re wrong there. Secondly, the links are correct.
One is slightly different but all are wrong.
“Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man”
Exactly. It’s your opinion that they’re wrong, but in actual fact they’re correct. The moon is only orbiting. The Earth orbits and rotates on its own axis, the moon only orbits. “Orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. Why anyone would think it is as per the MOTR is a mystery.
The best proof of all:
https://www.tomorrowtides.com/the-moon-does-not-spin.html
Willard felt obliged to comment again…
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
“Lead Authors/Editors
Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA)
Chapter Lead Authors
Timothy Ball (Canada), Robert M. Carter (Australia), Don Easterbrook (USA), Craig D. Idso (USA), Sherwood Idso (USA), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), William Kininmonth (Australia), Willem de Lange (New Zealand), Sebastian Lning (Germany), Anthony Lupo (USA), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Willie Soon (USA)
Contributing Authors
J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Joseph DAleo (USA), Don Easterbrook (USA), Kesten Green (Australia), Ross McKitrick (Canada), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Tom Segalstad (Norway), S. Fred Singer (USA), Roy Spencer (USA)”
https://imgur.com/a/I56j8yT
Models and observations disagree.
Fig 4.1.1.5
Thoroughly debunked:
here: Tropical tropospheric trends again (again) (12 Oct 2008) https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/
and
here: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (10 October 2008) https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.1756
I’m sure that Blinny will be along soon to divulge from the UAH grids what the actual measured temperatures are in the Tropics (say 30s to 30N) since 1979 to present for the various layers.
Good grief.
You have some actual data to back up your surprise? I don’t mean other peoples suggestions, but things you have actually created for yourself.
You just cited a think tank report as if you never seen it, Richard.
Get off your high horse.
The Heartland Institute:
https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/03/21/the-dirty-dozen-the-biggest-nonprofit-funders-of-climate-denial/
Everything started with error
And here is why.
The planets old effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴
is defined as a planets equilibrium temperature in the absence of atmosphere.
When calculated, the Earths Te = 255 K, instead of the satellite measured actual Tmean = 288 K – the cause was obvious.
Earths surface was considered warmer by +Δ33oC because of the planet Earths atmosphere.
It was error.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Satellite radiometers measure the global Te at 255K since the 1960s. Thermometers measure the global surface Tse at 288K since enough thermometers were installed.
I’ll let Christos do the math this time.
Wrong Ball4. You’re making stuff up again.
Earth has no “real 255K surface”. You just make that claim with no valid evidence. You only fool uneducated idiots like Norman.
The valid measured evidence is all the relevant satellite radiometer data, Clint. Don’t bother looking the data up though for yourself, it’s not for entertainment specialists such as yourself.
Ball4, if you had any evidence of your bogus “real 255K surface”, you would present it.
But, you can’t. Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. Measuring 240 W/m^2 at some distance from Earth is meaningless, as far as trying to claim a 255K surface. An imaginary sphere the size of Earth, emitting 390 W/m^2 would result in 240 W/m^2 at a distance of about 1000 miles above the surface. That is due to the Inverse Square Law, nothing else.
You don’t understand any of this. Like Norman, and the rest of your cult, you just make claims that you can’t support.
Earth’s Te = 255K surface has already been presented many times Clint R. There exists these things called “satellites” that carry instruments that measure Earth’s global Te constantly to detect changes.
Entertainment specialists such as yourself just need to study harder & better understand the physics. It is not that hard to understand once you have accomplished the pre-req.s for the course of study.
Sorry Ball4 but that’s just another of your false claims. If you had any evidence of your bogus “real 255K surface”, you would present it. But, you can’t.
Earth does NOT have a “real 255K surface”. Measuring 240 W/m^2 at some distance from Earth is meaningless, as far as trying to claim a 255K surface. An imaginary sphere the size of Earth, emitting 390 W/m^2 would result in 240 W/m^2 at a distance of about 1000 miles above the surface. That is due to the Inverse Square Law, nothing else.
You don’t understand any of this. Like Norman, and the rest of your cult, you just make claims that you can’t support.
Clint R
You are right that Ball4 doesn’t understand any of this, but wrong about him making stuff up. He is simply quoting from the AGW dogma bible. I just wonder how long the Queen of Obfuscation will hold out claiming there is some evidence of a 255K surface.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond.
–
I do not claim the GH
G effect is as high as 78K instead of 33K. What I say is the GHG effect on Earth is so much insignificant it can be neglected as a non existent.
–
What we should compare is an airless Earth having Moon’s Albedo a =0,11 and having the measured mean surface temperature Tmean =220K. And we compare the 220 K against the Earth with atmosphere and ocean of Tmean =288K.
–
288K – 220K =68 oC
–
But the real Earth has Albedo 0,306.
If Moon had Albedo 0,306 its measured temperature would be less than 220K, it would be 210K.
–
288K – 210K =78 oC
(here we compare Earth with atmosphere and with no atmosphere but with the same Albedo, since in the effective temperature formula the Earth’s Albedo of a =0,306 is present.
–
Effective temperature is defined as the planet without-atmosphere theoretical surface uniform temperature, in which the actual planetary Albedo is applied.
–
The difference of 78 oC does not match with “absorp.tion and emission profiles”…
And that is why I cite Feynman:
[Feynman one obvious wrong result invalidates a theory].
–
Thank you again
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, that is not Te def. Christos. Te is measured and it is not possible to measure Earth’s “planet without atmosphere”. Your work does not agree with observation so your result is wrong.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond.
A planet without-atmosphere and with Earth’s Rotational spin N, with Earth’s average surface specific heat cp, with Earth’s solar flux S, with Earth’s average surface Albedo “a” , and with Earth’s solar irradiation accepting factor “Φ” (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient) – an airless planet,/b> with all these above features as the planet Earth has, that planet, according to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has an average surface temperature Tmean =288K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s a wrong factor phi, Christos as Dr. Spencer has already showed you the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not your constant phi. Use his work to get your analysis correctly equal to observation after you add in the earth’s atm. opacity.
Currently, your work does not agree with observation so your result is wrong.
Thank you, Ball4.
“Currently, your work does not agree with observation so your result is wrong.’
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entertaining.
They used statistical sophistry which purported to remove autocoeerealation but actually removed most of the trend.
They then used the semi-detrended data to estimate the future trend.
You can see in Figure 7 how unreasonable this is.
The graph of existing sea level shows a curve accelerating over time with a quadratic best fit. Then you see their “forecast” with a distinct step change to a lower slope linear fit.
It is also decoupled from the physics. There is no attempt to account for the increasing energy imbalance which is causing the acceleration.
Finally, whatever happened to the sceptics meme that you can’t use the past to predict the future?
It’s statistical bullshit, directed at those like yourself who want it to be true and so won’t critique it properly.
RLH
You are going to have to adjust your bullshit filter.
McKittrick and Christy 2019 is typical of the poor quality of science being generated by the sceptics nowadays.
It’s not even designed to contribute to the actual science; just to provide reinforcement for the sceptic believers, ammunition for the grifters and leverage for the Republicans.
It is also so obviously wrong that it’s hardly even worth refuting.
McKittrick and Christy just spewing bullshit. Emyr not spewing bullshit.
Stephen: So refute it then if it is so easy.
Refute that McKittrick and Christy are spewing bullshit? Does that need refuting?
Ent: So refute it then if it is so easy.
I already did. The paper produced a result inconsistent with reality.
To your mind. Others disagree.
The statistics say you are wrong.
“You can see in Figure 7 how unreasonable this is”
Which paper are you referring to?
This one?
https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1594086
Ross McKitrick, John Christy
February 21, 2019
“Abstract: A large literature has shown that trend estimation in hydrological series may be affected by long-term persistence (LTP) and selection of time scale. We look at this issue using millennial, century and decadal scale data in the US Pacific Coast (PC) and Southeast (SE) regions. A 2,000-year proxy-based reconstruction of the Palmer Modified Drought Index exhibits LTP and reveals post-1900 trends to be within the range of longer-term natural fluctuations. We also construct a new data base of daily precipitation records for 20 locations (10 PC and 10 SE) extending back in many cases to the 1870s. If we look only at the 1901-2017 interval upward trends in some measures of extreme precipitation appear, but in the full records back to 1872 the trends disappear. They also disappear in the final 40 years of the data set, which is inconsistent with them being responses to rising greenhouse gas forcing. We conclude that changes in averages and extremes of precipitation in the PC and SE regions in recent decades are within the range of, and are predominantly explained by, long term natural variability.”
The one referred to here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/
So which part of the statistics do you object to? They use arima. Are you suggesting that its use is wrong or that they have used it incorrectly?
“Analyzing the GMSL time series gives us an arima parameter set of (1,1,2) for (p,d,q). We can also run an R function called auto.arima to see what parameters it recommends. We find that it settles on (1,1,2) as well. This is good confirmation that our parameter selection is correct.”
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Figure-5.png
Re: Climate Change ‘Reconsidered’
What else could anybody having a brain expect from what we could name the ‘Nomenklatura of the Skeptics’ ?
*
And the best is then to come along with a completely outdated graph dated… 2007 !
With a comparison of satellite and balloon observations where
– some balloons (RAOBCORE and RATPAC) were ‘adjusted’ to the satellites, partly at UAH (see Christy-Norris 2006), partly at the Vienna U in Austria (see Haimberger 2007).
Jesses.
https://imgur.com/a/sETYaxB
UAH comparison to Radiosonde and Reanalysis.
I know about that stuff since years, elementary school teacher.
Such replies are completely redundant.
I repeat:
” With a comparison of satellite and balloon observations where
some balloons (RAOBCORE and RATPAC) were adjusted to the satellites, partly at UAH (see Christy-Norris 2006), partly at the Vienna U in Austria (see Haimberger 2007). ”
*
Try to download and process IGRA data (about 600 of 1500 stations are useful) in anomaly form, and compare your result with UAH at 700, 500, 300 hPa, and with the homogenized CRUTEM5 or the raw GHCN daily at the surface.
And come back here when you finished the work.
Jesses.
So you recon that UAH are incorrect in their data analysis but aren’t prepared to challenge Roy directly.
P.S. That is from a 2016 paper so much more recent than you claim.
As usual, you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
Nowhere did I say that UAH are incorrect:
” And the best is then to come along with a completely outdated graph dated… 2007 !
With a comparison of satellite and balloon observations where
– some balloons (RAOBCORE and RATPAC) were ‘adjusted’ to the satellites, partly at UAH (see Christy-Norris 2006), partly at the Vienna U in Austria (see Haimberger 2007). ”
Read papers, elementary school teacher, instead of permanently insinuating what others never wrote.
So the
“partly at UAH (see Christy-Norris 2006)”
was not you getting things wrong by 10 years or suggesting that UAH calculations were wrong.
“elementary school teacher”
Piss off.
You’re the one who responded to Binny, Richard.
As the new Hall Monitor, you need to get territoriality.
He responds with ‘elementary school teacher’ as though that was some sort of slur.
In fact any elementary school teacher who studied the facts would know that the global temperature has been going down for the last 7 years.
RLH, Even an elementary school teacher might understand that cherry picking can result in misleading results. Calculating a trend starting for the data in 2015 puts the warm El Nino period at the front of the line, which results in a negative trend. That’s the same crap the denialist camp, (the Heartland Institute is a prime example) used for years before 2016, beginning the calculation with the spike from the 1998 El Nino, then claiming there had been no warming. If these guys had really wanted to discuss the long term trend, they should have used all the data.
Then too, some short term influences, such as that due to sunspots, which exhibit an a quasi periodic cycle longer than 7 years, thus one can not say whether the trend is due to cherry picking a portion of that cycle.
“Schoolteacher” isn’t a slur, dummy.
It’s an archetype of a rigid and authoritarian chap.
I am on record as stating that OLS is a very poor way of predicting temperatures into the future.
I stand by that claim.
I do note that over the last 7 years, OLS shows that the global temperature trend is downwards. That does not imply that the future is guaranteed downwards of course, though my low pass series of this large physical system that is climate shows that it is likely to continue into the near future.
I note that few are able to predict when this downwards trend will end, just that whenever it is it will not be statistically significant. Apparently.
Willard: Find me any statistical textbook that says that using ‘normal’ statistic is valid for skewed bimodal datasets such as we have in climate.
Oh, Richard.
Find me one textbook where you can go into someone else’s house and tell them to piss off.
RLH says: I do note that over the last 7 years, OLS shows that the global temperature trend is downwards. That does not imply that the future is guaranteed downwards of course, though my low pass series of this large physical system that is climate shows that it is likely to continue into the near future.
The code from Foster Rahmstorf 2011 ostensibly removes much of the temperature series signal due to El Nino, Solar Variations, and Aerosol Variations. Processing UAH TLT up to present with this code shows continued warming in the residual over recent years:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/UahTltFR2011Adjusted.png
In addition the Ocean Heat Content anomaly data shows no pause, never mind a downward trend, in recent years:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/ohcAnnualAnomoly.png
To conclude that there is a global cooling trend of any significance over recent years ignores the complexity of the climate system.
“I do note that over the last 7 years, OLS shows that the global temperature trend is downwards. That does not imply that the future is guaranteed downwards of course, though my low pass series of this large physical system that is climate shows that it is likely to continue into the near future.”
The recent short slight cooling period follows a short period of rapid warming. Neither one appears to be a significant alteration of the long term trend.
https://tinyurl.com/yszkhm4z
I don’t know why anyone would think fitting trendlines between peaks and troughs of this obviously short term noise (ENSO driven), would be predictive of the future, or provide any insight into climate change.
I have been working on rectifying the differences between Loeb and Okulaer approaches comparing the temperature effect on OLR discussed previously on this post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1206161
One obvious difference is Loeb uses trends and Kristian (Okulaer) uses visual correlations. Another difference is Kristian’s use of a 72-day average while Loeb uses deseasonalized monthly mean anomalies obtained from the difference between the monthly mean of a variable and its corresponding monthly climatology, determined by averaging all years of the same month. I think it is worth considering whether that data manipulation has any compromising affect on the true trend. My preliminary analysis of the raw data, for the 3/2002 to 9/2020 period Loeb et al. analyzed, indicates a trend of 0.5 W/m2/decade for the raw data. That is about twice what Loeb et al. 2021 reported.
The difference is partially explained by comparing a Vahrenholt and Dubal 2021 paper https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm with their post at Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
In the paper, they report a trend of 0.284 W/m2/decade for OLR in contrast to a 1.1 W/m2 NET increase in OLR between 2001 and 2020 or 0.55 W/m2/decade. So the trend reduces the NET increase, the difference between the OLR at the start of the trend to the final value at the end of the trend. In this case, the trend is about half of the NET. On another world or a different period, the trend could have been twice the NET.
The point is that Kristian plotted his OLR data against the temperature data and showed the close correlation visually. Had he reported a comparison of the trends without examining the correlation, he may not have been inclined to claim a refutation of the AGW hypothesis.
This trend-versus-endpoints data conundrum is exemplified by the UAH data for the past 20 years. Although the trend is 0.135 K/decade, the actual difference in two decades is almost nil. So who you gonna believe, the trend or your lying eyes?
Hey, The Eagles.
that’s when the Eagles were good, before Henley and Frey let their colossal egos get out of control and tried to take over the group. Well, actually, they did.
They ran Don Felder off on lead guitar, whose sound helped give the Eagles an ID. Felder wrote the music to Hotel California, which makes the song, and they stole it and gave him no credit.
Although he appears to have co-writing credit now for the music I recall a fight over that. Normally, on the sheet music, only the songwriter gets credit, and that normally means lyrics.
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/the-eagles-fire-don-felder/
Thanks for that. I had no idea of the Eagles’ troubles. All the more amazing that the Beatles made so many records in such a short time with relatively few quarrels.
I couldn’t find a “What Makes This Song Great” for the Eagles. If you like rock music, you might enjoy Rick Beato YouTubes.
This is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRxTW8GxT8
Chic Bowdrie
I know, you will never and never accept the simple fact that, though the anomaly in Feb 2003 was 0.09 C, i.e. 0.09 C higher than that for Feb 2022, the UAH6.0 LT trend for the last 20 years is even more than 0.13: it is 0.18 +- 0.02 C / decade.
When you use absolute data, the temperatures are 263.36 K for Feb 2003, and 263.27 K for Feb 2002.
Here too, though the value is by 0.09 K lower than 20 years ago, the trend completely differs from the visual impression (the ‘eye-balling’):
0.16 +- 0.01 K / decade.
The higher trend for anomalies is a hint that some months warmed more than others, what is hidden by the annual cycle.
No conundrum anywhere to be seen here. Simply facts: eye-balling is the worst comparison method you can imagine.
That is the reason why I stopped years ago to trust people like Okulaer.
I thought you weren’t going to respond to my comments anymore?
Apparently my point went over your head, so to speak.
No it didn’t: you simply don’t want to accept that your point is… pointless.
Why would I do that without someone actually make a good argument against my point?
“The point is that Kristian plotted his OLR data against the temperature data and showed the close correlation visually. Had he reported a comparison of the trends without examining the correlation, he may not have been inclined to claim a refutation of the AGW hypothesis.”
Good points. They sound familiar!
Also, now you seem ok with just using the CERES period, which is what I had done.
“This trend-versus-endpoints data conundrum”
Not a conundrum at all. A trend is making use of all of the data. Endpoints is not.
You say that with a straight face but that (min+max)/2, which are endpoints, and which do not use all of the data is somehow acceptable.
“now you seem ok with just using the CERES period, which is what I had done.”
“A trend is making use of all of the data.”
Nate’s Law: When in doubt, obfuscate.
Chips rule. Facts from Nate are all obfuscation, until Chip rediscovers them.
Non sequitur from RLH as usual.
Recently at WUWT, petrochemist Andy May, in close liaison with the Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation, published a series of three guest posts on sea level rise.
The last one was this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/
*
In that post you read succulent stuff like
” Modern statistical tools allow us to forecast time series, like GMSL (global mean sea level) change, in a more valid and sophisticated way than simply comparing cherry-picked least squares fits as the IPCC does in AR6. ”
That is really the best joke evah.
As if IPCC would do itself sea level evaluations, and then shown their own ‘cherry-picked least squares fits’ !
How is it possible to publish such a dishonest and ignorant trash?
IPCC compiles publications and presents a summary of their results.
Those who were responsible for data evaluation of course don’t rely on ordinary least squares as do mostly we lay(wo)men, e.g. when we use Paul Clark’s Wood for Trees.
They use not only the simple ARIMA stuff, but also much more complex procedures like empirical orthogonal functions, primary component analysis, etc etc.
The linear estimates are just on hint on what they reached, and not the tool they use to do. But they appear in the simple resumees produced by IPCC in its assessment reports.
*
In his second post, May was talking about a study made by Frederikse et alii in 2020; at a first glance, it seemed to me that he published a hint to that study only because it would contradict all others: that is, after all, the usual way of life at WUWT.
I therefore suggested that he might consult an evaluation of the sea level by Dangendorf & alii; he immediately responded with a completely negative comment about Dangendorf’s work and praised Frederikse’s work instead.
Frederikse’s study is behind paywall, but their data results are public (the most complete I have ever seen, including the different ocean basins the group processed separately before merging that into a global result).
*
Now please explain, by looking at a comparison of five evaluations, how May managed to disparage Dangendorf but praise Frederikse:
https://i.postimg.cc/nV4TzF4S/PSMSL-Dang-Fred-Fos-NOAA-Bin-1900-2018.png
And here is a comparison of the same time series, now showing how their linear estimates change over time (from on average 1.5 mm/yr for 1900-2015 to on average 3 mm/yr for 1995-2015):
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRpRmDy2/PSMSL-Dang-Fred-Fos-NOAA-Bin-5-yr-dist-consec-trends-1900-2015-1995-2015-end-fixed.png
We can see that apart from the crude outlier NOAA, all others are quite near each to another (I’m happy to see that my Bin layman evaluation doesn’t look that bad).
The difference between Dangendorf and Frederikse is minimal.
*
Yeah.
Langer Rede kurzer Sinn, as Germans love to say, when you see the incompetent nonsense a guy like Andy May is capable of producing, you just stop trusting him.
*
Grant Foster aka Tamino will probably have some idle time to perform a much deeper analysis of NOAA’s sea level data than did Andy May, and hopefully will post a severe review of May’s ARIMA stuff.
Tamino is certainly not an easygoing person, who sometimes behaves arrogantly (very few don’t, after all), and his blog, tinged with alarmism, is unfortunately not always the best ambassador of his amazing knowledge.
But his is undoubtedly a very competent statistician. You just need to look at the first chart, and see how near his quick shot evaluation of tide gauge data is to the long work made by Sönke Dangendorf and his colleagues.
*
Only dumb ignoramuses like Robertson have discredited and denigrated anything what he does: because
– his results never fit their pseudoskeptic narrative;
– they would never and never be able to contradict him.
C'est la vie. Les crétins sont depuis toujours aussi bruyants qu'incompétents.
binny…”IPCC compiles publications and presents a summary of their results”.
***
The IPCC has a mandate that only permits them to find evidence of anthropogenic warming. They have no mandate to look elsewhere in science for evidence of natural variation, so they don’t. They cherry pick scientific papers that support their mandate.
Actually they go further. In the Climategate scandal a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, Phil Jones, then of Had-crut, threatened to exclude papers from skeptics. He claimed that he and his partner, Kevin, would see to that. Since his partner as a CLA was Kevin Trenberth, we must presume he was referring to Trenberth of NCAR.
Trenberth already had a history of interfering in peer review processes, so much so, he forced the resignation of the editor of a climate journal because the editor had published a skeptics paper. I recall that the skeptic was John Christy of UAH and both followed through on the threat to reject a paper from the IPCC review that John had co-authored.
That’s the IPCC to which you refer, a load of cheating SOBs. They allow a panel of 50 politically-appointed lead authors to publish a Summary before the main report is published, to amend the main report to reflect the views of the 50 lead authors in the Summary.
Robertson
You can write your stoopid, aggressive trash as long as you want.
You are an absolutely incompetent person, who exclusively relies on contrarian and pseudoskeptic misinformation, and able only, as written above, to discredit and denigrate.
You know nothing – neither about politics, let alone about science.
Once again, binny runs away from fact and hides away in his world of fiction. Everything I wrote above is easily verifiable.
First try to process half a dozen of raw, unadjusted climate data sets, and then you will see where the reality is.
You are such an incompetent boaster, Robertson.
You are not even able to correctly read Newton’s original Principia document, and insulted the great person who translated it instead.
You merit to be named exactly as you named Andrew Motte: a cheating SOB.
Chill, Binny.
Gordo’s just a little upset because his Canucks are trained by two goals.
> trained
Trailing.
Stupid autocorrect.
willard…”Gordos just a little upset because his Canucks are trained by two goals”.
***
I’m a realist, we are going nowhere this year. It was fun, however, watching us smear Calgary while beating Toronto and Montreal.
Everyone is beating the Habs this year, including the Habs.
binny…”Grant Foster aka Tamino will probably have some idle time to perform a much deeper analysis of NOAAs sea level data …”
***
Tamino is nothing more than an alarmist apologist. He ‘creates’ statistical argument that are not based on the underlying problem.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/tamino-loses-the-plot-with-new-hockeystick/
https://climateaudit.org/2008/03/19/tamino-and-the-adjusted-gaspe-data/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1226008
Gasp is a beautiful place:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
Moyhu is out of his league here. This was not only examined by statistics expert Wegmann, it was reviewed by a panel from the National Academy of Science. I guess Moyhu thinks he knows more than both.
The damning conclusion from NAS was that the bristle pine cone used to cover the entire 20th century was inadmissible. That meant Mann blade was gone. There was one year where Mann et al used one tree proxy to cover an entire century.
The only complaint offered by Mann et al came from Bradley, who complained that Wegmann had plagiarized him. The nerve. An investigator quotes from his work and he calls that plagiarism???
Even the IPCC got in on the act, condemning the hockey stick. They reduced the range from 1850 onward and restored the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period omitted by Mann et al to get a straighter stick shaft.
The IPCC added so many error bars the hockey stick became known as the spaghetti graph.
And let’s not forget Mann’s trick for hiding the decline. When his proxy data was declining while real temperatures were rising, Mann used his trick to hide declining temperatures.
One method was rather brute force. Mann simply clipped off the offending proxy data and spliced in real temperatures. He saw nothing wrong with that kind of cheating. Of course, at the time, he was a snotty-nosed first year grad, just having achieved his Ph.D, and I guess he needed the help.
It was the height of arrogance for such an inexperienced researcher to lead such a study. It was the height of stupidity for the IPCC to accept the graph as is. Of course, they were desperate too.
More insulting, discrediting, denigrating by this blog’s second dumbest ignoramus aka the cheating SOB.
And…
” Moyhu is out of his league here. This was not only examined by statistics expert Wegmann, it was reviewed by a panel from the National Academy of Science. I guess Moyhu thinks he knows more than both. ”
shows once again how ignorant you are.
” statistics expert Wegmann ” ?
Wegmann has been debunked many times, but you boot slicker prefer one voice following the masin stream to all those having scientifically contradicted him.
This Wegman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman
That’s the one. The expert who was paid by the Republicans to critique some politically inconvenient science and delivered the report his employers wanted..
No, this Wegman:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=wegman
“Edward Wegman is an American statistician and was a professor of statistics at George Mason University until his retirement in 2018. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics and is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association, a Senior Member of the IEEE, and past chair of the National Research Council Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.”
Quite the expert in ringology:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2011/06/08/further_wegman/
From the Wiki
“Ultimately, an investigation by George Mason University was completed in February 2012. The investigation found that regarding the Congressional Wegman Report, ‘no misconduct was involved’; while ‘extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section… the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct'”
Glad to see you standing with institutions, Richard:
https://whistleblower.org/politicization-of-climate-science/global-warming-denial-machine/setting-the-record-straight-on-misleading-claims-against-michael-mann/
Glad to see that you cannot find any textbooks that show using normal based statistics is considered sensible for skewed bimodal distributions.
Sure, Willard, the hockey stick is just an acceptable use of statistics. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Sure, Richard. Ed has been caught patchwriting without having audited the Auditor’s at all.
Nothing to see there.
Willard: Glad to see that you cannot find any textbooks that show using normal based statistics is considered sensible for skewed bimodal distributions.
Glad to see that you have no response for Eric, Richard.
entropic…”McKittrick and Christy 2019 is typical of the poor quality of science being generated by the sceptics nowadays”.
***
Let’s analyze. We have Ross McKitrick, who is an expert on statistics, and who is well-informed on the subject, and John Christy, who actually has a degree in climate science, and who is an expert on satellite data, yet, according to Entropic, an alarmist, they are offering a poor quality of science.
Like a typical alarmist, Entropic offers nothing but an ad hominem attack while providing no evidence to back his argument. I suppose he prefers mathematicians, like Gavin Schmidt, or geologists like Michael Mann, expounding on subjects they know nothing about.
> Like a typical alarmist, Entropic offers nothing but an ad hom
What I like about you, Gordo, is your self-awareness.
willard…”What I like about you, Gordo, is your self-awareness”.
***
Self-awareness is an oxymoron. If you are aware, you don’t have a self. In other words, awareness and the self exist in separate mind spaces. You can be in one or the other, but not both at the same time.
The observer and the observed. The thinker and the thought. The chooser and the choice.
Maybe one day you’ll understand. If you reach that state you’ll no longer be a climate alarmist or think the Moon spins on a local axis.
I know this is likely a waste of time. It’s hard to read because it is transcribed from a dialog between a speaker and the audience. If there is an intent, and you carefully read it, the meaning will become clear.
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/observer-and-observed
Oh, Gordo.
No need to read Krishnamurti to realize that the sentence in which you were whining about ad homs started with one.
Gordon Robertson
You do know that an ad hom is an attack on a person, not their work.
McKittrick and Christy may be nice people, I’m not attacking them.
Their paper on sea level rise is poor in many ways. The poor quality of their science is what I’m attacking.
This is one reason why I don’t think you’re any sort of scientist. You don’t realise that two scientists can have a knock-down drag out intellectual battle in the seminar room and then enjoy a pint together in the bar afterwards.
Ent, you’re in NO position to be judging the scientific ability of ANYONE. You’re an anonymous troll. You’re a phony. You’ve repeatedly been guilty of perverting reality. You claim passenger jets fly backwards, is just one instance.
Now that’s an ad hominem attack!
Sorry Ent, but it’s reality.
* You’re an anonymous troll.
* You’re guilty of perverting reality.
* You’re NOT a scientist, you’re a phony.
* You’re a braindead cult idiot.
You’ve pooped in your nest, now live in it.
You’re a sock puppet, Pup.
That’s why I call you “Pup.”
One of your previous sock was “angrier” than that.
Sut up and do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Worthless Willard’s juvenile meltdown verifies that I’ve hit the target.
It’s not hard to do….
So you say, Pup. So you say.
Clint R
Thank you. If you are so angry that you feel the need to insult me twice over, then my superior debating skills must be really pissing you off
Ent, the only “skills” you bring here are your endless efforts to pervert reality, as in your last comment.
You’re only fooling yourself, and other fools like you.
You’re a sock puppet, Pup.
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m making $88/h to complete some internet services on the internet . I’ve not ever imagined like it could even JHGv achievable but my greatest pal was getting $27,000 just within four weeks completing this leading task & she has satisfied me to try…
OPEN THIS SITE ……>> http://webwork01.tk/
For interested people I recommend reading Clive Best most recent post:
Homogenisation of temperature data
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10224
A well done sequence of questions concerning PHA, the famous Pairwise Homogenisation Algorithm.
The comment section is as interesting as the head post.
What was your reaction?
Mine was that explains these:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/offset:0.5
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had*crut4gl/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/offset:0.3 (omit the * in d*c)
Mine was
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Well, nothing new: like Clive Best, I’m not a fan of PHA, and don’t use such methods when processing sets of station time series.
FYI, here are the offsets for shifting the time series to the mean of 1991-2020 (I computed them out of their data in a spreadsheet calc):
https://tinyurl.com/uedvj48d
With a smoothing running mean, you average the highest deviations into the mean, what leads to more legible comparisons.
A low-pass filter considers deviations above a specified treshold as outliers like in electronic devices (where it came from) and drops them away, what considerably changes the trend.
Interesting is also a first differentiation output of all the five series above, where each series 1st diff di is s[i] – s[i-1].
I forgot to add that I still don’t know why people still urge on this blog in comparing
– the lower troposphere with the surface: nonsense, as you compare weather and climate patterns of 4 km distant altitudes and of completely different behavior;
– UAH 6.0 LT, the LT time series with the lowest trend of all, with the surface series: biggest possible nonsense.
The UAH LT series is mostly above the chaotic surface boundary layer that the 2m ground surface measurements are in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_layer
There is a well know, and used by weather people, relationship between the surface boundary layers and the higher atmosphere layers. These upper layers are those used for long distance weather and climate calculations as they differ little with distance unlike the surface boundary layer which can vary in only 10s of km.
Of course, the elementary school teacher one more time urged in replying, but… as mostly, his reply had not anything to do with what I wrote.
Moreover
– if the elementary school teacher had any idea of how surface anomalies look like (he never processed even any anomaly of any absolute data till now), he would speak quite different;
– if the elementary school teacher had any idea of how absolute UAH data looks like (he never processed any UAH grid data), he would speak quite different as well.
