Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2022 was +0.15 deg. C, up from the February, 2022 value of -0.01 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 15 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.29 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.32 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06
2021 11 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.43 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.03 1.62 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.24 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.05 -0.31 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.08 0.21 0.74 0.02
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2022 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Bad music does not make an argument.
Fortunately, good music does.
You don’t create good music.
It’s a cracking tune and you know it.
It’s a crappy tune.
Incorrect.
You can beg and plead all you want. The verdict is still the same. Crap.
You can beg and plead all you want. The verdict is still the same. Cracking.
Cracking crap.
Trolling troll.
You’re the troll.
You’re the troll, no you’re the troll, no you’re the troll…
Idiot.
You’re the idiot, no you’re the idiot, no you’re the idiot…
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part time on my laptop.~j254~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~j254~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page.
__________ https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
Said the idiot.
Now RLH attacks poor Gracie.
You are both idiots, in different ways.
I have a feeling that Gracie isn’t a real person, RLH.
I have a feeling that you are a troll.
Well, that feeling, like so many others you have, would be wrong.
So tell me, do you agree that GR is wrong about barycenter?
Yep.
Do you agree that barycenter means that a ball-on-a-string is not a meaningful example of orbits?
Discussed further down-thread.
Kind of a goofy sounding tune, but I liked it. Point made.
Pointless you mean.
Shut up, RLH. People are allowed to be complimentary of the song without you intervening.
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-40) 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/
Harder and harder for Kiddo to pretend that he’s simply reacting to pushback now that he succeeded at getting the first comment in the monthly thread!
He says the darnedest things.
If you have a comment on the video, please leave it in the comments at the video, not at Dr Roy’s. Thank you.
Idiot.
Yes, you’re an idiot. Thanks.
You are the idiot in question.
Powerful and worthwhile stuff, RLH.
A lot more accurate than your crappy ‘song’.
You’re just an abusive troll, basically.
You’re the troll. With no taste in music.
You’re the troll, no you’re the troll, no you’re the troll…
Now set that to music.
The entire climate change debate in a nutshell. An extremely repetitive song, with only those lyrics, played over and over again on a loop until the end of time.
Kiddo says the darnedest things.
Climateball is what we make it.
Well, "what we make it" tends to almost always boil down to two groups of people each calling the other trolls. No progress is ever made.
Progress might impossible when kiddos use the darnedest tricks. If one can argue that the Moon does not spin over so many years, is there any hope? But that’s an unfair assessment.
Progress has been made. We have a Master Argument. We have a song. We have Kiddo getting philosophical.
Even our Hall Monitor is slowly but surely learning. He’s still failing to grasp that he should not poison his own well. In a few months perhaps he’ll realize that it only helps our Dark Triad.
In any event, the tears of the world are in constant quantity. The same for laughs.
No tricks, no deception. No more false accusations, please.
Here is a short list of the darnedest tricks Kiddo used:
[Arm Waver] Already did, you ignore the thousands of comments I made. Find it yourself.
[Bridge Troll] You keep wanting to go on and discuss the moon. I will not do so until you concede the point about the ball on a string.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-818260
[Chewbacca] Gibberish, waffle. You have *no* idea. Still confused.
[Dictionary Buff] I know what words mean.
[Ennui] Yawn.
[Facetious] I was just being facetious.
[Gracious Tilter] C*ck. *F*ck off.
[Having Fun] I’m just having a bit of fun.
[Incredulous] Are you only now realizing this!?
[Lulzer] Lol…
[Mesmerized Psychologist] I have no idea what your problem, your obsession, etc.
[Non Pipe Smoker] Prove you don’t always want to have the last word. Please stop trolling.
[Rubber Stamper] I know because I know.
[Poor Sod] You refuse to understand.
[Question Begger] Then stop doing it.
[Self Seal] See? It begins…
And that’s notwithstanding the more formal tricks, the last one involving circular logic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1229711
Too late for Kiddo to play the victim. He reaps what he sows. Richard’s lack of kindness is not worse than Mike’s.
I have absolutely zero intent to deceive.
You just deceive yourself.
Maybe, maybe not. I have absolutely no intent to deceive others.
[K] No tricks, no deception.
[W] Here’s a short list of tricks.
[K] No deception whatsoever.
[W] K says the darnedest things.
They aren’t tricks, that’s just your interpretation of various things I’ve said to you. As just one example, if I say to you that "you have no idea" about this or that, it’s because I genuinely think that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You then take this to be a trick. It isn’t. I’m being honest. I really don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about.
> They aren’t tricks
Kiddo issues the darnedest denial. We’ll add it to the list.
Another recent trick:
[BG] 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.
[K] No, I will not do so. Thank you.
I could call that trick going full Bartleby.
Another, very pertinent, example…when I say that I have no idea what your problem is, or why you’re so obsessed with me…I genuinely don’t. Unless it’s because I embarrassed you over at ATTP, and you’ve never forgiven me for that? I don’t know. That’s the only thing I can hazard a guess at.
Once again, if I write a comment at Dr Roy’s…I know that you’re going to comment. You can’t resist. There was no Universe in which you weren’t going to comment here. You really do seem to be genuinely obsessed with me. It’s always me, and it’s always personal. It’s always, how can I try to make DREMT look bad? What can I say to personally attack his character? The only other person you are this obsessed with, is Swenson.
And yes, it really does get boring. Yawn, indeed.
“how can I try to make DREMT look bad?”
You do that all by yourself. No other work required.
I’m sure you’re right. In which case, you have no need to keep attacking me.
You post something that goes against science. I respond. Simple.
I have no problem with you attacking my arguments. You just rarely do that. When you do, you usually demonstrate that you don’t understand them.
You just claim continuously that real science is not real and that your invalid interpretation is.
Like barycenter which destroys your stupid ball-on-a-string argument.
Or are you finally disowning GR?
A barycenter does nothing to destroy the ball on a string. Talk about it at the video, though. We are meant to be keeping the discussion off this blog.
Poor RLH STILL doesn’t understand that “barycenter” has NOTHING to do with axial rotation. He can’t learn.
But, he won !st place in number of comments again — quantity, but not quality….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1232418
Richard is our Hall Monitor, Pup. There are three abusive sock puppets who keep trolling, and he is learning the ropes. So he has to work extra art.
You do not understand ANY of this. But at least you never rely on Poor Sod, like Kiddo just did. Thanks for that.
Willard’s latest trick is to pretend that every single thing I say and do is a trick.
Among other progress we can note is this:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
When was the last time Kiddo tried to peddle Joe’s model here?
The same fate will happen to his Moon trolling.
I can’t believe he actually still links to that.
“A barycenter does nothing to destroy the ball on a string”
It means that it should be 2 balls linked with the string, one 1.2% of the other in mass terms. One rotating on its axis 27 times (approx) faster than the other also.
Both ends have to be connected at their respective centers, not their surfaces, otherwise the string would wrap up very quickly.
And don’t even go to elliptical orbits which it doesn’t cover.
You agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself. That remains true if you have two balls on either end of a string, both rotating about a common center. Neither ball would be rotating about an axis going through the center of the ball itself. Both balls would instead be rotating about the barycenter. They would move around it always with one face oriented towards the barycenter. So really your barycenter consideration changes nothing about the ball on a string analogy, which is a simple demonstration of what "orbit without spin" is.
Richard,
The Olympic hammer throw might be a better analogy:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/dopspec-inline.en.gif
Bear in mind that Moon Dragon Cranks have no physical intuition.
I agree that the barycenter is at the COM of mass of 2 or more objects. That means it is not at the center of any of the objects that make it up.
I also agree that gravity is not attached at the surface of any of the objects.
Obviously…and that’s not at all a problem for any of our arguments.
> the barycenter is at the COM of mass of 2 or more objects. That means it is not at the center of any of the objects that make it up.
More than that, Richard: the Moon’s axis of rotation is not even perpendicular to the barycenter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Check the Diagram of the Moon’s orbit with respect to the Earth.
Not that this has any impact on Moon Dragon Cranks’ arguments, mind you. Nothing does. Because, reasons.
On its own, the moon don’t spin
Its only axis of rotation is within the Earth itself…
…to believe that the moon has an “axial tilt”, you have to already believe it is rotating on its own axis in the first place.
An imaginary line passing through the moon remains oriented a certain way whilst the moon orbits the Earth. That does not prove that there is rotation about that imaginary line.
Also note how Kiddo’s comments become loopy when confronted with evidence. Why not add more? Here’s a little tidbit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Moon_apsidal_precession.png
Let him try to loop his way out of the fact that “The major axis of Moon’s elliptical orbit rotates by one complete revolution once every 8.85 years in the same direction as the Moon’s rotation itself.”
Willard’s at his funniest when he thinks he’s found something new.
Kiddo has the darnedest Lulz mode.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hi
In re the ball on a string esp. moderation team at 12.23 on the third;
You say
” You agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis going through the centre of the ball itself”
But does any object in the universe do so?I think not. The movement of everything is a combination of revolution and orbit around some point in space that is itself moving in relation to a larger group of objects.Just as the earth is spinning on a moving axis as it orbits the sun.
What is odd about the moon’s spin is that it is exactly synchronised with it’s orbit around the earth, but it is still spinning in relation to any or all other objects or points of reference in the universe.
I wonder if this behaviour is accidental or if the moon is not of a constant density , or not a perfect sphere so that it has a heavier and a lighter side to explain this peculiarity.
D J S
David, the point of the ball on a string analogy is that it moves like the moon, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit, but as you have agreed, the ball is not rotating on its own axis. It is instead rotating about an axis that is external to the ball itself. It is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis. For the ball to be orbiting, and rotating on its own axis, the ball would have to wrap itself up in the string.
For the ball to be orbiting, and rotating on its own axis more or less than once per orbit, the ball would have to wrap itself up in the string.
David 4:07 am, DREMT many times leaves out relevant words assuming the astute reader is well informed.
David, Ball4 is a pathetic, relentless troll. Just ignore him completely.
Did RLH just admit that “science” is his god?
“You post something that goes against science. I respond. Simple.”
That would be a yes and amen!
Bravo! The fool said in his heart there is no God! Except that which he makes his god. Now grovel and bow to your king as you do daily.
There is a DAY coming where you WILL bow down to the King of Glory! Repent or perish is His command!
No there won’t.
Does God want us to ignore science?
Does God even exist? There are many different claims to be ‘the one God’ and they can’t all be correct. They could all be false though.
Nate,
Is natural law, that is, the LAWS of nature, science?
If so, where DID (past tense) they come from? Did they create themselves? Are they attached to anything other than themselves?
Are they inextricably intertwined so that one law is dependent, in some way, upon the others?
Moreover, is “science” able to observe theses origins? Or only what we can observe about how these laws now function?
In other words, “science” is UNABLE to make any judgment without first having a presupposition, hypothesis, conjecture or guess. Since no person was there when the universe was born to actually observe it. But there is evidence and the evidence, when honestly considered points to the reality of which I speak.
For example, at the risk of belaboring and repeating myself, where does death come from? If any presupposition about the origin of life states that a big bang or some other evolutionary theory is tested, we will find some large holes. First, how did the bang occur, by what force, power, etc….? If there was nothing at all, and then there was something, precisely how did it happen?
If an evolutionary presupposition is believed then the argument is something like this: a single cell (from where), mutated into a higher life form, which mutated into a higher life form, which mutated into a higher life form, until all that we now observe came into being all on its own! If this is so, where does DEATH come from, since the process shows only improving life forms by an evolutionary mode? One would guess that the process would be continuing, and not abruptly cease for no apparent or explainable reason.
So, to answer your question, “science” as a discipline, must be viewed in its proper place! Subservient, under the Queen of the Sciences, THEOLOGY, SINCE THE EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR IS FAR GREATER THAN THE EVIDENCE, that rejects HIM!
REAL “science” says there are ONLY two genders! Since real science reflects the natural laws which govern the CREATED universe.
Pseudo-science, in recent history, now claims there are myriads of genders, thus substantially rendering the discipline of modern science as suspect and questionable. Particularly, as to its methods and conclusions, which are more subjective than objective and seem to be more driven by economic, political or financial results than real data!
Moreover, since there is either bias or an inability for science to give us credible evidence, you should be asking why we are relying on such a subjective discipline that is mostly unable to provide correct answers on many things?
The flip flopping is evident. Lay a baby down to sleep on its back, no, lay a baby down on its belly. Coffee causes cancer, no, coffee does not cause cancer. AGW will cause a catastrophic apocalypse, no, AGW WILL NOT cause a catastrophic apocalypse! And so on.
Do you trust science, more than what the CREATOR has revealed about the true nature of things? That is where the rubber meets the road!
I DO!
I dont understand how any of that answers the original question.
If there is a God, then evidently He/She/It gave us the ability to do science. The ability to investigate and learn how the world works, and to apply it to improve the human condition.
And it has proven to be a powerful human ability and highly successful at improving the human condition.
I see no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere, that God would want want us to limit our inquiry into certain fields like Earth science or evolutionary biology.
What you call ‘flip-flopping’ is simply normal scientific uncertainties that typically are resolved over time.
Nate,
It seems to me, you believe “science” is an entity unto itself by your own reply. Science is UNABLE to improve the human condition since the remedy of our fallen nature lies within His plan of redemption and NOT our quest to be god and to usurp His place.
In other words, since you were unable to pigeonhole my reply and got an answer you claim does not answer the question, you deflect!
The purpose of science is not to affirm mans’ hypotheses, though it may do so, but rather to demonstrate real CREATED realities that actually demonstrate the existence of a Creator and thus that we are ACCOUNTABLE to Him. However, the postmodern man knows much better than God Himself can ever possibly know, right?
That is why the culture REJECTS any idea of His existence, let alone that He has provided “science” to improve us. This idea is contrary to everything He has revealed, by special revelation, namely, the Word of God.
That the Word of God IS special revelation, reveals precisely what He wants us to know, is scoffed at as can be seen by most of the replies here!
If there is a Creator God, who created out of nothing (ex nihilo) simply by speaking it into existence, then surely He is capable of special revelation!
Let God be true and every man a liar!
Romans 3:1-8 nasb
Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4Far from it! Rather, God must prove to be true, though every person be found a liar, as it is written:
SO THAT YOU ARE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED. 5But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking from a human viewpoint.) 6Far from it! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8And why not say (just as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), Lets do evil that good may come of it? Their condemnation is deserved.
you might be interested to know that a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre, was the developer of the Big Bang Theory.
He didnt let his religion hinder his science.
Sounds like God gave us a big brain and the ability to do science.
And although no Biblical passage states it, God doesnt want us to use that ability, in your opinion.
The great thing about religion is that is neither provable or falsifiable.
It can’t be debated, while science can.
So how did God come into existence Go Fish? Does he have parents? Are they Gods too? Is there a family? Is there a species ?
It is just as problematic to envisage the origins of God as it is to envisage the origin of the universe without him/her/it.
D J S
As an audiophile with a collection of about 30,000 songs and one who listens to recorded music many hours every day:
That song at the link is well below average (it stinks)
It sort of has a reggae rhythm,
but in spite of the fact that
I love 1970s and 1980s reggae,
it is awful.
Here’s are some good songs,
rock, reggae and pop,
as an antidote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAWLTxFT_Ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtzmbiESNUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hLKRHvAD2Y
Ah, you’ll find it gets stuck in your head, all the same.
I have forgotten it already. It is SO bad.
Name one thing that is “bad” about it.
grammie wrote it to spread all his usual illiterate physics.
The lyrics. The tune. The production.
The fact that you said you’d forgotten it, but now all of a sudden you remember enough to criticize it, tells me all I need to know, RLH.
The lyrics. The tune. The production. Are all SO bad.
Sure, sure.
nothing at all awful about the music. learning to enjoy music is a bit like learning to enjoy a cup of coffee. those who don’t are simply inexperienced in the wide diversity of pleasures of the world. infants. though not enjoying coffee could have a different reason such as a allergy.
The same applies to Dragon Crank comments, really.
True. Some, like Willard, are allergic to the truth.
Some, like Graham, never say the truth.
The truth is there is nothing wrong with the song. You just don’t like me.
Impossible, I tell you:
https://postimg.cc/v1FsK9RV
The truth is the song is crap. Crap lyrics. Crap tune. Crap delivery. Crap everything.
Wrong.
If only the artist and the critic could be the same person…in the real world.
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Those that think they have the power to direct when and where others may post are likely delusional.
#2
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Those that repeat the same action over and over, expecting a different result, are likely delusional.
#3
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Those that think posting the LAST WORD is an effective deterrent against future posting are quite delusional.
Now go ahead and have the last word and see how ineffective that is.
#4
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
I think NASA agrees with you. They even have animation but without the 70s porno music:
Does the Moon rotate? Does the Moon spin on its axis?
Yes! The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different parts of the Moon throughout the month.
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
You must have watched some very strange porn.
grammie the pup, being unable to respond to the NASA post, reverts to another obscene reply.