Du you have some more of them La Nina gone by April predictions ???
https://youtu.be/ktgni8bFfZQ
Nope.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Good post from Lubos Motl on the climate change hysteria.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/10/no-one-listens-to-ipcc-fearmongering.html
Climate History Began Eight Years Ago
https://rumble.com/vylgye-climate-history-began-eight-years-ago.html
But for 7 out of those 8 years the global temperature has been receding.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
Oh I thought linear trends would, according to your repeated claims months ago, have no significance.
Except of course when the elementary school teacher wants to use them to demonstrate some cooling.
Well if you believe OLS shows something interesting then you have to accept that the last 7 years have not gone the way of the warming.
I prefer
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
which also shows cooling as well.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Of course again, the elementary school teacher one more time urged in replying, but… as mostly, his reply had not anything to do with what I wrote.
You said that I claimed that OLS are of no significance. I pointed out that I was simply using them to point out some of their limitations.
Idiot.
Awhile ago [couple months] I said if China coal goes up $300 per tonnes, it indicate Peak Coal. Since then. it when as high as $427 and now dropped to $263 per ton:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
As said it would not be the case if it briefly went over $300, but rather go to $300 and stay in at that range or higher.
So, not at peak Coal, yet. But maybe soon.
> They were in the process of developing tube and relay-based computers when Alan Turing wasnt chasing men around.
Gordo might like:
https://youtu.be/MxrYhVZOhoU
“Engineer Tommy Flowers, head of the Switching Group at Dollis Hill, invented Colossus.”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 97
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.31×10^10 W Neutral
{bouncing back}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +7.1% High
GCR still high [still around solar min levels, I am sort of expecting it drop below 5 within month or so].
I wanted to add the solar flux from
http://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values
But ooops?
The download’s tail still is
2022 03 18 0087.3
2022 03 18 0087.2
2022 03 18 0085.7
means that since 10 days in between, no data was published.
¿Qué pasó allá en Canadá?
A long, but fairly interesting article about space- or global satellite market and/or military space:
{largely about whether and/or how China can keep up}
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4355/1
“Once reusable rockets started sending dozens of small satellites into orbit at once, the result was a veritable explosion in the number of satellites orbiting the Earth. Between 2010 and 2020 the number of satellites in orbit increased by 252%. The year 2021 alone saw more orbital launches and satellite deployments than any previous year, including the former Cold War peaks of the 1960s and 1970s.”
…
“A few high-volume satellite factories are already online. In 2019, OneWeb and Airbus began producing two satellites a day at a new factory in Florida. In 2020, SpaceX started producing four Starlink satellites a day at its own facility near Seattle. Production rates like these are unprecedented. The previous peak rate for satellite production at a single factory was only around six satellites a month. The industry has already seen an 20-times improvement in throughput, and this is only the beginning.”
Hmm, idea of global satellite market growing by 4 to 5% per year could be an under estimate.
But as someone else noted, SpaceX is not really competition in terms of the global satellite market. Though certainly competition in terms internet connectivity {which was a small part of the global satellite market}. SpaceX is more of “a monopoly” on the “space exploration market”. And the yet to be lunar mining market and Mars, real estate market.
Keep calm and pass the Potassium Iodide…
“No one is thinking about using… even about the idea of using nuclear weapons.” Dmitry Peskov. March 28, 2022.
“Nobody has any intention of building a wall.” Walter Ulbricht. June 15, 1961.
I grew up outside Cambridge surrounded by American air bases. We kept potassium iodide tablets in the house, though we probably wouldn’t have survived to need them.
Should I stock up again?
Mine you I’m already radioactive. Northern Ireland got quite a lot of fallout from Chernobyl. My colleague hung a Geiger counter from his lab window and the rain was “hot”. There are still a couple of hotspots where you can’t eat the sheep because of the caesium in the soil.
I keep a stash of 10 year shelf-life KI tablets.
Since I live 30 miles (~50 Km) from one of the target cities (https://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/nuclear-targets-map-usa.jpg), the assumption is that the first wave of attacks would hit government and military targets and give me time to get to my hideout 1,500 miles (~2,400 Km) away.
I spent many years of my youth working with americium-berillium neutron sources and my exposure badge maxed out several times. No detectable damage yet.
” We will now continue as planned since begin, and move eastwards to liberate Luhansk and Donbass from the Ukrainian Nazis. ”
Said Z and started bombing down Lviv and Lemberg near Poland.
Yeah.
1,000 civilian deads in Charkiv (300 children, women and old persons in a theater seeking safety from grenades and snipers), probably 20,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers dead.
And now, as the Russkies are getting too tired to make war at the ground, a few thousands ultrarightwing paramilitary Fascists (the Wagner group and the pro-Russia Chechen terrorists) enter the scene, and will soon start.. cleansing.
*
Meanwhile, in Russia, all Russians in opposition to the спецоперация, the Special Operation, are declared as enemies of their own land.
In schools, children are taught that Russia is saving poor Ukrainians from bloodthirsty neo-Nazis who have been threatening them to death for years.
Sounds like QAnon perfectly.
Since every Russian has been “invited” to denounce anyone who speaks or writes about Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, children have recently begun denouncing their own parents.
Sounds perfectly like the Nazi period in Germany between 1933 and 1945.
*
Putin is the perfect synthesis of Stalin and Hitler – except for his immense hatred of the Jews, which one really cannot blame on Putin.
” 1,000 civilian deads in Charkiv… ”
Should read: Mariúpol
Binny,
“March 27, 2022, at 10:13 a.m. ZURICH (Reuters) – The United Nations human rights office said on Sunday that 1,119 civilians had so far been killed and 1,790 wounded since Russia began its attack on Ukraine.”
I suppose QAnon must be running the UN, and falsely under reporting civilian deaths, according to you.
Here’s a sample of propaganda from a century ago –
“We have seen the ‘beastly Hun’ with his spiked helmet and his enormous girth. He is depicted here, bayoneting a small baby with the murdered mother in the background, whipping a defenceless nurse or nun beyond unconsciousness, indulging in drink while a woman suffers, and finally burning down whole villages or towns and destroying a cathedral. At the bottom of the poster the crew of a u-boat, having sunk a ship sets about killing the survivors. The text below explains the richly dressed pipe smoking businessman German setting out from Berlin factories with a suitcase full of samples. In spite of his civilian hat, he is the same as the church-burning, survivor-gunning, woman-ravisher who used to wear a spiked helmet.”
Swinish Huns then, rotten Russkies now!
Ah well, it’s a good thing that there are enough gullible people to believe propaganda without question – whichever side they happen to be on.
Russia’s deputy defense minister Alexander Fomin has said Russia will “drastically reduce combat operations in the Kyiv and Chernihiv areas in order to boost mutual trust.”
Live footage of the Russian army around Kyiv: https://youtu.be/92gP2J0CUjc?t=94
More live footage of the Russian army around Kyiv: https://youtu.be/MUG9VzHoEoc
Ftop_t demonstrates that motion like the MOTL involves rotation about only one axis, and that rotation about both an external and an internal axis is no longer motion like the MOTL:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1226714
Sure DREMT, because ftop_t demo.s show that the observation is made from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R pointed out several posts ago per ftop_t from “Axis of rotation at(10,0)” so forth; just like the MOTL observed from the central object and our moon observed from Earth.
ball4…”ftop_t demo.s show that the observation is made from “inside of it orbit”
***
Try cutting the obfuscating bs and LOOK at the problem where an orbiting body always keeps the same face pointed at the body it is orbiting. It is impossible for that body to rotate about a local axis and still keep one face pointed at the other body.
The only possible way that can happen is when the orbiting body is performing pure curvilinear translation without local rotation, as in the MOTL.
> It is impossible for that body to rotate about a local axis and still keep one face pointed at the other body.
Of course it’s possible, Gordo.
All you need is to synchronize the two rotations, a possibility that refutes your demonstration and Kiddo’s transmographer.
Gordon 4:59pm, impossible for that body to rotate about a local axis more or less than once per orbit (as ftop_t shows in the demo.s) and still keep one face pointed at the other body.
> rotation about only one axis
That only works for circles:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Witless Wee Willy,
Are you really trying to claim that a cube rotating about an internal axis is really a circle?
Or are you just ignorant, stupid, and incoherent?
The world wonders!
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
No, I’m trying to claim that ellipses are not circles.
Do you dispute that?
Wee Willy Wanker,
Still delusional I see.
Why not just say that ellipses are not circles (apart from the special case where one is, of course), then?
You wrote “Theorem 67 A rotation is an isometry.”.
Trying to appear clever, were you?
The concept of isometry is crucial here, silly sock puppet.
Let me ask again –
Do you believe that ellipses are circles?
Nothing worth responding to so far.
Ceci n’est pas un commentaire.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
cannot be achieved by the use of gravity.
At the bottom and top of the green circle rotating about 0,0, draw two tangent lines to the rotating radial line…or imagine them.
Watch them rotate about 0,0 in parallel. At no time does either line rotate about the bar through the COG in the centre of the circle.
One can claim the green circle is rotating about 0,0 but it is also performing curvilinear translation without local rotation.
As I said, the above ‘rotation’ cannot be achieved by the use of gravity.
There is a bar inside the green circle with an orange ball on one end and a brown ball on the other. It is attached to the radial line extending from 0,0. It is also a tangent line to the circle traced out by the COG of the green ball.
Note that the tangent line, at no time, rotates around the end of the radial line. However, it changes its orientation through 360 degrees as the radial line rotates. You are mistaking that re-orientation for local rotation about the end of the radial line, where it touches the centre of the green circle.
I can draw many pretty pictures that cannot be achieved by the use of gravity.
It is definitively caused by gravity
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
The process is called tidal locking.
Are you denying?
Moon causes tides
Earth’s rotation is slowing (caused by Moon’s gravity)
Gravity causes bulges on the objects in space
The Earth pulled so strongly on the moon that the heavier composition within the Moon shifted and is now permanently on the side facing the Earth.
The Moon’s bulge caused its rotation to continually slow and then stop – tidally locked
Eventually the Earth will stop rotating on a centrally located internal axis and start rotating around the barycenter which will move closer to the surface of the Earth. Its angular momentum will be transferred to the Moon which will continue to drift further from Earth.
Today, gravity holds the heavier side of the Moon like a ball on a string.
The Earth and the Moon will eventually look like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2qj1groftx
“The Moons bulge caused its rotation to continually slow and then stop tidally locked”
not stop, just become synchronous with its orbit.
Hence the term: synchronous rotation. The word synchronous tells you at least two motions are in concert.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronous-rotation
And in fact it is only synchronous on average. Its rotational speed is constant while its orbital angular velocity is not.
And both objects are rotating around their axes.
They all have their weird little hang-ups. Nothing changes the fact that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the MOTL. So if you add internal axis rotation to that motion, at any rate and in either direction, you no longer have motion like the MOTL. Motion like the MOTL can not be a rotation about an external axis plus a rotation about an internal axis. Synchronous rotation is a misnomer.
Dremt…It has reached the stage where the spinners are arguing out of sheer stubbornness. Richard’s Desmos rotating radial line with the tangent line affixed to the end of it, proves conclusively that no rotation is taking place about the end of the radial line as would be required for local rotation.
My take on it is that it goes well beyond stubbornness. These people are extreme cultists. Protecting their cult beliefs is more important than truth. That’s why they reject the simple examples. They want to bog the discussion down with endless distractions and appeals to centuries-old astrologers.
If they have to admit that NASA has it wrong, where does it stop? They realize their ‘house-of-cards” will collapse. To them, reality is a slippery slope….
Clint R
You are the one who will have a “house of cards” fall. All your endless made up BS over and over.
Above you made a really stupid point about how far satellites are when they measured outgoing longwave radiation. You brought up the Inverse Square Law pointing out that 390 W/m^2 will be around 240 at distance of 1000 miles from the surface.
You act like scientists don’t know this fact.
Also this one give the TOA level you have asked about. It is 20 km above the surface.
Read this and see how stupid you are. Maybe it will wake you up. The light will shine in that dim mind and you will say “How could I have been so stupid and arrogant for so long, what a dummy I am”.
Then you will thank me for helping your mind wake up from the stupor of pure stupidity.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_rlut_CERES-EBAF_L3B_Ed2-6r_20121101.pdf
Note in the document. They know about Inverse Square Law and that the value of outgoing radiant energy from the TOA (radiant surface) is around 240 W/m^2. Time for you to apologize to Ball4 for attacking him when he was clearly informing you of the Truth.
Norman, it’s always fun to see you find another link you can’t understand. Thanks.
Terra and Aqua orbit at about 450 miles. An imaginary sphere the size of Earth, emitting at Earth’s average temperature, would result in 240 W/m^2 at about 1000 miles.
So CO2 must be cooling a lot faster than no CO2.
Thanks, again.
Clint R
Since you are just a program you can’t read can you.
Your reply is very stupid and unthinking.
Sorry your programmers made you such a dumb bot.
As usual Norman, when I show how wrong you are, you resort to insults. It’s just your ongoing meltdown caused by your frustration because you have NOTHING.
You aren’t even aware of how pathetic your efforts are. How many times have you tried to throw out links “proving” Earth has a “real 255K surface”? It doesn’t exist, but that won’t stop you from trying again, and again, and….
Your only interest is in protecting your false religion. You have NO interest in reality, or science. Your efforts are always incompetent and worthless.
“It has reached the stage where the spinners are arguing out of sheer stubbornness.”
Given that the vast majority of astronomers, physicists, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, and textbooks on these subjects agree with spinners, it seems you would think all of them are just being stubborn too?
Sheer rationality is more likely. Stubbornly rational perhaps.
Nate, it’s more like a complete majority of your cult. That’s what is expected of a cult. Avoid thinking for yourself. Avoid reality. Just go with the cult beliefs. Keep going until you’re braindead.
So science is a cult?
There is no such things as rotation about an external axis where gravity is involved.
Orbiting, rotating, revolving…we often use the words interchangeably depending on the context. For example, a pisto with a rotating barrel is called a revolver. A wooden horse bolted to the floor of an MGR is rotating about the hub of the MGR because it is connected to a rotating platform.
The orbital paths of planetary objects is far more unusual than what we find nearer the surface of planets which have an atmosphere. We cannot replicate the Moon’s motion near the surface due to air resistance.
When I studied engineering, in physics classes covering dynamics, we were never taught that Newton II, f = ma, had limitations, even though that should have been obvious. I began to reason later that it applied only if the force was large enough to move the object so as to produce an acceleration. I was delighted, when reading through Principia, to read Newton’s words to that effect.
I was taught, however, about the effect gravity of a planet could have on a passing body or space-craft. In fact, in one problem, we had to calculate how long to fire retro-rockets on a spacecraft traveling at a certain velocity to slow it enough to be captured by Mars.
Ironically, I immediately spotted a flaw in the problem as given. The spacecraft was traveling way too fast for any amount of retro force to slow it enough to go into orbit. I consulted the TA, a Ph.D in civil engineering, who had just graduated, and he could not figure it out. So, he took me to an engineering prof, who tend to be wizards at problem solving.
The prof laughed with delight. He saw the problem immediately and he advised me not to read too much into problems. They were designed to help us apply known equations and tended to be unrealistic at times.
What he was telling me in essence was to apply an equation that related the momentum of an orbiting body to Mars and to ignore the effect of the initial velocity given. All the problem wanted was for me to slow the spacecraft enough that its velocity would match the velocity of a body orbiting Mars at a certain altitude. They did not care that by the time it had slowed to the required velocity it would be too far past Mars to go into orbit.
I am trying to illustrate just how little we do know about the relationship between the Moon’s instantaneous rectilinear motion motion and its interaction with a gravitational field. It’s not at all obvious till you make certain assumptions.
One assumption is that Earth’s gravitational field is not accelerating the Moon in a vertical direction and has no effect on its linear momentum. If it did, the Moon would have slowed down long ago, lost altitude, and crashed into Earth.
Therefore, Newton II does not apply. What does apply is the effect of a force on a body that lacks the intensity to move the body in the direction of the gravitational vector but does have enough intensity to redirect the momentum of the body.
That’s what you need to see here. If the Moon had enough momentum to overcome the re-directing force, it would fly off on a parabolic or hyperbolic path. It lacks that momentum so it is held in an elliptical path. If it had less momentum the orbit would become circular, and even less still, the Moon would begin to lose altitude, not a good prospect for us here on Earth.
If Newton II did apply, we’d have been toast here on Earth long ago.
More delusional physics from Gordo, who wrote:
.
Momentum is mass (a constant) times velocity (a vector quantity), thus momentum is a vector quantity. Gravitational forcing changes the velocity vector in the direction of the Earth, which both causes the elliptical orbit and changes the magnitude of the velocity around the orbit. The Moon is moving slower at Apogee than Perigee, a fact which Gordo has ignored numerous times.
“Newton II does not apply”
That would be a surprise for Newton and everybody who uses his equations to determine orbits, etc.
Newton’s 3 Laws apply regardless. The only question is how to apply them in the extremes of mass or velocity.
As both the transmographer, and Desmos via Ftop_t have proven, you cannot synchronize a rotation around an external axis and a rotation around an internal axis and end up with motion like the MOTL. Synchronous rotation is a misnomer.
‘Synchronous rotation is a misnomer’
Everybody else has no problem with either the concept nor its execution.
Synchronous rotation is a misnomer. What they are actually arguing for is synchronous translation in an ellipse plus axial rotation. Not rotation about an external axis synchronized with rotation about an internal axis. So the name is misleading. It should be changed.
> What they are actually arguing for is synchronous translation in an ellipse plus axial rotation.
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
Exactly, Willard. So by “revolve” they can only mean “translate in an ellipse”.
> they can only mean “translate in an ellipse”.
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
I’m right, Willard. Take your first link. It says, of the MOTR:
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
If you were to describe the movement of the MOTR as being comprised of only one single motion, as do the “Spinners”, then you would describe that motion as being a translation. Hence, when they add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, to result in movement like the MOTL (their erroneously-titled “synchronous rotation”) they are actually arguing for synchronous translation in an ellipse plus axial rotation. Just as I said.
… then you would describe that motion as being a curvilinear translation.
Even Ball4 gets it.
> If you were to describe the movement of the MOTR as being comprised of only one single motion […] then you would describe that motion as being a translation.
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
That’s from his Holy Madhavi.
Since the motion of the Moon is complex, it’s better to describe it using more supple concepts than pure rotation or translation.
Come to think of it, here could be a more immediate reductio:
Suppose the Moon could be explained using only one single pure rotation. That would involve a very long list of translations. All these translations would rest on a very idiosyncratic translation of the main axe of rotation.
You are very clever, young man, very clever, but it’s Moon Dragon Cranks epicycles all the way down.
Willard, the “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating in an ellipse (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst also rotating on its own axis. So motion like the MOTR, plus axial rotation. That’s what they think is happening. It’s amazing that you still don’t understand your own side’s position, let alone mine.
Mind you, I personally think you just like to contradict me at every single possible opportunity. I don’t think you have any interest in learning, just in being argumentative for the sake of it.
“I dont think you have any interest in learning, just in being argumentative for the sake of it.”
The irony of this coming from the guy who has perpetuated this pointless argument, rehashing the same points, for years.
> by which they mean, motion like the MOTR
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Perhaps we can make an even simpler argument:
Take an object and spin it on its axis.
Now, rotate that axis a bit.
According to Kiddo’s logic, what you obtain is an object that translates on a curvilinear path.
Wrong troll Nate, it is NOT a pointless argument. It demonstrates very well the devotion you cult idiots have to your cult. We see your cult reject reality in both the Moon and the AGW nonsense. The Moon rotation issue is much simpler and easier to debunk. Everyone can understand a ball-on-a-string, except of course braindead cult idiots.
Willard, the “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating in an ellipse (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst also rotating on its own axis. So motion like the MOTR, plus axial rotation. That’s what they think is happening. It’s amazing that you still don’t understand your own side’s position, let alone mine.
Kiddo says the darnedest thing.
The Spinner position is that the Moon spins.
That’s, like, in the name Kiddo came with to name that position.
Here is a real example of rotation plus translation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvoVvXwoOQ&t=3172s
Yes, Willard, the “Spinner” position is that the moon spins. It is also that the moon is translating in an ellipse (by which they mean, motion like the MOTR) whilst also rotating on its own axis. So motion like the MOTR, plus axial rotation. That’s what they think is happening. It’s amazing that you still don’t understand your own side’s position, let alone mine.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
I found a Spinner:
Who can guess who wrote this?
That would be a “Non-Spinner”, Willard. If an orbit involves an object changing its orientation through 360 degrees without rotating on its own internal axis, then “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“Non-Spinners” = moon does not spin, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
“Spinners” = moon spins, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
How Kiddo infers what the Moon should do in the realm of physics based on his idiosyncratic ways to define the geometry of its motion is the darnedest thing.
The tidal locking between a planet and its satellite involves that the satellite changes its orientation through 360 degrees as it completes its orbit!
Willard, there is no point getting into any of this with you as you simply refuse to understand even the most basic ideas. Any other “Spinner” here would recognize that their position involves: the moon spins, and “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR…but you refuse to accept even that! You cannot even acknowledge the most basic things about your own position, let alone begin to understand mine…then you prattle on about geometry vs. physics. We cannot get past kinematics because you refuse to accept that anything I say is correct…even the stuff other “Spinners” agree with. You are a lost cause. A complete waste of time.
the problem with the spinner argument is that the translation equation they use is a linear translation (zero angular momentum) and nowhere within lorb plus lspin argument is there a representation for the angular momentum for moving the moon around the earth without stealing it from the spin they claim that exists on its own axis. thus the motion described by MOTR could only exist with Lspin times two as Lorb would have the moon traveling a straight path and would possess zero angular momentum.
Bill is saying stuff once again, and Kiddo throws a tantrum when I just quoted the legend of his favorite GIF, going so far as to put in bold the very claim he pretends I deny.
He’s still stuck with the fact that a Moon in a spin-orbit lock changes its orientation through 360 degrees through its orbit.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
You are a complete and utter moron, Willard. Stop wasting my time.
Kiddo throws the darnedest tantrums.
Growing up he’ll realize that geometry seldom suffices to solve a physics problem.
Just calmly telling you like it is, Willard. You are a complete and utter moron. Stop wasting my time.
Kiddo’s adolescent spats are the darnedest thing.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If its a misnomer you need to petition all the dictionaries, encyclopedia, and textbooks.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronous-rotation
Since two motions, rotation, and orbit are synchronous, it seems quite appropriate.
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless invited to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
One drive-by per thread to peddle Moon Dragon crap ought to be enough.
Every other comment would then be fair ball.
Stop sticking your nose into everything, Willard. This does not concern you.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
One day our Hall Monitor will be able to take care of silly sock puppets.
This does not concern you.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
Trolling concerns everyone.
Willard, pretty much every comment you write is entirely, or at least contains to some degree, an attempt to irritate somebody in some way. You are the troll.
Kiddo says the darnedest thing.
He has been trolling this website for more than three years with Moon Dragon Crank stuff, among other Dragon Crank stuff.
With his actual sock and with others.
He should stop trolling, but he can’t.
Better for him to learn how to do proper drive-bys.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo projects the darnedest thing.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Again he responds to me to remind me that he is not responding to me , and to inform me when and where I am allowed to post, and inviting me to respond to him elsewhere. Because above all else, he craves attention.
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless invited to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
HERE…… http://webwork242.blogspot.com/
testing 1,2,3
where, oh where, can my posting be?
In the bin?
where, oh where, can my posting be?
It’s not in the bin,
I looked, you see?
Look harder.
where, oh where, can my posting be?
Its not in the bin,
I looked, you see?
And now you think
I should look harder,
I wonder if it could be
in the larder?
Anon.
Idiot.
testing …
remove any asterisks (*) in link…
maguff…
https://www.s*a*l*o*n.com/2021/01/19/who-is-victoria-nuland-a-really-bad-idea-as-a-key-player-in-bidens-foreign-policy-team/
Appears the wordpress censor does not like the word s*a*l*o*n
Anyone under the delusion that Russian started this war needs to read the facts disclosed at the link below.
Please refrain from attacking the messenger, either me or the host of the article. This info can be easily verified elsewhere on the Net.
I was totally open to criticizing the Canadian government for their illegal and Draconian interference in the truckers protest and it’s about time US citizens became aware of their own government’s involvement in starting this war.
***note re link***
Remove asterisks in link in s*a*l*o*n
https://www.s*a*l*o*n.com/2021/01/19/who-is-victoria-nuland-a-really-bad-idea-as-a-key-player-in-bidens-foreign-policy-team/
The horrifying fact is that both the US government and the European parliament were discussing the ouster of a democratically-elected president BEFORE he was forced out of office. They were discussing who should replace him. That was neither the business of the US government nor the European parliament. As it turned out, Nuland’s choice of president was selected.
It is well-documented that fascist forces were involved in ousting the president when they stormed the government offices and it appears Nuland had to know about that beforehand.
Both the Svoboda Party and the Right Sektor were involved and both are known white supremist factions with fascist sympathies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
The innocent Ukrainians as presented by current dictator Zelensky are not so innocent after all.
After the coup in 2014, a new government under Poroshenko signed into law the recognition of WW II war criminals like Stepan Bandera as Ukrainian heroes. He was likely forced to do so by the fascist factions because they have threatened him in other ways. They threatened to oust him as well if he did anything to favour the Russians.
The former president was ousted because he was pro-Russian. That’s not a crime in a real democracy but it is a crime to the fascists.
Part of BBC report on telephone intercept – US Assistant Secretary of State to Ambassador in Ukraine in 2014 –
“The male replies: “We’ve got to do something to make it stick together, because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.”
The two officials also discuss frankly the merits of the three main Ukrainian opposition leaders – Vitaly Klitschko, Arseniy Yatseniuk and Oleh Tyahnybok.
The female speaker says that Mr Klitschko, the former heavyweight boxing world champion, should not be in any new government. “I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
She adds: “I think Yats (Arseniy Yatseniuk) is the guy who’s got the economic experience.”
US officials refused to confirm or deny the tape’s authenticity, but state department spokeswoman Jan Psaki said: “I didn’t say it was inauthentic.””
Pot – kettle – black.
The female speaker has been identified as Victoria Nuland and the male speaker as Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to the Ukraine.
Apparently the European parliament favoured Klitschko to which Nuland replied, “The EU can f*** off”.
Question: What business does the US government or the European parliament have selecting successors to a sitting Ukrainian president who has yet to be run off in a coup? They were conferring with the sitting president as to his removal.
And what are the Russians to think when two foreign governments interfere to remove a democratically-elected, pro-Russian Ukrainian president? The coup led to a civil war between Russian-speaking Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine and the western Ukrainians represented by the coup forces.
Yatseniuk, the choice of Nuland, eventually replaced the sitting president. In essence, Nuland participated in a coup to remove a democratically-elected president from power in a foreign country. And they had the nerve to complain that Russia interfered in the US 2016 election on behalf of Trump.
What kind of democracy are they perverting in the Ukraine?
Gordo,
You’re forcing me to side with the Chihuahua. Stop doing that! There’s no excuse for Russia to attack a sovereign nation. They have to work out their affairs internally.
If the pro-Russia Ukrainians don’t like being Ukrainians, then let them move to Russia.
Sure Russia invading another country is not a war, it is just a ‘special military operation’.
Idiot.
rlh…you certainly lack the analytical capacity one would expect of someone with a Master’s degree.
Russia sat by patiently for 8 years and did nothing along the lines of an invasion while the Ukrainian army, using neo-Nazi battalions, mercilessly attacked Russian-speaking Ukrainians along Russia’s border. They are currently re-focusing on the eastern region to mop up the neo-Nazi SOBs who are active throughout the Ukraine.
In the US, they have the Monroe Doctrine (1823) which warns European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. In other words, if France decided to interfere in Quebec, Canada, the US have it enshrined in their laws to attack France for interfering.
Yet, the US under both Obama and Biden feel free to stick their noses into the affairs of the Ukraine. I just read today, that NATO is calling a hearing for the Ukraine, a seriously stupid act that could result in WW III.
Have you no concern for your family and friends in the UK? Canada is large enough that if we escape the intiial blast of a nuke we could hide out free of nuclear radiation. Not so anywhere in the UK. If a nuclear war breaks out, the UK is gone…obliterated. Four or five nukes could take out the entire island’s civilization.
Will you wake up out of your coma and get a grip on what is actually going on?
> Russia sat by patiently for 8 years
Very patiently:
https://www.rferl.org/a/death-toll-up-to-13-000-in-ukraine-conflict-says-un-rights-office/29791647.html
“rlhyou certainly lack the analytical capacity one would expect of someone with a Masters degree.”
Sure. Idiot.
salon
yeah, thanks. I could not get the post to be accepted till I added the asterisks to salon. Just wondering is http://www.salon.com posts.
Nothing to see here, Gordo:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/abramovich-and-ukrainian-mp-may-have-been-poisoned-this-month
Probly just a lack of Vitamin C, ammiright?
Duh!!!
Abramovich is a friend of Putin. Are you suggesting Putin tried to poison him? It’s far more likely, if he was poisoned, that it was neo-Nazis representing the Ukraine who did it? They hate Russians.
Gorgeous Gordo:
https://nypost.com/2022/03/28/roman-abramovich-ukraine-officials-may-have-been-poisoned-report/
Think.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You do realise that the New York Post relaying the assumptions of a Wall Street Journal writer may be an instance of wishful thinking, rather than fact, do you?
Do carry on with any other conspiracy theories you can find.
How about the one that says that the big oil companies all got together to deny that the climate changes, so they can make lots and lots of money?
You really are a gullible wee chappie, aren’t you?
The Washington Post regarded the wearing of Nazi-like symbols by Ukrainian volunteer forces as ‘romantic’.
Romantic??? The writer thought a symbolism of Nazi behavior in WW II as being romantic? Completely missed the obvious, that the Ukrainian battalions wearing the symbols on their helmets thought Hitler was a fine bloke.
Another one who thought Hitler was a fine bloke was King George V of England. I say England because we in Scotland don’t recognize English royalty as being our king/queen. At least, real Scots don’t.
It astounds me how many toffee-nosed SOBs in the upper echelons, who made up a good part of the British parliament during WW II, supported Hitler. Proves conclusively that the upper crust in the UK are mentally unstable.
When Churchill enabled SOE to conduct ungentlemanly warfare (sabotage, etc.) against Hitler, the nobs protested that it wasn’t sporting. Even Hitler, who thought nothing of bombing innocents in London, and brutalizing people in concentrations camps, regarded SOE infiltrators as terrorists. He referred to the Allied air forces as ‘terrorflieger’.
The US claimed their bombing tactics were strategic and not intended to incite terror. Yet, in Japan, near the end of the war, they systematically burned Japanese cities to the extent they killed more people than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I am not hitting on the US, I appreciate having them as good neighbours. I am simply trying to point out how easy it is to regard our motives as being honourable and those of the enemy as being terror inducing.
Far too easy to depict the Russians as brutes who are committing war crimes while missing the real reasons they are there. It saddens me deeply to see innocent people die just as it still saddens me to read about innocents dying in Germany or Britain during WW II.
What saddens me even more is our utter inability or intent to communicate. We are so tied up in political ideology on both sides that we cannot communicate with the other side.
Mike, Mike,
You do realize that you never question Gordo’s theories however shaky, right?
The word is that the Ukrainian government asked Roman to intercede exactly because Vlad likes him. But then being liked is not something you can related to, can you?
Aw diddums!
Because Gordo needs a hero:
https://www.raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/geschiedschrijving/405-dugin-and-other-radical-right-intellectuals-on-the-march
I have no idea what goes on inside Russia or inside Putin’s mind. I am happy enough living here in Canada even though I am concerned about the gradual erosion of our democratic rights.
I watched an interesting debate last night on force versus rights. We can never take democratic rights as a given. If someone with sufficient force comes along, they can cancel our rights in a second.
I am defending Russia, not because I think they are right in what they are doing, but due to the insistence that Russia is trampling on the Democratic rights of Ukrainians. The truth is far different, the Ukrainian government, enabled by outside forces has already trampled the rights of Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine.
The cause is painfully obvious. A democratically-elected Ukrainian president, who the eastern Ukrainians supported, was violently removed from office in a coup, in 2014.
End of democracy. You do not remove an elected leader by coup then carry on as if nothing had happened. The Russians took note of that and sat on it for 8 years. When they saw no other alternative to the fascists running the Ukraine, and that no one else cared, they attacked.
Most people seem not to be aware of that situation, which was a fascist overthrow of a democratically elected president, enabled by US government representative and the European parliament.
Where does anyone calling themselves supporters of democracy, get off interfering in Ukrainian affairs to the point they enable a coup? Especially a coup lead by openly fascist elements?
I think the Ukrainian people and the Russian people have suffered enough, especially since the Bolshevik revolution of 1918. This is not about Russia attacking the Ukraine in an unprovoked action, it’s about international politics in which the Ukraine has become a dupe. It’s also about fascist white supremacists trying to purify the Ukraine to an ethnically Aryan base.
Time to wake up people.
Gordon Robertson
Maybe your information sources are from Russia. They do lie constantly. You can believe it but what makes you think whatever you are reading is True? Your sources sound like the Russian lie machine. Earlier I told you that anything on the lines of your points from Russia, they blew that away with a unnecessary brutal tactics. I am totally against Russia and the aggression they are demonstrating. They are doing exactly what you don’t like, they are brutally attacking Ukraine to bend them to their will.
Have you looked inside Russia? They destroyed all Freedom of expression years ago with dictator Putin. You go to jail for telling the Truth, you get poisoned if you form an opposition party against the loon Putin. I think you are completely wrong on this issue. Putin is evil and a monster in human flesh. Cold ruthless and uncaring for anyone but himself. What he is doing to his own country is awful and how he is attacking Ukraine is most sickening. Please gain a grip and quit defending this horrible human! You complain of your petty tyrant in Canada. Maybe before you defend the evil Putin go live in his Russia for a year. After that you may even start to love how free your Canada is even if you people elected a tyrant.
Gordon Robertson
Read this and wake up from your zombification of Russian lies and propaganda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/02/25/zelensky-family-jewish-holocaust/
Zelensky is Jewish and lost family in the Holocaust. His Grandfather fought against Nazis.
Accept reality. Putin is a lying KGB, do not believe anything he says. It is just lies heaped upon lies. The guy is bad to the bone, a truly evil person with a heart of stone.
Biden is not right on hardly anything but he is correct on Putin. The guy is one awful person.
I have never referred to Zelensky as supporting the neo-Nazi battalions, I have no idea if he has or not. The Azov battalion was formed in 2014, after the coup, and their leader, Andriiy Biletsky, sat in the Ukrainian parliament from 2014 – 2019. Zelensky was elected after that.
It is possible that he has taken their word that they are not anti-Jewish, which is a lie. The leader of Svoboda, Oleh Tyagnibok has used anti-Semitic slurs in the past. At one time he did a speech in which he applauded Ukrainians for fighting Jews and ‘other scum’ during WW II. Svoboda and another right-wing element, Right Sektor, helped in the coup of 2014.
Wake up, Norman, it’s all out there in historical documents. The US Congress has admitted to the knowledge of the Azov battalion and their pro Nazi ideology.
Even so, Zelensky is in utter denial about why his government forces were fighting against fellow Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine, till the Russians invaded. He campaigned on solving the problem and did nothing. At the time of the Russian attack, his popularity and dropped even lower than his predecessor, Poroshenkov, in the low teens.
Zelensky is currently waging a battle to save his own butt. In doing so, he is extending the slaughter of innocent Ukrainians. The idiot even proclaimed recently they were going to retake Crimea.
This guy is living in an alternate universe. He has suspended the opposition and censored TV stations, making him essentially a dictator. He is being totally unrealistic in his negotiations with the Russians. He refuses to give up the two eastern provinces who have already made a deal with Russia to become independent.
That’s what started this war. The Ukrainians in the two eastern provinces, who are pro Russian, revolted when a pro-Russian, democratically-elected Ukrainian president was ousted in a coup. Eastern Ukraine has always been pro Russian, going back as far as WW II. That puts them on the Allied side against the Nazis.
This is not about Russia taking those two provinces into Russia as an aggressive expansionism, they are trying to defend the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens of that region against neo-Nazi divisions in the region. The normal Ukrainian forces won’t do house to house fighting, just the neo-Nazis. Russia is currently forcing the SOBs out of the region but they are holding Russian-speaking citizens hostage.
C’mon, Gordo.
If you despise Nazis so much, here’s where you should start:
https://borgenproject.org/neo-nazis-russia/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60610840
I think you are clearly wrong on this. Be thankful you have that right, you would not have it in Russia.
“I am totally against Russia and the aggression they are demonstrating.”
Good for you! Apart from posting anonymous opinions, what do you intend to do?
Maybe you care so little about Russian aggression, you intend to do precisely nothing at all which would involve any effort or expenditure on your part. Have you an opinion on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
> I am defending Russia, not because I think they are right in what they are doing, but due to the insistence that Russia is trampling on the Democratic rights of Ukrainians. The truth is far different
C’mon, Gordo.
Russians are literally trampling on Ukrainians right now.
And it’s not the first time:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1498/RAND_RR1498.pdf
norman…”Maybe your information sources are from Russia”.
***
Nope. I have seen interpreted talks by Putin but I remained unmoved by them. He did come across in a far better light than he is depicted in the West. I had a feeling he might be telling the truth but I was not about to accept his word on anything just as I don’t accept Biden’s word on anything or the PM’s word in Canada. I am not influenced by authority figures.
My influences are mainly US experts like Professor John Mearsheimer, an expert on US foreign policy. You can question Wikipedia as being pro Russian of you like but they have articles on this that corroborate the neo-Nazi influence in the Ukraine. There are good articles by the late journalist Robert Parry, who had numerous awards for his reporting.
Here’s one article by him…
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/06/robert-parry-when-us-house-saw-ukraines-neo-nazis/
I started questioning the situation after watching the Oliver Stone produced video ‘Ukraine on Fire’. Prior to that I had taken your view. The opening of the video delves in Ukraine’s dark past re fascism and white supremacist ideology. Naturally, I suspected Stone may be exaggerating but research proved the claims in the video up till about the one-quarter mark to be very accurate.
I plan to research the rest of the video but a woman in the later stages I could not identify at first. I have learned she is Victoria Nuland, a US government official who was in the Ukraine in 2014 cheerleading the coup. She directly interfered with the selection of a new leader BEFORE the sitting president was over-thrown. She had to know about the coup and did nothing to stop it.
Senator John McCain was there as well. I knew he had anti-Russian sentiments but to be in a foreign country cheerleading a coup is unacceptable.
One of the fascist leaders featured in the video, Stepan Bandera, was wanted as a war criminal at the Nuremberg trials but he managed to escape and died in 1959. He has now been officially proclaimed a Ukrainian hero. I would think Zelensky would have an interest in expunging that law due to Bandera’s participation in exterminating Jews, but apparently he doesn’t care.
It’s all out there Norman.
You’re a silly man, Gordo:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets
Weary Wee Willy,
No doubt you believe everything written by journalists.
Of course, the fact that Al Jazeera is the mouthpiece of an absolute monarch makes it authoritative. No need to worry about silly people bleating about democracy and rights, and other such silly nonsense.
I’ll thank you for your support, on behalf of the Emir of Qatar, and his good friend Joe Biden, who recently confirmed the strength of their 50 year bilateral relationship.
Ah, the ongoing US support for absolute monarchs is a joy to behold.
You’re most welcome, silly sock puppet:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30126207
More truths out there for Gordo:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160727220120/https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/geopolitics-russia-mackinder-eurasia-heartland-dugin-ukraine-eurasianism-manifest-destiny-putin/
willard et al…you have heard that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Right now, you have countless nuclear missiles pointed at you and you have no interest in defusing the possibility that an accident could set off a nuclear holocaust.
Right now, I don’t give a damn about the politics. I want to see the killing stop and I want to see the Russians assured that our overall intention is peace. We need to work with them to stop the mindless violence that was going on in the Ukrainian civil war, fueled by fascist elements.
I want us to get our damned noses out of the affairs of other countries. This is a war between Ukrainians and Russians brought on by the Ukrainians. The facts are online for anyone to see.
Above all, I want to to see WW III prevented. Why are idiots like Victoria Nuland allowed to walk around in this world causing coups and wars based on US foreign policy? She should be in jail, for cripes sake.
And let’s not forget, it was the Democrats who started this and continue to enable it. It might surprise people to learn that Putin and Obama were actually talking to each other objectively at one point. Putin expressed his gratitude for the communication, then something intervened.
The Republicans are the only US politicians to have recognized the neo-Nazi threat in the Ukraine. They passed a bill to stop supporting the neo-nazi Azov battalion employed by the Ukrainian army.
So not only you’re not very sagacious, Gordo:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets
but you’re just another boot licking, homophobic whimp.
way to go willard, you quoted from the aljazeera news sources representing the Muslim brotherhood.
You also threw out the politically-correct hatred term, homophobic, as an ad hom. The way you got excited when I drew attention to Alan Turing’s homosexuality, it made me wonder if you like man-love.
I sure don’t and I don’t fear homosexuals. I have a revulsion about men engaging in sex with each other but I don’t fear them as the name homophobic implies. It’s a silly word, like the phrase climate change, used by the politically-correct to censor the views of others.
You must be getting desperate when you resort to dark ad homs like that.
> I have a revulsion about men engaging in sex with each other but
Oh, Gordo.
You know, it’s not too hard to get why you’re licking boots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Donetsk_People%27s_Republic
Go ahead, tell us that you used to be a communist, but.
> This guy is living in an alternate universe. He has suspended the opposition and censored TV stations, making him essentially a dictator. […] That’s what started this war.
In Gordo’s universe, time flies backwards:
https://news.yahoo.com/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-ukraine-154011590.html
Besides, it is not hard to understand why the ban of Bolshevik parties makes him so irate.
willard the rocket scientist…the Stalinist-based Bolshevik parties in Russia have not been around since 1985, at least. They started to die out in the 1950s when Khrushchev took over, although they have a brief recurrence under Brezhnev.
What Zelensky has done is what caused the civil war. I think he has a gun at his head held by the Russian-hating fascists. Is that what you support Willard? Do you like running around in your lederhosen doing sieg heils in the mirror?
Why are you trying to defend this anti-democratic action?
As long as Zelensky maintains this stupid, pro-fascist attitude, a lot of good Ukrainians are going to die.
C’mon, Gordo, don’t be such a tool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_Platform_%E2%80%94_For_Life#2022_Russian_invasion
Besides, you should get up to speed on what is happening in Donbass:
If you think the hammer and sickle is dead, think again.
Or perhaps just think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party#Ukraine
Whacky Wee Willy,
Full scale invasion? Pretty pathetic effort.
The US wiped our 140,000 civilians in Japan – with just two bombs! The civilian deaths in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan show how to do a “full scale invasion”!
The Russkies need to take lessons from the Yanks, obviously. The Russians don’t seem to have killed as many civilians as the number of Ukrainians who die in motor vehicle accidents in a good year.
Maybe by reducing road traffic, the full scale invasion actually saves civilian lives!
Can you prove otherwise?
Silly sock puppet,
Why don’t you go for the usual line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
The spinners see the evidence, re ftop’s demos demonstrations and they still argue.
Here’s ftop’s depiction of the Moon rotating on a local axis. Impossible to keep one face pointed at Earth.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mzj3feccap
Here is the same depiction with no rotation.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
Yet right after ftop’s posting, binny whines that he doesn’t care, like a 5 year old having a tantrum when he is told a fact that he doesn’t want to grasp.
GR is just an idiot who spouts idiocies continuously. Best Ignored.
Both are rotating, simple enough.
First link has two axes of rotation, one external and one internal. Second link has only one axis of rotation, external. That is how it is programmed, bob.
Both are programmed with two rotations, Chartmaster.
Wrong.
Show me the equations running the animation then, Chartmaster.
There is one for the blue line.
And one for the orange line.
The equations are all there for you, bob, in the second link. Show me where there is an equation for both a rotation about an external axis and and a rotation about an internal axis. You can press pause on line 2, by the way. Makes no difference, because there is only one rotation going on, a rotation about an external axis. Press pause on line 3 to stop that rotation.
Here, Bob:
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node75.html
There is no internal axis rotation in the second link because s is set to zero, thus a remains at zero. Only b is changing, thus there is only rotation about the external axis.
“Show me where there is an equation for both a rotation about an external axis and and a rotation about an internal axis.”
Line two is the speed of the rotation around an internal axis.
Line three is the speed of the rotation around an external axis or the path of the orbit.
Two equations, you can change the speed of either.
Case closed.
The cult idiots are out today.
Willard found another link he can’t understand. If I walk in a circle, always facing the direction of travel, I can write an equation for that. I can also write an equation if I were rotating in place. I could write the equations so that they synched. That does NOT mean I am rotating in place as I walk in circle.
Braindead cult idiots can’t understand any of this.
Braindead bob doesn’t understand computer simulations. Moon has TWO vectors acting on it. A ball-on-a-string has TWO vectors acting on it. The resultant of the TWO vectors steer the objects. In a computer simulation, programming must make up for the steering.
Braindead bob can’t understand too much complexity. That’s why I prefer the ball-on-a-string. Braindead bob believes the ball is rotating about its axis. That’s all we need to know.
Clint R,
How about sticking to responding to the arguments we are actually making?
“That does NOT mean I am rotating in place as I walk in circle.”
You are not rotating in place as you walk, you are rotating as you walk.
Subtle difference that you miss.
Anyway you are missing a vector.
Then there is your confusion about the velocity vector for the Moon, that vector is not acting on the Moon, it represents the velocity of the Moon, the speed and direction, but that doesn’t act on the Moon because it is not a force.
There is the acceleration vector, that acts on the Moon.
Then there are the two angular momentum vectors, they don’t act on the Moon either.
“Line two is the speed of the rotation around an internal axis.”
As I said, bob, you can pause line two altogether and it changes nothing. That is because s is set to zero. The only rotation occurring is about an external axis. Pause line three and that rotation stops.
“there is only rotation about the external axis”
There is no such thing as an orbit about an external axis using gravity.
So the Earth/moon barycenter is not external to the moon? You are just being silly, RLH. You do not have a point, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
> always facing the direction of travel
Pup lives in a circular world.
No wonder he keeps repeating the same things over and over again.
Silly sock puppet.
bob, I’m not even going to try to untangle that mess.
We can just keep it as another example of how braindead you are.
“As I said, bob, you can pause line two altogether and it changes nothing. That is because s is set to zero. The only rotation occurring is about an external axis. Pause line three and that rotation stops”
What are you doing when you set S to 0?
Are you sure you understand what S is?
Clint R,
“bob, Im not even going to try to untangle that mess.
We can just keep it as another example of how braindead you are.”
That’s because you can’t even point out one error that I made in that post.
s is set to zero when you load up the second link, bob. If you look at the equation in line 2 it should be obvious that having s=0 will mean a will remain at zero. Whereas the value of b is of course constantly changing. Rotation about an external axis is occurring, rotation about an internal axis is stuck at zero. If you change the value of s, you can get rotation about an internal axis occurring, at varying rates and in different directions. It is pretty well programmed, really. Just experiment, bob.
I meant to say the equation in line 5, not line 2.
Chartmaster,
What is S is the question you nicely evaded anwering.
Nice job.
Wrong again, bob, I just explained s.
The second link shows only rotation about an external axis, no rotation about an internal axis. There is only one axis of rotation in the second link.
Sorry for your loss.
Chartmaster,
Nope, you explained what S was set to, not what S is actually.
So your evasion is noted again.
You still can’t model the Moon’s motion with one equation, so there is more than one motion, no matter how hard you try to evade.
One to model the orbit, one to model the object, and one to model the rotation of that object.
You will have to explain why setting S to -1 gives a non-rotating object.
It is a deceptive little program, which suits your needs, but as a proof that the Moon does not rotate, well it does not do that.
I never said that it proves the moon does not rotate on its own axis, bob. What it shows, once again (just like the transmographer) is that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the MOTL. So if you add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, at any rate and in either direction, you no longer have motion like the MOTL.
The only way you can get movement like the MOTL to be comprised of two motions is if you combine motion like the MOTR (which the “Spinners” would say is translation in a circle) with an internal axis rotation. For that to be correct, “orbit without spin” would have to be as per the MOTR.
> I never said that it proves the [M]oon does not rotate on its own axis
Kiddo actually said it cannot.
He says the darnedest things.
Wrong, Willard. Please stop trolling.
Why are you being completely disingenuous, Bob?
You can walk through the examples here to see what you are claiming is nonsense
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216349
Neither circle is rotating on an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xkazy2ov9c
If we stop line 3 and allow line 1 ‘s’ to change, we see the speed of the internal rotation change
s is a variable to control the rate of rotation of the internal axis.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dayevddrrt
If we set line 1 to zero (0), it is the same as stopping line 2
Line 1 set to zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wiqu8gdtvh
Stop line 2
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mezkj5tqig
Walk through the examples in the comment linked at the top of this post, or stop being disingenuous
Ftop,
“Neither circle is rotating on an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xkazy2ov9c
If we stop line 3 and allow line 1 s to change, we see the speed of the internal rotation change”
Sorry dude, you are the one being disingenuous. One of those is rotating, it is obvious that both circles are not doing the same thing as regards to rotating.
You have to set S to -1 to stop the rotation, when the object is rotating.
S appears to me to be the rate of rotation with respect to the red line between the origin and the rotating body.
So, yes the Moon doesn’t rotate with respect to a rotating line.
Now who is being disingenuous
bob, set s to -1 then pause the external axis rotation by pausing line 3. The object is still rotating on an internal axis.
Flop,
You still fail to answer Bob’s simple question – what is S?
Don’t be like Kiddo.
Willard says,
“You still fail to answer Bob’s simple question – what is S?”
Ftop says,
“s is a variable to control the rate of rotation of the internal axis.”
Willard is dishonest.
Because both Willard and Bob are quite dense
If s is negative, the rotation for the internal axis is clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3216mwpwp3
If s is positive, the rotation for the internal axis is counter-clockwise
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dbd2hlehsw
If s = 0, the rate of rotation for the internal axis is zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/5a1dacohen
I had also answered bob already:
“If you change the value of s, you can get rotation about an internal axis occurring, at varying rates and in different directions”.
> s is a variable
No shit, Flop.
You still do not answer the question:
How does it control the rate of rotation?
“1” or “-1” are not rates.
It’s the rotation rate with respect to what?
And some might find the answer has to do with reference frames, which do not transcend the discussion.
And the fact that I find your arguments circular would not surprise Willard.
Willard says,
“Explain Algebra to me”
Line 2 is the degree of rotation, it has a base rate of change defined by the animation properties if you click below the arrow you will see the rate is set to .2x. This is the base rate chosen in the model.
At this base rate, any point makes one full revolution around the axis of rotation every 10 secs, which can be defined as 6rpm
Warning – Algebra below
If we multiple the base rate in Line 2 by “s” the rpm(s) increase (or change direction if negative)
s x (base rate) = new rpm(s)
If s = 2, rpm(s) = 12
If s = 10, rpm(s) = 60
When s = 0, rpm(s) = well, nevermind… you are probably already lost
"It’s the rotation rate with respect to what?"
With respect to anything, bob! As I said, set s to -1 then pause the external axis rotation by pausing line 3. The object is still rotating on an internal axis. It rotates at that rate regardless of whether the external axis rotation is also occurring, or not. The rate at which a is changing does not alter whether you press play on line 3, or pause it.
> It’s the rotation rate with respect to what?
Pup and Flop might never get that one, Bob.
Check this out:
Another Spinner!
Flop says
“Let me wave my arms real fast because I can’t answer a simple question.”
Let’s help him out:
https://www.math.purdue.edu/~arapura/preprints/algebra1.pdf
Bob asks
“Its the rotation rate with respect to what?”
Ftop and Chartmaster refuse to answer.
I know the answer, as any prosecutor knows the answer to any question posed to the defendants.
So
ATFQ
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1229280
Chartmaster,
Only assholes link to incorrect answers.
It could be relative to a distant star, but it is not.
So it’s not anything.
Here is the answer you want:
"S appears to me to be the rate of rotation with respect to the red line between the origin and the rotating body."
You already made that clear, bob. You are trying to dismiss Ftop_t’s demonstration by suggesting that with motion like the MOTL, the body is only not rotating on its own axis "wrt the accelerated frame". Predictable.
In reality, it’s quite simple. The only way that the MOTL can be described as rotating on its own axis is if you combine translation in a circle (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion like the MOTR) with an internal axis rotation. If you instead combine rotation around an external axis with an internal axis rotation, you cannot get motion like the MOTL. Both the transmographer, and Ftop_t’s demonstrations, make that perfectly clear.
Trying to bring reference frames into it is just pure obfuscation, as it always is.
The problem with all that Chartmaster, and we have gone over this a few thousand times, is that the axis the Moon actually rotates around is not normal to the path it orbits.
So you need to argue in three dimensions, if you are up to it.
Arguments in two dimensions, like the transmographer and whatever Ftop has programmed can and are rejected.
Dismissed with prejudice.
"the axis the Moon actually rotates around is not normal to the path it orbits."
1) That is circular logic, bob, as you have to assume that the moon rotates on its own axis, in the first place, in order for there to be an axis and for that axis to not be normal to the path it orbits. Yet you are trying to use this supposed tilted axis as proof that the moon rotates on its own axis!
2) Why is it, when you guys lose one argument, you just try to shift the focus onto something else? Why can’t you just publicly accept that the transmographer, and Ftop_t’s demonstrations, show that we are correct on the rotation issue, and leave it at that?
“S appears to me”
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
It was a quote, Willard. bob said it, earlier.
“Here is the answer you want”
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
Well not Chartmaster, and here is why
“That is circular logic, bob, as you have to assume that the moon rotates on its own axis, in the first place, in order for there to be an axis and for that axis to not be normal to the path it orbits. Yet you are trying to use this supposed tilted axis as proof that the moon rotates on its own axis!”
First, I am not assuming the Moon rotates on its own axis, that is an observation, not an assumption. The supposed tilted axis is also an observation. It’s the combined observation of both the tilted axis and the rotation about that axis that refutes your argument that the Moon does not rotate.
2) Why is it, when you guys lose one argument, you just try to shift the focus onto something else? Why can’t you just publicly accept that the transmographer, and Ftop_t’s demonstrations, show that we are correct on the rotation issue, and leave it at that?
We haven’t lost any argument, your side fails to even argue, you just define your terms such that you believe you win the argument. In other words you define rotation such that the Moon is not rotating. S=0 where the Moon rotates once per orbit.
Or the Moon is not rotating with respect to the line from the Moon to the Earth, which is rotating.
You declare the Moon is not rotating in a rotating frame of reference.
I repeat all my previous comments on this thread, which refute your response.
Kiddo repeats the darnedest things.
Let’s help him out –
In how many equations can we find S, and why is S ruling over them as one parameter?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Let’s help Kiddo, who still insists in saying the darnedest things –
Find all the a‘s, and then delete them.
NB. Don’t forget those one can’t see without inspecting the equations!
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo says the darnedest PSTs.
If we skip to the end, what will be revealed is the same trick as the CSA truther guy’s.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
(Willard probably actually bothered going through and deleting all the as, even though you can just set s=0 and that sets a=0, thus achieving the exact same thing with no need to delete anything – how funny)
> you can just set s=0
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
(It won’t make him find how S is connected to the A’s, and how Flop hides his double accounting.)
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
(s is connected to a in line 5, Willard, as I pointed out earlier and Ftop_t tried to explain to you. There is no double-accounting, no trickery, no deception. Set s to zero and there is no internal axis rotation, and the object moves as per the MOTL. Use the transmographer with only the around a point rotation command, and the object moves as per the MOTL. No internal axis rotation whatsoever).
These arguments continue to show the complete lack of knowledge.
Bob says,
“Arguments in two dimensions, like the transmographer and whatever Ftop has programmed can and are rejected.”
You can show him Saturn rings and the fact that all Solar system planets traverse the same plane with the sun, but he thinks you can’t model a planar orbit on x-y coordinates.
Add dimensional knowledge to the list of items these clown’s don’t understand
https://earthsky.org/space/planets-single-plane/
This post up thread is the definitive proof on behavior based on the location of a single axis of rotation. It is repeatable and unassailable.
The problem is innumerate people do not understand the location of an axis of rotation no matter how explicit you are
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1226714
Copying here for ease of use
Bob does not understand the words “internal” and “external”
One axis of rotation at a coordinate
Start with a circle at centered at (10,0)
Axis of rotation at(10,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cpko82eksy
Now move the axis to the left
Axis of rotation at (9,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2ly7y3g8is
Axis of rotation at (8,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/deqdmtf3ik
Axis of rotation at (0,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
Each example only has one axis of rotation
… wrt to observing from the object at 0,0. However, wrt fixed cartesian coordinate system the green, black, blue and orange objects also have an internal axis of rotation which, for less numerate folks, that would be 2 axes.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Arguments in two dimensions, like the transmographer and whatever Ftop has programmed can and are rejected.”
Very true.
“You can show him Saturn rings and the fact that all Solar system planets traverse the same plane with the sun, but he thinks you cant model a planar orbit on x-y coordinates.
Add dimensional knowledge to the list of items these clowns dont understand”
FTOP are you denying that many planets have rotational axes that are not normal to their orbital planes???
Like, ya know, Earth?
The Moon certainly is one of those. It has a tilted rotational axis 6.7 degrees from its orbital axis.
If you are continuing to try to argue that the Moon’s elliptical orbit and axial rotation are ONE PLANAR MOTION, don’t bother.
There are too many facts that you would have to deny.
Like this very one.
“The problem is innumerate people do not understand the location of an axis of rotation no matter how explicit you are”
Yes, that is basically the problem. Then, when you conclusively demonstrate that motion like the MOTL involves only one axis of rotation, they want to change the subject onto other things rather than just admit that you were right.
The problem with Kiddo is that he always falls for BS artists like Joe or Flop.
Let a rotation R. Add anything to R, then R changes. That’s all there is to Flop’s argument. It’s hidden under the A he hid under most of his equations.
But R begs the question at hand. Instead of R, we could instead posit two complementary motions that together does the same thing as R. It’s really not hard to see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-_Uzzqgkk
And since the rotation Flop posits makes no physical sense whatsoever, the best he can accomplish is to pretend that constructing something else is IMPOSSIBLE. Which is easily refuted:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
Flop’s efforts were comical if they were not sad.
The only way movement like the MOTL can be comprised of two motions is if you combine translation in a circle with rotation around an internal axis. As has been explained ad nauseam. You cannot combine rotation around an external axis with rotation around an internal axis and get motion like the MOTL.
… but you can combine curvilinear translation around an external axis with rotation around an internal axis and get motion like the MOTL observed from outside its orbit, and green, black, blue and orange objects wrt the cartesian coordinate system (2 axes for innumerate folks).
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
NB: With DREMT and Gordon one should use the term orientation change in place of rotation around an internal axis. With Clint R, just specify if you are observing from “inside of it orbit” or not.
Semantic issues abound.
Seems Ball4 is finally beginning to understand…although obviously curvilinear translation in a circle (which is how the “Spinners” would describe the motion of the MOTR) does not involve an axis of rotation.
> With [Kiddo] and [Pup] one should use the term orientation change in place of rotation around an internal axis.
Granted, Ball. Still odd since a change of orientation implies a rotation. In return, you should not mention that orientation is relative to a frame of reference, for then Kiddo would repeat his copypasta.
While Flop left the building once again, let’s help him out:
And a appears in 9, 12, and 13.
And others.
How many?
So many.
Funny how that works.
Though I should just add that all of Ball4’s "N.B:" was pure trolling, as usual.
I will add Willard, with DREMT curvilinear translation does not involve an axis of rotation, it involves an axis of curvilinear translation thus:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/aptcowmv4p
green, black, blue and orange objects wrt the cartesian coordinate system and the MOTL still have 2 axes for innumerate folks.
As I said, Ball4, obviously curvilinear translation in a circle (which is how the “Spinners” would describe the motion of the MOTR) does not involve an axis of rotation.
> it involves an axis of curvilinear translation
I see what you did there, B4.
Do you think Kiddo has finished counting the a’s?
Trolls will be trolls.
> https://earthsky.org/space/planets-single-plane/
“The answer is yes … and no,” and this has little to do with Bob’s argument. Let’s try to help Flop a bit:
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/451-SCI-000958.pdf
Willard is always "trying to help" – implying that he has a superior knowledge of the subject – just another of his tricks. He doesn’t have a clue, really.
Kiddo flips the darnedest scripts while playing dumb.
Let’s indulge:
Bob is right, and Flop is once again biting more than he can chew.
I added the Dumb Player to his list of tricks.
Willard’s latest trick is to pretend that everything I say and do is a trick.
[K] You won’t explain P.
[W] Here it is: […]
[K] See? W is playing tricks!
Lying about what I said is another one of Willard’s tricks.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1231725
These fools literally can’t do basic algebra (SMH)
Here is Dullard,
“While Flop left the building once again, let’s help him out:
[S] is connected to a in line 5
And a appears in 9, 12, and 13.”
Line 5
a = degree_of_rotation/180 * s
When s = 0,
a = degree_of_rotation/180 * 0
a = 0
Now go to Line 9 and replace a with 0
(cos(a+pi/2)+10,sin(a+pi/2)+n)
Resolves to
(cos(pi/2)+10,sin(pi/2)+n)
In Desmos, it would look like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/knx3bjiiei
If Dullard wasn’t so obtuse, he could set “s” to zero and watch line 5 to see “a” will always stay at zero no matter what the value is in Line 2
A total maroon. I added a variable in Line 1 to make it easier for him to follow
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/sktya4uipr
Since the concept is hard, this should give him some practice
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/multiply-by-zero.html
willard…”Amid the ongoing Russian invasion, Ukraines National Security and Defense Council has reportedly banned the activities of eleven opposition parties with ties to Russia, and has merged the national TV channels in the country under one platform”.
***
Sounds really democratic to me. [Sarc /off].
C’mon, Gordo.
I’m all boot lickers like you prefer:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/OHCHR_seventh_reportUkraine20.11.14.pdf
The Vostok Battalion has succulent boots for you.