Swanson, unable to realize both that the NASA quote is simply an argument by assertion, or that JK said, "they even have animation but without the 70s porno music", reverts to another ignorant reply.
assertions are apparently all that is necessary for spinners.
but they don’t appear to universally accept the logical extension of the assertion and identical nature of a chalked circle sketched on a rotating disk. Logically it must be due to their inability to find someone whom they are willing to accept as the leader of their club to make such an assertion so they can justify accepting it.
So are you saying NASA is wrong? That they are intentionally posting false information on a government website used by schools and institutions? That they literally and figuratively have this information posted throughout all the sites under their control and purview? That was my point. It wasn’t ignorant. It was facetious. Because NASA would never lie.
"So are you saying NASA is wrong?"
Obviously, yes. The "Non-Spinners" think NASA have it wrong.
"That they are intentionally posting false information on a government website used by schools and institutions?"
No, they probably believe they are correct, but I can’t possibly know what their intentions are.
"That was my point. It wasn’t ignorant."
I didn’t say your reply was ignorant. I said E. Swanson’s reply was ignorant.
E. Swanson says:
”That process then involves using math to simulate the orbital requirements and also that of the attitude control system.
Geostationary systems use attitude control to keep the instruments pointing toward the Earth, thus rotating once an orbit, just like the Moon. ”
—————-
Swanson! Not just like the moon. The moon does not have geostationary systems!
————
===========
Swanson says:
”Theres not natural forces which produce a significant effect on the Moons rotation rate, which is very nearly constant, AIUI. If you think so, please show us the math instead of spewing more empty platitudes.”
But you do recognize that forces exist that tidal locked the moon right?
grammie pup, the NASA animation is just like your MoL vs MoR animation, except that it’s based on the proven math of orbital mechanics. Your ignorance is profound.
“the NASA animation is just like your MoL vs MoR animation”
Obviously, Swanson, since our moon remains oriented roughly like the “moon on the left”, here, whilst it orbits:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Basically, the “Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is motion like the “moon on the right” (MOTR), and the “Non-Spinners” think “orbit without spin” is motion like the “moon on the left” (MOTL). So the issue actually goes way beyond just “whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not”. It actually affects all orbiting objects regardless of their rate of axial rotation.
Nice find, ES!
Which part of Swanson’s “nice find” do you believe supports the idea that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, Willard?
grammie pups, until you can provide a mathematical description based on physics which is better than that from NASA, you’ve got no way to support your case except a batch of cartoons which “prove” nothing.
Swanson, which part of what you linked to do you believe supports the idea that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR? My answer to that question is: none of it. Can you improve on that answer?
“My answer to that question is: none of it. ”
Based on the logical failure of ‘argument by assertion’.
Oh well.
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Grammie pup wrote:
After starting a nightmare of delusional physics presenting an incorrect understanding of orbital mechanics, grammie thinks he “owns” Roy’s blog. grammie doesn’t understand the NASA math in which the orbital motion is separated from the body’s rotation. the math works equally well for all satellites, including the Moon.
grammie’s ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance.
Swanson, if I start a thread, I have every right to politely request that those I no longer respond to butt out of it. Since I do not own Roy’s blog, they have the right to ignore that request and continue to comment anyway…and I have the right to make the request again if they do so. I have the right to make the request as many times as necessary, until they stop commenting on the thread…and I will do so if I have to. Sorry if that upsets you, but that’s just the way it is.
I note that you were unable to answer my question. No "Spinner" has yet been able to identify anything in your link that supports the idea "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR. I will patiently wait until such time as someone can quote the page number(s) on which they believe such evidence is presented. Otherwise, we can all safely assume that your link is lacking such evidence.
I post wherever and whenever I like unless and until Roy kicks me out.
Sorry if that upsets anyone, but thats just the way it is.
#2
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
grammie pup, Separating the orbital math from the rotational math and using an inertial reference frame, the zero rotation case for the body would appear like your MOTR cartoon. Or course, given that grammie doesn’t do the math, he is ignorant of that basic fact.
Not seeing any page number(s), Swanson. So it is still safe to say your link does not support the idea that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
However, I see that you still appear to be confused about reference frames. Take a read-through of the discussion preceding this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1233064
and let me know when you are up to speed.
grammie pup, Hunter fails to understand that describing rotational dynamics mathematically requires an inertial reference frame. As for the NASA reference, the first 4 Parts discuss the orbital motion of the CoM, beginning with page 40, only in Part 5 do we get to the meat of the problem of rotation and inertia.
"Hunter fails to understand that describing rotational dynamics mathematically requires an inertial reference frame."
No, Swanson. You fail to understand that as Bill explains, the "Non-Spinners" are using an inertial reference frame. We just disagree with the "Spinners" on where the axis of rotation is. The "Spinners" think the axis of rotation for the moon goes through the body of the moon itself…and the only option in which that is a possibility is if "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR, which the "Spinners" would describe as purely translational motion. So the "Spinners" think the moon is translating, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
The "Non-Spinners" think the only axis of rotation for the moon goes through the Earth itself. More importantly, the "Non-Spinners" think "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL.
It still ultimately comes down to who is right on what "orbit without spin" is. Reference frames do not help to resolve that issue. All they do is obfuscate the problem.
Newton would have agreed that the MOTR was what ‘orbiting without rotation’ means.
now RLH is conducting seances to make scientific and logical arguments. its really getting pitiful around here.
grammie pup wrote:
Wrong as usual. Your MOTL is clearly rotating when the reference frame is placed at the Moon’s CoM. You claim that the Moon rotates around some axis, but failed to identify where that axis is located. You once claimed it to be rotating around the barycenter, but have “forgotten” that claim in recent months, since that’s clearly impossible for an elliptical orbit.
"Wrong as usual."
Every word I said was correct.
"Your MOTL is clearly rotating when the reference frame is placed at the Moon’s CoM."
…and you could also (wrongly) say that Mt. Everest is "clearly rotating on its own axis" if you placed the reference frame at Mt. Everest’s CoM. However, as you have already agreed, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. You will miss the point, again.
"You claim that the Moon rotates around some axis, but failed to identify where that axis is located. You once claimed it to be rotating around the barycenter, but have “forgotten” that claim in recent months, since that’s clearly impossible for an elliptical orbit."
I’ve "forgotten" nothing, Swanson. The fact is, anywhere I say the axis is, you will say it’s impossible for an elliptical orbit, because you’re desperate, and clutching at straws. The barycenter will do fine.
grammie pup is confused as usual. Yes, Mt. Everest is solidly connected to the Earth, so one must use the CoM for the Earth to define rotation of the combination. The Earth Moon barycenter can not serve as the center of rotation for the Moon because the orbital path can not present an instantaneous rotation around that point for the entire orbit. Close only counts for horseshoes, grenades and nuclear weapons, the barycenter isn’t even close.
Swanson missed the point, as expected.
E. Swanson says:
grammie pup is confused as usual. Yes, Mt. Everest is solidly connected to the Earth, so one must use the CoM for the Earth to define rotation of the combination.
define solidly connected Swanson in numeric quantities so we can understand in terms of science what you are prattling on about.
“youre desperate, and clutching at straws.”
Seems pretty clear that DREMT entirely missed Swanson’s point and his only rebuttal is nothing but an ad hominem attack.
Swanson can continue to pretend that this does not exist:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
The Earth’s orbit is elliptical, so clearly an elliptical orbit can be described as a rotation around an external axis. Since the concept of “orbital poles” exists, we can be confident that orbits are a rotation around an external axis. Since Ftop_t was able to use Desmos to rotate an object around an external axis in an elliptical pattern, we can be confident that rotation around an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern. End of story.
“Since Ftop_t was able to use Desmos to rotate an object around an external axis in an elliptical pattern”
Nope, the fraud never ends.
No program can do what is is mathematically impossible to do, which is to rotate an object around a fixed axis and create anything but a circular path.
Perhaps FTOP or DREMT can explain how to do so. And while theyre at it provide a GENERAL DEFINTION of rotation from a legitimate source, that allows one to be an elliptical orbit.
Oh, I forgot to add a link to Ftop_t’s Desmos demonstration:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
That’s better.
Its axis is not at a barycenter, it doesnt slow down and speed up in the right places.
This is a joke, not a planetary orbit.
More elliptical to better see its behavior.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ism826uub9
one can see that it goes fastest at top and bottom and slowest on right and left.
Not like any planetary orbit that exists in the universe.
“Oh, I forgot to add a link to Ftop_t’s Desmos demonstration”
That was a link to his demonstration that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern, by the way. Which it demonstrates just fine. No need for it to show anything else but that.
Rotation and translation.
Mathturbation.
#3
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Can’t win on the issues? Have no answers? Try last wording. Pointless victories are still victories.
No response from Swanson. Guess that’s that.
Nate simply wants to do what no scientist has done. Rule out elliptical orbits as a rotation without providing a single smidgen of mathematics or scientifically-defined principles of what a rotation entails.
He is simply totally confused by the beauty of an equation that describes a sphere rotating on an external axis and so much like a child wants to disassemble it but does so in arbitrary ways. . . .like eliminate the gravity without eliminating that which holds other particles together where the same results would be obtained.
But Nate has no clue at all how to do either all he can imagine is cutting a string holding things together in a rotation arbitrarily.
At least Swanson wisely departed the conversation at the right moment. . . .but Nate is going to continue to butt the wall with his head.
Without a doubt if some Golden Goose started laying golden eggs and arbitrarily started handing them out to the head butters of world a scientific consensus would be instantaneously be found on this topic.
grammie pup wrote:
"No, orbital pole does not refer to an actual external rotation at a constant rate around a point, such as the barycenter, fixed wrt the orbit’s mathematical description."
Sorry, Swanson, you are completely in denial. And nobody ever mentioned anything about a rotation about an external axis having to occur at a constant rate. That’s just something you have completely made up. A rotation about an external axis can occur at varying rates. Why could it not? The Wikipedia quote again:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
Then Swanson dribbles on further:
"Ftop_ts demonstration is a graphical simulation and does not represent orbital motion due to gravity."
It doesn’t need to. All it needed to show is that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern.
"That simulation showed motion around the intersection of the major and minor axes of an ellipse, not motion around the first focus."
It doesn’t need to. All it needed to show is that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern. He did another, separate demonstration showing motion around the first focus, anyway, but it’s not what was required of the demo we are discussing. You people complain that a rotation about an external axis cannot occur in an elliptical pattern, you argue it can only occur in a circular pattern; then when we show you evidence that it can occur in an elliptical pattern, you immediately shift the goal posts. Suddenly you want the demonstration to do a hundred and one other things. No, you got what you asked for.
So if you think that his Desmos demonstration does not show rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical pattern, please state where in the various formulas is Ftop_t making anything but rotation about an external axis happen? For instance, if you believe that there is also translation occurring, please state where in the formulas Ftop_t has programmed this translation to occur?
“Rule out elliptical orbits as a rotation without providing a single smidgen of mathematics or scientifically-defined principles of what a rotation entails.”
Ive provided the definition of rotation many times.
I have yet to see yours.
grammie pups wrote:
Well, for one, the Moon rotates at a precisely measured rate, which is essentially a constant. Any mathematical representation of the Moon’s orbit which does not produce this result is fatally flawed.
grammie pups repeats his mantra 3 times:
Another false assertion. An accurate model must also produce the varying rate of velocity for the Moon as it transits the orbit, which is faster at perigee than at apogee. That’s because the model does not include gravity.
Ftop_t’s math forces the origin to be placed at the (0,0) and defines motion around that point. The radial line shown does not begin at the first focus, which is the location of the Earth and the viewer of the Moon.
"Well, for one, the Moon rotates at a precisely measured rate, which is essentially a constant. Any mathematical representation of the Moon’s orbit which does not produce this result is fatally flawed."
No, Swanson, you missed the point I was making completely. It’s impossible to talk to you, because you never actually listen to what anybody is saying to you. Rotation about an external axis does not have to take place at a constant rate. The moon changes its orientation at a more constant rate, however. That’s just how the moon moves in its orbit. It orbits at a varying rate whilst it changes its orientation at a more constant rate. This is still just one, single motion, however. You can’t visualize that, so you claim its impossible. Well, I can visualize it, so I know it’s not impossible.
"Ftop_t’s math forces the origin to be placed at the (0,0) and defines motion around that point. The radial line shown does not begin at the first focus, which is the location of the Earth and the viewer of the Moon."
Again, you’re just not listening to what I’m saying. I will repeat:
He did another, separate demonstration showing motion around the first focus, anyway, but it’s not what was required of the demo we are discussing. You people complain that a rotation about an external axis cannot occur in an elliptical pattern, you argue it can only occur in a circular pattern; then when we show you evidence that it can occur in an elliptical pattern, you immediately shift the goal posts. Suddenly you want the demonstration to do a hundred and one other things. No, you got what you asked for in the first place.
So if you think that his Desmos demonstration does not show rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical pattern, please state where in the various formulas is Ftop_t making anything but rotation about an external axis happen? For instance, if you believe that there is also translation occurring, please state where in the formulas Ftop_t has programmed this translation to occur?
grammie pup, Ftop_t’s presentation is just an animation, rather like a cartoon. Equation 18 is just an graphical equation for an ellipse. The animation not based on the physics, as it does not include gravity.
Nate says:
Ive provided the definition of rotation many times.
I have yet to see yours.
——————————-
A rotating object is a rigid object that goes around a fixed axis.
Nobody cares that you made up your own definition Nate. The above isn’t my definition its the definition provided even by your sources.
The point is your definition completely rules out a rotation around an external axis as you call that a translation. Thus Mt Everest is just translating around the earth’s axis and spinning on its own axis.
Some bozo jumped in here and claimed it was rotating around the earth’s axis only because it was part of a rigid object then failed to define what a rigid object was. the problem is all the spinner arguments are like a giant soup sandwich that for some reason keeps falling apart in your hands.
Fact is no angular momentum can exist on the axis of a particle because no part of the particle object has different distances from the axis. Thus is you destroy gravity then the momentum would convert to linear momentum. Likewise if you destroy the electric bonds between atoms and molecules of the moon all the spin angular momentum would convert to linear momentum. And we have no idea of what the relationship to gravity is to the chemical/electrical bonds of rigid objects are. Destroy one if you could possibly could destroy everything except of particles traveling on linear paths to God only knows.
So your answer to that is gross cherry picking of what you want to call a rotation. Nobody but idiots support your idea. If astronomers want to pretend the moon rotates on its own axis there is no harm in that due to the beauty of the equations for a spherical object rotating on an external axis. But dissembling that equation into separate physical rotations and thinking you are dealing real and unrelated phenomena is an extrapolation that only a trained monkey would buy into because there is an obvious relationship. In fact a trained monkey might figure out the relationship. . . .do to the rotation rates of the two alleged unrelated rotations being identical which statistically has next to zero probability without a relationship.
Small correction of this: ”Thus is you destroy gravity then the momentum would convert to linear momentum. Likewise if you destroy the electric bonds between atoms and molecules of the moon all the spin angular momentum would convert to linear momentum.”
to:
Thus if you destroy gravity then the orbital angular momentum would convert to linear momentum.
But if at the same time you destroy the electric bonds between atoms and molecules of the moon all the spin angular momentum would also convert to linear momentum with the particles further from the earth traveling faster than the inner particles such that the spherical shape of the moon would no longer exist.
Swanson, I don’t know how to get this through to you, because you refuse to listen…once again, all Ftop_t’s demonstration needed to show was that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern. That’s it. The argument had been put forward that rotation about an external axis could only occur in a circular pattern, so Ftop_t produced that demonstration, showing otherwise. You keep bringing up gravity and other diversions which are not, and never were intended to be, a part of that demonstration. I did not link to that demonstration for it to be in any way considered an accurate model of the moon’s motion. Stop attacking the same straw man over and over again.
I linked to it purely and simply because it proves the stupid argument that rotation about an external axis can only occur in a circular pattern wrong.
As do other things, like the Wikipedia quote you keep ignoring.
“A rotating object is a rigid object that goes around a fixed axis.”
What does ‘go around’ mean? Give me a technical definition.
“Nobody cares that you made up your own definition Nate.”
I dont see how you can be confused by this, Bill.
My definition came from Brown Univ, Madhavi, U Washington Engineering courses. And online dictionaries.
“The above isnt my definition its the definition provided even by your sources.”
Show us a quote from a source, Bill.
“The argument had been put forward that rotation about an external axis could only occur in a circular pattern, so Ftop_t produced that demonstration, showing otherwise.”
FTOPs demo is showing a motion.
Other people are declaring that motion to be a rotation based on what? A feeling? Intuition?
‘Declaring’ and ‘showing’ are not equivalent.
‘Declaring’ and ‘proving’ are not equivalent.
Not sure why some people are confused by that.
“like the Wikipedia quote you keep ignoring.”
Yeah!
“Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
Not sure why people ignore the VERY FIRST LINE in a Wikipedia article on ROTATION as if it didnt exist.
Let me put it this way Bill.
When an engineer describes a critical process, the words they use have to have clear unambiguous meaning.
So when she says:
‘Now rotate the part thru 167 degrees around point P.’ , that has a clear meaning.
It does not mean ‘move the part around point P’ in any manner that pleases you.
grammie pup wrote:
Wrong again. Ftop_t’s animation is not based on physics. The animation ignores gravity and thus is not a physically correct simulation of orbital motion. It does not represent the true motion of the Moon in it’s orbit or any other orbital motion, except that of the degenerate case of a circular orbit where the first focus is the center of the circle. As previously noted, it’s just mathturbation. It does not “prove” anything, except your continued ignorance.
hunter wrote:
Hunter apparently doesn’t understand the definition of “rigid body” in engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
https://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/rkg.html
https://abaqus-docs.mit.edu/2017/English/SIMACAEMODRefMap/simamod-c-rigidoverview.htm
Hunter should apologize to said “bozo” he has insulted.
Swanson just does not listen.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1245014
grammie pups is the one who isn’t listening. Ftop_t’s “demonstration” is a carefully contrived animation. It’s not a simulation based on the physics of orbital mechanics as it does not include the effects of gravity on the orbiting mass. The animation does not match known characteristics of orbital mechanics, such as changes in velocity of the body as it moves around the orbit or the fact that the larger body (the Earth) must be located near the first focus, not at the intersection of the major and minor axes.
As a result, it’s clearly worthless for proving your idiotic case about the Moon’s rotation wrt the Earth.
Are you for real, Swanson!? How many times do I have to tell you:
I did not link to that demonstration for it to be in any way considered an accurate model of the moon’s motion. Stop attacking the same straw man over and over again.
I linked to it purely and simply because it proves the stupid argument that rotation about an external axis can only occur in a circular pattern wrong.
Do you really not get it!? The demonstration has only one purpose, which it achieves just fine. It is not intended to show:
a) the effects of gravity on the orbiting mass.
b) changes in velocity of the body as it moves around the orbit
c) the fact that the larger body (the Earth) must be located near the first focus, not at the intersection of the major and minor axes.
It is only intended to show:
a1) That rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern.
You obviously cannot point to any fault it has in showing a1), so you keep instead pointing out that it does not show a), b) or c) over and over again, which I am already well aware of, and indeed never intended for it to show in the first place when I linked to it!
“it proves the stupid argument that rotation about an external axis can only occur in a circular pattern wrong.”
It used to ‘show’. Now its been elevated to ‘proves’.
How does it ‘prove’ is left unexplained.
Because it doesnt prove. It just declares.
Declaring aint proving.
Rotation about an axis has to mean a specific, unique motion, else describing specific motion with that word becomes impossible
If rotation could mean move in a circle or it could mean move on a non-circular path, then it is not a specific unique motion.
For example, if the Moon is simply Rotating around the barycenter, and I know its position and orientation now, and I want to predict its position and orienation in a week, then just applying a rotation by a specified angle to it should work.
But its position and orientation in a week will be unique.
How can applying a non-unique motion, give us a unique position and orientation?
It cannot.
QED
Ftop is proven wrong.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
So, for the third time of asking, Swanson:
If you think that his Desmos demonstration does not show rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical pattern, please state where in the various formulas is Ftop_t making anything but rotation about an external axis happen? For instance, if you believe that there is also translation occurring, please state where in the formulas Ftop_t has programmed this translation to occur?
grammie pups wrote:
grammie pup, the Ftop_t link presents an animation, which has nothing to do with the motion of an actual body. The radial line is not fixed to the circle following the elliptical path, but is fixed at the intersection of the major and minor axes of the ellipse.
As you admit, your post is just another red herring intended to confuse things. It’s just more spam to boost your silly ego because you can’t admit that you’ve failed.
Swanson fails, for the third time, to answer the questions, thus conceding that the Desmos demonstration shows that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern.
grammie pup, HERE’s another “demonstration” which appears to show the orbital motion of a body rotating, but there’s no fixed axis. So, tell us what you think about it. If you don’t like it, do prove it wrong or STFU.
What is that meant to prove? I have no idea what your point is, other than to distract from the fact that Ftop_t has shown that rotation about an external axis can occur in an elliptical pattern.
“Shows rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical pattern, please state where in the various formulas”
Was ‘proves’, now we are back to ‘shows’.
And now we ate requored to ‘prove’ the negative of what it no longer ‘proves’, otherwise it must be assummed to indeed ‘show’ what it is purported to ‘show’.
But how it ‘shows’ that a rotation can be non-circular is never explained.
For example it shows the yellow vector has a rotation thru 180 degrees around the ceter axis, while also lengthening and shortening.
The very fact that I need to add the words ‘lenthening and shortening’ to fully describe the motion should make it clear that ‘rotation thru 180 degrees’ does not in any way include lengthening and shortening of objects.
Lengthening of the yellow line requires its end to Translate away from the center.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/3ejwl4e4tl
So, for the fourth time of asking, Swanson:
If you think that his Desmos demonstration does not show rotation about an external axis occurring in an elliptical pattern, please state where in the various formulas is Ftop_t making anything but rotation about an external axis happen? For instance, if you believe that there is also translation occurring, please state where in the formulas Ftop_t has programmed this translation to occur?
grammie pups rambles on demanding the impossible, writing:
grammie pups, in Ftop_t’s animation, the radial line is not fixed to the orbiting body, thus it can’t “show” (or prove) rotation about a single external point (an axis in 2-D). In fact, Ftop_t’s trick was to force the end oft he radial line to be placed at (0,0).
For my animation, I forced the line to follow the orientation of the orbiting body, which resulted in the end of that line tracing our an elliptical path. Sorry grammie, that’s not rotation about an external axis.
I’m completely at a loss as to what point you’re trying to make. Ftop_t’s demo shows rotation about an external axis happening in an elliptical pattern. Line 22 shows "degree of rotation", no?
gerammis pups, Sorry you can’t understand geometry. And I answered your question, Ftop_t forced the end of the radial line to be set at (0,0), which is an arbitrary choice.
HERE’s another mathturbation animation for you to ponder. Notice that it too has the line fixed in the orbiting body, but the end points are different. None of these “demonstrations” can be claimed to represent the exact physics.
Ah, I get it. You don’t have a point.
E. Swanson says:
hunter wrote:
”Some bozo jumped in here and claimed it was rotating around the earths axis only because it was part of a rigid object then failed to define what a rigid object was.”
Hunter should apologize to said bozo he has insulted.
———————–
Well Swanson a bozo is as a bozo does.
You said: ”Yes, Mt. Everest is solidly connected to the Earth, so one must use the CoM for the Earth to define rotation of the combination.”
LOL! So in your view Mt. Everest in no way could be said to rotating on its own axis? But the moon can?
Rigidity in engineering is never absolute Swanson. An object can rotate on an external axis at the end of a solid near inflexible solid bar, at the end of a flexible string, or the case of moon’s and planets in orbit due to gravity.
In every case one can calculate the angular momentum of any defined object rotating on an external axis.
Mt Everest by virtue of its COM axis not being on the axis at the COM of earth has a greater angular momentum than an object of the same mass that has the same axis as the earth’s axis because Mount Everest is rotating on an external axis, like a ball on the end of a rope or rod, like the moon too.
In kinematics the rigidity standard applies to whatever object you a defining as rotating whether it rotates on its own axis or on an external axis. Mount Everest does not rotate on its own axis anymore than the moon does. It rotates on an external axis. If that bond breaks that holds Mt Everest to the outer crust of the earth, Mt Everest won’t just fly off straight into space without spinning. It will retain the angular momentum of the parts that hold together and convert the rest to linear momentum.
If you destroy gravity you may not be able to do that without also destroying all the bonds that hold molecules and atoms together. If you can’t do that and destroy gravity all the particles will fly off in a linear pattern without spin.
The bozo I was talking about was talking like a clown (bozo was a clown) simply trying to establish his own set of rules for angular momentum. He had no sources just a stubborn attitude that he bought into because some astronaut or somebody told him the moon rotates on its own axis. He doesn’t know why, he doesn’t care he doesn’t know why. . . .and he is just a epigone sycophant bellowing out whatever his daddy told him.
So do I owe somebody an apology?
Hunter’s rant is just another stinking pile of red herrings. The Earth and the Moon are rigid bodies at the scale of orbital mechanics. Mt. Everest is just another bump on the Earth’s surface, solidly connected to the Earth, which can not rotate separate from the Earth.
The Moon, however, is NOT CONNECTED to the Earth, except by gravitational forces. For the Moon to “rotate” around an “external axis” (a point when plotted in 2-D), that point must be fixed in space and the radial line between the Moon’s CoM and the pivot point must be a constant length because the Moon’s rotation rate is a constant for all practical purposes. My first animation above shows what that might look like when the instantaneous pivot point is plotted. It’s more complicated than that animation, because I simply modified Ftop_t’s animation, which does not exhibit proper timing around the orbit.
If Hunter would spend more time learning the well known physics of orbital mechanics instead of hurling ad hominems, he might understand his errors.
Swanson, all this obsession over how "rotation about an external axis" has to be a certain way, with "the radial line between the Moon’s CoM and the pivot point…a constant length" etc, etc, is just your way of finding any excuse to reject the "Non-Spinners" position. If you don’t like the term "rotation about an external axis" then simply substitute it for "revolution" or "orbiting". It really doesn’t matter about semantics.
The "Non-Spinners" position is that "orbit without spin" is one single motion, in which the object moves around the body being orbited with the same face always towards the inside of the orbit. Like a ball on a string. "Axial rotation" or "spin" is then separate from this motion. It can be added on top of our (correct) version of "orbit", at any rate, and in either direction. That is all that really matters.
Using the terminology "rotation about an external axis" has been helpful to try and get it through to "Spinners" that a body can move like a ball on a string and not be rotating on its own internal axis. It’s been helpful to try and get across the idea that the issue transcends reference frames. It gets across some of the basics of the argument in a simple way…but it’s just that. A means to an end. The "Non-Spinner" position isn’t going to be refuted just because people can find dictionary definitions where "rotation" is specified as being circular motion, rather than elliptical, for crying out loud!
Go back to my second paragraph. That’s as clear as it gets. Endless arguments about the precise nature of "rotation about an external axis" change absolutely nothing. The basic idea is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL. Call that whatever you like, if you’re not happy with "rotation about an external axis", for whatever reason.
Using the terminology “rotation about an external axis” has been helpful to try and get it through to “Spinners” that a body can move like a ball on a string and not be rotating on its own internal axis as observed from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R comment.
Observed from outside of its orbit, the ball rotates once on its own axis per orbit also per Clint R since the sun then shines on all faces of the ball in that case.
DREMT is always somewhat correct & just needs to be more specific to get all of a comment on lunar and/or ball rotation correct.
I think even most “Spinners” see through Ball4, now.
DREMT says:
”The ‘Non-Spinner’ position isnt going to be refuted just because people can find dictionary definitions where ‘rotation’ is specified as being circular motion, rather than elliptical, for crying out loud!”
Exactly! It absurd to make the circular argument as the definition of a rotation because what you are essentially saying is: Change the eccentricity of the moon’s orbit by a factor of .0549 and rotation will cease on the moon’s internal axis and transfer to a rotation around an axis at the COM of earth.
Of course when you point that out then another argument arises that says Mt Everest doesn’t even rotate on an external axis and it doesn’t make any difference if the orbit is circular.
In the end, can the spinners name any rotation of a delineated and defined object on an external axis? If they can I would love to see exactly how they define it.
As DREMT points out; analytically you can treat it any way you want. But physically the reason the moon looks the way it does is because of gravity (the string) emanating from the COM of earth that holds the moon in orbit.
Ball4 says:
”DREMT is always somewhat correct & just needs to be more specific to get all of a comment on lunar and/or ball rotation correct.”
DREMT is correct that the moon rotation issue transcends frames because the selection of frames is being used to falsify the reality of a rotation by the very virtual of cherry picking a frame.
So then as I see it, while a rotation is not defined by a force, one can correctly analytically treat it anyway you wish. . . .but ultimately and engineer looking to define such a system for the purpose of building one, will be very much interested in where to apply forces and rotational axes to make it rotate as it does. And when you get there, its pretty clear what reality is.
Bill, there is no absolute motion so the moon issue cannot transcend reference frames. Whether the moon is observed to rotate on its own axis or not depends on location of observation as Clint R has already pointed out. DREMT simply doesn’t provide that observation location so needs to be more specific.
Earthshine is incident on only one lunar face & sunshine is incident on all lunar faces as Clint R wrote – so yes, it is pretty clear what is reality.
Hunter wrote:
Hunter, do tell us exactly how aerospace engineers “build” satellites and where is that approach different from that used by astronomers to define the motions or planets and, yes, the Moon? I gave you cultists a mathematical description above, yet you continue to repeat your insults of the engineering profession by ignoring it.
The easiest approach mathematically is to describe the orbit as a orbital translation of the CoM coupled with the rotation defined as being around that CoM. It doesn’t matter how the Moon acquired it’s rate of rotation of once per orbit, the math still applies. If you disagree, stop spouting rhetorical nonsense and show us your detailed math.
As you wrote:
Yes, it’s blindingly obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Barry you can believe what you want to believe. The only thing I would note is that you have not produced any paper establishing what you believe as legitimate science.
OTOH, the non-spinners have produced a variety of sources that establish an orbit as a rotation on an external axis such as that of the angular momentum of a particle in orbital rotation along with the argument that if you have a cloud of non-rigid particles orbiting the earth the sum of the angular momentum of those disconnected particles will equal Lorb+Lspin without any one of the particles having a spin element greater than zero.
I would argue that it is impossible to physically separate the elements of the equation Lorb+Lspin and that it can only be done conceptually. Further I can only see a mechanism to accomplish the MOTR is via a separate energy source to move those moon around its internal axis in an opposite direction to overcome the inseparable energies of orbital rotation.
That strongly suggests that the MOTR involves more energy than the MOTL. Spinners though seem to believe that they can with non-energetic brain waves zap select orbital energies and create a non-rotating moon.
But to me that seems like a violation of the law of conservation of energy. So far I haven’t seen any spinners make an explicit argument supporting their point of view that they can do that with non-energetic brain waves or any other non-energetic source of nothing.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, do tell us exactly how aerospace engineers build satellites and where is that approach different from that used by astronomers to define the motions or planets and, yes, the Moon?
—————-
Satellite builders build systems to speed up natural processes Swanson. They both design satellite shapes and energy sources to place an object in space to achieve the orbit they desire.
We all understand that if a space ship has a spin on its internal axis that it can take a long time for nature to eliminate that spin, but eliminate it will. In fact satellite builders will at least consider adding elements to their design to take advantage of nature’s forces to reduce the need for constant attitude correction.
So yes satellite builders understand that when they make moving parts within the satellite, like solar panels or cameras that have to be pointed, and it will introduce forces that ultimately will put a spin on the satellite and so they create systems to maintain stability. You are the one making the illogical argument that they are only trying to put a ‘spin’ on the satellite to keep it in time with the satellites rotation around the earth. Nothing wrong with looking at it that way as it doesn’t change anything at all, except that one must always be aware that nature is at work and it will do the same thing just that it will take a good deal longer and thats a big problem if you are moving shitt on the satellite all the time introducing new rotational forces. But you don’t need to do any of that for a ‘dead’ satellite.
Hunter wrote more meaningless babble, starting with:
Designing a satellite starts with defining a mission and the orbit required to satisfy the mission requirements. That process then involves using math to simulate the orbital requirements and also that of the attitude control system.
Hunter wrote
Geostationary systems use attitude control to keep the instruments pointing toward the Earth, thus rotating once an orbit, just like the Moon. The math used is essentially the same and the results are the same. There’s not natural forces which produce a significant effect on the Moon’s rotation rate, which is very nearly constant, AIUI. If you think so, please show us the math instead of spewing more empty platitudes.
Ball4 says:
Bill, there is no absolute motion so the moon issue cannot transcend reference frames. Whether the moon is observed to rotate on its own axis or not depends on location of observation as Clint R has already pointed out.
———————
Your argument is fatally flawed Ball4. Your claim above lays upon the premise that non-spinners looking at the moon from the perspective of a distance star don’t see the moon rotating.
We do see the moon rotating.
Further we contend that spinners viewing from the same vantage point deny some of what they see when viewing the MOTL. That is true. Within the one of the past conversation here on this topic one spinner actually blotted out everything that would suggest the moon was moving about something then asked if the non-spinners could now see it was rotating around its own internal axis.
Science is not, and I repeat IS NOT, about hiding facts and then coming to a conclusion.
I actually find the argument above hilarious where Swanson tries to define an object, Mt Everest, then claim that object rotates on its own axis because it is firmly attached to the earth. Talking about self deception to carry on an argument!!!! ROTFLMAO!
“Your argument is fatally flawed Ball4. Your claim above lays upon the premise that non-spinners looking at the moon from the perspective of a distance star dont see the moon rotating.”
There is no such claim, Bill so my argument is not flawed. Clint R as a non-spinner has commented non-spinners observing the moon from the perspective of a distant star do see the moon rotating on its own axis per your comment “We do see the moon rotating” on its own axis as the distant star illuminates all lunar faces.
Non-spinners (e.g. of the MOTL) simply observe from the Earth (center of the MOTL) as earthshine illuminates only one lunar face as per Clint R’s comment.
E. Swanson is correct that Mt. Everest observed from Earth does not rotate on its own axis while Mt. Everest observed from a distant star (such as the sun) does rotate on its own axis as Clint R comment pointed out.
Reality is really pretty simple, Bill. Lunar non-spinners just reveal their location of lunar (or MOTL, Mt. Everest, etc.) observation.
Ball4 is still brazenly lying about what other people have said, in a desperate attempt to get a rise from somebody. How sad. Clint R, of course, has never said that the moon rotates on its own axis. Period. As observed from anywhere. bill has pointed out many times that “we do see the moon rotating”, just not on its own internal axis, it is instead rotating about an external axis. That’s as observed from outside of the orbit, as well as inside the orbit. Ball4 just cannot get the concept through his thick head.
Ball4 says:
There is no such claim, Bill so my argument is not flawed. Clint R as a non-spinner has commented non-spinners observing the moon from the perspective of a distant star do see the moon rotating on its own axis per your comment We do see the moon rotating on its own axis as the distant star illuminates all lunar faces.
Non-spinners (e.g. of the MOTL) simply observe from the Earth (center of the MOTL) as earthshine illuminates only one lunar face as per Clint Rs comment.
————————
Well your argument is indeed invalid.
How can reference frames be relevant if from a distant star both spinners and non-spinners agree the moon rotates and that from the perspective of the earth there is no rotation?
E. Swanson says:
”Geostationary systems use attitude control to keep the instruments pointing toward the Earth, thus rotating once an orbit, just like the Moon.”
–
Swanson! Not just like the moon. The moon does not have geostationary systems!
===========
Swanson says:
”Theres not natural forces which produce a significant effect on the Moons rotation rate, which is very nearly constant, AIUI. If you think so, please show us the math instead of spewing more empty platitudes.”
But you do recognize that forces exist that tidal locked the moon right? So are you just obfuscating by calling them insignificant when they are indeed not insignificant in respect to having the desired effect?
“How can reference frames be relevant if from a distant star both spinners and non-spinners agree the moon rotates and that from the perspective of the earth (from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R) there is no rotation?”
Decent comment showing that observing lunar rotation does NOT transcend reference frames, Bill, thus correcting DREMT.
Clint R agrees with Bill that observing lunar rotation does NOT transcend reference frames also correcting DREMT here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
Thus, this is how Bill & Clint R agree earthshine is incident on one lunar face from “inside of it orbit”, sunshine “from outside of its orbit” is incident on all lunar faces.
Sorry for DREMT’s loss in being corrected by these two DREMT 12:31am, but Bill and Clint R are happy with their wins.
“Thus, this is how Bill & Clint R agree earthshine is incident on one lunar face from “inside of it orbit”, sunshine “from outside of its orbit” is incident on all lunar faces.”
…and I agree with them, as you know. Also, earthshine is incident on one lunar face from “outside of its orbit” and sunshine is incident on all lunar faces from “inside of it orbit”. Overall, this is the behavior of the MOTL, which can be described as rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis as observed from either inside or outside of the orbit.
Hunter still doesn’t get it. The math is essentially the same for the Moon and geostationary satellites. There’s a translational motion of the CoM around the orbital ellipse and a rotation around the CoM. Both free bodies rotate once an orbit.
Swanson still doesn’t get it. This:
“There’s a translational motion of the CoM around the orbital ellipse and a rotation around the CoM. Both free bodies rotate once an orbit.”
is merely the same as saying that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. Where’s your actual evidence that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR, though?
DREMT writes 7:45 am: “and I agree with them” meaning Bill and Clint R that observing lunar rotation (observed from “within it orbit” or “from outside of its orbit”) does NOT transcend reference frames thus DREMT stands corrected by Bill and Clint R.
The moon issue transcends reference frames, by which I mean it goes beyond the conclusion that some people come to, which is that the moon rotates on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt an accelerated frame. That conclusion is false. Both the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” visualize the problem wrt an inertial reference frame, yet they come to opposite conclusions. So reference frames are not the cause of the difference between the two groups.
“The moon issue transcends reference frames..”
Nope, DREMT 7:54 am has already agreed with Bill and Clint R to the contrary.
Make up your mind DREMT.
As far as I’m aware, Ball4, both Bill and Clint R agree with me that the moon issue transcends reference frames, in the manner that I describe, and for the reasons I have outlined. If they disagree I will need to hear it specifically from them. I am not interested in your pathetic “reinterpretations” of their words, via your usual quote-mining. In fact, I should have taken my own earlier advice to ignore you completely.
Apparently Ball4 completely lacks an argument for his own position and thus is resorting to misrepresenting the non-spinner position.
I agree with DREMT that with regard to the non-spinner/spinner issue reference frames are inapplicable. But Ball4 being incapable of mounting an argument for why they would be has resorted to deception by misrepresenting the position of his opposition. Pretty sad and typical of a loser.
Bill used two reference frames 12:50 am: “from a distant star both spinners and non-spinners agree the moon rotates and that from the perspective of the earth (from “inside of it orbit” per Clint R) there is no rotation” so Bill has written agreement with Clint R and evidence shows written DREMT to be wrong about the lunar issue transcending reference frames.
Now Bill writes “I agree with DREMT” switching sides.
Which is it Bill? Switching sides like DREMT does when called out is pretty sad and evidence of two commenters who don’t know what they are writing about.
grammie pup wrote:
Hubble Space Telescope while viewing a fixed point in the stars.
No, Swanson…that’s just an example of an object moving like the MOTR. That isn’t evidence that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTR.
(I’ll just ignore Ball4, and I recommend everyone else does, too – don’t feed the troll).
Ball4 says:
Bill used two reference frames 12:50 am: from a distant star both spinners and non-spinners agree the moon rotates and that from the perspective of the earth (from inside of it orbit per Clint R) there is no rotation so Bill has written agreement with Clint R and evidence shows written DREMT to be wrong about the lunar issue transcending reference frames.
Now Bill writes I agree with DREMT switching sides.
Which is it Bill? Switching sides like DREMT does when called out is pretty sad and evidence of two commenters who dont know what they are writing about.
—————————-
Sorry Ball4, I didn’t ‘use’ reference frames. You used reference frames and I merely responded to your use by saying the use of reference frames does not display the differences between spinners and non-spinners and thus are not relevant to the conversations. So please stop lying and trying to impose your use of reference frames on my point of view regarding the issue.
grammie pups is unable to accept reality. The Hubble Space Telescope is:
a – Orbiting around the Earth, while,
b – Maintained at as nearly zero rate of rotation as possible as it collects photons emitted from far distant objects in the Universe, such as entire galaxies.
Perhaps grammie pups has a better example from his cartoon world.
Swanson does not understand the assignment. Typical.
“Sorry Ball4, I didn’t ‘use’ reference frames.”
Bill uses reference frames in comments then claims the opposite when called out.
Typical for Bill and DREMT. Which is it Bill? Keep your stories straight. This being typical is why valid comments are backed by proper experiment.
grammie pups has no substantive reply. Typical.
There is nothing to reply to, Swanson. I asked for evidence that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. You provided none. You just gave an example of an object that moves as per the MOTR. It’s like you have no idea what I am asking you for!
E. Swanson says:
grammie pups is unable to accept reality. The Hubble Space Telescope is:
a Orbiting around the Earth, while,
b Maintained at as nearly zero rate of rotation as possible as it collects photons emitted from far distant objects in the Universe, such as entire galaxies.
—————————–
Swanson the Hubble telescope supports the non-spinner case. It demonstrates the need for constant torque to be applied on the telescope to prevent the telescope from rotating as per the non-spinner position.
In order for Hubble to focus on a distant star for the sufficient periods of time demanded by its operators, its stability system must keep a rotation on the telescope in the opposite direction of the orbit. There are many other reasons as well. Satellites are disturbed for various reasons. But the telescopes natural undisturbed position is as tidal locked just as other orbiting objects. And the natural system that produces tidal locking is significant because it relentless does its job and without other countermanding torques gets the job done. That’s reality!
Ball4 says:
”Sorry Ball4, I didnt ‘use’ reference frames.”
Bill uses reference frames in comments then claims the opposite when called out.
Typical for Bill and DREMT. Which is it Bill? Keep your stories straight. This being typical is why valid comments are backed by proper experiment.
———————————
You need to brush up on your English comprehension and logic Ball4. I didn’t use reference frames. I disputed your use of reference frames pointing out that the issue at hand does indeed transcend the use of reference frames because nothing is revealed but the strawmen of the user of reference frames when spinners use reference frames.
So either you are stupid with logic or you are obfuscating.
No obfuscation Bill, you used reference frames “perspective” then claimed you didn’t use reference frames. Astute English readers can read for themselves. So which is it lunar – rotating or not rotating – Bill can’t keep his stories straight:
“non-spinners looking at the moon from the perspective of a distance star don’t see the moon rotating. We do see the moon rotating.”
…but not on its own axis.
Hunter wrote:
No. Once it is pointed at a fixed position, the rotational inertia of the telescope will keep it pointing at that position, provided there are no external torques. Perhaps you could help us by quantifying any such torques.
If the rotational moments of inertia of a satellite are equal, there won’t be any forces to tidally lock it. Is the Earth tidally locked to the Sun? How about Mercury, which is much smaller planet.
Ball4 says:
Ball4 suggests Bill said: ”on-spinners looking at the moon from the perspective of a distance star dont see the moon rotating. We do see the moon rotating.”
——————-
The full sentence of what you quoted above was: ”Your claim above lays upon the premise that non-spinners looking at the moon from the perspective of a distance star dont see the moon rotating.”
The fact is we see the moon rotating from any reference frame. That establishes the fact we do not use reference frames to establish that the moon is rotating.
E. Swanson says:
No. Once it is pointed at a fixed position, the rotational inertia of the telescope will keep it pointing at that position, provided there are no external torques. Perhaps you could help us by quantifying any such torques.
If the rotational moments of inertia of a satellite are equal, there wont be any forces to tidally lock it. Is the Earth tidally locked to the Sun? How about Mercury, which is much smaller planet.
————–
thats correct Swanson. For Hubble to point at a star while rotating it does need a rotational inertia in the opposite direction of the orbit to maintain a focus on a distant star. You finally got it right!!! Congratulations!
Bill: “The fact is we see the moon rotating from any reference frame.”
Bill makes a decision to rightly join the spinners club and abandon’s Bill’s previous written position: “from the perspective of the earth there is no (lunar) rotation.”
Hunter wrote:
Hunter is hopelessly confused. Rotational inertia represents a body’s mass distribution around it’s CoM (or other axis) in three dimensions. Angular momentum is the product of the rotational inertia and the body’s rate of rotation. While orbiting and focused on a distant star or galaxy, Hubble has zero angular momentum because it’s rate of rotation is zero.
Swanson, from NASA:
”There are weak forces acting on Hubble in orbit (due to the change in the Earth’s gravitational tug over the length of the telescope, atmospheric drag, etc.). But these only produce a slow drift in the pointing direction.”
and
”While operating in Earth orbit, the Hubble Space Telescope depends on a robust Pointing Control System to determine the direction in which it is pointing (called its attitude), to turn toward a celestial target, and to remain fixed on that target during observations.”
A satellite in a gravitational field will
experience a torque tending to align the axis of least inertia with the field direction. NASA recognizes this and has designed a stability system to override the drift that results. What it doesn’t do is as you claim align with the distant star that it is currently viewing.
Ball4 is getting frustrated and is now babbling in half sentences.
It is Bill’s writing that is hopelessly confused as E. Swanson points out. Bill can’t even consistently write a view on lunar rotation.
You keep putting words in his mouth, Ball4. Bill keeps saying “the moon rotates” and you keep on adding “on its own axis” every time. Bill would not be a “Non-Spinner” if he thought the moon rotates on its own axis, so obviously when he says “the moon rotates” he means that it rotates about the Earth, and not on its own axis. This should go without saying by now, but your only intent is to troll and confuse the issue, so you just keep on trying to twist things!
That’s a decent reason Bill is so confused in writing, DREMT 6:48 am; Bill doesn’t complete his sentences. Let Bill write for himself more clearly.
Begone, troll.
Hunter continues to be confused, writing:
But Hunter’s NASA quote points out:
While imaging the target, the HST is NOT ROTATING. What could be clearer than that?? That requirement is the same as that of using inertial coordinates, aligned with the stars, to quantify rotational motion. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
E. Swanson says:
the Hubble Space Telescope depends on a robust Pointing Control System
pointing
toward a celestial target,
to remain fixed on that target during observations.
While imaging the target, the HST is NOT ROTATING. What could be clearer than that?? That requirement is the same as that of using inertial coordinates, aligned with the stars, to quantify rotational motion. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
————————–
Swanson the HST rotates on it internal axis to counter act natural orbital rotation. The active stability systems on HST create a rotation to eliminate orbital rotation and star pointing sensors modulate that counter rotation near perfectly.
Turn off the stability system and the satellite will begin to lose its axial spin until it is tidally locked with earth. From the spinner cherry picked frame of reference an illusion will be created of the HST beginning to rotate on its internal axis when physics tells us clearly its the elimination of an axial rotation so that the natural orbital rotation will become visible.
HST is down to the last of its redundant active stability systems and one more failure will render the telescope non-functional as the rotation induced by its active systems to eliminate orbital rotation will slow to zero due to tidal tugging.
Hunter wrote:
Hunter’s conjecture about the future of the HST says nothing about the present. Besides, there are other forces besides gravity which may cause the HST to rotate from it’s initial zero rate, such as solar pressure, so your assumption is pure conjecture. The HST will not “lose its axial spin”, it will GAIN a new rate of rotation and angular momentum.
Of course, Hunter continues to ignore the fact that NASA uses inertial reference frames to analyze orbital rotations, which show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
E. Swanson says:
Hunters conjecture about the future of the HST says nothing about the present. Besides, there are other forces besides gravity which may cause the HST to rotate from its initial zero rate, such as solar pressure, so your assumption is pure conjecture.
———————–
Swanson you are not paying attention. I included other sources of perturbations in NASA’s quote and you fail to mention the relevant one to this conversation. ”There are weak forces acting on Hubble in orbit (due to the change in the Earths gravitational tug over the length of the telescope….”
So quite trying to obfuscate and recognize the facts recognized by NASA!
———-
———-
———-
E. Swanson says:
The HST will not lose its axial spin, it will GAIN a new rate of rotation and angular momentum.
——————-
You misinterpret the reality Swanson. The orbital rotation is always there and it has its own angular momentum even if you don’t readily see it because it is existing as an orbital rotation. It is in fact the single sidereal rotation. Science wants to ignore it by using a cherry-picked frame of reference and call all the axial rotations as fractions of a rotation with the sidereal rotation broken up into fractions to create full rotations while adding one rotation space to make up for fiddling with numbers.
Further with HST there is one axial rotation in the opposite direction for each orbital rotation. . . .thus the total angular momentum equals zero and when HST starts drifting because failure of its stability system (while ignoring the other potential disturbances from the atmosphere, magnetic fields, and the solar wind) what is happening is the angular momentum of the canceling rotation begins to due to the gravitational tug on the telescope. Thats the only way it could be because gravitational tug doesn’t create rotations it only eliminates them.
—————
—————
—————
E. Swanson says:
”Of course, Hunter continues to ignore the fact that NASA uses inertial reference frames to analyze orbital rotations, which show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.”
——————
Seems to me that if you roll a ball from the northpole of the moon toward the southpole of the moon there is no difference in the appearance of the motion of the ball whether you are a spinner or non-spinner. We will both see the ball roll in a straight line and that if we both change our perspective to that of standing on the moons equator we will both see the ball curve.
This inertial frame of reference which you spinners have so heavily overinvested in tells us nothing. Thats truly a great example of how confused you are.
Ball4 says:
Thats a decent reason Bill is so confused in writing, DREMT 6:48 am; Bill doesnt complete his sentences. Let Bill write for himself more clearly.
————————-
Ball4 can’t keep up with the class because he doesn’t do his homework and thus cannot remember the previous lesson.
Hunter posts another long rant, concluding with:
Hunter continues to ignore the gyroscopic effects of conservation of angular momentum. A gyroscope orbiting in space which is spinning around an axis (or mounted in a gimbal) will spin around that axis as long as no external torque(s) are applied. That axis will point toward the same location in the stars as long as there are no torques. That’s why the Moon’s rotational axis remains pointing toward the same location in the stars and is inclined to the orbital plane.