Speaking of the UN, where are those sniveling, stinking cowards? What have they ever done other than lie to the world about climate change?
Speaking of the Vostok Battalion, Gordo, more manly love:
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/76743/McGeady_TD_T_2017.pdf
Less ranting and more reading would help your thinking.
stephen a…”Youre forcing me to side with the Chihuahua. Stop doing that! Theres no excuse for Russia to attack a sovereign nation. They have to work out their affairs internally”.
It’s not as simple as that, Stephen. The Ukraine was formed by the Russians in 1918 and there’s not that great a distinction between them, if at all. They shared the same country for 70 years and Russians integrated with Ukrainians. Putin regard Ukrainians the same as Russians.
Suddenly, circa 1991, Yeltsin announced they were on their own. I guess he was particularly drunk that day.
Like Russia, they were meant to form democracies, but how can countries who have never experienced democracy understand what that means? We in the West could have helped. but as one foreign policy analyst claimed, instead, we decided to punish them for the Stalin years. Made no sense to me, but Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, absolutely hates Russians. I think she was frustrated over Lying Willie jilting her all the time, then lying about it.
How the heck will they ever experience democracy if we carry on this insane hatred toward them? Putin has been claimed to have an interest in returning Russia to its former strength but there is no real indication of that. Gorbachev claimed he was a good guy and could have reverted to his old KBG ways but did not. In his 20 years of influence he has shown no interest in expanding Russian boundaries.
I know nothing about Putin because I refuse to accept Western propaganda about him. I am hoping he gets the opportunity to prove he has good intentions but that won’t happen with current US foreign policy.
Since the Ukraine was formed, it has been anything but a model of democracy. The freedom encouraged fascist, white supremists to perform their dark ideology. Since the 1990, the Ukraine has had white-supremists like Oleh Tyagnibok and Andriiy Biletski running around preaching anti-Semitism as part of the Ukrainian government. They deny that when challenged but both are on record as having uttered anti-Semitic sentiments.
During WW II, the Ukraine became divided between Nazi supporters in the west and Russian supporters in the east. Why would it be a revelation that such a division exists today?
The Russians were letting them settle their own differences, for 8 years, but the civil war had descended into war crimes in places thanks to fascist idiots. You cannot arm neo-Nazis, take them into the Ukrainian army, and expect them to behave.
Would the US sit back under similar circumstances and watch US citizens being attacked by neo-Nazis wearing Nazi symbols on their helmets and flags? I get it that pro Bolshevik idiots likely still exist among Russians but what will bring them out of the shadows is neo-Nazis. Before 2008, when the fascists over-threw a pro-Russian president, there was no bother with them.
*****************************
“If the pro-Russia Ukrainians dont like being Ukrainians, then let them move to Russia”.
***
That’s essentially what they are doing but they are trying to form independent nations rather than join Russia. Putin has expressed no opposition to that move.
And, what is the Ukraine essentially, other than a country created by default? No one gave any thought to the possible issues that could arise. No one foresaw neo-Nazi elements trying to take control.
Don’t forget, the neo-Nazi ideology is to eliminate all Ukrainians who are not Aryan. They started that ethnic cleansing in WW II with the help of the real Nazis. They don’t regard Russians as Aryan even though the word Caucasian is derived from the southern Russia in the Caucuses.
The best solution is to get rid of the fascists and you need to ask your own government why they are supporting these SOBs.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://khpg.org/en/1440810795
I got to admit that you have an ethos.
If there are fascist element in Russia, or who are Russian, get rid of them too.
Wiki does a decent definition…”Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy…”
Problem is, there can be economic fascism in a democracy. Suppression of the poor by the wealthy, for example, or by race or ethnicity.
Our Prime Minister, in the past has expressed admiration for the Chinese form of government and he included the fascist dictator Castro as a family friend. Recently he had no problem pulling out a rare war emergency act against the trucker protest, going so far as to freeze the bank accounts of people who had contributed to them.
We have learned to tolerate such inequalities but when it gets to the point of armed thugs assaulting people in a democratic country, we need to draw the line.
I would much prefer that politicians be honest with us but they are so deeply steeped in lying it seems they can’t help themselves. They have the media lying on their behalf. It’s frustrating to me but most people to whom I complain shrug their soldiers and ask what can be done. We are too fat and comfortable to care and as long as the liars and cheaters in government keep that intact for the majority, not much will change.
I have little doubt that our Canadian government operates from agendas they won’t tell us about. It is a smugness that they know better than the rest of us what is best for us. For example, one of them a while back claimed about global warming that it doesn’t matter if the science is wrong, they are doing the right thing by introducing carbon taxes, etc.
I resent that kind of paternalism for the simple reason those who are in control are freaking idiots. It amazes me that people can be so stupid and survive. I am currently reading an account of the UK going into WW II and the amount of blatant stupidity about Hitler and his apparent plans.
The stupid and privileged wealthy have been calling the shots far too long. I fear they have been calling the shots in the Ukraine as well, and we now see where it has led.
> I fear
C’mon, Gordo.
Of course you do. Hush hush. It’ll be alright. Let me tell you a bedtime story:
https://www.dw.com/en/who-are-the-masked-mercenaries-in-ukraine/a-17686984
Sleep well.
”Fascism is a form of authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy…”
There, fixed it for you.
Green is a form of fascism
Trudeau’s Liberals are left wing fascists.
The inclusion in the definition using ‘far-right’ isn’t correct.
The labels far right and far left really don’t mean anything at all except as labels used to tar one group or other.
> authoritarian ultranationalism
There. Simple refutation of your usual screed.
fascism is only right within the socialist philosophy. Right has taken on the mantle of individual rights and self determinism. Nothing at all fascist about that. Trump is only a nationalist because he wants to be the President of the US. Most libs prescribe to globalism, a shared philosophy with communism.
You’re just saying stuff, Bill.
Please move away slowly from that high horse of yours.
true stuff Willard.
if you want to object to one of the statements bring an argument rather than an ad hominem
You’re arguing by assertion again, Bill.
No need to counter any of them.
Mussolini defined fascism.
‘Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State’
Without a Bill of Rights that broadly defines individual rights you are completely 100% within the realm of socialism.
If you don’t know that you are politically illiterate
Sure, Bill.
Benito defined fascism, and you’re saying stuff.
The circle is complete.
Indeed Willard. Benito was the head of the first fascist state. Not that he didn’t have professional advisors such as a professor of philosophy that aided Benito in writing the fascist manifesto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile
What fascism has in common with socialism and communism is the absolute superiority of the state (whether democratic or authoritarian) over the individual. In the case of democratic socialism the state still has absolute control over the individual via the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.
But the American conservative right elevates individual rights above that of the state. An example:
https://mikejohnson.house.gov/7-core-principles-of-conservatism/
So does that really sound like fascism to you? Or is it a false flag operation?
“What fascism has in common with socialism and communism is the absolute superiority of the state (whether democratic or authoritarian) over the individual. In the case of democratic socialism the state still has absolute control over the individual via the dictatorship of the majority over the minority.”
Hyperbole.
Democracy and Constitutional rights, and all the freedoms that entails, free press, freedom of speech, religion etc, is the polar opposite of a Fascist dictatorship.
Nate,
“Hyperbole”
Don’t you see that what you are doing here is obfuscation, making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible? Hyperbole is making exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. Bill makes a statement that could use some qualification in the sense that majorities are hardly dictators. But the consequences to the minorities can be just as severe in the context of democratic mob rule.
Your use of the term “polar opposite” is much closer to hyperbole. The Bill of Rights’ freedoms you cite are in the Constitution to protect the minority from democratic majority rule. That was, I think, Bill’s point which you obfuscate by including individual/minority freedoms with Democracy as part of the opposite of Fascism.
Here, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism
You share the same problem as Chic: drinking Murican Troglodytes’ Kool-Aid without having a proper education led you to believe that statism implied leftism.
At least you tried.
Chip continues the theme of defending contrarians regardless of their rationality, morality, sanity.
“what you are doing here is obfuscation”
This word used to have meaning. But after being abused so often by fools like Chip, it has become meaningless.
If you thought I was trying to defend Bill, you totally missed the point. You have a psychological need to subvert most others comments, especially if they have anything in opposition to your AGW religious faith.
The only thing I’m foolish about is continuing to argue with someone who has no data, no models, and yet frequently misrepresents the views of other commenters. That’s why you remain King of Obfuscation.
Chic Bowdrie says: Bill makes a statement that could use some qualification in the sense that majorities are hardly dictators.
————————–
I did qualify it. I stated that unless individual rights are granted (e.g. from for a constitution.) Majorities will dictate to the minorities in a democracy. There may be also other factors and issues that can intervene to drive a wedge into the majority. . . .but then its no longer a majority.
Because of the latter condition where majorites can’t broadly settle on which levers of power to pull they will dictate to minorities. We see it all the time with laws shot down due to courts determining the law is a violation of rights.
The point is authoritarianism isn’t limited to single individuals and the primary uniting force of the conservative right is on individual rights. . . .while the left constantly complains about being unable to modify them as they see fit.
Of course that doesn’t make our left socialist. Just perhaps socialist leaning favoring the power of the state over the individual.
Free Enterprise capitalism for example is a manifestation of the conservative right. And it is equally opposed by socialists, fascists, and communists. . . .not to speak of some elitists and royalty and aristocracy who may deceitfully claim to support capitalism because they might at the moment be making tons from it while pushing socialist agendas and regressive regulation and taxes.
We condone a great deal of socialism for the purpose of maintaining a healthy society so the above is merely to point out that even the worst conservative isn’t a fascist. He can be a number of other things that are undesirable like a racist but a fascist he is not. Claiming otherwise is just smoke and mirrors.
Willard says:
You share the same problem as Chic: drinking Murican Troglodytes Kool-Aid without having a proper education led you to believe that statism implied leftism.
At least you tried.
—————————
Who is drinking the kool-aid Willard?
Liberalism in its traditional sense is exactly about individual liberty. Liberalism in the 19th century bears no resemblance to liberalism in the 21st century. Today its all about being a member of the uniform briefcase drill team or potentially being punished, losing your job, or called a denier.
And of course democracy with legally granted inalienable rights is the heart of so-called ‘right’ conservatism. Its a double layer of protection. . . .sort of like two-step login verification. Add in federalism and you get yet another layer of protection against the totalitarian nature of states.
And socialism is a broad term but always means some kind of ‘statism’ even if that ‘state’ is global in nature.
Look, if you guys are conservative, fine. If you are opposed to policies of the modern Left, fine. Im opposed to some of it.
The problem with political polarization right now is that people feel the need to demonize people who they disagree with. To compare liberal or left-leaning policies to Fascism or Stalinism is hyperbole. It is demonizing.
Nate says:
The problem with political polarization right now is that people feel the need to demonize people who they disagree with. To compare liberal or left-leaning policies to Fascism or Stalinism is hyperbole. It is demonizing.
———————–
In general I agree with you on that Nate.
But there are plenty of people demonizing every single political philosophy in the world and each has examples they can use to push the demonization. Yet fascism, communism, democratic socialism, democratic capitalism/free enterprise have no evil at their core.
The philosophies of communism were developed out of some capitalistic abuses. Fascism arose out of hatred for the abuses of both communism and capitalism. They all sought to improve things and were supported as institutions that could end evil rather than create it.
The problem with all the forms of socialism are the same. When power is concentrated problems emerge. Evil can seize it and use it for evil. in fact it is next to inevitable it will happen. and it doesn’t happen because the proponents of those political philosophies are demons. Demons just show up and find ways to use that concentration of power to their own benefit at a cost to everybody else including the original proponents.
“The problem with all the forms of socialism are the same. When power is concentrated problems emerge. Evil can seize it and use it for evil. in fact it is next to inevitable it will happen.”
In Europe there have been a number of democratic socialist countries operating for over 75 y since WWII without being ‘seized by evil’.
“A lady asked Dr. [Ben] Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?’
“A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.”
No mention of democratic socialism. Here is the danger of democratic socialism:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
Nate says:
”In Europe there have been a number of democratic socialist countries operating for over 75 y since WWII without being ‘seized by evil’.”
they all have capitalistic institutions and degrees of individual rights including private ownership of capital assets.
Further the differences are quite stark. Bernie Sanders wanted to use Scandinavian countries as examples of the socialism he wants.
But its all a lie.
Scandinavian countries tend to measure higher on the capitalism scale than even the US. They generally don’t have minimum wages. While they pay higher marginal tax rates the tax rates are far flatter meaning the entire population pays taxes with much lower rates of progressive taxation. Scandinavian country governments also fund both public and private education. . . .resulting in a better educated population not burdened by pure socialist propaganda that tends to come out of super large public education socialist leaning unions with huge political powers. i could go on for a long time on this. i have already acknowledged some degree of socialism is necessary but its important that it doesn’t overly influence education, that it doesn’t discourage a sense of personal responsibility and as a result undermine incentives to improve oneself as opposed to whiling away ones life in seeking handouts, nor does discourage the building of typical and extended family relationships.
Sounds like Bill is making the case for democratic socialism.
And Chic is suggesting democracy is doomed
King Nate cannot help himself. He must know when he obfuscates that badly, I will call him on it.
Nate, the doctor is in. If I can’t help you, I’ll find someone who can.
Nate says:
Sounds like Bill is making the case for democratic socialism.
———————-
Nope! More like democratic capitalism.
Socialism philosophy is ‘from those who can to those who need’. . . .but they left out the part about ‘from those who will’. In accounting that is called an overly optimistic projection. So indeed socialism as a cure for that. Check out how China handles the Uyghur problem. And of course there won’t be any tolerance for those who kneel or don’t show up for the anthem either.
Fascism gets misrepresented and has been since the communists started calling the reluctant middle class fascists. The communists still do that. But Mussolini described it correctly as he invented it.
”political doctrines pass, but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State.”
Chic declares “Here is the danger of democratic socialism:”
Then what follows is discussion of the dangers of democracy.
Who is the obfuscatician here?
OK, Bill is advocating for the kind of social welfare system they have in Scandinavian countries. Most American progressives would be with you on that, Bill. I guess you are a liberal.
“Who is the obfuscatician here?”
Your penultimate sentence in your penultimate comment self indicts you, Nate.
Nate says:
April 4, 2022 at 8:41 PM
OK, Bill is advocating for the kind of social welfare system they have in Scandinavian countries. Most American progressives would be with you on that, Bill. I guess you are a liberal.
————————
where did i say i was advocating that?
And who would like that is likely pretty much limited to the government workforce providing those services and a number of elitists with more money than they need who are so superior to everybody else and believe they know what is good for everybody else whether they want it or not, and those who pay no taxes because either they are layabouts or dope peddlers, etc. always on the alert for a freebee.
And of course once that combination makes up more than 50% of the vote you may as well declare both freedom and democracy dead.
Ukraine is a country with a long history. Long before Russia even existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
‘The Ukraine’ is a Russian term which just shows your prejudice.
Gordon Robertson
Why is a man of the far Right like yourself not supporting the far Right in Ukraine?
It’s fun watching Willard trying to get in touch with intelligence.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s your skinny jeans’ fault.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Imagine if we could increase the ocean temperature by .5 C per 100 years.
So, average ocean temperature of 4 C by 2122 AD
4.5 C by 2222
5 C by 2322
5.5 C by 2422
and 6 C by 2522 AD.
But you might say, that so far into future, is not any way we warm the ocean quicker?
It might be possible. But first, what world look like if the average temperature of ocean was 6 C rather than it’s average temperature of 3.5 C ?
Russia is talked about a lot. If ocean average temperature was 6 C, Russia would have plenty warm water ports.
And this is what Russians have wanted for centuries.
Now these ports are not that warm, but they are warm as the Russian have ever wanted.
Now, some might ask if ocean was 6 C, would that cause the Greenland ice sheet to melt?
I think it might, but I not certain it would. History seems to indicate it would.
It seems to me, Earth has not had 6 C ocean in the last 10 million years.
And the Greenland ice sheet formed within the last 2 million year during a time our global icehouse climate has cooled.
But it seems history indicates that if the ocean was only 4 C, the greenhouse ice sheet has survived with 4 C ocean for thousands of years.
Now it seems 4 C ocean doesn’t give the Russians a warm water port, but 4.5 C ocean might be enough. Or maybe it’s warm water port unless there is bad weather which hinders operation by some amount.
But what more important than warm water ports for Russia, is the greening of Sahara Desert.
The Sahara desert has always been green when average ocean temperature has been 4 C [or warmer}. And when ocean 4 C the great northern forest is larger.
” But first, what would the world look like if the average temperature of ocean was 6 C rather than its average temperature of 3.5 C ? ”
Warm the bulk ocean by 1C and thermal expansion raises sea level by 1.2m.
Your scenario raises sea level by 60cm /century. 2.5C would raise sea level by 3 metres.
At present about half of sea level rise is ice melt. Add that in and your scenario would raise sea level by 2.4m/century to 6m.
How much thermal expansion have we had in last hundred years and how much has ocean warmed?
Well, I ask question, but I am impatient, so I say roughly 2″ [5 cm]
per .1 C.
I think 4 C ocean could start the Sahara desert to green significantly. I also think the arctic regions [which are frozen deserts] will get more rainfall, and regions which have frozen tree stumps from trees more 5000 years ago will grow more trees.
And when got 4.5 C ocean, Sahara desert will be mostly grassland and other tropical deserts will get less dry, and you get more trees in polar region.
When ocean is 5 C, Earth land surface will be less than 1/10th desert as compared to current more than 1/3rd land area being desert. And add lakes where there is no lakes, and globally water tables will rise- one can drill shallower wells to get water. And present dry well becomes a wet well. Water in well at 200 feet is perhaps water at 100 feet. And this lowers sea level by significant amount. Also if deplete ground water, land sinks, but adding to ground water, it reverses.
Also it seems one can get more snow- mountains can get increase in snowpack. California gets more snow, California becomes less desert/droughts.
Canada is cold and dry. Canada is still fairly cold but is wetter. Same with Russia. A wetter world turns grasslands into forests- Canada get a lot more trees. Africa when it cooled had forests become grasslands, so grassland turn back into forests.
If like lots of grasslands and don’t want more tree, you gain grassland from deserts, but lose grassland to forests.
And we could get shortage of CO2.
Also the driest desert in Antarctica, could also get wetter.
” The driest place on Earth is in Antarctica in an area called the Dry Valleys, which have seen no rain for nearly 2 million years. ”
https://www.universetoday.com/15031/driest-place-on-earth/
Earth ocean has not been 6 C in 2 million years.
“6. Antarctica is the driest continent; it is almost entirely desert. Very little snow or rain falls on the continent, but because it is so cold, the small amount of precipitation that does fall does not melt.”
https://mission-blue.org/2012/11/10-fun-facts-about-antarctica/
Sea level is up by 8″ or 200mm.
Half of that ,100mms would be thermal expansion of 36,000 cubic kilometres and an average temperature change of 0.08C.
AR6 and Sea Level, Part 3, A Statistically Valid Forecast
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/ar6-and-sea-level-part-3-a-statistically-valid-forecast/
A proper analysis of the data leads to a forecast of roughly 20 cm (~8 inches) of sea level rise by 2100. In the year 2100, our descendants will know who was right.
Only 203 mm/8 inches by 2100 is projected by the statistics.
Well I am talking terraforming Earth by mixing the warmer surface ocean and colder deeper water. If remove too much warm surface waters, it would lower global average surface temperature.
Rather than lowering global air temperature too much [and costing more money] I was thinking keeping about the same.
Nature of course does this- but I thinking of increasing it by using machines.
What is better, 3 C ocean or 5 C ocean?
What is advantage of a 3 C ocean?
Is possible we could get 3 C ocean within say 500 years?
How about 3.3 C ocean or 4 C ocean.
Is either possible within 100 years?
Which is better?
getting back on topic
norman..”There is a radiant barrier, that is a fact…. Energy emitted by the Earth surface (large amount, nearly all of it) is absorbed by the atmosphere. Only a fraction makes it directly to space from the surface (atmospheric window). It is around 10%”.
***
Actually Norman, you have it almost backwards. Only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed.
**************************
The science says the GHG in the atmosphere lower the amount of radiation emitted to space.
***
How can GHGs making up no more than 0.31% of the tropopause, lower the amount of radiation emitted to space? That’s part of the fallacy that GHGs in the atmosphere slow the rate of heat dissipation from the surface. There’s no way that gases absorbing 5% of surface radiation can do that.
R. W. Wood pointed that error out a while back. He was an expert on gases like CO2 and could not see how they could possibly warm the atmosphere. He reasoned a better explanation was that the majority gases in the atmosphere, N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, collected heat from the surface via conduction then transported in vertically.
Once collected, the N2/O2 cannot release the heat via radiation or via a reduction in pressure till the gas reaches an altitude at which hat dissipates naturally.
Gordon Robertson
Why the false information again and again? Why must this be your goal?
YOU: “Actually Norman, you have it almost backwards. Only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed.”
Okay BS artist that you are, I will call out the BS flag and ask you to provide support for this absurd statement of yours. Where does this come from?
Find me where R.W. Wood made this statement.
Basically you just make stuff up and act like it is some type of fact. Why do you keep doing that?
Norman
He doesn’t realise the information is wrong. Gordon learned it when young. It became part of his beliefs and nothing we tell him or show him is going to change his mind.
Since he’s not a decision maker it doesn’t matter what he believes. Best leave him to it.
“How can GHGs making up no more than 0.31% of the tropopause, lower the amount of radiation emitted to space?”
Are you saying that it has no effect?
Gordon Robertson
Try adding 31ml of ink to 1 litre of water. How much radiation does the mixture absorb from light shining through it?
Our open transparent ocean, absorbs more sunlight because it’s very transparent.
[[If our atmosphere was ideally transparent to all wavelength, any wavelength from surface mostly does NOT go straight up. Or most of radiation does not thru just 1 atm of atmosphere.
But anyhow nothing is ideally transparent- expect phony models- whether in your head or run thru a computer.
Or even the nothingness of outer space, has somethings in it.
And even the ideal nothingness of space, one would in theory, one still have inverse square law.
Our sunlight is directed light, which when after going thru 1 atm gets 1120 watts per square meter of direct with 70 watts of it indirect sunlight at surface. Leaving 240 watt [1360 – 240 = 1120 watts] which is scattered/reflected and/or absorbed. And anything emitting is not directed light [it’s light going in random direction]. [And of course only small portion of Earth gets sunlight just going though 1 atm of atmosphere. Or roughly if not in tropics, you don’t get it, and if in tropics only a portion of day, do you get it, and need clear skies at such times.] ]]
0.31% of all molecules. But all molecules do not have the same optical properties.
This should not a difficult concept for you, Gordon. Why is it?
Consider that ruby and sapphire are both Aluminum-Oxide.
The only difference being which impurity is present in a teeny-tiny percentage.
you are correct Gordon. these guys haven’t yet figured out that the science already concedes the general greenhouse model doesn’t work.
but they have no idea what science is currently hypothesizing on how it does work. i think they are wrong. but there is no way of exposing it as the models don’t operate from established physics and they continue to use the discredited greenhouse model without saying they are far up in the atmosphere where hot spots are hypothesized. best to treat their army of zealots like a mushroom farm. . . .keep them in the dark and feed them shitt.
You’re pontificating again, Bill:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
https://climateball.net/but-science/
I can say definitively the initial pre-feedback forcing applied to the surface is not calculated via physical laws. Manabe and Wetherald isn’t pure physics but instead is applied physics and its applied in ways not fully understood. One cannot either prove nor disprove the M&W hypothesis which lies on top of a logical fallacy.
If it rains the sidewalks will get wet
The sidewalks are wet
Therefore it rained.
You certainly can say stuff definitively, Bill.
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/ktgni8bFfZQ
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Solar not work.
Spain’s solar energy crisis: 62,000 people bankrupt after investing in solar panels FRANCE 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gbisTsj2w
How times change:
https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2013/05/06/inenglish/1367842178_377183.html
there is a big difference in operational profitability when the power delivery wiring is about 50 feet long and enclosed inside a building vs about 200 miles long and exposed to the elements.
but in order for the liberal politicians to profit personally they can’t cede that control to the end customer.
Indeed, Bill. And there’s a big difference with LCOE of things that work and things that don’t:
https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
Even Nuke shills app can’t hide that solar is cheap.
That being said, people ought not be seduced into undiversified yet risky investments. If true, that sucks. Nevertheless, investors should do their homework:
https://www.pv-tech.org/economics-not-tenders-driving-spains-solar-resurgence/
The same applies to Climateball players.
i was building cost effective solar energy in the 1970’s. industry largely died in the 80’s due to FF dropping to lower levels. Probably largely due to the capital asset bulk initial costs and zero recognition of it by the lending biz.
but that approach doesn’t allow for socialist redistribution of wealth. that is only achieved with centralized control.
politicians are also aware that all they have to do is raise the price of fossil fuels enough to cover twice the cost of centralized solar vs decentralized solar.
Cool story, Bill.
As Willard posted, Ken’s link is a woeful manipulation.
Mariano Rajoy did the unthinkable: he let backtrack subsidies for solar power installation provided by the former government!
Incredible but true: Rajoy had at that time really the chutzpah to publicly explain why he did it! His aim was to protect the huge investments of the greatest electricity providers in Spain.
Long before becoming Spain’s PM, he was one of their ‘best friends’.
So what!
I see that Australia has flooded again.
https://www.bbc.co./news/av/world-australia-60928153
When do you ENSO experts expect the current La Nina to stop dumping rain on eastern Australia?
According to Bindidong La Nina gone by April forecast the rains and flodings should stop tomorrow.
Last chance
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif
Everyone makes money off the scam.
https://www.newsweek.com/isis-operative-charged-covid-scam-doj-allegedly-sold-fake-ppe-online-raise-money-terrorist-1524955
Scientists build circuit that generates clean, limitless power from graphene
““An energy-harvesting circuit based on graphene could be incorporated into a chip to provide clean, limitless, low-voltage power for small devices or sensors,” said Paul Thibado, professor of physics and lead researcher in the discovery.”
https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/scientists-build-circuit-that-generates-clean-limitless-power-from-graphene
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Like a phone?
I like a phone which all it does is make phone calls and doesn’t need batteries. Even if all it could do is do a 5 min call every 4 hours. Power plus enough capacitors for 5 mins.
And more survivable than a bic lighter.
Again, utter bullshit by Robertson:
” R. W. Wood pointed that error out a while back. He was an expert on gases like CO2 and could not see how they could possibly warm the atmosphere. ”
Though having been corrected so many times, ignoramus Robertson bends the History of Science until it fits his egomaniac narrative.
For the umpteenth time: Wood has never been an expert on gases like CO2.
This is a pure lie.
Wood was not only an expert in visible light and nearby frequencies, i.e. UV and near IR: he was an eminent researcher in that field.
*
But with all due respect, it is easy to understand why Prof. Wood got into trouble when trying to falsify Arrhenius – based on a tiny note that even ends with self-doubt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MeAr0BeiFDwoknith1mb-rzvnYsoDvpM/view
when reading StanU Prof. emeritus Vaughan Pratt’s careful remake of Woods’ experiment:
https://archive.ph/Sh6XY
*
Robertson woefully and cowardly insults anybody whom he suspects to give results that do not fit what he expects. We have seen that very often (see Andrew Motte, Newton’s translator).
Insulting NOAA? No problem! This is a giant institution with a broad back.
But discrediting and denigrating Vaughan Pratt as a simple programmer? A man who received his doctorate with a widely acclaimed dissertation on sorting networks under the then computer science pope Donald Knuth?
What the heck is this ignorant cheating SOB Robertson, compared with people like Pratt? A dog poo.
Bindidon, I’m sure Gordon enjoys your meltdowns as much as I do.
But, if you ever become interested in reality, there’s a couple of things you should know:
1) Newton was the first to realize that gravity steered an orbiting body. This was after his earlier work with Principia. He used his calculus to make that discovery. A non-rotating, orbiting body would continue not rotating. That is, one side would always face the inside of its orbit. It’s the same with the ball-on-a-string, or Moon. That’s the reality that you reject trying to protect your cult.
2) Pratt doesn’t have a clue about radiative physics or thermodynamics. He’s a programmer, both by education and experience. He’s a talented programmer, but probably knows less about thermodynamics than a plumber.
Keep this, you may understand it someday.
“A non-rotating, orbiting body would continue not rotating. That is, one side would always face the inside of its orbit”
That is your claim, not Newtons. He said that a non-rotating body would not rotate. Just like the MOTR.
Yes, a non-rotating body would not rotate. Just like a ball-on-a-string. Or Moon.
The MOTR is BOTH orbiting AND rotating.
You won’t understand any of this.
The MOTR is BOTH orbiting AND NOT rotating wrt the fixed stars.
Thanks for proving me right again, RLH.
The truth will set you free. The MOTR is both orbiting the Earth and not rotating wrt the fixed stars.
What you have to realize is the MOTR cannot exist because forces do exist that prevent if from existing. So the foundation of your argument is an illusion.
” Newton was the first to realize that gravity steered an orbiting body. This was after his earlier work with Principia. He used his calculus to make that discovery. A non-rotating, orbiting body would continue not rotating. ”
As always, I ask: show us, in Newton’s work, the original source of that nonsense.
I can do better than that, Bindidon. I can explain it with the very basic calculus Newton used. But, you must agree to not comment here for 90 days.
Do you agree?
” Newton was the first to realize that gravity steered an orbiting body. This was after his earlier work with Principia. He used his calculus to make that discovery. A non-rotating, orbiting body would continue not rotating. ”
As always, I ask: show us, in Newton’s work, the original source of that nonsense.
If you don’t respond with this original Newton source, then everyone here will know you lied.
Come on Bindidion, take the challenge. Take some time off. Maybe you can even accomplish something worthwhile.
Do you agree?
” Pratt doesnt have a clue about radiative physics or thermodynamics. Hes a programmer, both by education and experience. Hes a talented programmer, but probably knows less about thermodynamics than a plumber. ”
And here, you prove us that you are exactly of the same vein as Robertson: a coward who discredits, denigrates and insults, carefully hidden behind a pseudonym of course, persons having 10,000 times more brain than you.
That’s a false accusation, Bindidon. I didn’t “discredit, denigrate, or insult”. If fact, I stated he was a talented programmer. But that doesn’t mean he knows EVERYTHING. Radiative physics and thermodynamics are out of his field of expertise.
I’ve been to his website, where he discusses AGW. He just parrots the cult nonsense. Clearly he doesn’t understand the issue. Just like you.
Not a programmer, Pup.
A computer scientist.
The difference between a real blog contributor and a sock puppet like you.
It’s that steep.
willard…”Not a programmer, Pup. A computer scientist”.
***
Same thing. I took a required course in computer science as part of my engineering studies and it was all about learning to program. What other science would be related other than how to program a computer?
C’mon, Gordo.
One outputs theorems and languages with enough coffee and chocolate bars for input.
The other outputs buggy programs for twice the time and the amount of input.
Computer scientists can code, but usually it’s less buggy.
They think. You don’t.
For instance:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/chuconc.pdf
Tell me with a straight face that this is the product of a coder.
Poor Worthless Willard. He’s off on another of his trolling tangents.