The HST would have no angular momentum if the attitude control system were switched off, thus could initially rotate around any axis, depending on the torques applied. Given that there’s a heavy mirror at one end, along with the cameras, electronics, CMG’s and batteries, I would expect the HST would begin to tumble in a chaotic mode. The position of the solar arrays when shutdown would have a major impact on the torques and resulting rotational motion.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter continues to ignore the gyroscopic effects of conservation of angular momentum. A gyroscope orbiting in space which is spinning around an axis (or mounted in a gimbal) will spin around that axis as long as no external torque(s) are applied. That axis will point toward the same location in the stars as long as there are no torques. Thats why the Moons rotational axis remains pointing toward the same location in the stars and is inclined to the orbital plane.
————————
Hmmmm, that might be one reason why the moon’s axis could be tilted Swanson. But because it is one reason doesn’t mean it is the reason.
NASA maintains that the moon’s axial tilt is due to the differential gravitational tug of the sun thus you have an orbital rotation slightly perturbed because the sun and the other planets are not in line with the moon’s orbital plane.
————–
————–
————–
Swanson speculates:
The HST would have no angular momentum if the attitude control system were switched off, thus could initially rotate around any axis, depending on the torques applied. Given that theres a heavy mirror at one end, along with the cameras, electronics, CMGs and batteries, I would expect the HST would begin to tumble in a chaotic mode. The position of the solar arrays when shutdown would have a major impact on the torques and resulting rotational motion.
———————
Nope. The uneven distribution of mass in the HST will align the HST with the earth’s COM which is termed tidal locking.
You need to look up gravity-gradient stabilization and the problems encountered in doing this. If indeed there was a gyroscopic effect that resisted change in direction when an object in orbit is tidal locked, then would seem perturbations would not be as big of a problem as they are.
Hunter continues to toss out red herrings to cover up the basic flaws with the ‘No-Spin” cult’s logic. The cause of the Moon’s tidal locking or what happens to the HST after the control systems fail has nothing to do with the facts that the HST must remain at zero rotation rate while imaging and the Moon has a constant rate of rotation wrt the stars.
Hunter also continues to ignore the fact that the angular momentum vector of a rotating symmetrical body will be parallel in all inertial reference frames, while that vector will move wrt coordinate systems which are not inertial, such as one based on the Earth-Moon radial line.
Get Real guy! The Moon rotates at a constant rate of once an orbit.
Swanson says:
Hunter also continues to ignore the fact that the angular momentum vector of a rotating symmetrical body will be parallel in all inertial reference frames, while that vector will move wrt coordinate systems which are not inertial, such as one based on the Earth-Moon radial line.
—————————–
Hmmm, then that would apply to all rotations on external axes Swanson. That puts you in direct conflict with Dr. Madhavi of Savitribai Phule Pune University, Drs. Bowers, Qi, and Bazilevs of Brown University, Dr. Wang of University of Washington, and Dr. Navi of Georgia State University.
And your point of view so far has no relevant support except your howling at the moon. Either you are insane or you are going to win a prize. Which do you think it will be?
Hunter, I may have misstated things a bit. When using a non-inertial reference frame, the vector describing the angular momentum of a symmetrical free body, such as a sphere or a disk in orbit, will appear to rotate as the coordinate system itself rotates. The vector when using inertial coordinates will always point in the same direction because of gyroscopic effects.
Hunter should provide more physics than a list of names in an appeal to authority if he disagrees. The Moon does not “rotate around an external axis”, but one thru it’s CoM.
Swanson is still responding, and still going on about reference frames! The moon issue transcends reference frames. I’m not sure how much more clearly and simply I can possibly get that across to people. At some point, they just need to be told. And then they need to permanently shut up about them.
All I write is one comment, a link to a video of a song about the moon not rotating on its own axis…and it leads to 26 days of relentless commentary from the “Spinners”! You couldn’t make it up…and then they blame me for the longevity of this debate! Hilarious. They could have just ignored the link completely.
They just can’t let it go.
I’m not sure how much more clearly wrong and simply DREMT can possibly get that DREMT is wrong across to astute readers.
As Clint R points out, Earthshine is incident on only one lunar face while sunshine is incident on all lunar faces so as clearly observed the moon issue does NOT transcend reference frames.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1252904
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, I may have misstated things a bit. When using a non-inertial reference frame, the vector describing the angular momentum of a symmetrical free body, such as a sphere or a disk in orbit, will appear to rotate as the coordinate system itself rotates. The vector when using inertial coordinates will always point in the same direction because of gyroscopic effects.
Hunter should provide more physics than a list of names in an appeal to authority if he disagrees. The Moon does not rotate around an external axis, but one thru its CoM.
———————–
Misstated? Its more like you are struggling to come up with a rational argument. At least the statement you made you claim to have misstated would be a position that there is no such thing as a rotation on an external axis. Now you are just making stuff up to claim the moon isn’t rotating on an external axis. You are now claiming its different for a ”symmetrical free body”
Gee I might agree with that! But the problem is the moon is not a symmetrical free body as it is captured in orbit and similarly to any object rotating on an external axis it is ”confined” to continue to rotate on that axis and not wander around the galaxy in a non-rotating curvilinear translation.
A confined object simply is not a free object.
Hunter posts more delusional physics, writing:
.
Of course, Hunter can’t tell us where that “external axis” is located, because it doesn’t exist.
Allow me to try again. Suppose that you are sitting on the Equator at the Prime Meridian, or longitude 0.0. You place a large, precision gimbaled gyro on the surface pointing upward, then start it spinning. Use the Earth coordinates with X pointing up, Y pointing toward the East and Z pointing toward the North Star. Also define another set of coordinates with X and Y pointing toward the stars at the instant you start the gyro and z pointing toward the North Star.
What happens? Since angular momentum is conserved in an inertial reference frame, which your second coordinates represent, the angular momentum vector is: W(1,0,0), where W is the scalar magnitude.
For the Earth fixed set:
The initial angular momentum vector is also: W(1,0,0).
After 5.983 hours, the momentum vector is: W(0,-1,0).
After 11.967 hours, the momentum vector is: W(-1,0,0).
After 17.950 hours, the momentum vector is: W(0,1,0).
Finally, after 23.933 hours, it’s back to W(1,0,0,), etc.
So, one must understand the meaning of “Conservation of Angular Momentum” when describing all rotations, including the special case of the tidally locked Moon.
Swanson, the Earth is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours in the same sense that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours, i.e. not at all, in reality. The Earth rotates on its own axis once every 24 hours and Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis at all, it rotates about the Earth’ axis, same as every other part of the Earth. Since you agree about Mt. Everest, logically you have no choice but to accept the same reality for the Earth. Once you have accepted that the Earth rotates on its own axis once every 24 hours, it follows that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. This will all go over your head, but never mind.
Wow Swanson ran like a scared rabbit from his ”free body” argument making the moon different than Mt Everest and didn’t even offer up a sentence in rebuttal.
Instead he has run off into another unsupportable position that there is no orbital axis. Thats ridiculous of course because obviously the moon isn’t moving without regard to the gravitational tug of the earth the vector for which points to the earth’s COM throughout the moons rotation.
For Swanson its like an unending pile of mudballs, none of which has any scientific support anywhere.
You nor have any of the other spinners offered any science argument for your position.
And of course those unsupported arguments all would dissemble the the well supported concept of rotating on an external axis.
Heck I think it took you guys at least 6 months (I was probably a late comer) to recognize that non-spinners believe the moon rotates (on the COM of earth) making any argument based upon inertial reference frames moot.
Its probably time for you spinners to close your pieholes and hit the books. Then if you find something you have support for then come back and continue the argument.
grammie pups is correct that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours wrt the Sun. But a gimbaled gyro doesn’t work that way. Maybe grammie needs to learn some (side)real world physics.
Hunter wrote:
I’ve given Hunter a reference with detailed equations. Hunter has presented no math or other specific objections, other than mentioning Kepler’s Law analysis, which involves the motion of a planet’s CoM, not it’s angular rotation.
The Moon does not orbit around the Earth’s CoM, the orbit’s First Focus is at the barycenter. And Hunter continues to confuse orbital “rotation” around an elliptical trajectory with the angular rotation around the Moon’s CoM. The orbit trajectory is a translation motion, the result of the Moon’s instantaneous linear velocity constantly changing due to gravitational forcing from the Earth and the Sun.
As expected, my comment went sailing over Swanson’s head. Let’s try again. Firstly, the Earth is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours in the same sense that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours, i.e. not at all, in reality. Do you understand the relevance of this, Swanson? The sidereal day is 23.933 hours and this is the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate on its own axis “relative to the stars”…but “relative to the stars” you could just as wrongly claim that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis in the same period of time. Or that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is also rotating on its own axis in the same period of time. It all depends on where you place the origin of your inertial reference frame, you see.
But, you agree with me that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. Similarly, every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is not rotating on its own axis. They are instead rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. So, this is where you are supposed to understand why using an inertial reference frame to determine the rate of rotation can lead you to the wrong conclusions about whether things are rotating on their own axes or not.
However, you will no doubt miss the point again.
Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours, i.e. not at all, in reality wrt Earth.
Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis in reality, wrt to the sun.
Do you understand the relevance of this, DREMT? Motion does NOT transcend reference frames.
As far as I’m aware, Ball4, Swanson disagrees with you. As far as I’m aware, Swanson does not think Mt. Everest rotates on its own axis, period. In other words, wrt anything. So you two can argue that out.
No need for me to argue it out with E. Swanson, since E. Swanson comments consistent with what I have written: “Motion does NOT transcend reference frames”.
There really is no absolute motion, DREMT. All motion is relative. That’s why they call it “relativity”.
grammie pups throws up another of his favorite red herrings about Mt. Everest, which has no relevance, since Mt. Everest is not a free body. All that so he can continue to ignore that a gymbaled gyro rotates as a free body and it’s axis of rotation points continually toward a fixed point in space, even though it’s CoM translates along a circular path around the Earth’s rotation axis.
The “no-spin” cult still can’t provide any math to explain the motions of either the gyro or the Moon. Another cult failure.
See, I knew Swanson was going to miss the point, again.
It was also obvious that Ball4 would avoid arguing with Swanson.
All boringly predictable.
See, We knew grammie pup was going to miss the point, again, since he has no clue about gyroscopic motion.
To quantify dynamic rotation for a free body, one must place the origin of an inertial reference frame at the CoM. That’s why one calculates the body’s moments of inertia around the CoM, etc. Since grammie pup still can’t do the math, so all he has is bluff, bluster and BS.
A Saharan grain of sand is a “free body”, Swanson. Its only physical attachment to the Earth is via gravity. Set the origin of your inertial reference frame through the CoM of the Saharan grain of sand…and you could convince yourself that it is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours. Is every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert rotating on its own axis, Swanson?
You will now need to find another reason to miss the point besides the “free body” thing.
A fixed (not windblown) Saharan grain of sand is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours, i.e. not at all, in reality wrt Earth.
A fixed Saharan grain of sand is rotating on its own axis in reality, wrt to the sun.
Do you understand the relevance of this, DREMT? Motion does NOT transcend reference frames.
Odd, Ball4 is still not arguing with Swanson, despite the fact that Swanson agrees with me that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, period, as in “not rotating on its own axis wrt anything”.
Swanson says: ”The ‘no-spin’ cult still can’t provide any math to explain the motions of either the gyro or the Moon. Another cult failure.”
————————
Well that is untrue. I provided the math previously so to humor you I will reproduce the problem.
The math is pretty basic.
The basic simplified equation for the angular momentum of the moon going around the earth is Lorb+Lspin=Lmoon
but if you look at Georgia State Universities Hyperphysics project you will note an equation for the orbital rotation of a particle in an elliptical orbit.
at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
Angular momentum of
L = mvr sin θ
So to understand the issue we will assume 3 particles orbiting the earth at different distances from the earth’s COM that are NOT part of a rigid body. Not being a rigid body means they hold zero angular momentum around the COM of the 3 particles and only hold angular momentum around the earth’s COM.
Now we will assume the particles are distanced from the earth’s COM at a unit of distance of 1,2, and 3 respectively. Likewise they respectively have velocities of 1x,2x, and 3x(x=2pi). Finally, each particle has the same mass so all the particles have a mass of 1.
So according to the classic interpretation of the spinners the orbital angular momentum of these 3 particles is equal Lorb=3*2*2x or 12x. 3 being the sum of their masses and 2 being the mean distance of that mass and 2x being the mean velocity of that mass.
But the actual angular momentum of this cloud of particles is (1*1*1x)+(1*2*2x)+(1*3*3x). This reduces to 1x+4x+9x which equals 14x. Thus the angular momentum is greater by 2x
Now the missing element is the angular momentum of 2 particles rotating around the center particle which is the difference in distance of those two particles and with the same velocity of rotation around the mean of 1x. So the implied spin angular momentum equals (1*1*1x)+(1*1*1x)=2. 2x being the difference noted above.
So unless you believe binding the particles together creates a different orbital angular momentum there is a real problem with your interpretation of Lorb+Lspin. Lspin when looking at an orbit is inseparable from Lorb thus it must be on the same axis as Lorb.
So there you have my mathematical interpretation of the MOTL that clearly separates it from the MOTR.
Ball4 says:
”Do you understand the relevance of this, DREMT? Motion does NOT transcend reference frames.”
————————
as usual Ball4 you are making irrelevant points. Motion does not transcend reference frames and DREMT I don’t think ever said that. He has said that the issue of the location of the axis of rotation of the moon does transcend reference frames.
And why is that true? You ask!
It is because reference frames are only relevant to fictitious forces and where fictitious forces have not be identified reference frames are irrelevant and thus the location of the moon’s axis transcends reference frames.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Odd, Ball4 is still not arguing with Swanson, despite the fact that Swanson agrees with me that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, period, as in not rotating on its own axis wrt anything.
———————
Pretty much status quo for the spinners DREMT as they can’t agree on a uniform definition of what a rotation is.
reminds me of when dozens of warmist blog scientists created a special scientist only public blog to the published paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner on the ”Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.
For a time the blog was publicly viewable but to post you had to show your science credentials to the moderator. And of course there was only ‘warmist’ interest in the mission of the blog.
The blog almost instantly started spinning its wheels when the participants started arguing about how the GHE actually works. LMAO!! After a few days of that the blog went private never to be heard from again nor did any response arise from the ‘committee’ approach. LMAO!!
Bill doesn’t know what Bill is writing about since Bill can’t keep his own comments consistent let alone DREMT comments since rotation is obviously motion wrt a chosen axis. Bill just now:
“Motion does not transcend reference frames and DREMT I don’t think ever said that.”
Bill 4/19 5:28 pm:
“DREMT is correct that the moon rotation issue transcends frames”
That’s hilarious…but hardly surprising they were arguing about how the GHE works, given there are so many different versions of the GHE out there! Really weird how such an important "theory" has so many different variations…refute one and another pops up in its place!
Hunter, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed that the creator of the HyperPhysics never bothers to define a coordinate system for use in astronomy. All I could find is a brief description of different types of coordinate systems. Real astronomers use International Celestial Reference System and Frame.
Satellite builders also use inertial reference frames, because the physics does not work out properly unless one does so. Have you solved that gyroscope question yet?
Also, you summation of orbital and spin angular velocity for the Moon (or the Earth) misses the fat that the spin angular momentum is a constant because the rate of rotation is a constant.
Ball4 says:
”Bill doesnt know what Bill is writing about since Bill cant keep his own comments consistent”
—————–
Well it seems that either Ball4 lacks reading comprehension skills or that he disagrees with my statement:
”reference frames are only relevant to fictitious forces and where fictitious forces have not be identified reference frames are irrelevant”
Which is it Ball4? Poor reading comprehension skills or do you disagree that reference frames are only relevant where fictitious forces have been identified?
And of course if you believe references frames are relevant to the moon issue, what fictitious force have you identified that needs resolving via reference frames?
I disagree with Bill’s statement on irrelevant fictitious forces which DREMT didn’t mention; note the relevant words “motion” and “rotation” so which is correct Bill:
Bill doesn’t know what Bill is writing about since Bill can’t keep his own comments consistent let alone DREMT comments since rotation is obviously motion wrt a chosen axis. Bill just now:
“Motion does not transcend reference frames and DREMT I don’t think ever said that.”
Bill 4/19 5:28 pm:
“DREMT is correct that the moon rotation issue transcends frames”
…and wrt an inertial reference frame with the origin placed through the Earth, the moon is only orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, Swanson.
E. Swanson says:
”Real astronomers use International Celestial Reference System and Frame.”
——————
I never made any contention that what real astronomers do for convenience results in errors Swanson. You need to address the logic in my mathematical model in detail and object to specific points rather than just ignoring them and changing the subject. You asked for it again. I gave it to you again. Now don’t just ignore it because you can’t think of a decent response to it.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
”Satellite builders also use inertial reference frames, because the physics does not work out properly unless one does so. Have you solved that gyroscope question yet?”
—————–
You are incorrect Swanson. The physics works out just fine. The reason that inertial reference frames are used by satellite builders is the equations are much easier to deal with.
Navigation can be computed from an orbit trajectory for a satellite to an orbit insertion point somewhere outside of the moon.
Since that is a single target point and not a ”mean” point no error is encountered.
The error arises out of the fact that both distance and velocity increases for a particle further from the moon’s COM and you cannot use the COM which is the mean mass location as the mean angular momentum location.
Once at the orbit insertion point with a valid orbit speed and direction for orbit the lspin equation can be used to establish satellite stability.
But rest assured Swanson the angular momentum of an orbit around the moon by the satellite includes the spin angular momentum of a satellite that maintains a steady orientation wrt to the moon.
That is all laid out in the math that you are avoiding criticizing.
————
————
————
E. Swanson says:
”Also, you summation of orbital and spin angular velocity for the Moon (or the Earth) misses the fat that the spin angular momentum is a constant because the rate of rotation is a constant.”
No I didn’t miss that. It is part of the mathematical proof that spin angular momentum in the Lorb+Lspin is part and parcel to orbital angular momentum as described by Hyperphysics and thus is what is known as an a spin axis relative to the motion of the moon while ignoring its orbital rotation.
If the moon were not maintaining the same face to earth Lorb+Lspin would not equal the rotational angular momentum of moon orbiting the earth and the moon would possess some genuine spin around its axis rather than simply a relational spin.
One can apply the same mathematical principle to Mt Everest and compute its spin angular momentum around the COM of Mt Everest. But the problem arises that if you want to call that an angular momentum around a real axis of rotation your Lorb calcuation of Mt Everest around the earth’s COM would be incorrect as Mt Everest maintains the same face to the earths axis like the moon does with the earth.
Any object rotating around a real external axis will display the mathematical issues I have laid out in my simplified mathematical example if one face faces its orbital axis.
So rather than going 100% soup sandwich on me, be specific with what problems you have with the mathematical model logic I laid out for you and don’t just ignore it.
In summary Swanson I have once again dealt with your false criticism that non-spinners lacked a mathematical model for the moon’s rotation.
Not only did I give you that (when actually in fact Hyperphysics already gave you that but you lacked the insight to see that they did) but I also showed what was wrong with your mathematical model.
You responded claiming nothing was wrong with Lspin. And I never said there was anything wrong with Lspin. What my math clearly shows is a problem with Lorb in a problem of an object rotating on an external axis.
Ball4 has been desperately but indirectly trying to help you in this without calling out your error being the good ‘team’ member he is lacking in any integrity whatsoever to call it as he sees it.
E. Swanson has not made any science error Bill. Your 11:49 am is riddled with errors including errors of units. For example:
“Not being a rigid body means they hold zero angular momentum around the COM of the 3 particles”
No that’s wrong. Because each particle radius is zero, each particle has Lspin = 0 but the particle ensemble does not have Lspin = 0 since its r (“with respect to a chosen origin”), spin v, m are nonzero.
The rest of Bill’s 11:49 am comment fails accordingly.
Ball4 you simply don’t understand what generate angular momentum. As you note Lspin of each particle is zero. Lspin of the 3 particles is also zero because they are NOT a rigid object. You only have angular momentum when the particles are rigidly connected to one another so that some particles are travelling fast than others. Break the string with all three particles simultaneously and the 3 particles will travel in parallel straight lines with each particle having a different speed, thus the distance between them would begin to increase.
These particles are simply orbiting. You need to review the mathematical proof I provided and look to source I provided for understanding.
Bill 7:08 pm:“Lspin of the 3 particles is also zero because they are NOT a rigid object.”
That is wrong Bill.
Look to your source of choice to explain this correctly for you for your understanding:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi
The unconnected particle sum of point mass moments of inertia about their COM (or any arbitrary point) is not zero. If Ri is the radius of the ith particle from the particles COM, Ii the momentum of inertia, angular velocity OMEGA wrt COM, the angular momentum Lspin about total particle COM then becomes:
Lspin = summation Ri * Mi * Vi = summation Ii * OMEGAi
which is NOT zero unless their angular velocity OMEGAi wrt their COM is all zero.
The rest of Bill’s 11:49 am comment fails accordingly.
Hunter thinks his model refutes the spinners world view. As noted, his three particles are not connected as part of a free body, but this makes his computation of a “spinners Lorb” meaningless as he assumes the three are rotating together around the middle particle which they are not. Besides, “orbiting” includes gravitational forcing, which will cause the three particles to exhibit different translational paths because of their different masses and velocities.
For example, using the HyperPhysics orbital calculator, one finds the following result for circular orbits around the Earth (using r = Earth radius):
r = 1 ==> v = 7908.38 m/s
r = 2 ==> v = 5592.06 m/s
r = 3 ==> v = 4565.90 m/s
So, given that your three particles are “orbiting”, it’s impossible for them to exhibit velocities of 1x, 2x, and 3x and remain in a circular orbit. Hunter’s claim is bogus.
Hunter had nothing to say about my reference. Part way thru, it says “We can only do Physics in these inertial reference frames”. Get it yet?
and wrt an inertial reference frame with the origin placed through the Earth, the moon is only orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis, Swanson. Get it yet?
That’s not an inertial frame since the Earth is accelerating.
A reference frame with the origin placed through the Earth, and the coordinate system axes directed at fixed stars, is a non-rotating reference frame, which is all it needs to be. Wrt this reference frame, the “Non-Spinners” argue that the moon is orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis. It is certainly as much an inertial reference frame as one with the origin placed through the CoM of the moon.
I note you did not pick on Swanson when he said, “to quantify dynamic rotation for a free body, one must place the origin of an inertial reference frame at the CoM”.
You people really do make me sick.
Here, take a look at this video:
https://youtu.be/DbYapFLJsPA
It features two different inertial reference frames with the origin placed at the Earth.
So now grammie pups wrote:
With both reference frames pointing toward the same stars, the rotational vectors for the Moon would be parallel and exhibit the same rotation rate. The only difference would be the linear coordinate transformation. As a result, both would indicate that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, with the origin of your inertial reference frame placed through the Earth, you can view the moon’s entire orbit around the Earth. You have the necessary perspective to see that the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis. You have the necessary perspective to see that the moon is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis. With the origin of your inertial reference frame placed through the moon, you lose the necessary context to judge whether or not it is rotating on its own axis, because you lose that view of the moon’s entire orbit around the Earth. You are too “zoomed in” to be able to correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation”. It’s like that ridiculous argument a “Spinner” once made that you should look at the MOTL through a toilet roll tube so that you can only see the moon itself, not the orbit, and hey presto! It looks like the moon is rotating on its own axis.
The Saharan grain of sand example should have made this point clear to you. Place the origin of your inertial reference frame through the CoM of the grain of sand, and you could (wrongly) convince yourself that it is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours. Place the origin of your inertial reference frame through the CoM of Earth, and you gain the necessary perspective to judge that the grain of sand is simply rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis.
Ball4 says:
The unconnected particle sum of point mass moments of inertia about their COM (or any arbitrary point) is not zero.
————————
That statement applies only to connected particles.
The reason is the difference between linear momentum and angular momentum is that angular momentum has an additional moment.
If you break the strings (gravity) causing the disconnected individual particles to orbit in a nifty cloud to make your case you will need to point to the additional moment that adds to the linear momentum of these particles that would conserve any angular momentum.
If you can’t identify that moment your argument fails.
E. Swanson says:
r = 1 ==> v = 7908.38 m/s
r = 2 ==> v = 5592.06 m/s
r = 3 ==> v = 4565.90 m/s
So, given that your three particles are orbiting, its impossible for them to exhibit velocities of 1x, 2x, and 3x and remain in a circular orbit. Hunters claim is bogus.
————————-
Your math is incorrect. I can see it without recalculating it. The larger the radius the faster the velocity of the particles as it was specified each particle has the same angular velocity.
Triple the radius and you have to triple the velocity but you have the furthest particle traveling slower. If you can’t manage this math you have little hope of forming a valid argument.
Also your claim that these cannot be circular orbits has to be arising from your bad mathematics. You will need to do a lot better.
Bill 8:08 am: “That statement applies only to connected particles.”
Bill’s own source shows that is wrong & identifies “that moment”.
The rest of Bill’s 11:49 am comment fails accordingly.
DREMT 8:02 am is wrong again: “Place the origin of your inertial reference frame through the CoM of the grain of sand..”
The Saharan grain of sand is accelerating so that is not an inertial frame placement.
“Place the origin of your inertial reference frame through the CoM of Earth..”
Oops, DREMT fails yet again, the Earth is accelerating so that is not an inertial frame.
A fixed (not windblown) Saharan grain of sand is rotating on its own axis once every 23.933 hours, i.e. not at all, in reality wrt Earth.
A fixed Saharan grain of sand is rotating on its own axis in reality, wrt to the sun.
Do you understand the relevance of this, DREMT? Motion does NOT transcend reference frames.
The video proves me right, Ball4. You can place the origin of an inertial reference frame through the CoM of a body like the Earth, moon, or even a Saharan grain of sand.
DREMT, you remain wrong. The Earth Centered Earth Fixed and Earth Centered defined Inertial Equatorial/Ecliptic are accelerated frames.
They are useful frames for Earth orbit modelling & the GPS system but are not true inertial orbits. Listen to the next video, the Prof. at about 1:40 even says those are very non-inertial frames noted in your video.
You can use an Earth Centered Earth “fied” (sic) defined Inertial Reference Frame for orbit modelling & the GPS system since we all reside in Earth centered frame thus “99.9% of the users” will be ok but “you have to bring it down from a true inertial frame.”
To go past Pluto, a natural inertial frame has to be used or with extra & unneeded work you could use the accelerated Earth Centered defined Reference Frame after accounting for the natural accelerations of that Earth frame.
DREMT comment arguing the video proves DREMT right lets more astute readers like E. Swanson understand ill-infomed DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is writing about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzTJmMnTinU
Ball4 says:
Bills own source shows that is wrong & identifies that moment.
————-
You appear to be lying again Ball4. Either you don’t understand the physics or you are making it all up. You will need to provide the exact quote you claim makes that claim.
Of course the “Earth Centered Earth Fixed” frame is not an inertial reference frame, I never claimed that it was. The other two reference frames shown in the video I linked to are labelled as inertial reference frames, and have their origins placed within the Earth, proving me correct.
Besides:
“to quantify dynamic rotation for a free body, one must place the origin of an inertial reference frame at the CoM”.
– Swanson.
If it were true that you couldn’t place the origin of an inertial reference frame at the CoM of a body, it would be more of a problem for Swanson and the “Spinners” than it would be for any of my arguments. It’s not true, though. It’s just more desperation from Ball4.
Hunter wrote:
Hunter specified velocities without including the fact that the particles are orbiting around a central point under the influence of gravity after writing:
The HyperPhysics link allows one to calculate the velocity of a free body in orbit around the Earth given the radius of the orbit. The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is about 385,000 km, or about 60.43 times the Earth’s mean radius of 6371.0 km. Plug that into the HyperPhysics calculator and you find the Moon’s velocity is v = 1017.3284 m/s and the orbital period is 39686.3 minutes or 27.560 days, which is close to the sidereal value of 27.322 days days.
Hunter’s claim that the velocity of an orbiting body increases with radial distance is simply wrong and the HyperPhysics link demonstrates that. If Hunter wants to argue with the author of the site, go for it.
I already did provide it Bill 12:46 pm. See “Sum of the point mass moments of inertia.” No connections just sum each particle.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi
grammie pups must have failed geometry as well as physics while in school. The axes of the two reference frames point to the same locations in the stars, therefore they are parallel. Conservation of angular momentum requires that the rotational vectors are also parallel and of equal magnitude in both reference frames. That is not to say that the translation vectors are the same.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
“The other two reference frames shown in the video I linked to are labelled as inertial reference frames, and have their origins placed within the Earth, proving me correct.”
No DREMT. The Prof. even says they are not true inertial frames – they are just defined inertial because 99.9% of the users being in the frame don’t care about the differences from true inertial.
You should have known DREMT, but it does reveal DREMT doesn’t know what DREMT is talking about.
No, Ball4, your Prof. at 1:40 is talking about “Earth Centred Earth Fixed” frames which I agree are not inertial.
Swanson, re-read my previous comment to you until understood. The point has sailed over your head again.
grammie pups continues to fail to understand the concept of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Angular Momentum is a vector quantity and remains the same, regardless the coordinate system. The Moon rotates once an orbit, just as one obviously observs by using the CoM as the origin of a set of inertially fixed coordinates.
Swanson, go through my 8:02 AM comment line by line, quoting each line and writing a response to it. You are currently just ignoring any of the points I am making and repeating your own nonsense like a mantra. Take a deep breath, open your mind, and try again. You are clearly not a deep thinker, and are incredibly slow at learning, but fortunately for you I am an extremely patient man. I am certain you can break through your programming if you really try.
E. Swanson says:
Hunters claim that the velocity of an orbiting body increases with radial distance is simply wrong and the HyperPhysics link demonstrates that.
———————–
Yeah Swanson! Stupidly leave out the specification that the 3 separate particles (really free objects) all have the same rate of rotation. I specified the rotation rate as 1.0 so as to make the computation easier for you and you still blew it.
Thus the outermost particle has a higher velocity than the particles closer to the axis. Have you lost your mind? In what world does the particle with the smallest distance to the axis and the same rotation rate as the other particles travel faster than the other particles?
OK Swanson I see your error.
If you don’t like gravity imagine individual strings hold each particle to rotate around an axis.
I was only creating a simple mind experiment and avoiding issues of gravity that would like not support a uniform cloud of particles to rotate around a COM. This is a mind experiment to reduce unnecessary complications.
Your reference (or Nate’s) says: ”The moment of inertia must be specified with respect to a chosen axis of rotation. (I am choosing an external axis for this mind experiment). For a point mass, the moment of inertia is just the mass times the square of perpendicular distance to the rotation axis, I = mr2. (I am using particles with masses and zero dimensions) That point mass relationship becomes the basis for all other moments of inertia since any object can be built up from a collection of point masses.”(that is all I am doing is building up a collection of point masses)
My mind experiment simply built up a cloud of disconnected particles that don’t qualify as an object. We are looking at the sum of their angular momentum or moments of inertia around an external axis. If you wish to assign units feel free to do so.
I am only asking why all of a sudden there is a shift to another axis some of the angular momentum if all you do is create a rigid object out of the particles. That is the only question you need to answer.
Ball4 says:
See Sum of the point mass moments of inertia. No connections just sum each particle.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi
——————————-
Yes I see it but its only for ”any object”. Its not for 3 objects completely free of each other.
An example would be take 100 marbles and throw them into orbit.
You can calculate a moment for at cloud of marbles but knowing it really has no application. the issue in this whole discussion is a need for a force to actually create a rotation. The spinners lack one and non-spinners have one. Everything else is just hot air and BS.
Hunter and grammie pups, You guys are too funny. Hunter repeats his model of orbiting, then wants to ignore the facts of gravity by specifying “a cloud of disconnected particles that dont qualify as an object” that somehow move in circular paths around some fixed point. Where is this to occur, except in space and how would gravity effect the resulting trajectories? What makes these particles move lock step in circular paths, it surely isn’t gravity and there are no strings attached.
grammie thinks his posts are so insightful that I must re-read them to find enlightenment. Sorry, grammie, I already understand Conservation of Angular Momentum. Too bad you still don’t.
No, Swanson, I think that if you have no specific rebuttal to the points I’ve made, then my comments stand. Meaning, you lose the argument.
Good for DREMT 1:30 pm, to agree the video frames “are not inertial”. There is only one truly inertial frame wherein our Moon rotates once on its own axis per earthen orbit wrt the sun illuminating all lunar faces.
The “Earth Centred” frames which DREMT agrees are not inertial thus they are accelerated have the moon not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth meaning earthshine is incident on just one lunar face.
—–
Good for Bill 9:15 pm, “Yes I see it” that Bill’s own source shows that Bill was wrong & does identify that moment for which Bill was looking.
End of discussion.
grammie pups wrote:
grammie continues to confuse free body’s “orbiting” (a translational motion) with it’s rotation. Your usual cartoon “perspective” does not show you the physics. The Moon’s rotational angular momentum is the same in either reference frame. Period.
I linked to a video featuring three reference frames, Ball4. Of the three, the “Earth Centered Earth Fixed” frame is not inertial. The other two reference frames are labelled as inertial reference frames, and also have their origins placed through the Earth, proving me correct. You linked to a lecture on the “Earth Centered Earth Fixed” frame, which is not inertial, and are acting like it proves something about the other two reference frames from my video. It does not. You are the most intellectually dishonest human being I have ever encountered.