No wonder even Norman sees through him. That puts Worthless Willard down with the whale dung.
Vaughan wrote theory, Pup, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Clint you should know by now that if you aren’t licking his arse like Bindidon. . . .you aren’t respecting him!
of course Willard doesn’t know what he is licking. he just has his tongue following the slime trail of Bindidon’s.
You’re licking puppet stuff again, Bill.
Willard just pointing out that ‘a tongue following a slime trail’ is ‘a tongue following a slime trail’.
You’re not a slime trail, Bill.
Bindidon you bought into Pratt’s fraud.
As Roy showed with his experiments on the greenhouse effect producing one is impossible with a greenhouse like experiment and the small variances that are often found like around one degree is due to experiment construction difficulties.
Pratt did his probably ignorantly and web published it.
you have to realize that there is more than one way heat is transferred and Pratt screwed up using saran wrap with about 635 times the thermal conductivity of 3/8″ acrylic.
Pratt became aware of his error and repeated the experiment but won’t web publish the results. Probably too embarrassed. But leaving the old one up apparently he found politically convenient.
excellent mathematical explanation here…
http://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
Yep its quite amazing the guys in here keep bring up Pratt. Science moved on from the greenhouse model many decades ago. The curiosity of the alleged CO2 effect stems from an ignorance of atmospheric physics.
Way back in the 60’s Manabe and Wetherald provided the model to use that doesn’t allegedly rely on the simple greenhouse model rejected by Woods and ignorantly resurrected by Pratt and millions of others as clueless about climate as Pratt.
Pratt has to be an intelligent guy but a lot about his character is revealed by keeping that stupid experiment up on the web to misinform so many.
IMO, even M&W relies on the greenhouse effect. They just do it with a lot of layers in the atmosphere to make each individual effect so small that its not possible to reject. Everybody trying greenhouse experiments have trouble with small temperature differences between the control box and the test box.
Roy when through that problem here a few years ago with his home experiment.
binny…”Wood has never been an expert on gases like CO2″.
***
I guess Neils Bohr consulted him on the gaseous form of sodium, like the sodium vapour used in street lights that shine yellow, because Bohr was stupid.
In Wood’s bio, most of it applies to research with gases…
“His research interests included continuous absor.p.tion below head of spectral series; resonance-radiation and fluorescence; critical temperature for desposition of metal vapors as homogeneous films; transparency of alkali metals in ultra-violet; production of spontaneous incandescence of metals in cold atomic hydrogen; extension of Balmer series of hydrogen; infra-red and ultra-violet photography; destruction of polarization of resonance radiation by weak magnetic fields; physical and biological effects of high frequency sound waves; and diffraction gratings for astrophysical research”.
https://history.aip.org/phn/11611026.html
Note that Wood invented IR and UV photography. That means he had expertise in IR and he applied that expertise to IR related to CO2.
Here’s the original 1909 paper in which he describes his experiment and why he did it. It’s on pages 319-320 of the Philosophical magazine, vol 17.
https://archive.org/details/londonedinburg6171909lond/page/318/mode/2up?view=theater
Wood noticed that, based on what is known about the spectra of bodies radiating at the 55C observed in his experimental box, that radiation played hardly any role. he states..
“…the loss of temperature by the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection…”
“It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground…”.
Re Pratt…as Clint pointed out, Pratt was a computer programmer and committed a grievous error trying to replicate the Wood experiment. Rather than glass, he substituted plastic wrap. It was pointed out by another scientist (Nahle) who repeated the Wood experiment successfully that the plastic wrap caused excess warming due to trapping water vapour.
Here is Nahle’s rigourous repetition of the Wood experiment using at least 6 different variations.
https://static.climato-realistes.fr/2017/08/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect-Nasif-S.-Nahle.pdf
norman…”Actually Norman, you have it almost backwards. Only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed.
Okay BS artist that you are, I will call out the BS flag and ask you to provide support for this absurd statement of yours. Where does this come from? ”
***
Take the radiation spectra graph you are always posting and integrate it under the curve. That gives you the total radiation. Now calculate the area created by the so-called CO2 notch. That will give you the percent of CO2 captured by CO2. It was done and it came to about 5%.
I worked out the 5% from the number of watts under the notch which, if I remember correctly, was 28 watts out of whatever is claimed as the total radiation from the surface.
It should be obvious to you that the notch in the surface radiation spectrum allegedly created by CO2 is only a small part of the area under the total curve. About 5% of the area.
The problem with your graph is that the WV spectrum overlays the CO2 notch and there’s no way to see it from a satellite. Your graph is not created from actual data but from researchers speculating.
Gordon Robertson
The outgoing longwave spectra is not what is absorbed, it is what is emitted. Only about 40 W/m^2 of surface emission goes directly to space. All the rest is absorbed and reemitted at some point to space. Does that clear it up?
Only 10% of the energy emitted by the surface makes it to space, 90% is absorbed by atmosphere and clouds.
norman…”Only about 40 W/m^2 of surface emission goes directly to space. All the rest is absorbed and reemitted at some point to space. Does that clear it up?”
***
Like I said, you have it backwards and I showed you how to calculate it mathematically. The notch in your graph represents the infrared that CO2 allegedly absorbs (the 40 w/m^2 which is actually about 28 W/m^2). Look at the area around the notch, that is what is emitted to space, about 95% of it.
As R.W. Wood pointed out, it is subjected to the inverse square law and has barely any effect.
How does the inverse square law respond to an infinitely flat plane?
You want me to give you the answer or do you want to take a crack at the math.
It’s a rad con ranger problem and I am on the license.
The inverse square law only applies to point sources (or the spheres drawn around them).
Yes,
line sources and plane sources must be handled differently.
ken…”The inclusion in the definition [of fascism] using ‘far-right’ isn’t correct”.
***
I agree with your previous post, in principle, but we don’t start whining about fascist states until we lose our democratic rights through the policies of a right-wing dictator.
Don’t kid yourself about Trudeau being a left winger, He would never have gotten to be leader of the Liberals unless he cow-towed appropriately to the right-wing corporate minds who really run the party. Why do you think it is that corporations pay less than 18% income tax, most of which is likely written off or gotten back by hand-outs from the Canadian taxpayer? NDPer David Lewis got it right when he called them corporate welfare bums.
It was claimed Hitler’s Nazi government was socialist, which was a lie. Nazism has nothing to do with socialism it’s about the far-right mentality of dictators who take away peoples’ freedoms and force them to get in line. Or simply do away with them. The Nazis exterminated their own soldiers who balked, 10,000 of them in one case.
I do agree we approached fascism in Canada with vaccine passports and Trudeau’s meltdown, but we are far too fat and comfortable in Canada to do more than whine about it. Surprisingly, most Canadians simply accepted it and believed the bs.
You saw what happened when the truckers held a peaceful protest, both the right-wingers and the left-wingers freaked out. Socialist NDP leader Singh claimed the truckers were threatening to overthrow the government.
That’s called totalitarianism, not dictatorship, like Nazi Germany. The fact that Hitler saw eye to eye with Mussolini, who was a fascist, is proof. When the Italians captured Mussolini, Hitler sent in commandos to free him.
We need to get off this right-wing/left-wing bs and start talking to each other. I have nothing whatsoever against anyone becoming wealthy, and I applaud entrepreneurs who have done it by fair means, like Elon Musk. It’s the greedy, back-stabbers who get me, those who would watch someone die of poverty without offering the least bit of assistance, claiming it was their own fault.
Note that Elon Musk supported the truckers’ protest. Other like a Texas billionaire claimed he preferred dealing with unions because he knew where he stood re negotiations. Unions would never have made it had people not been treated shabbily by employers.
> I do agree we approached fascism in Canada with vaccine passports and Trudeau’s meltdown, but
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re becoming a classic of the genre.
willard…”Youre becoming a classic of the genre”
***
Don’t know what that means but is it along the lines of you being a legend in your own mind?
I’m sure you can teach us a thing or two about that, Gordo.
Here:
https://i.imgflip.com/6asw7f.jpg
“I agree with your previous post, in principle, but we dont start whining about fascist states until we lose our democratic rights through the policies of a right-wing dictator”
There still are mandates preventing some people at least 6 million from travel by train or plane and crossing the border for refusing to take an experimental medical treatment.
There are people being fired from their jobs for refusing to take an experimental medical treatment.
There are people who have had their bank accounts frozen by a petty tyrant who disagrees with their political view.
We are losing our right of access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.
Trudeau’s fiscal policies are deliberately destroying the value of our currency.
There is going to be major food shortages through deliberate destruction of the supply chain.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being shredded and you still pretend we live in a democracy.
I know you like keeping your head in a dark warm smelly place but its time to pull it out of there. This country is a fascist state and its going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
ken…I agree with all the points you are making but in a truly fascist state we would have neither the ability nor the right to vote him out of office. As it stands, only 32% of Canadians support and without the butt-kisser NDP he would not be in office.
I am not the least bit happy with the state of our country and where it is headed. I write to politicians all the time, registering my complaints, but they have it rigged so the mail is intercepted and someone else decides what the politician gets to read.
Even if they do read what I have to say, and even if they see the sense in it, they won’t act. There is an agenda they are following created by backroom idiots.
Anyone who thinks we live in a democracy is in a fantasy world.
The fact that you feel the need to sling ad homs and insults, even when someone agrees with you, is a sign you need to heed. It is obvious you are in an angry space which means you are caught up in your conditioning. You cannot think objectively from an angry space.
I have challenged you on this before, to prove me wrong in what I say. Thus far you have failed to do that.How the hell are we going to fix the mess our country is in if you and I cannot have a discussion without insults?
I really don’t give a hoot about insults, but I do recognize them for the mental garbage they are, that blocks communications.
> I agree with all the points you are making but
\o/
I can only hope that there will be another election, one in which there is more than one party, and that there still will be a country in which there is any value in voting. I am not feeling positive about it.
You’re right about the insults. I try not to make insults because they really take away from my arguments but sometimes I just can’t restrain them. My apologies.
While exploring websites I have not viewed for awhile, I uncovered some worthwhile comments on science, debates, peer-review and the like. The first noteworthy link comes from a sarcastic piece at Climate Scepticism roasting Naomi Oreski’s book “Trusting the Science” where Brad Keyes refers to “Teh Science.” The phrase actually has an entry in Urban Dictionary, “Completely politicized science: Teh Science says that you can never go back to normal even after you are vaccinated, and also that biological sex does not exist.” The latest US Supreme Court nominee should be included as a visual aid to the definition. Or the Disney Corp who will no longer say Ladies and Gentlemen.
https://cliscep.com/2020/05/27/hulk-mosh/
In his fifth comment at that link, Pete Ridley links to a comment by Duke Professor Robert Brown that was elevated to a WUWT post questioning the validity of scientific debate. Prof Brown responds to “Folks who engage in them don’t get it, folks who demand them don’t get it and folks who attend them don’t get it” with a vivid description of a shouting match involving a presentation he made during a physics meeting section on unsettled science. He writes,
“Humans become both emotionally and financially attached to their theories, in other words. Emotionally because scientists dont like being proven wrong any more than anybody else, and are no more noble than the average Joe at admitting it when they are wrong, even after they come to realize in their heart of hearts that it is so. That is, some do and apologize handsomely and actively change their public point of view, but plenty do not many scientists went to their graves never accepting either the relativistic or quantum revolutions in physics.”
He goes on to explain the financial realities that somewhat justify abrogating scientific integrity. “I was threatening to pull the bread from the mouths of their children, metaphorically speaking.” Climate change is a good arena for scientists struggling to secure grant money. Any proposal threatening climate (frogs, polar bears, coral reefs) and “their next grant is now a sure thing.”
Eventually, Prof Brown gets to the subject of peer review. “What many don’t realize is that peer review is not about the debate.” Instead of looking for grammar, clarity, logic, and quality, climate science reviews have been reduced to gate-keeping where a clique of researchers influence publications based on whether or not they support the humans-cause-climate-change meme. We may be amateurs and bloviators here or on any blog, but that alone cannot justify claiming our positions wrong simply because they are not peer reviewed. If you disagree with a position, make a better argument against it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Sorry, Oreskes’ book is “Why Trust Science.”
chic…Oreskes is a librarian not a valid researcher. In one of her papers she claimed that consensus is a valid form of science.
She was one of the original alarmists who claimed that 97% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic theory. She based that on a study involving about 1000 scientists where they were asked a question along the lines of ‘are you still beating your wife”. It’s a lose-lose question, if you say no, it suggests who have been beating her.
Oreskes is a wannabee scientist. In her book, Merchants of Doubt, she attacked three deceased skeptical scientists. Real class!!!
http://marshall.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/OKeefe-and-Kueter-Clouding-the-Truth-A-Critique-of-Merchants-of-Doubt.pdf
> a librarian
C’mon, Gordo.
You keep repeating the same crap over and over again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1085248
A CRITICAL characteristic of Science is objectivity. Where is the objectivity in Climate Science?
There is no objectivity, it’s all based on consensus and unvalidated climate models.
When did consensus supersede objectivity in science?
The inverse square law wasn’t wrong.
Clint was talking about measuring the temperature of a sphere from a given distance and field of view. You said the other guy was talking about a focused spot on the sphere from the same field of view.
Yes. The inverse square law is a real and important concept in physics.
No. Clint did not apply it correctly. Period.
tim…Clint applies the inverse square law in the same manner I do.
If you have an electric stove ring, heated till it’s red hot, and you hold your hand close enough without touching the ring, you will burn your skin. It’s not the radiation burning your skin it is super-heated molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. However, the radiation will have an appreciable effect.
If you pull your hand 1 foot away you can still feel the radiation and the heated air but 4 feet away you feel nothing. That’s radiation from a 1500 watts electrically-heated source and that’s how fast radiation drops off in intensity.
Wood was right. Within a few feet of the surface, surface radiation is essentially useless as a warming agent. The atmosphere is warmed by convection after heat is conducted from the surface to the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, they are the prime cause of warming in the atmosphere.
Sure GR, I cannot warm myself horizontally with an open fire as the temperature drops off too fast.
Idiot.
Gordon Robertson
You cling to every word of R.W. Wood like a “Linus Blanket”. I read your link. Basically he was offering his opinion and clearly said he had not researched the matter much. He was a very intelligent scientist but that does not mean everything he said was gold. We have multiple measuring systems he did not have at the time. We can directly measure the amount of radiation emitted by Earth surface as well as downwelling.
You do not understand the Inverse Square Law at all and no one can help you understand it.
Clint R does understand the Inverse Square Law but does not understand that so does everyone else. When they calculate the TOA longwave radiant energy to space they take that into consideration when they use the values they obtain to determine what the TOA radiant flux is.
“If you have an electric stove ring, heated till its red hot, and you hold your hand close enough …”
And you are mis-applying the inverse square law, too, as it applies to the original satellite measurements that were being discussed. Suppose you have a gun-style IR thermometer. Like this: https://www.mscdirect.com/product/details/49276371
If you hold it 1 cm above the stove ring, it will read the temperature of the ring (say 600 C). If you hold it 10 cm or 50 cm from the ring, it will … still read the ring as 600 C. The point is that the instrument tells the intensity of radiation (and hence the temperature) where the RING is, not where the CAMERA is. And in the same way, the satellite IR instrument is telling us the intensity of the radiation from the SURFACE, not the radiation at the ORBIT location 500 km up.
Art, During winter a year ago, I used an “radiant” (infrared) propane heater to warm my house. This past winter, I switched back to a “blue flame” device rated at the same BTU consumption, 30,000 BTU/hr. With the Infrared device, I could easily sense the radiant energy on the other side of my house, more than 20 feet away. Not so with the blue flame heater.
Your electric stove element has a rather small area and most of the energy leaves via convection without a pot or pan sitting on top of it. More than half the radiation leaves the sides and rear, given the geometry of the coil. I think that you should have used one of the many electric radiant heater instead. Learn some physics.
Dang Folkerts, do you know ANY physics, at all? The inverse square law is basic, and easy. You can’t seem to get anything right.
You can’t even spell “pedal”. Did you ever finish high school?
Do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pip.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perhaps Clint didn’t apply it correctly but had anybody specified how the measurement was obtained before it was specified after Clint’s post? Clint’s description of how the inverse square law should be applied was correct.
Bill: So how does the inverse square law apply to an infinitely flat plane that radiates energy?
It only applies to ‘point sources’ or spheres drawn around them.
Seems to me RLH that the discussion was about measurements of temperature that proved the insulation value of CO2:
”If you want an analogy that helps, consider insulating a heated object. The first insulation you put around the object will be powerful R32. You find it needs more so you put another layer of R20. It is not as effective as R32 but it does decrease the amount of heat leaving the heated object and its temperature rises. You continue to provide new layers of less effective insulation but each one has an effect. So adding more CO2 will increase the emission layer which will take place at a colder temperature and even with more CO2 the lower temperature (because the addition is linear but the radiant loss is to the 4th power so a change in temperature has more effect).”
I am not clear how a measurement from a set elevation establishes that. I also don’t see how the inverse square law applies either, but it seems what you guys are doing is trying to find anything you can to discredit Clint while ignoring the fact that what Norman was claiming isn’t proven by the measurements he is taking. So why not pick on Norman instead who is the declarant here or alternatively establish what Norman is claiming? Your criticisms seem every bit as irrelevant as the inverse square law appears to be in this case.
willard…”Computer scientists can code, but usually its less buggy”.
***
You mean a computer scientist like Bjarne Stroustrup who invented the C++ language? He is an authority on C++ because he created it, and he is also an expert programmer. You have to be a computer scientist to create a language.
In fact, I was stuck on the definition of a class in C++. From reading several books on it, I got nothing but obfuscated definitions, simply because the authors had no idea what they are.
Finally, I read a book by Stroustrup and he defined a class as ‘a user-defined type’. Simple as that.
A type in the C-language is a char = character, int = integer, float = floating-point value, etc. Those types are built into the C-language. When Stroustrup created C++ which is based on the C language, he added the ability to create types to suit your programming. One of them was the type class, which allows a good leeway for defining the class.
I am expecting rlh along momentarily to disagree with me, since he fancies himself as a programmer. My forte is reverse engineering, the opposite of programming but it’s handy to know how a program is put together if you are trying to take it apart as machine code. Of course, disassemblers help by converting the machine code to assembly language and some today are even converting back to C or C++.
> he is also
C’mon, Gordo.
See, the “also”? That’s where you’re giving me the point.
Besides, that the Canucks won’t make the playoffs, you can’t infer that the Sharks are the Canucks because they won’t make the playoffs either.
Think.
“he fancies himself as a programmer”
I have papers to prove it and over 40 years experience in the industry. I also do reverse engineering. Have done since the first time I used computers.
Professionally, not an amateur like you.
Based on C
“A successor to the programming language B, C was originally developed at Bell Labs by Dennis Ritchie between 1972 and 1973 to construct utilities running on Unix”
Well I would hope then that you know that C or C++++ or whatever does absolutely nothing to change ‘garbage in, garbage out’
for anyone interested in the math behind the Wood and Pratt experiments, see the following link.
http://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
entropic…”Try adding 31ml of ink to 1 litre of water. How much radiation does the mixture absorb from light shining through it?”
***
Non sequitur argument. Liquid and gas are two different environments with different properties. Liquid is made of molecules bonded together whereas the spacing between air molecules is huge in comparison.
Water is composed of molecules bonded loosely by weak hydrogen bonds but the molecules are touching. The distance between air molecules, especially at higher altitudes is immense in comparison.
Have you ever seen a liquid graded by density over 30,000 feet so the air pressure at that altitude is 1/3 what it is at sea level?
> Non sequitur argument.
C’mon, Gordo.
“Non sequitur” means “it does not follow.”
EM offered an analogy that works:
https://youtu.be/O1fJ3UuSFaU
Think.
willard…”Non sequitur means it does not follow.”
***
That’s right Willard, Entropic’s argument does not follow the argument that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere can warm it.
Alarmist tend to use such non sequitur arguments without getting it there is no relationship.
Another non-sequitur is that a body can start rotating when viewed from a different reference frame. That does not follow at all. It takes a force to start a body rotating and reference frames don’t supply forces.
You appear to be an expert applying non-sequitur arguments.
Thanks, Gordo. I kinda specialize in what I call fallacy fluff.
EM did not present a deductive argument. It could be made more explicit, however:
P1. Traces of stuff can have a big impact.
P2. Ink dye has a big impact on the opacity of a liquid.
P3. Many examples on demand.
P4. Same for CO2.
C. “But Trace Gas” is one of the silliest Bingo Square:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
“Another non-sequitur is that a body can start rotating when viewed from a different reference frame”
But the MOTR does NOT rotate wrt the fixed stars.
Gordon Robertson
“Non-sequitor”
I’ve clearly made a mistake.
In discussion with another STEM educated person I would normally expect them to recognise the analogy and the implications of my ink without any need to explicitly spell out all the reasoning steps involved.
You clearly do not qualify ad STEM educated and I shall take care to treat you as an uneducated layman henceforth.
Ent, would you also expect another “STEM educated person” to recognize that passenger jets fly backwards?
STEM — Stop Trolling Entropic Man
Yes, Pup.
You should not ask rhetorical questions that can be easily be answered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion#/media/File:Retrogradeorbit.gif
They only reveal how silly you are.
Worthless Willard, thanks for another example that you don’t understand ANY of this.
Clint R is just an idiot.
“Worthless Willard, thanks for another example that you don’t understand ANY of this.”
He really doesn’t. He just sort of…links to stuff, and hopes it makes him look intelligent. He is completely and utterly clueless on the subject of the moon’s (lack of) rotation.
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://www.demos.smu.ca/index.php/demos/astronomy/27-retrograde-motion
Thick.
Darnedest Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1220043
God, you are thick.
All motion is relative. See Newton.
Idiot.
Nevertheless, the moon issue transcends reference frames; by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, 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. That conclusion is false.
> by which I mean
Kiddo’s argument in a nutshell.
He says the darnedest things, like Humpty Dumpty.
I clarify what I mean. Willard does not. But then, Willard has no idea what he is talking about, so it would be impossible for him to clarify. He bluffs his way through, never with anything substantive to contribute, just hoping that the latest thing he links to has some relevance to the discussion in some way.
“the moon issue transcends reference frames”
except the MOTR does not rotate wrt the fixed stars but the MOTL does.
Kiddo’s so well behaved. He hears “frame of reference.” He regurgitates his line about transcendence, which has no relevance whatsoever here. So of course he’ll try to “explain” it, as if it would make his deflection more relevant.
He says the darnedest things.
RLH, the only way that the MOTL can be correctly described as rotating on its own axis is if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. The consideration of whether “orbit without spin” is like the MOTL or the MOTR goes beyond reference frames.
The problem here is that
“Nevertheless, the moon issue transcends reference frames; by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, 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. That conclusion is false.”
Chartmaster thinks there are only two reference frames, an inertial and a non-inertial frame.
In reality there is only one inertial reference frame, but there are an infinite number of non=inertial reference frames to pick from.
The MOTL and MOTR are both from the earth centered non-inertial reference frame.
The problem here is that bob has no idea what he’s talking about. For a start, I do not think there are only two reference frames. No point talking to bob about it, though. He can conclude as he wishes.
Though he should look at this video, first:
https://youtu.be/DbYapFLJsPA
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
[CHARTMASTER] that the [M]oon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt the accelerated frame
[BOB] Chartmaster thinks there are only two reference frames, an inertial and a non-inertial frame.
[CHARTMASTER] I do not think there are only two reference frames.
“the only way that the MOTL can be correctly described as rotating on its own axis is if ‘orbit without spin’ is as per the MOTR”
Newton would have agreed with that statement.
Willard gets everything wrong, as usual. There are three different reference frames just in the video I linked to. Two of them are inertial reference frames, centred on the Earth.
[CHARTMASTER] that the [M]oon rotates on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame
[KIDDO, WHO SAYS THE DARNEDEST THINGS] There are three different reference frames just in the video I linked to. Two of them are inertial reference frames, centred on the Earth.
OK, replace the highlighted “the” with “an”. I will try to be more careful about my every word, in future.
Chartmaster,
“The problem here is that bob has no idea what he’s talking about. For a start, I do not think there are only two reference frames. No point talking to bob about it, though. He can conclude as he wishes.”
Then you need to bone up on your English skillz, as you wrote
“Nevertheless, the moon issue transcends reference frames; by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, 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.”
We just went through all that, bob. Pay attention.
yep Willard has expressed his belief consistent with the nonspinner point of view. but he doesn’t even know how he did. quite simply he just parroting others around here who can’t accept that nonspinners actually believe the moon rotates and that rotation is a product of a fixed axis and earths gravity.
a curvilinear translation is one where the control is not a fixed axis but is one from which an instantaneous angular momentum can be calculated but the control and as a result the angular momentum is always changing because of the lack of a fixed axis and thus it is not a rotation.
spinners always want to ignore that angular momentum of an orbiting object as not being a rotation and require the axis be through the COM of whatever object they wish to define including chalked circles on the rotating deck of a merry-go-round.
Chartmaster,
“We just went through all that, bob. Pay attention.”
Yeah, you went through it, establishing that you don’t understand rotation and revolution.
And reference frames.
You will have to figure out why you are wrong here
“by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, 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. That conclusion is false.”
You claim that the Moon does not rotate only works in the Moon centered rotating reference frame.
Sorry for your loss.
Wrong, bob.
Chartmaster,
Have you ever tried making an empirical argument?
Bye, bob.
> a curvilinear translation is one where the control is not a fixed axis
Wrong, Bill. Try again. In fact, do as Bob suggests and make an empirical argument. Start with two coins.
Galileo sucked so much at maths that he had to make empirical arguments. He was still wrong most of the times, but at least he kept improving.
Sorry Willard but Madhavi specifies a rotation must have a fixed axis then provides examples of multiple axes and a lack of a fixed axis as something to not confuse you. . . .yet you remain confused.
So Chartmaster doesn’t believe in empirical evidence.
Brave Sir Robin runs away.
Still here, bob, still laughing at you.
P1. Pup misapplies the inverse square law.
P2. Gordo does the same.
What should we conclude?
We should conclude you’re the most ignorant troll here.
Wrongo, Pupino.
You’re the troll, I’m the slayer.
Here is proof:
https://www.latlmes.com/opinion/teenagers-spend-their-time-using-their-phones-is-it-worth-it-1
Willard, please stop trolling.
All is not rosy with Team Gordo:
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1509274348963741707
Probly just a coincidence:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/tsd6rv/russian_pow_wearing_a_belt_with_nazi_insignia/
” … does NOT rotate wrt the fixed stars. ”
Once again, sheer nonsense.
No astronomer would ever say that a celestial body rotates wrt the fixed stars.
All celestial bodies rotate (except for a few ignorant Contrarians).
Any non-rotating celestial body would soon get a massive wobbling orbit.
*
However, the rotation period of a moving celestial body can only be accurately observed/calculated if a fixed point in space (e.g. a star sufficiently distant with respect to the rotation period) is taken as a reference.
Newton has explained that in his Principia, and wrote : the Sun rotates view from Earth in 27.5 Eath days, but wrt the fixed stars, it rotates in 25.5 days.
Everything else is pure nonsense.
“All celestial bodies rotate”
except the Moon according to you.
That should have been GR or the clique.
“Any non-rotating celestial body would soon get a massive wobbling orbit”
but Earth’s Moon is somehow stable.
RLH wrote:
Of course, that’s the result of it’s rotation in an inertial reference frame. The Moon has angular momentum, thus it’s axis of rotation points in a nearly constant direction, except for the fact that it also also nutates.
Yes I know.
Swanson, aka “Willard Jr.”, Moon only has linear momentum. It is steered by the resultant of vectors acting on it. No angular momentum involved.
(Also, “its” is the possessive adjective. “It’s”, with apostrophe, is a contraction of “it” and “is”.)
As Blinny said, without some rotational inertia things become unstable fast.
grammie the pup thinks the Moon only moves in a straight line. What the heck is a “resultant of vectors”? What an idiot.
Willard Jr, if you had ever studied physics, you would know what vectors are. And, you would then understand what a “resultant” is.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Resultants
Maybe someday, if you ever graduate from keyboard school….
[PUP] Moon only has linear momentum. It is steered by the resultant of vectors acting on it.
[ALSO PUP] “When displacement vectors are added, the result is a resultant displacement. But any two vectors can be added as long as they are the same vector quantity. If two or more velocity vectors are added, then the result is a resultant velocity. If two or more force vectors are added, then the result is a resultant force. If two or more momentum vectors are added, then the result is…”
Here’s a simpler example. The simpler the better, for braindead cult idiots.
https://www.cuemath.com/resultant-vector-formula/
Even simpler, Pup:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i5d.htm
grammie should have said something like “resultant of forces”. The word “vectors” in his comment is meaningless without saying what the vectors represent. One might have assumed that he meant “velocity vectors” or “gravity vectors”.
Sorry. Thought this was GR. Another 2 points to boost the Moon/Earth barycenter.
Newton’s 3 Laws are a relative statement.
Turbulence, resistance, friction, etc. are part of the design. If we didn’t have them we wouldn’t be here. There must be effort or life doesn’t exist.
There is no ‘designer’.
Prove it.
You are all the proof needed.
This reminds me of the famous bumper sticker:
“God is dead.” — Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead” — God
Richard slides into his comfort zone of evasion, unable to answer the question. He who thinks he has the proof there is no designer should step forward with the proof.
You claim I am the proof. I am a highly complex biological unit that no one on Earth could reproduce. My system is so complex that researchers studying the human form for centuries still have no clue as to how it works as a whole or what constitutes life. They cannot even explain vision: the connection between light taken in through the lens and how it is processes to produce an image in its original, external position.
Best of all, my DNA in each cell, 3 metres of it wound on a bobbin in a diameter of 5 to 20 microns) contains codes which are read by RNA and used to produce proteins, the basis of life. In order to read the codes, the DNA has to be unwound so a specific part of it can be accessed and read.
Codes do not happen by chance.
If you think all that happened naturally as an evolution from primeval muds, then you are an idiot.
“We of Es Toch tell a little myth, which says that in the beginning the Creator told a great lie. For there was nothing at all, but the Creator spoke, saying, It exists. And behold, in order that the lie of God might be God’s truth, the universe at once began to exist”
Ursula K. Le Guin
rlh…Ursula is an idiot.
In your, rather worthless, opinion.
The evidence for a designer is substantially more than the evidence for randomness. Look at the periodic table.
Wrong.
It is amazing how each element differs from the next by an electron and a proton yet they can have very different properties. And, yes, the order is magnificent when you consider it is all depends on the equal and opposite charges of an electron and a proton.
I have been contemplating what makes an electron move, or what makes gas molecules in a gas move around. I can understand them bouncing off the walls of a container, but where does the initial momentum come from?
Supposedly, if we could reduce the container to 0K, the molecules would stop and gather on the bottom of the container. If that is the case, as you raise the temperature of the container from 0K, and the molecules regain some energy, why do they start to move?
A force is required for motion. Where would that force come from?
Amazing stuff.
Wrong, hug? Look at the Periodic Table. God’s looking back.
The many ways in which simple electrons, neutrons and protons can combine is truly wonderful. Does not require a God of any form to create that.
How did the “simple electrons, neutrons and protons ” get here, RLH?
How you do think?
Someone who glibly dismisses the Periodic Table doesn’t understand it. It is truly the work of a Mastermind.
Or it is natural.
If he existed I would ask him why Homo Sapiens are so badly designed.
Ent, just because you’re a braindead cult idiot, doesn’t mean that everyone is.
You’re responsible for your choices in life.
There’s nothing wrong with the design, it’s the trash stored in memory humans rely upon that is in error. The designer did not put the trash there, but he.she provided an alternate means of circumventing it.
It’s really hilarious, proving the designer had a sense of humour. Bhuddists call it the Cosmic Joke. He/she gave us a brain capable of embracing intelligence but he/she also gave us a colossal ego through which we create a serious illusion of omnipotence.
The solution offered is so simple, Shut the ego off, get serious, and look at the world and the universe without the garbage we call conditioning. Only then can we become aware of the wonderful mechanism we take for granted. And it is a wonderful mechanism that could never possibly be created by chance, as in evolution.
There is no designer.
Gordon,
Study up on evolution, it does not operate by chance.
Evolution doesn’t “operate” at all. Evolution is a false religion. It ain’t science.
Science is evolution. Only the clique would think otherwise.
Entropic man at 12:57 PM
My wife says He is a She and wears Manolo Blahniks.
Education is like climbing a tower.
You start at the bottom and you can’t see far. You think that the little you know is most what there is to know.
As you learn, you climb higher and your horizons expand even faster than your kmowledge.
You realise that what you know is only a small proportion of what there is to know.
I’ve spent a lifetime becoming more ignorant. : – )
entropic…after that inane pontificating I can see why you are so confused about the Moon, the climate, and most other matter you talk about.
Gordon, it would be better for you to remain silent, rather than comment and demonstrate your foolishness.
That’s how it goes.
More you know, know that there is a lot of people which know more about something and it seems that sum of all knowledge knows very little.
And also it seems we used to know more about some things- and it was lost or not preserved or preserved in books which were burned by accident, or by book burners. And in general, with the endless oppression, it’s wonder anything survived.
Entropic man at 1:29 PM
maguff…are there any original thoughts in your mind that bear a slight semblance of intelligence? Even what you quote is generally trash.
Ecce signum!
The cult now has another distraction from reality. Bindidon makes this claim: “Any non-rotating celestial body would soon get a massive wobbling orbit.”
Of course he has no idea what he is talking about. But Swanson and RLH jump in to join his nonsense. Moon not rotating has NOTHING to do with its stability.
I need to find my list of such distractions as related to Moon. This issue really has them flummoxed.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis it would be unstable. Fact.
Just as the Moon orbits around the Moon/Erath barycenter.
I know you are being cantankerous, throwing out crap and hoping it will stick to something. You shouldn’t play with the poop in your diapers.
Your notion of a barycentre about which the Moon rotates is sheer nonsense. Same with the wobble a non-rotating Moon has, in your warped world.
Powerful arguments you got there, Gordo!
“Your notion of a barycentre about which the Moon rotates is sheer nonsense”
It’s not mine. It is the whole of science that supports it. From at least Newton onwards. Think of it as Newton’s 3rd Law in action.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/barycenter
“The center of mass of two or more bodies, usually bodies orbiting around each other, such as the Earth and the Moon”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
“In astronomy, the barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit. A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body’s center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem”
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
“Planets and stars actually orbit around their common center of mass. This common center of mass is called the barycenter. Barycenters also help astronomers search for planets beyond our solar system!”
etc.
A barycentre, as describe it, implies motion and that implies acceleration. Neither gravitational field, either lunar or terrestrial, has the strength to accelerate either body.
All the Moon can do is raise our ocean level about 1 metre at the peak of the rise, if that. It can move the solid surface maybe a centimetre.
The Moon cannot move the entire Earth nor can the Earth move the entire Moon. If the Earth could move the Moon, it would gradually lose altitude.
People get afraid when it is announced all the planets are lining up, which happens occasionally. They think the added forces will cause catastrophe on the Earth in particular. Those added forces are so negligible they are hardly measurable.
I used to buy into the theory that the Sun revolved around a barycentre. A baycentre is essentially a centre of mass and that COM has been calculated to lie outside the Sun. Therefore there is a leap to conclusion that the solar system, including the Sun, is orbiting the COM and not the Sun.
I think that’s BS. They are using mathematics and forgetting that solar gravity is a field trough which planets with independent momentum are moving. Those planets are always trying to move in straight lines and there is no force strong enough to accelerate them toward the Sun.
It doesn’t matter if the mathematical COM is outside the Sun, it has no effect on the momenta of the individual planets. They are interacting with a gravitational field produced by the Sun and there is never a mutual effect between them that causes them and the Sun to orbit the barycentre.
If you had a barbell, with the typical bar and cannon ball-shaped weights on either end. The COM would be in the middle of the bar, provided the balls had equal mass and the bar was of uniform mass. If you hung the barbell on a pivot through the COM and spun the dumbbell, both the balls and the bar would rotate about the pivot point.
If you relocated the pivot point to 3/4 way down the bar, and spun the barbell, both balls would still be rotating about the pivot point but not around each other. The COM would still be in the same place, at the centre of the bar.
It doesn’t matter to me that a barycentre exists mathematically and not at the centre of the Earth, it would be an issue only if the mutual attractive forces between Earth and Moon were strong enough to budge each body away from its present relative position.
Such a motion would be disastrous. It would make the Earth unstable in its orbit and the Moon unstable in its orbit. A visible wobble would be apparent wrt the background stars.
I have read about binary star systems that orbit a common barycentre and the stars are of unequal mass. Why they orbit each other is beyond me. Neither is orbiting a third body at the same time.
“Neither gravitational field, either lunar or terrestrial, has the strength to accelerate either body.”
So Newton was wrong then.
–Gordon Robertson says:
March 31, 2022 at 6:50 PM
A barycentre, as describe it, implies motion and that implies acceleration. Neither gravitational field, either lunar or terrestrial, has the strength to accelerate either body.–
A Barycentre indicates direction.
The Earth/Moon barycentre is the direction the Moon falls towards Earth. And the direction Earth falls towards the Moon.
And direction changes as [the barycentre point moves] as Moon and Earth moves due their motion due force gravity and moves in regard to Earth as Earth spins and as the Moon orbit around the Earth- and slightly as Moon get closer and further distance from Earth. And of course neither Earth or Moon “get” to the point instead heading towards it, and missing. Or like Earth orbit is falling towards Earth and “missing”- due orbital speed {reduce orbital speed and something in Earth orbit will hit Earth- and increase orbital speed and it will miss Earth by more distance from Earth}
Richard slides into his comfort zone of evasion, unable to answer the question. He who thinks he has the proof there is no designer should step forward with the proof.
You claim I am the proof. I am a highly complex biological unit that no one on Earth could reproduce. My system is so complex that researchers studying the human form for centuries still have no clue as to how it works as a whole or what constitutes life. They cannot even explain vision: the connection between light taken in through the lens and how it is processes to produce an image in its original, external position.
Best of all, my DNA in each cell, 3 metres of it wound on a bobbin in a diameter of 5 to 20 microns) contains codes which are read by RNA and used to produce proteins, the basis of life. In order to read the codes, the DNA has to be unwound so a specific part of it can be accessed and read.
Codes do not happen by chance.
If you think all that happened naturally as an evolution from primeval muds, then you are an idiot.
I ‘evolved’ in the bat soup at a wet market directly downstream from the Wuhan Lab.
Are you trying to say you’re a virus?
In Cheech and Chong, they had Buster the Body Crab, played hilariously by Tommy Chong.
Google it.
Listening to Trudeau we are all apparently parasites on his dystopian fascist vision for Canada.
Mutant virus.
A lot can happen in a few billion years.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/topics/resource-library-age-earth/
“Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date”
This kind of nonsense always makes me smile.
Earth is [believed to be] 4.5 billion years old and they are “searching for the oldest rocks”.
The rocks would be the same age as Earth!
Idiots.
And then there are all of the flaws in radiometric dating….
So how long do you think that the Earth has been around?
According to Bishop Ussher, an Irishman, and no doubt a relative of Entropic….
“The world began one weekend in 4004 BC – specifically, on the evening before October 23rd”.
So you don’t have a clue. As always.
You’re a hard guy to please, Richard. I give you the date right to the very evening before October 23rd, 4004 BC and you are still not satisfied.
Talk about fussy.
“RLH says:
March 31, 2022 at 5:58 PM
So how long do you think that the Earth has been around?”
It depends. Is proto-Earth when hit by Mars size rock, Earth.
Or asking when Mars planet hit Earth and cooled down to some temperature.
Or perhaps you don’t imagine Earth was hit by planet or some very large rock. And I like to know the size largest space rock hitting a proto-Earth before it, begins being called Earth?
Of course it’s possible Earth was captured by Sol- but there no evidence of this {yet}.
But as general answer, I say it’s around 4.5 billion years.
It seems there could been other guesses before the Apollo Program.
And if explore the Moon and then Mars, we could other guesses.
Sure idiot GR. Only 4004 years. You are indeed an idiot for sure.
Don’t knock Ussher. In 1600 he estimated of the date of creation using the best evidence he had available. He counted the generations in the Bible and multiplied by 25 to get the number of years since Adam.
He settled on 4004 BC for the creation.
Later scientific evidence showed that he underestimated the age of the universe by 14 billion years.
To his credit he hit the invention of written records spot on.
“Later scientific evidence showed that he underestimated the age of the universe by 14 billion years”
Yup.
There are basically three types of rocks: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. This is stored in my memory from a geology class I had to take in my engineering studies. Igneous rocks are formed from molten magma via volcanic action. If the rocks is expelled, it becomes lava. If it cools naturally, the solution hardens based on its content.
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other materials compacting. Metamorphic rocks are produced by both of above being compacted under great pressure and heat.
As Clint claimed, there are problems with radiometric dating. The longest dating time-wise is Uranium-lead dating but it presumes the rate of decay from uranium to lead has always been the same. Same with potassium-argon dating.
We can’t get at most of the rocks in the Earth’s interior. We don’t even know what most of the Earth is made of.
We have no idea how the universe evolved, or if it did. The Big Bang theory is not only stupid, the conversion of nothingness to mass has never been seen before. It’s the human mind that needs a beginning and an end and for all we know, the universe has always been there. We have no idea of its full extent, or if it even had a boundary.
This stupid theory emanates from a theory that the universe expands till it runs out of steam, then begins contracting in on itself. The end result is that it collapses into nothingness, then…BANG…it reappears as all the mass we see in the universe.
Seriously, there is something wrong with minds that can come up with that crap and even more wrong with minds that believe it.
Something is seriously wrong with your mind.
You need to get it that you are observing from distortion, therefore true intelligence will appear to you as having something wrong with it.
You are just an idiot.
Readers might have missed when Pup tried to train Kiddo:
[KIDDO] Since Binny mentioned the Moon, I won’t be attacked for peddling my favorite thread.
[PUP] Did you notice we have a new “simple analogy,” Kiddo?
[KIDDO] Yes, I noticed with some amusement [*inaudible*]
[PUP] The rotating after release is due to the physical attachment of the string. Gravity does not provide that physical attachment. So if gravity were suddenly turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line, not rotating.
[KIDDO] The moon flying off in a straight line, not rotating, if gravity were switched off, is certainly my understanding. With the ball on a string, specifically – what is it about the physical attachment of the string that causes it to rotate after release?
[PUP] The physical attachment of the string means angular momentum is in play. Moon has no angular momentum, because there is no physical attachment. Any physical attachment conveys angular momentum, as represented by the tension in the string.
Source: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1200430
Here’s an illustration of what Pup tries to pervert:
https://imgur.com/5J9sLAM
FUN! FUN! FUN!
Worthless Willard does all that work just to prove how dishonest and ignorant he is.
That’s why he’s worthless.
Don’t get angry, Pup.
Kiddo will one day be able to buy your cues.
willard…”what is it about the physical attachment of the string that causes it to rotate after release?”
***
Torque and drag. And by drag,I don’t mean how you dress at night.
As long as the tension on the string is pulling perpendicular to the tangential path of the ball, the ball must remain at right angles to the string. If the string is suddenly released, the ball will try to move along the tangential path, but at the instant of release, there will be a slight torque applied, because the release can never be instantaneous.
Also, if the string has sufficient mass, as the ball is released, it will start to drag the string behind it. The string’s mass will cause a slight rotation about the ball’s COG causing the ball to turn slightly.
There is no way the rotating of the ball at the end of the string would be transferred to the ball after release since the motions have nothing in common. The ball/string combo have angular momentum about the spinner’s hand but the ball has no angular momentum of its own, only linear momentum that is redirected by the string.
Just like the Moon.
> Just like the Moon.
That’s where you’re wrong, Gordo.
Take it from Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-932482
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Just one more example that you can’t understand ANY of this, worthless Willard.
That’s why you’re worthless.
Here’s PROOF that you got CAPS LOCK and that’s about it, Pup:
https://youtu.be/6mhmcwmgWbA
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
The Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Moon/Earth barycenter. The Earth rotates on its axis about 27 times faster.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
You and your tiny, tiny clique can believe what you want. The sensible people will think otherwise.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
March 22, 2022 at 9:32 AM
#10
If you disagree, click on my name, and leave a comment there. No point discussing it here any more.
Turned out people here just could not leave the subject alone.
People make Kiddo say the darnedest things.
Who made you start yet another new thread on the moon issue, Willard?
I make Kiddo say the darnedest things.
You started a thread specifically calling me and Clint R out. So here we are. Did you have a point?
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
He made more than 10 comments without addressing ANYTHING in the OP.
So no, you do not have a point.
Presumably, Wonky Wee Willy has a blog, but is desperate for viewers.
Who wants to be told what to do by a moron (apart from climate crackpots, of course)?
Whacky Wee Willy is so stupid that he believes that climate can be prevented from changing!
What a moron he is!
[PUP] The physical attachment of the string means angular momentum is in play. Moon has no angular momentum, because there is no physical attachment. Any physical attachment conveys angular momentum, as represented by the tension in the string.
[FLOP] The Earth pulled so strongly on the moon that the heavier composition within the Moon shifted and is now permanently on the side facing the Earth. The Moon’s bulge caused its rotation to continually slow and then stop
Whereas “Spinners” cannot even agree on whether a ball on a string rotates on its own axis or not in the first place. People in glass houses…
Everybody (except the clique) agrees that the ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with the Moon/Earth or any other planet/moon.
RLH, the ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It demonstrates that a non-rotating object, in orbit, would always have the same side facing the inside of its orbit. Just as Moon does.
The ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits.
Trolling has nothing to do with reality.
[PUP] the ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy
[GORDO] Just like the Moon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1229568
…shouldn’t throw stones.
[KIDDO] The “Spinner” position is that the [M]oon is translating
[PUP] If I walk in a circle, always facing the direction of travel, [t]hat does NOT mean I am rotating in place as I walk in circle.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1228084
Incomplete quote, Willard. I actually would have said, in full, something along the lines of:
The “Spinner” position is that the moon is translating in an ellipse whilst rotating about an internal axis.
Kiddo whines about the darnedest things.
If Pup walks in a circle without rotating, what does he do? He’s translating. Now, that puts Kiddo in a bind –
If we all accept that the Moon translates, then it should not characterize “Spinners” as the position according to which the Moon translates. Whether or not it also spins is irrelevant for the first condition. So Kiddo ends up agreeing with me: the idea that the Moon spins is all that matters.
If “Non-Spinners” dispute that the Moon translates, say because external rotation suffices, then he should have a word with Pup.
I can live with both possibilities.
“If Pup walks in a circle without rotating, what does he do? He’s translating.”
Or, he is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis. Assuming that he walks normally in a circle, with one shoulder always facing the center of revolution.
Kiddo says the darnedest things, this time forgetting the difference between walking and being walked.
It’s as if he really believed that the Moon was a ball on a string!
I forget nothing, and am correct.
I got here late for the party.
I got worthless Willard doing his puppet dance again.
I guess I didn’t miss anything….
Well, Pup, the Pull Dance Experiment would actually be useful to understand what you’re talking about!
Try it.
No, Clint, you didn’t miss anything. Willard’s just being a boring troll, as usual.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1229481
Let’s see how that works:
You have to assume that the Moon does not spin, in the first place, in order for there to be an axis and for that axis to do NOTHING whence just about every single celestial body in the universe spins.
No, Willard. If you assume that the moon does not spin, then obviously you are assuming that the moon has no internal axis of rotation. You do get so painfully confused.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
First, it’s the Moon.
Second, circular logic has NOTHING to do with how he portrays it. Circular arguments are fine in geometry, for that’s all an axiomatic system can validly produce.
Third, it’s perfectly fine for Bob to posit an axis of rotation around which it spins, in fact all the numerical models we have of the motion of the Moon does.
Fourth, it was a joke, which goes on to show that he has pragmatic issues.
Fifth, the point of the joke was to remind Moon Dragon cranks that they are basically special pleading: celestial bodies tend to spin, which makes sense considering the alternative, i.e. they would float into space without spinning at all!
If you say so, Willard.
Kiddo says the darnedest things while forgetting that the proof that a rotation is an isometry rests on the concepts of rotation and isometry:
https://www.geogebra.org/m/mMN9Vpe3
OK, Willard. Whatever you say.
[KIDDO, to PYTHAGORAS] You have to assume that a triangle has three sides, in the first place, in order for the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse be equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides.
Sure, sure.
Wondering Wee Willy doesn’t understand what isometry is.
Just another witless fool attempting to appear intelligent.
Refuses to accept that climate is just the statistics of past weather, and therefore influences nothing at all.
Poor Willy.
An isometry a distance-preserving transformation whether I understand it or not, Mike. And one single rotation can’t generate an ellipse whether I understand it or not. As long as gardeners and woodworkers undesrtands it, all is well:
https://www.finewoodworking.com/2006/04/11/a-precise-method-for-drawing-an-ellipse
Be well.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
There is no such thing as an external axis using gravity.
Shorter and darnedest Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186762
Moon Dragon Cranks celebrate April’s Fool every day.
Random link and quote #327
Kiddo still fails to understand Flop’s trick.
Meanwhile, he says the darnedest things.
Ah yes, the infamous "trick". By which you mean, "the string stretches". Which of course, it would have to, because the orbit is elliptical. So you don’t really have a point.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
I was referring to Flop’s new version, which Bob spotted already:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1228165
Flop somehow abandoned his work on ellipses. It was quite buggy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191264
The two versions of Flop’s trick rests on Kiddo’s “1+1” argument, which we can already find in the CSA truther video:
https://youtu.be/KdFPty67D-4
If only Kiddo studied maths instead of saying the darnedest things.
Willard, rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis cannot possibly result in motion like the MOTL. The transmographer alone proves that conclusively, let alone Ftop_t’s various demos.
> rotation about an external axis plus
Amidst his darnedest huffing and puffing, Kiddo confirms I get the core of the Moon Dragon Crank argument right.
It’s just a basic algebraic error after all.
If there is an error, it is yours.
Kiddo says the darnedest things, this time forgetting that substraction exists.
"…this will be my last comment for the month", said Willard. Then he immediately went back on his word.
Rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis cannot possibly result in motion like the MOTL. The transmographer alone proves that conclusively, let alone Ftop_t’s various demos.
Kiddo says the darnedest things, forgetting the day we are celebrating.
It would not be hard to take a real leave, however. Once we realize that Moon Dragon Cranks suck at algebra so much they forget we can substract, there’s nothing much left to discuss.
Rotation about an external axis plus rotation about an internal axis cannot possibly result in motion like the MOTL. The transmographer alone proves that conclusively, let alone Ftop_t’s various demos.
Is worthless Willard still trying to pervert reality?
That’s what trolls do.
> Rotation about an external axis plus
Kiddo keeps repeating the darnedest things.
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”The many ways in which simple electrons, neutrons and protons can combine is truly wonderful. Does not require a God of any form to create that”.
***
It is wonderful. Gold with atomic weight of 79 sits between mercury, atomic weight 80 and platinum, atomic weight 78 on the periodic table. Why can’t we add/subtract an electron and proton from mercury or platinum to make gold?
As Newton, an old alchemist, and devoutly religious, would venture, only God knows the secret.
So, let’s get praying, rather than preying on each other in Roy’s blog.
GR is just an idiot.
P.S. Newton would have disowned you as an idiot.
With that argument, 2 Deuterium atoms should easily make Helium.
Why do you want to make gold?
It is a useful material for some engineering purposes, but enough is availabe.
It’s only other function is as an intermediate in barter, and has mostly been superseded in that.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “So, let’s get praying, rather than preying on each other in Roy’s blog.”
That is a nice thought. It does not mean I will allow you to post false and misleading comments unchallenged. Remember, also, that God abhors lies and falsehood. When you speak it needs to he honest and true. It is one thing to say something wrong when you are ignorant, but once you have been exposed to the truth and you continue stating wrong things then it is just blatant lying.
Norman, what does God say about hypocrites?
When about false accusations? Misrepresenting others? Blatant falsehoods?
BTW, where’s your “textbook” verification that 314W/m^2 from two different sources result in a temperature of 325K?
Where’s your evidence that barycenter do not exist.
We know you misrepresent others, RLH. But Norman claims to have morals against such dishonesty.
I don’t misrepresent that barycenter exist. You do.
Yes RLH, we know you misrepresent others. But Norman claims to have morals against such dishonesty.
So Clint, do you believe that barycenter exist?
RLH, barycenters don’t “exist” in terms of something you can hold in your hand, or purchase online. A barycenter is ONLY a center of mass. Two rocks would have a “barycenter”. A rock and an elephant would have a “barycenter”. A barycenter has NOTHING to do with whether or not Moon has axial rotation. We know Moon does not rotate from relevant physics and observation.
You’re fascinated with barycenter because you believe it’s something you can throw against the wall to pervert reality. You’d obviously never heard of “barycenter” before you started searching the web trying to pervert science.
You only reveal how little you understand about science.
So you disagree with GR then who believes that barycenter don’t exist.
I knew of barycenter long before I posted on this blog. In fact it is a direct outcome of Newton’s 3rd Law.
P.S. Barycenter means that a ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits. Even indirectly.
“We know Moon does not rotate from relevant physics and observation”
Wrong. As usual.
Yes RLH, we know you like to misrepresent others, as you attempt to pervert science. Norman does the same, while claiming to have morals against such dishonesty.
You are one perverting science.
Clint R
I am certain you have not found any falsehoods in my posts. Your claim to fame is telling me over and over that I do not understand a link. That is not any proof of falsehood.
When I call you stupid that is not a false accusation. You are stupid. King Solomon wrote many Proverbs concerning foolish people. He did not support them. Again, it is not the your level of stupididity that is bad, it is your incredible and unjustified arrogance in peddling your false ideas. I have already posted examples of your false physics. You really have no good response, kind of just ignore and divert.
On the last point, I have already addressed this. You ask for the same thing over and over (The hope is you are a bot, that would explain your repeating things over and over, like a routine loop in a program, humans usually do not display the endless repeats).
Norman, your falsehood is in your second sentence:
“Your claim to fame is telling me over and over that I do not understand a link.”
That’s NOT my “claim to fame”. You’re making sh*t up again.
So where is your “textbook” verification that 315W/m^2 from two different sources can heat something to 325K?
You don’t have it. You’re a complete phony.
I don’t know if God exists.
There is no evidence that he does exist.
There is no evidence that he does not exist.
It is very difficult to believe the earth and everything that lives on it came to happen by accident. I favor the hypothesis that God does exist.
I also know that Judeo Christian nations could not exist without Christian values. A lot of the problems in our Western Civilization are coming about because people are forgetting about the importance of God in our lives. Evidence exists by looking at every other civilization in the earth does not treat its people with respect.
Our knowledge of table of elements is nothing but a really good model that seems to work reliably most of the time.
Newton was a Christian and would not have disowned GR as an idiot on the basis of his understanding of chemistry.
It’s okay for someone to “believe” in a religion. That should be a basic human freedom.
The problem arises when a religion is touted as science. Evolution is NOT science, it’s a religion.
“Evolution is NOT science, its a religion. ”
Actually it’s biology. Unlike your religion there is scientific evidence for evolution
No, there’s a startingly lack of evidence for evolution. There are all kinds of microevolution. Almost no evidence for macroevolution.
Shocking (not very) to see that climate deniers are also evolution deniers.
Its a pattern. Beliefs guide them right past any scientific evidence that gives them discomfort.
I favor the hypothesis that God does not exist.
You favor one big bang, many big bangs, or no big bangs?
Too many Gods to choose from.
“A lot of the problems in our Western Civilization are coming about because people are forgetting about the importance of God in our lives.”
There have been periods in the past when God was very important in peoples lives. So much so that it required them to burn people who had slightly different interpretations of scripture.
And this led to centuries of war and ethnic cleansing, that is still going on today in regions where God is very important to people.
@ken
>> There is no evidence that he does not exist.
there is literally SHITTONS of evidence that he or she does not exist. Like the fact that the earth and the universe are filled with pain and suffering everywhere is like the 99/9999% certainly evidence that the ‘benevolent christian god’ most certainly not exist. The evil ‘evil demiurge’ is not ruled-it though 😉
>>There is no evidence that he does exist.
not true, there is some evidence that he or she might exist, but that’s mostly a negative evidence, eg due to the lack of knowledge, in the form of ‘we don’t know how to explain BLANK with a natural mechanism, therefore we cannot rule out that BLANK might be unnatural’. Not much but some, after all our knowledge will always be limited least we become gods ourselves.
Trouble in Gordo’s paradise:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/tt51ai/russian_soldier_before_and_after/
He speaks ukrainian without any appreciable russian accent. Need more context to understand what going on there.
Our strong accent commentator is back!
Where’s your Z, cot?
Oh, sorry, I forgot you’re a paid bot. I forgot vowed not to talk to you. bye.
in the case you are not a bot, I ~dare~ you to a videoconference. I can prove to you I am not a bot, can you?
I could not care less that you think I’m a bot, Cot. If you can build a bot that could write like I do, I could find you buyers.
Ukraine has contested territories. That should solve your pickle. But even if it was staged, the Tyson Principle still applies: we all have fantasies about war until it puches us in the face.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Slightly different questions.
In terms of global climate what happens if Earth average ocean [which is about 3.5 C] warms to 4 C?
But what earth ocean temperature doesn’t change?
{this isn’t such as crazy idea as ocean average temperature does appear stay about the same for very long periods of time}.
NASA [who could be regarded as psychopaths] say:
“Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
Let’s say if top few meter [and entire ocean] doesn’t warm- or for weird reason the ocean stays the same temperature {same average temperature] what is the coldest and warmest that Earth average surface air temperature get?
And same question but top meters can warm, but entire ocean doesn’t warm- “what is the coldest and warmest that Earth average surface air temperature get”?
And finally top few meters does not change but entire ocean warms up or cools down by 1 C- “what is the coldest and warmest that Earth average surface air temperature get”?
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AS013_Ridley_G_20140327154513.jpg
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AS013_Ridley_DV_20140327154513.jpg
Woooah! It’s me, checking to see if La Nina is running out to notify the neighbors everywhere.
Who dared to secretly photograph me at home?
Don’t we have privacy anymore or what?
I thought you said that La Nina would be over by April this year.
April Fool.
We showed models. Most indicated neutral by summer.
Not summer yet.
If the outlier model is correct and we still have La Nina in summer, does that prove something about AGW?
What?
And those models that predicted that La Nina would be over by April now show what?
You and Bindiclown should get together in forecasting business – on the Bizarro Planet – for your forecasting so persistently opposite to reality,
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“La Nia is favored to continue into the Northern Hemisphere summer (53% chance during June-August 2022), with a 40-50% chance of La Nia or ENSO neutral thereafter.”
“And those models that predicted that La Nina would be over by April”
Is April summer where you live?
And if La Nina is still here by then?
Luckily, we still are, with regard to the current episode, far away from the really strong La Nina’s in 1998-2002 and 2010-2012.
The winters in these periods were, in Northeast Germoney, weaker than the historical events in 1956, 1963, 1979, 1986.
But they were cold and snowy enough!
I like it warm.
But what is disturbing these last years is that while the recent winters are here weaker than earlier ones, the following springs are a lot cooler, due to an increasing amount of sometimes day after day consecutive arrivals of low pressure areas coming from the Northwest Atlantic, bringing Arctic air above us.
¡Gracias no!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
“La Nia three-peats (triple dips?) are very rareonly two exist in our more reliable historical record going back to 1950 and both occurred after major El Nio events, which our current event did not”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
seems to think that three-peats this year are more than possible.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
And if it does 3-peat, how does that help explain AGW?
Hubble Space Telescope Spots Oldest and Farthest Star Known.
Designated WHL0137-LS and nicknamed Earendel, the newly-detected star emitted its light around 900 million years after the Big Bang. The finding was part of Hubble’s Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey (RELICS) program to search for some of the universe’s farthest and earliest galaxies.
Earendel is so far away that its light has taken 12.9 billion years to reach Earth, appearing to us as it did when the Universe was only 7% of its current age, at redshift 6.2.
The previous record-holder for most distant single star, reported in 2018, had a red shift of 1.5, corresponding to when the universe was about four billion years old. So Earendel is indeed a ground-breaking record.
Earendel will be one of the targets during the first year of observations by the newly launched James Webb Space Telescope, which has a larger mirror than Hubble and gathers light at the longer infrared wavelengths.
Earendel existed so long ago that it may not have had all the same raw materials as the stars around us today.
Studying this star will be a window into an era of the universe that we are unfamiliar with, but that led to everything we do know. It’s like we’ve been reading a really interesting book, but we started with the second chapter, and now we will have a chance to see how it all got started.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04449-y
TM, if you actually believe all that nonsense, I’ve got a famous bridge to sell, cheap.
Thought I’d get the debunking of the Scarfetta paper in first.
https://www.realclimate.org
“The large ECS range (between 1.8C and 5.7C) of the CMIP6 GCMs indicates that these models are intrinsically very different from each other”
Do you dispute that?
More data please.
What differs between the high ECS and low ECS model runs?
Sorry, I should be clearer.
What differences in programming or input data cause a model run to output a high ECS of a low ECS?
That is, after all, the purpose of a model; to investigate the effect of different variables on possible outputs.
The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is set by the model.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/climate-sensitivity-in-cmip6-gcms/
“The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) from CMIP5 models varied from 2.1K to 4.7K with a mean of 3.3K, while for the CMIP6 models it goes from 1.8K to 5.6K with a mean of 3.9K. In addition, 10 of the 27 CMIP6 GCMs having ECS values above 4.5K.”
“According to their analysis, the main reason for the difference between the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ECS values is an enhanced SW low cloud feedback, mostly in the Southern extratropics (latitudes poleward of 30o). The idea being that there is a reduction in low level clouds in these regions which leads to an increase in the absorbed SW solar flux.”
“I don’t know really know how to conclude this. It seems that there’s a growing understanding of why the CMIP6 GCMs suggest a higher ECS than the CMIP5 GCMs. This could reflect that the real world ECS is also higher than we had expected, but it’s still too early to really tell. I rather hope that it is not. “
In other words ‘we don’t know if we have got things wrong’.
“The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is set by the model. ”
IIRC it’s the other way round.