Swanson, do you agree that the Saharan grain of sand is not rotating on its own axis, wrt anything? Yes or no.
grammie pups, Your “grain of sand” and Mt. Everest comments are just diversions from the problem in physics. The question you must answer is: Does the Moon’s angular momentum remain the same when using an inertial reference frame centered at the Moon’s CoM and at the Earth’s CoM? If not, why not and provide the math to support your conclusion.
I will take it that you agree, then…and that settles the issue.
Yes, grammie pups, place a gimbaled gyro anywhere on the Earth’s surface with the rotation axis parallel to the Equator and once it’s spinning, it will always rotate once every 23h 56m 4.09053s, or 23.934 hours. Place a similarly located gimbaled gyro on the surface of the Moon and it will rotate once every 27.322 days.
In both cases, the gyros show that the orbiting bodies are rotating. That also shows that the Moons angular momentum remains the same when using an inertial reference frame centered at the Moons CoM or at the Earths CoM. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, do you agree that the Saharan grain of sand is not rotating on its own axis, wrt anything? Yes or no.
E. Swanson says:
grammie pups, Your grain of sand and Mt. Everest comments are just diversions from the problem in physics. The question you must answer is: Does the Moons angular momentum remain the same when using an inertial reference frame centered at the Moons CoM and at the Earths CoM? If not, why not and provide the math to support your conclusion.
———–
Does the Saharan grain of sands angular momentum remain the same when using an inertial reference frame centered at the Saharan grain of sands CoM and at the Earths CoM? If not, why not and provide the math to support your conclusion.
Hunter, Being that both the “grain of sand” and Mt. Everest are part of the Earth, they rotate with the Earth.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, Being that both the grain of sand and Mt. Everest are part of the Earth, they rotate with the Earth.
————————-
Bound to the earth? By gravity? Clearly they rotate around the axis at the COM of earth, which is external to the objects in question. They are also in the same type of reference frame any object rotating on an external axis. They don’t rotate on the internal axis due to being bound by gravity from the bulk of earth.
You can’t just wave your hand, change the laws of physics, and claim different kinds of physics on different objects simply because you want them to be different. Make a consistent physics (one set of physical rules) argument and not just an extrapolation of words you heard from your daddy.
I gave a mathematical model that shows the Sum of angular momentum of 3 particles that are only orbiting was equal to Lorb+Lspin. Sum MVR is an orbital only rotation.
Meanwhile I have seen no scientific source that claims Lorb+Lspin is anything but the angular momentum of the moon orbiting around the earth’s COM.
Yet you insist it comprises of two axes and two rotations. Thats illogical considering Sum of mvr’s for 3 particles equals the Lorb+Lspin of those three same particles.
Then Ball4 jumps in and claims indeed because there is a moment around the 3 particles Lspin means they are rotating on an internal axis. . . .then he immediately flipflops and claims the grain of sand or Mt Everest despite having themselves such a moment don’t rotate on their own axis.
Then you willy nilly argue frames of references cherry picking which of the objects you are going to say is or is not in an inertial reference frame.
The argument you guys are putting up is as loose as a soup sandwich.
You asked DREMT to do only what I asked you to do for a different object and instead of giving a mathematical model you make excuses for why you don’t need to.
Bill gets it…Swanson still does not get it. I can’t imagine somebody slower on the uptake than Swanson.
Hunter continues to extol his bogus three particle scenario. He previously wrote Now we will assume the particles are distanced from the earths COM at a unit of distance of 1,2, and 3 respectively. Likewise they respectively have velocities of 1x,2x, and 3x(x=2pi)..
No, Hunter, as I proved, three separate “particles” orbiting the Earth CAN NOT HAVE THOSE VELOCITIES, so your math continues to be WRONG as I demonstrated with the math from the HyperPhysics site. Those velocities would only apply if the three particles are part of a larger body directly connected to the point at r=0 around which they all rotate. You could do the same math for the Moon orbiting at r=60.43, if you really cared about the physics. You won’t believe me if I do it, so why don’t you take a shot at it?
E. Swanson says:
””the particles are distanced from the earths COM at a unit of distance of 1,2, and 3 respectively. Likewise they respectively have velocities of 1x,2x, and 3x(x=2pi)..”
No, Hunter, as I proved.
————————-
Incorrect Swanson you proved nothing relevant because you have yet to produce a model of the grain of sand that shows how it would not apply.
This is critical because your argument is dependent upon this difference.
So you have made a point. Congratulations!
But you still need to demonstrate that your point is relevant and does not apply to grains of sand.
So now the only one that needs to come up with a model is you.
Keep in mind my model is Sum(mvr)=Lorb+Lspin for both moon’s and grains of sand.
Its on you to show how that is not true. . . .and if you fail your frame of reference argument also fails.
Hunter, As you well know, my preferred orbit model is that of a translation of the Moon’s CoM around an elliptical orbit due to gravity and the rotation of the Moon around it’s CoM. That model also works for satellites, moons and planets.
As for grammie’s “grain of sand” or Mt. Everest red herrings, when using an inertial reference frame placed at their CoM, both display rotation, the same rotation as the entire Earth. Not only that, but the rotational vectors are parallel when comparing any two coordinate sets which are located inertially. That’s the point of my discussion about the gimbaled gyro mounted parallel to the Earth’s equator which you refuse to discuss. The gyro indicates the same rate of rotation where ever it is placed on the surface. That does not imply that the “grain of sand” or Mt. Everest are rotating about their respective centers, since they are not free bodies in space.
The gyros of an inertial control system would tell us that the Moon rotates wrt the stars, just as those systems do while on Earth.
Swanson blurts:
As for grammies grain of sand or Mt. Everest red herrings, when using an inertial reference frame placed at their CoM, both display rotation, the same rotation as the entire Earth.
———————————
Swanson you can’t make up your own definitions. An object is any coherent collection of particles or smaller objects (such as a bag of marbles)
Likewise a planet and its moons are a unique object. As are the individual objects that make up the moon/planet system. You can’t just wave your hand and make that go away.
A grain of sand is a unique object. The earth is a large collection of objects including mountains, rocks, grains of sand, and Lakes, rivers, and oceans. All the objects and particles that make up the earth rotate external to the earth’s axis. The only ones that rotate at their COM are rotating in the same sense the earth rotates. You can’t exempt objects rotating on an external axis simply because they are part of a larger collection of objects rotating on its own axis!!!!!
If you allow that you allow the claim that the earth and moon only rotate externally to the suns axis or on the COM that is called the barycenter. But that collection of objects (earth and moon) rotating on its COM at the barycenter has a far different value of rotation than either the earth or the moon.
You produce zero scientific support and refuse to produce the mathematical model you demand of others.
That shows you can’t answer to others nor even to yourself.
This argument is over and you lose for your complete failure to stand up to your own conditions.
Swanson says:
The gyros of an inertial control system would tell us that the Moon rotates wrt the stars, just as those systems do while on Earth.
———————-
Sheesh, Swanson has a thick skull!
For nth time Swanson. . . .non-spinners agree that the moon rotates. That isn’t in contention. The only thing in contention is the axis that the moon rotates upon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hunter drifts off again, ignoring completely my repeated point that his 1,2,3 scenario doesn’t work the way he claimed it does. Instead, he posts a load of gibberish, including:
Swanson takes “slow on the uptake” to a whole new level.
“As for grammie’s “grain of sand” or Mt. Everest red herrings, when using an inertial reference frame placed at their CoM, both display rotation…not only that, but the rotational vectors are parallel when comparing any two coordinate sets which are located inertially…”
“…that does not imply that the “grain of sand” or Mt. Everest are rotating about their respective centers…”
…so extrapolate that to the moon, Swanson. If you use an inertial reference frame placed at the moon’s CoM, it might “display rotation”, but “that does not imply that the [moon is] rotating about [its] center”. In fact, it can only imply that the moon rotates on its own axis if “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR. So, the moon issue transcends reference frames, in that it is simply a question of whether “orbit without spin” is translational motion (like how the “Spinners” would describe the motion of the MOTR), or whether “orbit without spin” is rotational motion (like the MOTL).
E. Swanson says:
Hunter drifts off again, ignoring completely my repeated point that his 1,2,3 scenario doesnt work the way he claimed it does.
—————————–
the mind experiment works fine in every instance Swanson.
The fact is if there were such a cloud rotating around an external axis its angular momentum around that axis would be (using the hyperphysics equations) equal to Lorb+Lspin (which are the simplified form of equation for the same thing.
From there one can add some angular momentum upon a different axis if one desires to do so but as long as the object rotates around an external axis at the same rate and distance one cannot steal it for another axis.
That is revealed in your attempt to not recognize any rotation on an external axis for any object.
LMAO! Sorry for your ignorance on this Swanson but I got news for you: a grain of sand found at the equator does rotate about 4,000 miles away from the earths axis. You might want to check with somebody you trust on this. . . .like another fourth grader maybe?
Hunter, As I demonstrated, your (1,2,3) mental model is not valid because you specify that the orbiting particles exhibit velocities of (1x, 2x, and 3x), which can not be the case for a set of 3 real bodies with concentric circular orbits.
The “grain of sand” is part of a rotating body, so, yes, it is constrained to rotating around the Earth’s axis. But the sand particle not a free body in space.
“But the sand particle not a free body in space.”
Any excuse to miss the point, eh, Swanson? First you reject the Mt. Everest example because it is not a “free body”. Then when I use an example that is a “free body”, the Saharan grain of sand, you switch to it having to be alone in space!
Your internal logic is not consistent. Either Mt. Everest and the Saharan grains of sand are all rotating on their own axes “wrt an inertial reference frame” or the moon is not rotating on its own axis “wrt an inertial reference frame”. Make up your mind.
NASA has a scientific visualization studio
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4956#32022
Where have I seen that before
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eedsxiny0e
Of course the innumerate on this website can watch the NASA Moon Orbit visualization for days and not figure out why the rotation is clockwise vs. counter-clockwise
Did you somehow miss the significant Libration?
Nothing unusual about libration Nate. Its just a point of view of 1) the elliptical shape of the orbit, and 2) the tilted plane of the orbit. why are you so confused about that?
Hunter wrote:
Indeed. The east-west libration proves that the Moon can not be rotating around a single fixed, external point (or axis) in space, such as the the Earth or the Earth Moon barycenter.
No, Swanson, longitudinal libration does not prove that the moon cannot only be orbiting. See further upthread.
Still waiting for Swanson’s proof.
Oh well Swanson appears to have run away. Well since Swanson can’t find any proof; here is proof that it is rotating around a fixed axis.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp (credit to Nate for finding this source and I am sure at some point in time he may even figure out what it is saying)
The moon is quite simply (simple enough for a child to understand) a large group of particles all with their individual angular momentum calculated as the demonstrated in the link above. Each particle has an individual distance from earth and travels at a different speed so that its rotation rate is the same as all the other particles and has a unitary mass of size determined as needed for the level of accuracy desired.
There is no real spin angular momentum. A spin is merely simulated by the orbital motion of the particles and how their relative positions change as they follow the elliptical orbit. So spin angular momentum is merely a correction calculation for using a point mass for orbital angular momentum as the location of mean angular momentum is not at the COM of the moon.
That group of particles will in fact continue to display a libration from a position viewing it from earth without any spin occurring at all. Spin is simply a product of an undisciplined imagination where one imagines a different rotation rate on the axis of the moon vs the axis of the orbit.
they imagine that the rotation rate of the moon’s orbit changes during the course of an orbit and gets out of sync with the moon in re the earth. But that is just a misconception of what a rotation actually is. They desperately searched for an analogy to satisfy their insatiable desire to be correct and imagined that a rotation must have some kind of inflexible connection to the external axis like a solid rod or an non-elastic string.
But the fact is they just made this requirement out of whole cloth and have no source for it. And when you ponder that a bit its extremely arbitrary once you understand what is really going on.
It is well known that the moon’s angular momentum does not change during the course of an orbit so there is nothing that separates orbital motion from the imagined motion of a spinning moon as no angular momentum changes for the moon as it orbits. Yet spinners seem to believe that the spin on a center axis never changes but that the orbital rotation does change. that is untrue (see the first note in the upper left of Nate’s source)
The equation that sums orbital and spin angular momentum is nothing but an extremely elegant shortcut for calculating the sum of the angular momentums of all the individual particles of the moon.
If you can’t now conceptualize the real motion of the moon you must have been absent the day that God passed out the brains.
hunter wrote a long piece, including:
Hunter still confuses orbiting with rotation. Because the orbit is not a circle, the “individual distance” between the particle and the Earth’s barycenter changes as that particle orbits. All the points for the Moon and their respective distances may be summed around the CoM and the orbital translation and the orbital angular momentum of the entire body can be calculated as if the entire mass were located at a single point called the Center of Mass. That’s what the first panel in your linked graphic shows.
However, that tells us nothing about the angular rotation of the Moon about it’s CoM and that happens to be a rotation at a fixed rate of once an orbit.
Swanson your argument has been that the illusion that is known as libration is your proof that the moon isn’t rotating around the earth.
But that suggests the moon is rotating on its own axis at a different rate than the moon rotates around the COM of earth. . . .otherwise what sort of proof would it be providing?
We well know that condition you are apparently depending upon does not exist. So where is your actual argument?
Bill,
If you are looking for ‘proof that the moon isnt rotating around the earth.’ you need to look no farther than this simple logic:
Most people get that the word ‘rotation’, when used by geometers, scientists and engineers is not vague.
Rotation about an axis has to mean a specific, unique motion. Otherwise describing specific motion with that word becomes impossible.
Example: an engineer develops an instruction manual for Apollo astronauts, which says
Step 47: “Rotate the part 67 degrees around point P.”
That has to mean something specific. “Rotate the part 67 degrees” does not mean
“Rotate the part 67 degrees AND also move it away or toward point P as much as you want.”
Which is what a non-circular motion is, and also would allow the astronauts to screw up the procedure with unspecified movement of the part.
That would be bad.
If ‘rotation’ could mean move on an arbitrary non-circular path, then it is not a specific, unique motion.
It is not exclusively a ‘rotation’.
For example, if you claim that the Moon is simply Rotating around the barycenter, then if I know its position and orientation now, and I want to predict its position and orientation in a few days, then just applying a rotation by a specified angle to it should work.
Something like ‘Rotate the Moon by 89.3 degrees around the Earth-Moon barycenter’ should be all I need to say to predict the Moon’s position and orientation a few days from now.
But its position vs time (path) is well-known to be unique and non-circular.
Thus to simply rotate the Moon by 89.3 degrees around the Earth-Moon barycenter, CANNOT correctly predict its future position.
We need the Moon to have additional motions beyond simply rotation around the barycenter, in order to predict its future position and orientation.
Nate says:
Bill,
If you are looking for proof that the moon isnt rotating around the earth. you need to look no farther than this simple logic:
Most people get that the word rotation, when used by geometers, scientists and engineers is not vague.
———————–
LMAO! so to you science needs to be whatever we need it to be to accomplish our agenda? ROTFLMAO!
Hmmmm, sounds like typical logic spread by an sycophantic epigone.
No Nate I am not buying your argument. Perhaps though you can find some support for it in the theory of post normal science.
———
———
———
Nate says:
Something like Rotate the Moon by 89.3 degrees around the Earth-Moon barycenter should be all I need to say to predict the Moons position and orientation a few days from now.
———————————–
Indeed it would be all you needed to know if you knew also the distance of the moon and its rotation rate. You are just cherry picking what you also would need to know to make a really really stupid argument.
Nate just accept your own source’s classification of an orbit as being a rotation.
No rebuttal, just insults then?
So when an engineer says rotate a mass by 67 degrees around point P, it could mean several different motions in your view?
It is not a specific unique motion?
We don’t know if the engineer means move it thru a 67 degrees arc around point P, AND move it away from point P, OR move it toward point B?
If so, it would be difficult to use the word ‘rotate’ to unambiguously describe motion.
And it would be a radical change in what most people understand ‘rotate’ to mean.
‘Nate says:
Something like Rotate the Moon by 89.3 degrees around the Earth-Moon barycenter should be all I need to say to predict the Moons position and orientation a few days from now.’
“Indeed it would be all you needed to know if you knew also the distance of the moon and its rotation rate.”
Ok so if I know the distance to the Moon today, and its angular velocity today, then I could simply rotate it by 89.3 degrees to find its position and orientation a few days from now?
Really?
Explain how we find the Moon’s NEW distance from the barycenter, which of course will be different from its present distance from the barycenter, given its elliptical orbit. And its new orientation given that the Moon has significant libration. Not to mention dealing with its speeding up and slowing down.
Nate says:
Explain how we find the Moons NEW distance from the barycenter, which of course will be different from its present distance from the barycenter, given its elliptical orbit. And its new orientation given that the Moon has significant libration. Not to mention dealing with its speeding up and slowing down.
—————-
Nate, what you do is divide up divide up the distance between the moon and earth by the ratio of gravity possessed between them.