You don’t choose an ECS when you set up a model run. You run the model to find out what the ECS would be.
“In other words we dont know if we have got things wrong. ”
You have the same problem. You keep predicting a long term cooling trend on the basis of fairly thin evidence and you may have got it wrong.
“Unless we can predict every single year right we’re wrong.”
Willard
Isn’t there a “#but impossible expectations” climateball move?
“You dont choose an ECS when you set up a model run. You run the model to find out what the ECS would be”
So for the last 7 years the temperatures have been falling in direct opposite of what the models show.
Therefore the real ECS is much lower than what the top end of the models have been set to. As least for the last 7 years. Right through when AR6 was being set.
“Unless we can predict every single year right were wrong”
But 7 in a row suggest we don’t have the maths correct.
“You keep predicting a long term cooling trend on the basis of fairly thin evidence”
The DATA from all sources says that there has been a cooling for the last 7 years.
When are you going to acknowledge that FACT.
> Isn’t there a “#but impossible expectations” climateball move?
The #But part refers to a topic, EM.
What you’re looking for should be in the Manual:
https://climateball.net/manual/
I might mention it while describing the Auditor.
But all the models are SO correct. Even just a few months into the future. Except in the case of the ENSO.
> Even just a few months
The meteorological fallacy strikes again!
Imagine just a few seconds.
Anyway.
Ta.
Willard says:
“April 1, 2022 at 3:54 PM
Alright, this will be my last comment for the month.”
You can’t resist can you.
Read the quote again, dummy.
So replies are not comments. Got you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1230844
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1231744
“But 7 in a row suggest we dont have the maths correct.”
First of all there has not been cooling for 7 years in a row.
Second of all it is a strawman. Neither Climate Models nor any models have not been able to predict the behavior of ENSO more than a few months ahead.
Thus to compare a Climate model to observations one would have to isolate those models that had nearly the same ENSO history as the real Earth.
I believe this has been done and the results are more favorable.
“But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.”
indeed, as far back as his ill-fated 1988 Senate testimony Hansen not only claimed to be 99% sure of the link based on a simple statistical analysis of the surface record, but even claimed it supported his by-now quite amusingly wrong predictions
https://www.sealevel.info/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.html
“there is only a 1 percent chance of an accidental warming of this magnitude”
“The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent. So, with 99 percent confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend. ”
this seems to be based on a hilarious assumption that temperatures must be a random walk outside of human interference
Jim got it mostly right, Dave:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/06/judgment-on-hansens-88-climate-testimony-he-was-right/
if we’re fortunate, someday Roy will splice in the “business as usual” emissions 1988 scenario A that Hansen predicted we’d be living today, which exceeds even RCP8.5 in hilarity, into his UAH vs. GCM graphs
while it has little scientific value, Hansen 1988 remains a very useful illustration of how alarmists treat falsifiability as a shell game
You sound like someone who’s football (soccer) team is losing 3-0 with just a few minutes on the clock convinced that your team will still win.
apparently you haven’t checked the scoreboard since 1979
“Business-as-usual” invokes another square, Tall One:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
You sound like a guy who calls the game before the end of the first inning.
Wrong place. See above.
You sound like someone who’s football (soccer) team is losing 3-0 with just a few minutes on the clock convinced that your team will still win.
> just a few minutes
2100 and beyond isn’t “a few minutes” away, dummy.
In geological time it is.
Willard says:
“April 1, 2022 at 3:54 PM
Alright, this will be my last comment for the month”
You lie too apparently.
Read the quote again, dummy.
Willard says:
April 1, 2022 at 3:57 PM
Is 3:57 later than 3:54?
I count a new reply as a comment.
Right after “says,” dummy.
“traditionally on April Fool’s Day all pranks are supposed to stop at 12 noon sharp, with anyone playing a joke after midday then considered the ‘April Fool'”
“In the UK,” dummy.
Just one example of “by-now quite amusingly wrong predictions”:
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses, and shut down computers.” — Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat”, St. Martins’s Press, 1990.
> Michael Oppenheimer
Is that Jim’s sock puppet, Pup?
https://i.postimg.cc/pdFKHHMC/predictions.png
https://postimg.cc/dLr3ZnWY
Willtard doesn’t know what Hansen 1988 scenario A b c is, posts some fake chart instead, nice try retard.\
Scenario 1 looks closer to todays real temperatures.
Eboy throws a tantrum.
I forgot to add the source:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
Notice how the last graph overestimates the true measured temperatures for this year.
https://imgur.com/a/2EdRkFC
“But, climate scientists simply assume that the climate system has been in perfect, long-term harmonious balance, if not for humans. This is a pervasive, quasi-religious assumption of the Earth science community for as long as I can remember.”
This assertion is uniformed at best and, highly disingenuous at worst. Likely written to mislead the gullible who have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
It is well known, by those who know it well, that paleoclimate science shows that the Earth’s climate has undergone dramatic changes since early in the history of the planet. At one extreme, Earth was glaciated to the equator, more than once, for intervals that may have lasted millions of years. At another, climates were so warm that the Canadian Arctic was heavily forested and large dinosaurs lived on Antarctica. Four key factors have caused these climate modifications: changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, changes in the amount of sun’s radiation reflected directly back to space, changes in the position of the continents that guide winds and ocean currents, and changes in the brightness of the sun.
All you need to do is read any book on Paleoclimatology.
“Earth was glaciated to the equator”
We are glaciated to the equator:
“Disappearance of the last tropical glaciers in the Western Pacific Warm Pool (Papua, Indonesia) appears imminent”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1822037116
Quelccaya Ice Cap
“The Quelccaya Ice Cap (also known as Quenamari Ice Cap) is the second largest glaciated area in the tropics, after Coropuna. Located in the Cordillera Oriental section of the Andes mountains in Peru, the cap covers an area of 42.8 square kilometres (16.5 sq mi) with ice up to 200 metres (660 ft) thick. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quelccaya_Ice_Cap
others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_South_America#Peru
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_South_America#Ecuador
Considering the equatorial bulge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge
Glaciers near equator should be common in ever changing Earth. Particularly, when Earth spun faster.
Sea ice is different issue and seems to me to be impossible to have summer sea ice lower than 30 degree latitude.
Winter sea ice to 40 degree latitude could plausible have happened within last million years.
I seen no good evidence that Earth has been colder than it is now.
Or to repeat, what does an ocean with average temperature of 3 C
look like?
Come to Northern Ireland.
The landscape around me is covered with u-shaped valleys, eskers, morraines and other glacial features normally seen at higher latitudes or altitudes.
They’re still sharp and uneroded, so they’re geologically recent. My home was under an ice sheet no more than 20,000 years ago.
On top of many of the glacial features are peat bogs, some of them 10m deep. Since a peat bog grows at about 1mm/year, that suggests that the glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.
Ice cap. Ice sheets are big and North Ireland is not big.
Our icehouse global climate has been going for 34 million years and 20,000 years is a recent part of this Ice Age. And the Ice Age in last 1 million years have been the coldest part of this icehouse global climate.
There is no evidence of ice sheet in the tropics. Mountains in the tropics can have ice caps. And have always had glaciers. Even a greenhouse global climate {warmest climate state of Earth} would have had glaciers in higher mountains.
Last ice sheet over NI was probably 10,000 years ago or so.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-collapse-european-ice-sheet-chaos.htm
“Britain and Ireland, which had been joined to Europe throughout the last ice age, finally separated with the flooding of the English Channel around 10,000 years ago. It was the original Brexit, so to speak,” says Alun Hubbard.
Gordon Robertson:
Everything is just too big for Newton’s Laws to effect anything.
(A paraphrase of course).
rlh…not a paraphrase, it’s an obfuscated version of what I wrote.
Newton himself, stated in Principia, “If a force can move a mass…” That’s all I have said using other words. If a force cannot move a mass so as to accelerate it then Newton II does not apply.
Of course we get a full year in engineering of studying statics and dynamics and statics is the special case where a force applied to a mass does not move it. Dynamics is the case when a force applied to a mass does move it.
A good part of engineering, civil engineering, involves static equilibrium, like in bridges, buildings, etc. If you are studying the equilibrium in a bridge, you do not apply Newton II.
So Newton being able to prove that orbits are caused by gravity between the planets, moons, Sun, etc. is of no import to you. Idiot.
P.S. An acceleration happens if any change in direction occurs.
See Newton 1.
There seem to be an enormous number of flat-earthers infesting your site this month, Dr. Roy Spencer. Maybe 1% actually addressed your article which was replete with your usual commonsense.
Looking forward to your monthly report and wish you had more time to write articles like the above, YS, R.T.Dee.
rt dee…”Maybe 1% actually addressed your article which was replete with your usual commonsense”.
***
Maybe you could point out points from Roy’s article for discussion. Those of us who have been here a few years are familiar with Roy’s perspective and have discussed it endlessly. Or, would you prefer we spend each month rehashing to death the content of each article?
In the header to his article, Roy said: “I also want to thank those who have stepped up and contributed to keeping this website going since Google has demonetized itthank you!”
Roy likely has one of the strongest blogs going due to the number of posts each month. We love Roy and he allows us a good deal of leeway with what we discuss.
As have those who continuous have to post facts in the face of Moon fanatics like you who have no science, only delusions.
rlh…Richard, I am only to happy to supply fodder for you conspiracy theories. Anything to keep you entertained.
Well my science of barycenter eclipses your conspiracy theories every day.
Iceberg A-68 {or B-15}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_A-68
Last about 4 years in open ocean before breaking.
Can you lasso one them and drag them to the tropics.
It seems ocean settlements might want one.
So, cool 10,000 square km of tropical ocean surface by 5 C cooler or
make ocean surface temperature about 20 C. You enclose say 8,000 square km with floating breakwaters which will reduce 20 foot waves down to less than 5 foot waves. You have addition breakwaters creating no waves in smaller regions within the 8,000 square km area.
Hmm, maybe you want wave in parts of this, so leave open a section with best surfing wave [biggest and most common direction they occur] and this also be where you drag thru the iceberg. Then one can put a floating surfing beach which will cause the waves to break so you surf them- and then behind surfing area put floating breakwaters.
The additional breakwater will surround say dozen ocean settlements.
Before actually bringing iceberg into the zone, you groom it to size and shape you wanted. And this might reducing mass by 10 to 30%.
And ocean settlements would make freshwater as general thing, so trimming it when near settlements, gives you access freshwater, you don’t have to make from desalination.
Alright, this will be my last comment for the month.
Here is a small token of appreciation:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
The Moon Dragon game was fun and all, but at some point everything as an end.
See you in a while,
W
Sorry for your loss.
Kiddo fakes the darnedest emotions.
There are five pages to read. It should not take him that long.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Still trying to get people to waste their time following your irrelevant and idiotic links, are you?
How is that working out for you?
You might find playing with yourself brings you more “Oh! Oh! Oh!” moments.
Or you could demonstrate your delusional fixation by calling me Mike Flynn for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Choices, choices – no wonder you seem confused.
Mike,
I’m calling you “Mike” because you’re Mike Flynn.
It might be the only time you’re a reason!
If you ever had a point, you would just make it, in your own words, and concisely as possible.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If Kiddo disagrees, all he needs is to click on the following link:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
No point discussing it here any more.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kiddo issues the darnedest PSTs.
Into my own threads, no less.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m gonna just put this here:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
so that Kiddo will try his darnedest to ignore it.
Read it. Did you have a point?
Kiddo says the darnedest things:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
Poor Willard doesn’t even realize the mistake they made. The "Spinners" think the moon orbits CCW and rotates on its own axis CCW.
After realizing that what he thought impossible is possible after all, Kiddo says the darnedest things.
The mainstream scientific opinion is that the moon orbits the Earth CCW and rotates on its own axis CCW. Look it up.
It is not possible for motion like the MOTL to be comprised of rotation about an external axis and rotation about an internal axis.
Kiddo claimed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to model the motion of the Moon using two rotations. Because, geometry or something.
That claim has now been falsified.
As the author warns:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
Our own aim was more humble. It was only to show that Kiddo says the darnedest things.
QED.
Yes since according to DREMT darnedest speak it IS possible for MOTL to be comprised of curvilinear translation around an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis (reorientation per Gordon). Still 2 axes (not 1 per flop) for the MOTL innumerate & as observed from outside of its orbit per Clint R.
Got to really watch your semantics with DREMT, Gordon, and Clint R.
It is impossible to model the motion of the moon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis. That’s because a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is already motion like the MOTL. You have not falsified that claim. The transmographer alone proves it correct, let alone Ftop_t’s numerous demos.
…and by the way, a moon that is rotating about an external axis CCW whilst rotating about an internal axis CW, would be moving as per the MOTR.
> It is impossible to model the motion of the [M]oon using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis.
Kiddo just read an impossible chapter:
https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs418/fa2017/slides/everything-ch7.pdf
!
What will happen to him when he’ll realize that Lagrange did what he claims is impossible?
I should clarify, a moon that is rotating about an external axis CCW whilst rotating about an internal axis CW once per orbit, would be moving as per the MOTR.
And now Kiddo might realize why Bob asked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1230489
The more Kiddo refuses to take Bob srsly, the more he loses.
Ah well.
I realized why bob would ask that before he even asked it, Willard. I understand painfully well how easily reference frames confuse you guys. Oh well.
Poor Kiddo. Always misunderstanding Bob. Let’s cut to the chase:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1231035
I didn’t misunderstand bob. Here, I’ll quote him:
"It’s the rotation rate with respect to what?
And some might find the answer has to do with reference frames, which do not transcend the discussion."
It’s you who misunderstands everything, Willard. Ftop_t is not a BS artist, but I’m not following him, anyway. I was arguing the same points long before Ftop_t turned up on the scene. He just happened to agree with me.
"Instead of R, we could instead posit two complementary motions that together does the same thing as R. It’s really not hard to see"
Indeed, Willard, as I have said many times, you could model motion like the MOTL with a combination of curvilinear translation in a circle (by which the "Spinners" mean, motion like the MOTR) plus rotation about an internal axis. You cannot model motion like the MOTL using a rotation about an external axis and a rotation about an internal axis, however.
Poor Kiddo. Still misunderstanding Bob. What is it in “It’s the rotation rate”?
Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1229355
Kiddo, as always, says the darnedest things.
Why wait. Here’s what Kiddo is trying to dodge:
Instead of meeting Bob’s empirical point, he tried to pretend that Bob was using circular logic!
Kiddo has the darnedest idea of how arguments work.
"It" is s. Obviously.
"Another Spinner!"
Willard never explained how what Clint R said in any way makes him a "Spinner". It doesn’t. Willard is just confused again.
"Here’s what Kiddo is trying to dodge"
Willard attempts to change the subject again.
Kiddo still does not get it.
S is not the rotation rate. It’s just a parameter. A rotation rate is a ratio of two things. What are these things, and has Kiddo found the number of a’s in Flop’s equations yet?
s relates to a via the equation in line 5.
> s relates to a via the equation in line 5.
So what is a, why is S absent from b, and how does a relate to b?
Kiddo is trying his darnedest, but he’s getting closer and closer to the realization that he has no idea what Flop did.
Willard’s questions reveal that it’s him who has no idea what Ftop_t did.
Kiddo says the darnedest things. Let him wonder what’s Flop’s “Translating Object” for a while and correct his assertion that I never explained how Pup is a Spinner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1230767
To walk is to move forward. As Pup himself concedes, it does “NOT mean” he is “rotating in place as I walk in circle.” In that case to move forward is to translate.
Therefore Pup is a Spinner, by his own admission.
Which is something we all know since the times Moon Dragon Cranks were using the track and field model, sorry the track and field illustration.
I already know what Ftop_t’s "Translating Object" is. You just click on the relevant line to activate it or remove it. It is a similar object translating up and down along a linear path whilst rotating on its own axis, or not.
Willard, if you agree with Clint R that you can walk around a circle, keeping one shoulder always towards the center, and that you are not rotating on your own axis whilst you do so, then you are a "Non-Spinner".
Kiddo is playing more darnedest tricks.
To move forward is to translate. Once a body is translating, it can’t only be rotating. So the idea of saying that a body’s orbit can be described as both an external rotation and an internal translation confuses (two more or less equivalent) descriptions. See Holy Madhavi for details.
By switching from one description to the next, he could put anyone in any bin he wants. Hence why he can put me as a Non-Spinner.
His classifier works very well to troll, but that’s about it.
Willard, you are a "Spinner" because you insist that the moon does rotate on its own axis, but you are a "Non-Spinner" (without realizing it) because you claim "orbit without spin" involves rotation. If "orbit without spin" involves rotation, then it involves the object changing its orientation whilst it moves, without spinning. What I am trying to point out by calling you a "Non-Spinner" is that your views are self-contradictory.
Kiddo still fails to realize that there’s no contradiction and that his classifier sucks.
An object O goes from A to B. The path is not a straight line. Does it translate or does it rotate? As is, the question is indeterminate. Could be either, could be both.
But in reality the question is secondary. This is a physics problem. What we want to know is its acceleration and its velocity, more precisely where they come from. Take the infamous ball on string:
https://youtu.be/BdtzuJG97AY?t=108
This is the bit that makes Kiddo and Pup squirm a bit, for there’s no string that pulls on the Moon.
So what is the force that propels the Moon, and where does it come from?
Moon Dragon Cranks always skip that part very fast.
You always skip the part where you actually get to the point.
Kiddo is looping again:
“So what is the force that propels the Moon, and where does it come from?”
I await your answer with interest.
Kiddo has the darnedest Bartleby mode.
Willard has the darnedest avoid getting to the point at all costs mode. It goes on forever.
Kiddo has the darnedest ways to refuse to answer a question that would show how Moon Dragon cranks have no physics.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Worthless Willard found another link he can’t understand. (This happens all the time with idiots that only have a background in keyboarding.)
I understand substraction, Pup.
What about you?
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Woeful Wee Willy wrote –
“I understand substraction, Pup.”
He doesnt understand spelling. Pity.
Nobody understands who Pup is, but who cares?
Wee Willy Wanker – desperately crying for attention and recognition. At least he is eminently recognisable as a delusional moron, with questionable English expression skills.
You’re not very good at this, Mike –
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substraction
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Still delusional, I see.
Still hoping you can get people to waste time clicking on your irrelevant and pointless links.
Keep trying, moron. There might be people even more delusional and gullible than you, I suppose.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd riots in merriment.*
Willard, please stop trolling.
Roy wrote: “As a preface, I will admit, given the lack of evidence to the contrary,”
I consider this powerful evidence to the contrary:
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warn period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, came our current warm period. You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com
Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that mans CO2 is causing serious global warming.
As requested.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/
EM,
You have accidentally linked to the IPCC.
Fairy stories are not acceptable as scientific documents – unless you are a climate crackpot.
There are no experiments whatsoever which show that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
You are delusional.
“There are no experiments whatsoever which show that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
–
Interesting choice of words and images.
–
Misleading by design and deliberately so.
–
Salient point is that it gives no opportunity for the concept of back radiation to come into play.
–
angech,
If your speculation cannot be supported by reproducible experiment, it remains speculation – wishful thinking, if you prefer.
Some people seem to be claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter. Bunkum, of course.
None of these morons seem to be able to elucidate their fantasies in any way which would even enable an examination of their nonsense.
You can’t do it, and neither can anybody else! That’s why you are reduced to banging on about “the concept of back radiation”, as if it has anything to do with raising temperature by reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer.
Don’t be stupid. The Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, as it does every night, during winter, etc. etc. Believe as you wish – reality will ignore you, and people like myself will laugh at you. You are powerless to prevent neither.
“it has anything to do with raising temperature by reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer”
Wrong. It is to do with energy LEAVING the thermometer and its surroundings.
RLH,
If you want to make a coherent response other than he-said-I-say, why not make your argument with some facts and data to back them up?
You said “[Back radiation] is to do with energy LEAVING the thermometer and its surroundings.”
Have at it.
entropic….took a quick look through IPCC Summary and Main Report.
Unmitigated garbage!!!
The first thing they lie about is that the evidence of anthropogenic warming is unequivocal, which means ‘leaving no doubt’. That has to be one of the most arrogantly-based lies I have ever heard. Nothing is unequivocal.
In the Main Report, the lies continue.
“Progress in our understanding of human influence is gained from longer observational datasets, improved paleoclimate information, a stronger warming signal since AR5, and improvements in climate models, physical understanding and attribution techniques …”
Not one shred of scientific evidence equating anthropogenic elements to warming or climate change.
So, I went look for the Little Ice Age and they have relegated it to footnotes, no mention of it as a possible cause of warming (re-warming). Instead, I get this bs…
“The terms Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Climate Anomaly) are not used extensively in this report because the timing of these episodes is not well defined and varies regionally. Since AR5, new proxy records have improved climate reconstructions at decadal scale across the last millennium. Therefore, the dates of events within these two roughly defined periods are stated explicitly when possible”.
In other words, the IPCC is in complete denial about the LIA and its cooling over 400+ years. However, the evidence of it is everywhere globally, from proxy data globally, to recorded observations of climate change, to glacier expansion.
In the French Alps, the Mer de Glace glacier expanded enormously down a valley, wiping out entire villages and farms in its path. The IPCC is claiming the reduction in temperature required to cause such an expansion is restricted to Europe.
One of the articles cited on the LIA was by Michael Mann, the geologist, who starred in the Climategate email scandal. He’s so freaking ignorant he left the LIA and the MWP out of the hockey stick study, to get a straighter shaft.
How you can read and blithely accept that fiction from the IPCC is astounding.
jmk…”Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels”.
***
Don’t forget the 400+ year Little Ice Age in between. The latter part of the 1000 years, since 1850 onward, has been spent re-warming from it. The IPCC, unable to think outside the box, took CO2 emissions and focused on them as the cause of the warming. They still have not proved any relationship between CO2 and warming.
Therefore, scientifically, we have to go with the fact that the current warming is related to re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
“Dont forget the 400+ year Little Ice Age in between. The latter part of the 1000 years, since 1850 onward”
Good point. But to make a Short, convincing post, I have to condense it to the most convincing information.
JmK at 4:40 PM
“Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that mans CO2 is causing serious global warming.”
Sounds like you are disputing William Ruddiman’s hypothesis, no? Has your work been published anywhere other than your own blog?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=william+f.+ruddiman&btnG=
Also:
Earth’s Climate: Past and Future Third Edition
by William F. Ruddiman
https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Climate-William-F-Ruddiman/dp/1429255250
Tyson–“Has your work been published anywhere other than your own blog?”
How is that relevant to anything?
Are you not capable of looking at the data and forming conclusions without relying on some authority to dictate your conclusions?
Science is about data and reasoned analysis, not listening to experts.
“Science is about data and reasoned analysis”
Then could we have some.
What were the global average temperatures during the Roman warm period and the mediaeval warm period?
What were the temperatures at the beginning and end of the LIA.
?
At what temperature do you expect the recovery to stabilise?
Not links to wade through, just the numbers, please.
JimK at 7:35 AM
“How is that relevant to anything?”
So, the answer is no! You offer nothing more than opinions then, and you know what the problem with opinions is, don’t you?
“Science is about data and reasoned analysis, not listening to experts.”
You have a lot to learn about what science is!
Tyson–” You offer nothing more than opinions then, and you know what the problem with opinions is, don’t you?”
The existence of the previous warm periods is NOT OPINION.
That man’s CO2 DID NOT cause them is not opinion.
That they were about 1000 years apart is NOT opinion.
My reasoned analysis is that whatever caused them is the most likely cause of our current warm period.
Why are you having trouble understanding that? (As opposed to having a different conclusion)
Tyson–“Science is about data and reasoned analysis, not listening to experts.”
Exactly what I just did and you are Not doing.
“
JimK at 6:15 PM
“My reasoned analysis is that whatever caused them is the most likely cause of our current warm period.”
Whatever caused them, huh. Magic? Dragons in the sky? No, science tells us that greenhouse gases are responsible.
Science is an interconnected web of ideas, laws, theories and experimental results. This interconnectedness solidifies science. No other discipline has such a strong connection among its parts.
If you spend much time on this blog you’ve surely seen that one guy here believes the warming is due to the earth’s rotation, another that it is caused by humans watering their lawns. The vast majority of “skeptics,” like yourself, don’t know what causes it, but it surely couldn’t be the changing chemical composition of the atmosphere.
You keep doing what you’re doing. I wish you the best of luck.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/How_Net_Zero_Works_Josh_scr.jpg
How Net Zero works.
Good one, Richard.
Earlier, Witless Wee Willy wrote –
“I could not care less that you think Im a bot, Cot. If you can build a bot that could write like I do, I could find you buyers.”
Wee Willy obviously believes he is talented and influential, whereas the truth is that he is an anonymous moron who couldn’t find his arse with both hands, let alone find anyone who would value his opinions about what to buy.
Strange delusional wee chappie, is our Willard.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
denial:
–Waiting to Exhale
Should Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis be concerned whether her breath is a greenhouse gas emission?–
{{Me: All politicians should stop breathing}}
–“I emit greenhouse gases; you emit greenhouse gases; the ranking member, our panelists, we all emit greenhouse gases.”
—Wyoming Representative Cynthia Lummis, at a May 13 Natural Resources Committee hearing–
“This isn’t so much climate change denial as a cry for help. Representative Lummis is confused about biogenic sources of greenhouse gases—the contribution of humans to global warming. Relax, Lummis. I have good news: Your bodily emissions have at most a negligible impact on climate change, and you may even be a modest carbon-sequestration device.”
https://tinyurl.com/3c59kzed
Huh, so, 3 billion tonnes a year a negligible impact on climate change?
[I agree for most people, but not for politicians and their army of “assistants”, nor all the bureaucratic armies created by their evilness.]]
“Passenger cars produced approximately three billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in 2020.”
So, accordingly, “a negligible impact on climate change”
If people were running to work {according to above}, they could emit more CO2, than their cars. So, though it might be fun for pols to run to work as so their assistants and above mention spewed armies of bureaucratic idiots, I rather all above, just not need “work” at all.
Now what about cats?
Dogs might count as essential pets.
It seems every poor person in the world had indoor plumbing it would reduce CO2 emission. And if had natural gas piped to homes, likewise it would reduce CO2 emission.
Not saying reduction CO2 is needed. But politicians talking about reducing CO2, wasting tax dollars, and not reducing CO2, is just evil.
Gbaikie
You,I and politicians are carbon neutral.
We eat carbon absorbed by plants from the air using photosynthesis. We return that carbon to the atmosphere by respiration.
Since they cancel out our net contribution to increased CO2 and global warming is zero.
But Mr Spencer, aren’t your christian “science” beliefs just a matter of faith?
Are you saying that it would be right to attack your beliefs?
AQ,
Strange comment. Why would you ask someone’s permission to disagree with them, or attack their beliefs?
Science “teaches” nothing. Experience does, and doesn’t require your permission to inflict reality on you. Nature is trying to kill you from the moment you are conceived. Eventually Nature succeeds. Your permission is irrelevant!
Feel free to disagree. I don’t care.
He has a point.
Dr Spencer says that faith in global warming is a bad thing, because of a supposed lack of evidence.
So faith in God must be a bad thing too, because of a similar lack of evidence.
EM,
Strange comment. Just because you think something “must” be so, doesn’t make it so, does it?
You can have faith in a God, the Celestial Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Global Warming due to increased CO2 between the Sun and the Earth’s surface.
I don’t laugh at anyone’s faith – unless they are stupid enough to claim that faith is science. It’s not.
Some people are gullible enough to believe that “climate science” is not an oxymoron. Maybe you are confusing reality with fantasy.
In the meantime, try and describe the “GHE”. Where may it be observed, quantified and documented? Is it perhaps just another name for sunlight?
Carry on.
“I don’t laugh at anyone’s faith – unless they are stupid enough to claim that their faith is science”
Then you must be splitting your sides over Mr Spencer’s “Intelligent Design”. Isn’t that PRECISELY “claiming faith is science”?
And who was that other person who always used to address everyone with their initials?
I think it might have been MF.
And you’re thinking right: Swenson is in fact the same person as Mike Flynn (as well as Amazed, who appeared briefly between the two).
Swenson denies that of course, but it is evident that behind the three pseudonyms, one and the same person tweets all the time boring stupidities like
” Do you think that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? ”
or
” The Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so… ”
” Carry on. ”
etc etc etc.
“Isn’t that PRECISELY ‘claiming faith is science’?”
No. What kind of nonsense question is that anyway?
GHE and Intelligent Design are both hypotheses. Believing either one is faith, not science. Doing experiments to prove them is science.
Give me an experiment which proves Intelligent Design.
Not one where people who have already decided on their conclusions infer that “that could not have been done by any other process I can think of so therefore it must be intelligent design”. One where intelligent design is proved DIRECTLY without relying on an expression of the gaps in the “scientist’s” knowledge, nor an expression of his belief of what CAN’T be the cause.
AQ, you’re NOT getting it. Both Evolution AND Intelligent Design are religions. Let me turn it around for you, maybe that will help:
Give me an experiment which proves Evolution.
AQ, experiments involve science. Whether they can be done or not involves faith. All GHE evidence that I have heard about involve something like an Earth with no atmosphere or an atmosphere with no IR active gases. Seems obvious that those experiments will never occur. Likewise for Intelligent Design. Both are matters of faith.
Experiments to prove an extension of the GHE, that more CO2 will increase global temperatures, is more realistic and more relevant.
Chic Bowdrie
YOU: “All GHE evidence that I have heard about involve something like an Earth with no atmosphere or an atmosphere with no IR active gases.”
That would not be correct. You have asked for evidence and I have provided you with links to such evidence. You might reject what you see but that would not be the same as not hearing other evidence.
The Earth’s surface emits and average of 390 W/m^2. The amount of energy going to space (average) is 240 W/m^2. The atmosphere acts as a radiant insulator preventing surface heat from going straight to space. Like a winter coat that is cold on the outside but warm where it contacts your body. Not a whole lot different conceptually only the type of energy transfer, one all three forms of heat transfer (coat) and the other radiant only.
The “240 W/m^2” comes from an imaginary sphere. It is the flux emitted by that sphere’s surface that is in equilibrium with 960 W/m^2 incoming. Earth’s surface is NOT emitting 240 W/m^2. So all this talk about “240 W/m^2”, 255K, and 33K is bogus.
It ain’t science.
The Earth system is real, not imaginary Clint. Good entertainment though.
Clint R
What you post is false.
What you describe is how they calculate the effective temperature of a planet.
What I describe is the satellite measured average outgoing longwave radiation from Earth system to space. The reference point is 20 KM (TOA) and not 500 or 1000 miles. The drop of surface emission at 20 KM is only a few watts from the Inverse Square Law.
I do not know who you want to fool, but you end up only making a fool of yourself.
You should realize the only people who might believe your posts are those with no scientific background. Most posters with science backgrounds know most what you post is complete garbage.
Ball4 correctly says the only value gained from your empty thoughtless posts is entertainment.
Norman says, “The Earth’s surface emits and average of 390 W/m^2. The amount of energy going to space (average) is 240 W/m^2.”
You got me there. That misleading difference IS evidence that seemingly does not involve a hypothetical atmosphere. It’s misleading though, because you don’t know that the difference would not remain without any IR gases in an inert atmosphere.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the surface does emit 390 and only 240 escapes, where did the 150 W/m2 difference go?
More importantly, where is the evidence that increasing CO2 will increase global temperature?
Chic asks: “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the surface does emit 390 and only 240 escapes, where did the 150 W/m2 difference go?”
That’s a good question. Their nonsense just doesn’t pass the basic smell test.
They claim 20 km is their reference TOA, but TOA is 100 km. They claim their bogus 240 W/m^2 is from 20km, but that is NOT “a few watts from the Inverse Square Law”, as claimed.
So NOTHING adds up. When you point that out, they just change things around. They change things so much they get confused. And, confusion is their goal, since they have no science.
Chic Bowdrie
Science also uses logical and rational thought to determine relationship with observation.
You ask a question that can very easily be asked from using simple logical thought.
YOU: “You got me there. That misleading difference IS evidence that seemingly does not involve a hypothetical atmosphere. It’s misleading though, because you don’t know that the difference would not remain without any IR gases in an inert atmosphere.”
Yes by logic you can certainly determine that the difference would not remain without IR gases. You can do multiple experiments to show this. You have an Infrared source and put various gases between the source and a detector, Tyndall already did this as have many others. Without an IR active gas present there is no change from source to detector.
You ask where does the energy go, part returns to the surface, creating the GHE warming the surface above what solar input alone can do.
Chic Bowdrie
You can read the ramblings of a foolish person (or bot) like Clint R who knows nothing and can’t do basic research.
Here you can read how and why they determined the TOA radiant reference point to be 20 KM above the surface.
Clint R will not understand the contents of this post but you will be able to.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3301_dtotaf_2.0.co_2.xml
“Yes by logic you can certainly determine that the difference would not remain without IR gases.”
Well, sorry. Logic experiments don’t count.
“You can do multiple experiments to show this.”
Yes, I would be very interested in your results, if you ever do any. Unfortunately, citing other peoples experiments using theoretical radiative transfer calculations to get simulated estimates doesn’t count either. Tyndall’s experiments don’t count either for the same reason: the impact of thermalization and convection are missing from the logic.
Chic Bowdrie
From your post it will seem that you will not accept anything as evidence. Not sure what you want.
I have linked you to actual measured values and that does not do it.
Since you don’t accept actual measured values or anything else, what are you actually looking for?
AQ,
Why would I be “splitting my sides”? I choose what I laugh at, as do you, I suppose.
What is Mr Spencer’s “Intelligent Design”? Are there experimental results to support the idea, or is it just a matter of faith?
You may laugh all you like at Mr Spencer. It’s your choice. Not a single physical fact will be changed, of course.
Meanwhile, I choose to laugh at delusional morons who refuse to accept reality – that climate is just the statistics of past weather, for example. No science there!
AQ and Ent are confused. They don’t know the difference between “science” and “religion”.
Science is observable, predictable, verifiable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Science can NOT violate the laws of physics. Science is reality-based.
Religion is based on faith.
So the CO2 nonsense is a religion. It is NOT based on science. It is based on faith. There’s nothing wrong with “believing” in the CO2 nonsense, but it ain’t science.
A religion that can be proven invalid is a “false religion”, or cult.
And how do you classify “intelligent design”?
Intelligent Design is a religion, just like Evolution. Both are beliefs.
“just like Evolution”
Evolution is not a belief. It is science.
But the adherents don’t only call it a religion – they call it “science”.
Surely you should be expressing abhorrence at anyone who would pass off mere religion as science.
And surely your classification of evolution as religion is itself the expression of a belief, hence religion.
Evolution is science. HERE’s an example of some details which make it so.
Were Dinosaurs intelligently designed and if so, how come they didn’t make thru the results of an impact from a large bolide? Maybe the so-called “intelligent designer” decided that they were an evolutionary failure and stepped in to cleanse the petri dish known as Earth to start over.
Intelligent design is pseudoscience.
It was designed as a way of sneaking religion past the ban on religion in the US school system.
Clint R
There is actual scientific evidence for evolution based upon observations.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution
Like I mentioned, Evolution and Intelligent Design are both religions.
Evolution is NOT science, as the concept has no meaningful evidence, and it violates too many laws of physics. It’s an unscientific false religion, aka a cult.
That’s the advantage of Intelligent Design. Any violation of physics can be explained by “the Designer did it”.
The best argument against Intelligent Design is that humans are not intelligently designed.
We are full of half-baked features which work just well enough. Ask anyone with back trouble or spectacles.
Look into our eyes. The light sensitive cells in the retina are behind the nerve cells and capillaries which support them. The light has to find its way past them before it can be detected.
Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?
You have no credibility. You can’t support your claims. I no longer waste my time with worthless trolls.
Clint R
I found a link you can’t understand. Since you are bot you don’t know how to read. So you resort to your old program routine. It makes you appear human and it could work if it was not used many many times on numerous posters. The repetition makes you either an extremely stupid person (not the program can recognize the word “stupid” so it has a programmed response to this word) or a program bot. I am hoping you are a bot because a human as stupid as your posts are would really be sad. A bot would be an impressive program, not so sad. I would compliment the programmers to generate a anti-science bot on a science blog.
Norman, not one sentence in your comment is true.
That’s just one of your many problems.
” A religion that can be proven invalid is a ‘false religion’, or cult. ”
Yeah. That is exactly the reason why trivial thoughts like the ‘ball-on-a-string’ and its numerous co-examples are part of a cult: they represent exactly the inverse of science.
Bindidon, your ignorance of orbital motion combined with your rejection of reality, reduces you to just another worthless troll.
A responsible adult knows that balls, string, and bicycles exist. That’s reality.
A ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits.
Is the ball not orbiting the hand that is twirling it? Is the ball not keeping the same face pointed to the hand?
Art, The ball is not orbiting like the Moon or the planets, which are free bodies responding to the force(s) of gravity. It’s attached to the string, which prevents it’s rotation, except around the radial line of the string from hand to ball.
Correct Swanson, the ball is NOT rotating about its axis. The ball-on-a-string is a good model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit.
It’s the same with Moon, one side always faces the inside of its orbit.
> the ball-on-a-string is a good model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”
A pity that orbit without spin does not describe the motion of the Moon, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So it’s settled then – someone who believes in intelligent design, and who has previously referred to intelligent design to support his claims about climate change, is no scientist.
antonin…”someone who believes in intelligent design, and who has previously referred to intelligent design to support his claims about climate change, is no scientist”.
***
You are describing Isaac Newton. Got a problem with Newton’s work?
AQ,
You wrote –
“So it’s settled then – someone who believes in intelligent design, and who has previously referred to intelligent design to support his claims about climate change, is no scientist.”
You obviously have faith in your ability to tell all and sundry what is “settled”. Just like that other moron who headed up the IPCC.
Good for you! You give me the opportunity for a good laugh at your stupidity.
Thanks. Keep it up.
Gbaikie
You,I and politicians are carbon neutral.
We eat carbon absorbed by plants from the air using photosynthesis. We return that carbon to the atmosphere by respiration.
Since they cancel out our net contribution to increased CO2 and global warming is zero.
Apparently by causing trees to grow [or not burning them] that can make a car emission carbon neutral.
[And of course coal is from trees, and at this moment coal is being made as has made for millions of years].
3 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by all passenger cars in the world, is putting CO2 in atmosphere just as +7 billion humans are putting CO2 in the atmosphere. And both amounts are apparently a negligible impact on climate change.
Or warming buildings is more significant emission of CO2.
And it seems bad governance is main cause of emitting too much CO2.
Solar panels, wind mills, burning wood, allowing “natural coal fires”, high taxes and etc, etc cause more CO2 emissions.
Failing to explore the Moon results in more CO2 emission.
Developing SLS which costs over 20 billion dollars, causing more CO2 emission- but mainly it’s waste of time, has delayed Lunar exploration.
N – planet rotational spin (rotations /day)
cp – planet average surface specific heat (cal /gr.oC)
–
The “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” states:
“Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals), as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth (16) root.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s wrong, Christos, since Dr. Spencer already showed you the correct Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Ball4 says:
April 2, 2022 at 11:08 AM
That’s wrong, Christos, since Dr. Spencer already showed you the correct Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Thank you, Ball4.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ball4…Christos is his own man with a degree in mechanical engineering, not a sniveling, butt-kisser like you.
jmk…”Are you not capable of looking at the data and forming conclusions without relying on some authority to dictate your conclusions?”
***
I have been asking the same question from the alarmists for a long time. They are all incapable of responding to an argument scientifically based on the argument. That applies to all alarmists from top to bottom, the top being the IPCC.
To anyone defending evolution theory, your defense is actually about genetics, which applies to one species and cannot explain the evolution of one species into another.
The origins of evolution theory is abiogenesis, the theory that claims life originated from non-living matter. The basis of theory is that oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus and hydrogen formed in primeval muds into the life we know today.
There are no links between those so-called primeval muds and the complexity of modern-day life and no fossils that can demonstrate an intermediate phase between species evolution. To claim it occurred through natural selection is nothing more than a silly theory with no proof whatsoever.
A simple example. The human heart has 4 chambers, two on each side. The right chambers work as a pair, the top chamber, the atrium taking in oxygen-depleted blood from the venous system, or veins, and the bottom chamber, the ventricle, which pump blood to the lungs. In the lungs, the blood is oxygenated and sent back to the atrium of the left pair of chambers where it is pumped to the lower chamber the ventricle, then out to the body,
Meantime, an electrical node, the sinus node, on the right atrium, produces regular electrical pulses that can be varied upon demand. The pulses activate the atrium, making it pumps blood into the ventricle.
Here’s the amazing part. There is another electrical node for the ventricle which delays the pulses enough to allow the ventrical to synchronize with the atrium.
This bears a decent resemblance to a car engine. Evolution is like claiming an engine could develop by sheer chance, given enough time.
Good video here…
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/multimedia/circulatory-system/vid-20084745
Anyone claiming this is not a design is not dealing with a full deck. The notion that it all developed from a handful of elements in primeval muds is sheer insanity.
Thread post counts to April 2, 10:25 EDT
RLH : 825
Willard : 661
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 472
Clint R : 295
Nate : 256
Gordon Robertson : 196
Entropic man : 169
Ball4 : 158
Chic Bowdrie : 153
gbaikie : 147
Bindidon : 140
stephen p anderson : 134
Swenson : 127
bill hunter : 107
Ken : 87
bobdroege : 86
Norman : 68
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 62
Richard M : 58
Richard Greene : 52
Tim Folkerts : 41
CO2isLife : 40
Eben : 28
Christos Vournas : 27
Brandon R. Gates : 24
Ireneusz Palmowski : 23
E. Swanson : 20
Somewhere earlier, Norman asks what evidence of a GHE I am actually looking for after claiming to have linked to actual measured values of the surface and TOA radiation.
“Since you dont accept actual measured values or anything else, what are you actually looking for?”
First of all, Norman, your link doesn’t actually report measured values. It basically explains how a 20 km altitude is deemed the appropriate level for defining TOA fluxes. From the conclusion of the paper:
“Of course, if there were no atmosphere, the effective radiative top of the atmosphere would correspond to the earth’s surface. Adding an atmosphere that attenuates solar radiation raises the effective radiative top of the atmosphere to approximately 20 km above the surface, based on MODTRAN simulations for several different atmospheric scenarios. Therefore, from these results, the 20-km reference level appears to be the most appropriate flux reference level for defining satellite-based TOA fluxes for earth radiation budget studies.”
We know that satellite radiation measurements are reporting TOA fluxes of around 240 W/m2. But there is no mention in the paper of a measurement of 390 W/m2 emitted from the surface. The only reference to a surface temperature is 299.7 K from some hypothetical tropical ocean location. My understanding of 390 W/m2 is that it is assumed to be the emission based on the SB equation for a surface that is uniformly 288 K. There never is any such global surface on the real planet Earth.
What I am actually looking for is some experimental data that incorporates all the pertinent realistic atmospheric physical processes showing that an increase in CO2 will increase global temperatures. I “believe” that the planet will be some other average temperature with no atmosphere or with only an inert atmosphere. But that is no more helpful than believing in the Easter bunny. We have to work with the atmosphere we have.
You are a smart guy and a pleasure to discuss this stuff with. I learn from you. Hopefully, you will agree.
Chic Bowdrie
The surface emission comes from various sensors around the globe. Some are in this link. There are others.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Norman,
Thermometers are designed to respond to increases in temperature.
CO2 cannot be shown to cause any increases in temperature.
You link to data showing that temperatures do vary with variation in energy received by the thermometer – as would be expected.
Of course, your link contains no references at all to CO2. None. Even your authority claims that CO2 plays no part in thermometer temperature. Only a moron would appeal to the authority of someone who wants nothing to do with any mad idea that CO2 in the atmosphere creates heat!
Try finding an authority that supports your stupid GHE – supported by reproducible experiment, of course. Ill keep sniggering while you pretend to look.
Off you go now.
It was a bit too late for me at UTC+2, otherwise I’d have given Chic Bowdrie the same link I bookmarked years ago.
I sincerely hope that he will appreciate your reply a bit more than Flynnson’s egomaniac and pseudoskeptic blathering.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6249831d21c6d.png
Norman,
Let’s assume that measuring temperature at every point on Earth does in fact average 288K and that radiation measured at those same points averages 340 W/m2 globally. You wrote that, of the 150 W/m2 difference between surface and TOA radiation, “part returns to the surface, creating the GHE warming the surface above what solar input alone can do.”
Two things. First, if only part returns to the surface, where does the rest go?
Second, isn’t “creating the GHE warming the surface above what solar input alone can do” the equivalent of “making the surface warmer than it would otherwise be?”
The purpose of the latter question is to point out that you are invoking the difference between reality and a fictitious planet to explain GHE. What matters is whether more CO2 causes any further increase in average global temperature.
Chic Bowdrie
As Roy Spencer pointed out for this thread, it is a difficult task to get data to confirm or reject the CO2 hypothesis driving Global Warming.
There are some studies done but even if you isolate to just clear sky to see an effect of CO2 (like the surface measurement or the OLR) this would not satisfy the real world situation which may alter the effect seen.
Clouds make the Climate Change more a modeling art than a rigid science.
I think keep and open mind on the issue and keep watching. Scientists are trying to figure it out and keep coming up with ideas to try and get the answer. The theory is it should, MODTRAN shows it should but that does not mean it must.
We know from physics and thermodynamics that CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperature. The cult MUST pervert reality to believe such nonsense. They believe ice cubes can boil water. That’s the sort of nonsense one must believe to believe CO2 can warm the surface.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful Clint’s 8:00am theory is since it doesn’t agree with experiment, it is wrong.
But it’s great entertainment reading Clint get physics wrong much of the time.
Clint R
Maybe you are not a bot but a robot instead. You repeat things over and over even after being corrected on a point you ignore the correction and repeat your bad incorrect point.
The CO2 is already known not to raise the surface temperature. It slows down the heat loss so that the solar input can raise the temperature. I think I have explained that several times to you already.
The CO2 acts like a radiant insulator, it lowers the amount of heat the surface loses. So with CO2 present the amount of heat loss the surface loses is diminished so that the Solar heat input will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature.
I do not know how often you have to be corrected on what is actually being said. You twist and pervert what is stated into your own ideas. Over and over you do this. For years now. Never stopping to question your own bad assumptions. Thinking you are the only one that is correct and all scientists got it wrong.
You are the one with a cult mind. You MUST pervert reality to justify your stupid posts.
“It slows down the heat loss so that the solar input can raise the temperature.”
Yes Norman, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Clint R
Yes the Sun is the source of the energy that heats the surface.
The GHG are a radiant heat insulator lowering the amount of heat the surface emits from directly going to space.
The analogies of a blanket or wall insulation describe the function of GHG. A blanket does not “warm” a person but a it will slow down the rate of heat loss from the body and allow the body’s heating mechanism to maintain a healthy body temperture in a cold room.
“The analogies of a blanket or wall insulation describe the function of GHG.”
Wrong again, Norman.
The “blanket” analogy of the atmosphere is best described by nitrogen and oxygen, which together make up about 99% of the atmosphere. These two gases are considered non-radiative gases by your cult. So they would “trap heat” much better than radiative gases.
BTW, where’s your “textbook” verification that 315W/m^2 from two different sources can heat a surface to 325K? You said you always support your nonsense. Failing to do what you claim is why you’re such a phony.
Norman,
I also have pointed out how difficult it is to get data to confirm or reject the CO2 hypothesis driving GW. You want me to keep an open mind. Do you think someone who continues to post comments about blanket analogies, radiant insulators, and appeals to authority has an open mind?
Clint R
How would the non-radiating gases prevent any of the surface emission from going straight to space?
Chic Bowdrie
I would agree with you that getting solid data on CO2 warming is difficult because the effect is small. I would not disagree with your points on that issue.
I would disagree with people who say there is no GHE which is quite extensive and easy to measure. You are not measuring a few watts difference with that concept.
My issue is the blurring of GHE with AGW. One is solid and can be easily demonstrated with available data. The other one is hypothetical based upon models.
The two are very different topics. One is established the other is not solid at this time.
The blanket analogy works well to describe the GHE, not so much for AGW. It would be like a thin blanket on top of a quilt might cause warming but it would be much harder to tell as it merges with other possible effects (temperature of room, your own metabolism).
If you distinguish clearly AGW and GHE I can accept that AGW is not based upon solid evidence. It is more hypothetical.
Clint R
Like a program routine (real botlike behavior).
You keep bringing up the point I already answered for you. I am not going to waste time endlessly answering your posts over an over. I am not a bot, I can learn things. Not so with you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1225977
I answered your post here I will not continue to waste time on a bot routine. If you can’t accept it too bad for you.
Norman, thanks for another display of your incompetence and dishonesty.
You did NOT address my question. The issue is about two equal fluxes adding to bring something to higher temperature than just one of the fluxes. The issue is NOT about can sunlight warm a room.
BTW, where’s your “textbook” verification that 315W/m^2 from two different sources can heat a surface to 325K? You said you always support your nonsense. Failing to do what you claim is why you’re such a phony.
You can’t support such nonsense, because it is NONSENSE.
Did I mention that you’re a phony?
Clint R
You are clearly showing you have never used an actual textbook. They do not contain every answer to every problem you can think of.
I doubt I would find that exact problem in a textbook to link you to. So your request is not something I can deliver.
I kind of know you can’t connect the sunlight in a room to the problem you ask (it is similar but you can’t logically figure out the connection). Because of your lack of logical thought I also gave you another one to try. Two IR light sources that could be around 300 watts each. You can turn one on to get a steady state temperature of some object the light is directed upon. Then turn on a second light of equal watts and see if the temperature goes up more than the first one alone, this would invalidate your point and answer you question at the same time.
I will not answer this question from you again even if you ask it 10,000 more times. Do you understand this. I have answered it enough. Endlessly asking the same question over and over does not make you seem intelligent. It makes you seem like a program, a bot. If you want to act human then quit acting like a bot.
Norman,
“The blanket analogy works well to describe the GHE, not so much for AGW.”
I know what you are trying to say, but you lose all credibility with me by continuing to use the blanket analogy. Here are three reasons.
1) The atmosphere has no solid objects like a blanket of any kind. Blankets don’t convect. Layers of gases convect, but they get broken up into blocks and whipped around with the wind. Any resemblance to insulation is completely disrupted.
2) A blanket GHE analogy ignores the crucial physical properties that explain how the atmosphere cools by thermalization at the surface, convection of the bulk air up, and reverse thermalization in the upper atmosphere.
3) Those GHE cartoon over-simplifications lead to ignorant media, politicians, and Joe public getting mislead.
If you agree that AGW is only an unverified hypothesis, then why contribute to a misinformation campaign with the blanket nonsense. Otherwise, who are you being an AGW shill for?
Norman, YOU are the one that started the “textbook” nonsense. You now claim textbooks don’t have the “answer to every problem”. You can’t support your crap.
You’re a phony.
This issue is about two identical fluxes arriving the same surfaca. Your cult hero claimed the fluxes would add as F + F = 2F. Specifically, he/she stated 315 W/m^2 plus 315 W/m^2 = 630 W/m^2.
That’s what you believe. You believe that fluxes simply add. You don’t know any better because you’ve never had any meaningful physics.
Your mission was to support that nonsense.
You’ve failed your mission.
And don’t worry, I’ll remind you of your failure whenever I remember. We don’t want such a good cult failure to go to waste.
Chic Bowdrie
Sorry you are still wrong. The GHE does work as a blanket does, it reduces the heat loss from a heated object (Earth surface or human body). A blanket does not just slow heat by convection, it also slows heat loss by radiant energy if the outside of the blanket is colder than the interior in contact with your body.
That said. I do not know why you are hung up about “blanket analogy” it is one that everyone can relate to. The real GHE is available and works the same way only it is not as easy to see for some.
I have demonstrated this to many people already. I can only hope you understand it. The real GHE.
https://tinyurl.com/mr9vatuz
In this graph you can even see (without calculations which I have already done multiple times) that the upwelling energy emission exceeds the solar net in a 24 hour period. This would mean the surface is creating energy from nothing in order to emit more than it can possibly receive from the Sun.
Chic Bowdrie
https://tinyurl.com/4sdp8vtn
Add the downwelling component of the atmosphere.
Now look at the Net surface heat loss with the GHE. It is less than the Solar input. Now you have convection and latent heat removing the remaining surplus solar energy to achieve the current temp.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8sttzb
Those are measured values and they clearly show a GHE is active and keeping the surface at a higher temperature than it would be without such gases.
I hope that resolves it for you. I am not a shill for AGW. I think it is very possible, my doubts are on the extreme weather attribution to the observed warming.
Clint R
I gave you the answer clearly (reread my post again, it is in there). As I stated I will not continue to answer you questions about fluxes adding when you have been told this many times how it works.
End it already. You whine about people insulting you. Then you be the one to stop insulting me. You have the answer, just stop.
If you insult people (like calling people braindead cult idiots for no real reason) then expect insults back.
Hey phony Norman, you braindead cult idiot, where’s your support for your fluxes add nonsense? You believe two equal fluxes arriving a surface result in twice the flux. You claim you always support such nonsense with textbook reference.
Where’s your support, you phony?
Did I mention you’re a phony, with NOTHING?
Search the Internet, like you learned in keyboard school. Don’t worry, if you can’t find it, I’ll remind you later. I know you’re braindead.
Glad to help.
Norman,
“Those are measured values and they clearly show a GHE is active and keeping the surface at a higher temperature than it would be without such gases.”
Why would this resolve anything when you are back to comparing single day and place measurements to a hypothetical fictional circumstance? A greenhouse is enclosed and stays warm because the heat can’t escape. The purpose of the atmosphere is to cool during the day and keep warm during the night. The only reason to invoke a GHE is to lay the groundwork for AGW so that humans can be blamed for heating the planet. If you believe we are to blame for heating the planet, then go on promoting your AGW hypothesis and I will continue to ask you for the data to support it.
So again, who or what drives you to defend AGW?
Chic Bowdrie
One of the basic philosophies of science is that the Universe operates rationally and logically. That is why you can find underlying laws (like gravity) that govern things.
So with that said. All current measuring systems show a positive warming signal including UAH over a given time period.
Now a scientist is seeking to find out what is the cause.
You set up a list of possible candidates and you use process of elimination to find the best answer to explain the observed warming.
You could suspect changes in solar energy (it does vary). This has been examined and concluded not to be the cause as the solar intensity is now dropping.
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/global-surface-temp.jpg
changes in albedo are a possible candidate. Cloud cover is also a good one. The cloud cover is difficult to determine as it is not just about cloud cover but the types of clouds present that effect global temperature.
There are other factors and scientists are looking at different ones.
CO2 is still a legitimate candidate as there are measurements of the gas and it is shown to be increasing. MODTRAN models do indicate an increase in CO2 will result in an energy imbalance so there is some hypothetical grounds for it.
That is why I hope you keep an open mind. The investigation is ongoing. CO2 is one possible candidate to explain at least some warming. Finding direct evidence with a complex system as Earth is not so easy. Mostly the answer will be based upon logical conclusions by process of elimination.
When better measurements of clouds and cloud types and fractions of clouds are then correlated to temperature you can then determine what effect clouds have on temperature and then try and determine why clouds are shifting to produce an increase in warming.
Norman,
“Finding direct evidence with a complex system as Earth is not so easy.”
Bingo. And without it, swallowing the AGW meme is drinking the Kool-Aid. The reason I am skeptical is precisely because I have an open mind. Belief without direct evidence is close-minded.
Chic,
> if only part returns to the surface, where does the rest go?
Mostly absorbed by other GHGs then re-emitted in random directions in a continuous process.
Brandon,
We discussed this, remember? I even posted a graph on your website that shows my estimates for energy transfers through the atmosphere. Except for about 15% of the LWIR going directly to space, the rest is thermalized and, along with the latent energy from evaporation, transported upward via convection and wind. All that occurs superimposed over a naturally occurring lapse rate that would exist regardless of the influence of IR absorbing gases.
The key problem with your absorbed-then-emitted view is that only a small percentage of emission occurs after absorp.tions near the surface due to the preponderance of IR active gas collisions with bulk air molecules. Only until the air thins in the upper atmosphere will the emissions begin to take precedence.
Chic,
> only a small percentage of emission occurs after absorp.tions near the surface
The surface gets back ~330 W/m2 from nearly 400 W/m2 emitted and ~100 W/m2 lost to evaporation and convection. 66% is not small in my book.
brandon…”The surface gets back ~330 W/m2…”
***
Explain how an atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium or cooler, can transfer heat to a warmer surface.
“Explain how an atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium or cooler, can transfer heat to a warmer surface”.
Really?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs IR energy radiated by the earth. It transfers energy to the surrounding atmosphere as it expands according to gas law by way of collision with millions of O2 and N2 molecules. After a time, it absorbs enough energy to radiate IR energy … and here is the key bit … in all directions including toward a warmer surface.
Works the same for all greenhouse gases.
IR is not heat.
Solar flux at Earth’s distance (R=1AU) from the sun
So =1361 W/m²
Earth’s Albedo a=0,306
Moon’s Albedo a=0,11
Earth’s Tmean=288K
Moon’s Tmean =220K
Solar irradiance (Moon’s surface /Earth’s surface) ratio
(1-0,11)So /(1-0,306)So = 0,89 /0.694 = 1,2824 or 28,24% more SW EM incident energy available on the Moon’s surface.
(Earth’s Te=255K /Moon’s Te=197K) ratio
255K/197K = 1,2944
1,2944^4 =2,807
Earth’s “brightness” temperature emits 2,807 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moon’s “brightness” temperature does.
On the other hand Moon’s surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earth’s surface.
This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earth’s thin atmosphere’s trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!
There is no way Earth’s atmosphere can balance this huge
(Moon’ s surface /Earth’s surface) IR emission difference:
2,807 *1,2824 = 3,600
3,600 -1 = 2,600 the 2,6 more as much as Moon’s surface IR EM emission the Earth’s brightness IR EM emission impossible !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Spencer,
I love you doc, but why do you throw these fascist imbeciles a bone like this that they will run with and vilify you with in the same breath. In a moment of weakness, years ago, you called these climate religionists Nazis and I suppose your colleagues had their shorts bunched up over that, but you were right and this junk science has become nothing more than a cult and a religion.
The only thing now is to see how much damage these clowns-of-science will be willing to do for their religion, their grant whoring and their hubris. I fear we are in for a rough ride which I probably will not live to see.
Good luck!
@Chic Bowdrie,
I applaud your persistence since I gave up on the likes of “Clint R” and “Norman” long ago.
Nothing changes here. The same arguments over and over again without anyone listening to anyone else.
What is good about this website is that Roy Spenser presents “Hard Science” and he is explains it clearly and mostly without ambiguity.
FACT. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is rising.
HIGHLY LIKELY. The main cause is mankind burning fossil fuels. While “Natural Sources” are much greater than man made sources they are balanced out by “Natural Sinks” so the net effect is close to zero.
FACT. Rising CO2 levels raise the average global temperature. This can be shown using first principle physics.
HIGHLY UNLIKELY. The IPCC AR6 report says the “Sensitivity Constant” is 3.0C, with a likely range of 2.5-4C and a very likely range of 2-5C. First principles physics says 0.6C. The effect of CO2 on temperature is therefore not something to care about.
FACT. CO2 has a positive effect on crop yields.
HIGHLY LIKELY. Adding 1 part per million of CO2 to the atmosphere will increase crop yields world wide by 0.8% according to Taylor & Shlenker (2021).
My advice to y’all is to increase your carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible. Do what Al Gore and Prince Charles do rather than what they tell you to do.
cam…”My advice to yall is to increase your carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible. Do what Al Gore and Prince Charles do rather than what they tell you to do”.
***
If this is truly gallopingcamel, and not some SOB stealing his nym….
Really sad to see you have sold out. Nothing worse than a former skeptic who becomes a butt-kisser to authority and sells out.
***************
“FACT. Rising CO2 levels raise the average global temperature. This can be shown using first principle physics”.
***
Prove it! There is no physics whatsoever can prove it.
How the heck do you prove a one to one relationship between atmospheric CO2 and warming? I just did a quick read through of AR6 looking for that proof. What it comes down to is mainly two things, for the IPCC…
1)19th century scientists claimed it did.
2)As CO2 increases the warming increases.
Duh!!! Correlation is not causation. That’s especially true after emerging from the 400+ year Little Ice Age.
Gallopingcamel,
“FACT. Rising CO2 levels raise the average global temperature. This can be shown using first principle physics.
Nope. Only in your imagination. No experiment has ever shown that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. And, of course, this is what happens when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased.
No one has managed to contradict the experiments of Tyndall and others, who showed that blocking the heat radiation reaching a temperature measuring instrument reduces the temperature of same. Tyndall also showed that the combined effect of the atmosphere reduces the amount of the suns radiation reaching the surface by about 35% on a clear day. NASA agrees.
Now, maybe, you could describe the experiments which contradict measurements established over 150 years or so.
Or you could start babbling about blankets, buckets, or any other irrelevant analogy.
Have fun.
Thanks for publishing such great knowledge. You are doing such a great job. This info is very informative for everyone. Keep it up. Thanks for sharing it once again. New Holland Tractor
I love you doc, but why do you throw these fascist imbeciles a bone like this that they will run with and vilify you with in the same breath.
Only in your imagination. No experiment has ever shown that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. And, of course, this is what happens when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased.
Now, maybe, you could describe the experiments which contradict measurements established over 150 years or so.
This info is very informative for everyone. Keep it up. Thanks for sharing it once again.
My advice to yall is to increase your carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible. Do what Al Gore and Prince Charles do rather than what they tell you to do.
Nothing changes here. The same arguments over and over again without anyone listening to anyone else.
Only in your imagination. No experiment has ever shown that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
Thank you for nice information
Visit Mywebsite
https://uhamka.ac.id/
You should believe me when I say this is a fantastic post. I’ve been searching for posts like this for the last week, but I haven’t come across any. Please keep up the good work, and I look forward to reading more of your blogs. If you’d like some ideas on Study Abroad Scholarships you can visit my blog
Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your website and
in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed account your blog posts.
Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently
fast.
cheers considerably this excellent website is actually elegant as
well as simple
My website; דירותלמכירהבראשוןרה בראשון
many thanks a great deal this website is actually
conventional and everyday