But since the distance varies due to the elliptical orbit you will need to explain why the heck you are thinking that defining a rotation as only circular you make that challenge easier.
Bring that up in the navigation chartroom the Captain is going give you a really weird look and wonder who heck brought you into the room. ROTFLMAO!
“But since the distance varies due to the elliptical orbit you will need to explain why the heck you are thinking that defining a rotation as circular you make that challenge easier.”
The challenge is for YOU not me. It was:
“Ok so if I know the distance to the Moon today, and its angular velocity today, then I could simply rotate it by 89.3 degrees to find its position and orientation a few days from now?”
And when you say
“Nate, what you do is divide up divide up the distance between the moon and earth by the ratio of gravity possessed between them.”
you have already failed the challenge.
And you have yet to answer this question:
“So when an engineer says rotate a mass by 67 degrees around point P, it could mean several different motions in your view?
It is not a specific unique motion?”
Nate, my gawd!!
The moon’s orbit isn’t going to change into a circle because you redefine a rotation as a circle!!!
You have lost your mind! The challenge you are posing doesn’t change because you don’t want the moon’s orbit to be a rotation.
Oh I’ve lost my mind?
But when the directions say:
‘rotate the mass by 67 degrees around point P”
I know exactly where the mass will go.
Whereas you you seem completely unsure about it!
It is you who is trying to redefine the word ‘rotate’ and change it from something completely clear, into something completely vague, and impose it on everyone.
Maybe you wanna join the ‘woke’ crowd, redefining words like ‘they’ and ‘mother’, and imposing ‘them’ on people.
Nate says:
————————-
But when the directions say:
rotate the mass by 67 degrees around point P
I know exactly where the mass will go.
Whereas you you seem completely unsure about it!
It is you who is trying to redefine the word rotate and change it from something completely clear, into something completely vague, and impose it on everyone.
———————–
First, I am not redefining the word rotate Nate. your own link defined an elliptical orbit as a rotation and DREMT provided you many scientists that call such a motion a rotation. So you are just making shiit up to try to make a case at this point.
Second, you need more information to determine where the mass is going. You need to know the eccentricity of the motion and you need to know the length of the radii.
So if you now the relevant distances and the eccentricity is zero you will indeed know where the masses go and so do I. The difference is if the eccentricity is not zero and you don’t know the distances you will apparently flunk the test and I will pass it.
A nice corner for you with a dunce cap.
“Second, you need more information to determine where the mass is going. You need to know the eccentricity of the motion and you need to know the length of the radii.”
So then, according to you, “rotate 67 degrees around point P” does not tell YOU where the object will end up?
But it does tell me, and all engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, and most people who took 8th grade geometry.
Because ‘rotate 67 degrees around point P” has a unique, specific meaning.
It does not mean ‘rotate 67 degrees around point P, AND move away from or toward point P by any amount you feel like”
It is you trying to take a word that has a clear meaning and turn it into a word that is completely vague.
Nate says:
So then, according to you, rotate 67 degrees around point P does not tell YOU where the object will end up?
But it does tell me, and all engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, and most people who took 8th grade geometry.
Because rotate 67 degrees around point P has a unique, specific meaning.
—————-
LOL! It tells you only it rotated 67 degrees.
It doesn’t tell you where it is because to plot anything in space you need a 3 dimensional grid with starting point of the object, orientation of the plane of rotation, length of the radius, even if its a circle. If the rotation has an eccentricity you will need to know some additional stuff. One can only hope you know that before you make the command.
———-
———-
———
Nate says:
It does not mean rotate 67 degrees around point P, AND move away from or toward point P by any amount you feel like
It is you trying to take a word that has a clear meaning and turn it into a word that is completely vague.
————————
Nate before you rotate around a skywalk with no guard rails it would be a really good idea for you to open your eyes and see what the size, shape, and orientation of the skywalk with respect to your current position before you start rotating with your eyes closed. Your approach would surely produce an undesirable outcome even if the skywalk were a perfect circle.
“LOL! It tells you only it rotated 67 degrees.”
Yep and everyone but you seems to knows what that means.
Let’s be absolutely clear.
We know where a mass is now. We know its distance from point P is 1 m. We can assume for simplicity that it cannot move out of the plane perpendicular to an axis thru point P.
The instructions say rotate the mass CCW around the axis thru point P by 67 degrees.
Do you now know where the mass is? I do.
Nate: No you don’t.
Lets say your a kid holding a pinwheel.
https://eadn-wc03-1927297.nxedge.io/cdn/media/mageworx/optionfeatures/product/option/value/a/d/add_solid_logo_on_the_leaf.jpg
Mommy says to the kid Nate, son rotate it 67 degrees. What do you do?
I think the first question I might ask is ”Mommy on which axis do you want me to rotate it?” And then if you rotate your arm in a swimming pattern its likely due to your shoulder construction your rotation will be more than .0549 eccentric.
Hopefully this brings an end to this ridiculous conversation.
red herring excuses, Bill.
“We know where a mass is now. We know its distance from point P is 1 m. We can assume for simplicity that it cannot move out of the plane perpendicular to an axis thru point P.
The instructions say rotate the mass CCW around the axis thru point P by 67 degrees.”
That means you have run out of excuses.
The issue remains that ‘rotate around an axis’ has always meant angular displacement, and nothing more. It produces a predictable outcome. It is unambiguous.
It cannot mean move toward or away from the axis. That would make ‘rotate’ a motion that is not predictable, and incorporating separate motions which are translations.
That makes no sense.
Nate there is nothing unpredictable about the moon’s orbit so why do you claim there is?
“Nate there is nothing unpredictable about the moons orbit so why do you claim there is?”
Ah, so you now seem agree that the directive to “rotate CCW by 67 degrees around axis thru P” is a specific, predictable motion. It is simply an angular displacement.
The problem is that the directive to “rotate the Moon CCW by 67 degrees around the orbital axis thru the barycenter” also is a specific, predictable motion.
But it won’t predict where the Moon will actually be in its orbit.
Because the Moon has ADDITIONAL motions that are not in any way prescribed by “rotate the Moon CCW by 67 degrees around the orbital axis thru the barycenter”.
For example, the Moon is also moving toward or away from the barycenter, depending on where it is in its orbit. Its rotation is also faster or slower than its varying angular speed thru its orbit, and around an axis tilted to the orbital axis.
So No, the Moon’s orbit cannot simply be ‘a rotation’.
Nate says:
”So No, the Moons orbit cannot simply be a rotation.”
You mean per your own definition of a rotation of course?
As DREMT points out simply making up your own definition of a rotation is in no way a scientific argument. It is truly amazing you believe it to be so and shows how little you know about science.
Fact is through Kepler’s laws the position of the moon in its rotations can be determined without any undue additional complications. It is only with curvilinear translations where those rotations cannot be consistently determined.
Logic is not your thing I guess.
“You mean per your own definition of a rotation of course?”
Not my definition. Everyone’s definition.
You seem to agree that a “rotation 67 degrees around axis through point P” gives a specific, predictable motion, as everyone else on Earth agrees. It gives an angular displacement around the axis.
Then you can’t also have it mean a motion that includes movement toward or away from the axis by a vague amount.
It can’t be both.
It makes no sense.
“Fact is through Keplers laws the position of the moon in its rotations can be determined without any undue additional complications.”
Sure. Kepler and Newton explain orbits.
But irrlevant to this discussion of the meaning of ‘rotation’.
Youve run out of facts, logic, arguments.
Show us a source that defines ‘rotation’ as angular displacent around an axis AND radial displacement from the axis.
Because that is what you are arguing.
Nate says:
Sure. Kepler and Newton explain orbits.
But irrlevant to this discussion of the meaning of rotation.
————————–
Your right Nate it is irrelevant. But it was your argument that it was relevant. So we can now close the book on your latest desperate attempt to disclaim orbits as rotations.
“So we can now close the book on your latest desperate attempt to disclaim orbits as rotations.”
Because Bill is frustrated that he has no answers and no sources that agree with him, and he can never admit that he’s been wrong about something.
Oh well.
Nate says:
”So we can now close the book on your latest desperate attempt to disclaim orbits as rotations.”
Because Bill is frustrated that he has no answers and no sources that agree with him, and he can never admit that hes been wrong about something.
Oh well.
———————–
No frustration here Nate. None at all. I’m perfectly comfortable with my position and don’t have to make up stuff about having supporting sources like you do.
The moon rotating on an external axis (per your own source and per Madhavi, Brown Univ, and Wang) is no different than describing Mt Everest as an object rotating on an external axis that goes through the COM of the earth.
But spinners will relentlessly tell us (when they have a consistent message, which can be rare) that Mt Everest does not rotate on an external axis but instead rotates on an imaginary internal axis at Mt Everest’s COM and that Mt Everest merely translates around the earth’s COM axis. Then we check that for consistency with cannonballs and airplanes and suddenly it switches again to planes and cannonballs flipping upsidedown and flying backwards as they translate around the earth.
Same with chalked circles and horsies on the decks of Merry-go-rounds.
Unfortunate for Nate though he has zero sources for his position and only can point to convention established by fiat (aka post normal science).
He just bellows out untruths about what sources that do exist as scientifically supporting his point of view.
Additionally, Nate relies upon a cherry picked reference frame to make his case. A reference frame frequently used for the purpose of consistency and the ease of communication. Thats fine but convenience does not make facts.
Antarctica might be a clue.
Is DREMT responding to me with this non-sequitur?
It would great if FTOP could explain the Lunar Libration we are seeing with his ‘the Moon is just orbiting’ theory.
I won’t hold my breath.
Nate,
Are you the obtuse clown that posted this comment?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1230736
The purpose of showing the NASA visualization here:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4956#32022
was to demonstrate that for an orbital plane (note a plane is two dimensions since you can’t count), the modeling in DESMOS is not only valid, but NASA used the EXACT same graphical representation.
Your comment states:
Arguments in two dimensions, like the transmographer and whatever Ftop has programmed can and are rejected.
Very true.
So NASA can be rejected?
This is a “YES” or “NO” question. Can NASA be rejected?
ftop_t, Your graphic animation is not accurate. The Moon does not rotate around the (0,0) intersection of the major and minor axes of the ellipse which you programmed as one end of your “radial line”. I played with your DESMOS animation, fixing the radial line to the orbiting circle, with this result. You will notice that in my animation, the radial line does not end at a fixed point, but moves around. I don’t claim that this animation represents realistic physics, but then, neither does yours.
@E. Swanson,
The argument has never been that the model was an EXACT demonstration of the physics, but that it was a proof that MATHEMATICALLY you cannot have TWO axis of rotation and keep the same orientation to the inner point of rotation.
This is TRUE in every situation and is not arguable. Physics doesn’t change its absolute truth.
I posted the NASA visualization because morons on this site said that a 2D example for the position of the moon during its orbit was invalid, yet NASA used the EXACT same model to show the orientation of the moon. Of course, the same dolts couldn’t scroll down to see the section called “Moon’s Orbit” and just started babbling about “libration” which is another topic they don’t understand.
The moon used to rotate rapidly on its own axis. Tidal forces continually slowed the moon until it STOPPED rotating on an internal axis. Tidal forces didn’t slow the axial rotation until it got to one and then said, “oh well, let’s stop slowing the axial rotation”. The moon’s axial rotation STOPPED!!
I built a model to demonstrate the billions of years of the moon’s evolution from the past into the future; but you guys can’t even understand the basics
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/m8ts7rh3ri
Turn on the sliders in the order 3, 4, 2
Initially, the moon was much closer to earth and spinning rapidly
Tidal forces slowed BOTH the moon and the earth’s axial rotation speeds
The moon eventually stopped rotating on its internal axis and only orbits around the barycenter
The earth will eventually stop rotating on its internal axis and also only rotate around the barycenter
As the earth slows, the law of conservation of angular momentum is transferring the earth’s axial rotational speed to the moon’s orbit pushing the moon further away
Note: Since the earth’s axial rotation has angular momentum and the moon’s orbit gains from this transfer under the law of conservation of angular momentum, only a fool would argue that the moon’s orbit is not a rotational motion.
ftop_t posts another complex animation. I think it is incorrect, as the Earth and the Moon should both be orbiting around the barycenter. Your animation shows the Earth always to the right of the barycenter, which is incorrect.
11:41 am: Tidal forces continually slowed the moon until it STOPPED rotating on an internal axis wrt to Earth since earthshine is incident only one lunar face.
Tidal forces DID slow the lunar axial rotation until it got to one wrt the sun since sunshine is incident on all lunar faces.
Ball4 says:
Tidal forces DID slow the lunar axial rotation until it got to one wrt the sun since sunshine is incident on all lunar faces.
——————-
Yes indeed the moon is rotating. The view from the sun’s axis is proof of that. The moon indeed rotates around the earth.
@Ball4,
An axial rotation is independent of any location. The moon is not Schrodinger’s Cat that is both spinning on an internal axis and not spinning at the same time.
If I stand still and you walk around me in a circle, that doesn’t mean I am rotating on my own axis. If another person stands beside me and turns in a circle at the same speed you are walking it doesn’t mean the person turning in a circle is not turning in a circle.
Do you know how absurd your position is?
The moon is not rotating on its own axis WRT the sun. It is orbiting the earth which is ONE rotational motion around an external axis. The moon’s orientation to the sun is determined by where it is along the orbital path.
From the viewpoint of the sun, it sees the moon traveling around the earth, not spinning
“If I stand still and you walk around me in a circle, that doesnt mean I am rotating on my own axis.”
Stand still at the earthen true north pole. Look up long enough at night & you see the stars inform you are rotating on your own axis in the inertial frame because the Earth is rotating thru the same axis wrt to the physical inertial frame.
I walk around you you are still rotating on your own axis. If I walk around you once always facing you, then I need to be rotating on my own axis once wrt to you in an accelerated frame and more than once wrt to the physical inertial frame.
This stuff is fairly simple and ftop_t keeps getting stuff wrong.
From the viewpoint of the sun, an observer sees the moon orbiting around the earth, not spinning wrt to Earth since only one lunar face is illuminated with earthshine. From the viewpoint of the sun, an observer sees the moon orbiting around the earth while spinning on a lunar axis wrt the sun since the sun illuminates all lunar faces.
Ball4 says:
If I walk around you once always facing you, then I need to be rotating on my own axis once wrt to you in an accelerated frame and more than once wrt to the physical inertial frame.
———————
Unless of course you are a grain of sand. right Ball4?
@Ball4
No. Physical reality doesn’t change because you lack perspective. As I pointed out here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1259683
If you are underwater, the stick will look straight, if you look from above the water, it will appear bent.
The stick is not both straight and bent.
People take pictures at the Leaning Tower of Pisa holding their hands out. They are not actually holding the tower up.
In your world, the stick is bent WRT the person above the water. The Tower is being held up by the person WRT the cameraman. The Moon increases in size and then decreases in size WRT to Earth as its orbital distance changes.
The reason you believe the Moon can both be rotating and not rotating at the same time is because you lack the perspective to see the system in its entirety and you don’t understand an external axis of rotation.
Your argument is no different than saying,
The Earth changes physical size WRT to an astronaut that travels to the moon, when he is nearer to Earth, the diameter is 12,742km, but its diameter is only 10cm WRT a person standing on the moon.
Physical reality is not determined by your perspective (or lack thereof).
This is classic Ball4,
“Stand still at the earthen true north pole. Look up long enough at night & you see the stars inform you are rotating on your own axis in the inertial frame”
“Stand still” and you are rotating on your own axis.
No Ball4, people who lack the ability to reason, incorrectly attribute an external motion to the object itself.
Take a 33LP and place it on a turntable. Stand at the equator and hold it over your head. Turn on the power and the record plays. The record is rotating around its internal axis. You hear music.
Now, turn off the power. Stand at the North pole and hold it over your head.
According to Ball4, because you stand at the North pole, the record is now rotating on its own axis, and a turntable with the power off plays music.
The distant stars and Ball4 hear music from a turntable with the power off if you stand on the North pole.
According to Ball4, “this is pretty simple stuff”
You see, the power for turning the record is INTERNAL to the turntable. The music doesn’t play if the record is not rotating around its internal axis. If the music isn’t playing, the record is not rotation on an internal axis.
Ball4 Reference Frame Truthy-ism #1
“If you stand in the right place, a turntable with the power off plays music in the inertial frame.”
We are truly living among giants.
There is an argument to be made that if you were standing still exactly at the true North Pole, with your own axis exactly aligned with the Earth’s axis, then you would be rotating on your own axis because the Earth is rotating on its own axis…but what are the chances of getting your own axis exactly aligned with the Earth’s axis!? More to the point, if you are standing still absolutely anywhere else on Earth besides the Poles, then you are not rotating on your own axis. So that’s no rotation on your own axis if standing still at 99.9999999999999999999999999% of locations on the Earth’s surface. Ball4 wants to try to make a point based on tiny exceptions to an obvious rule…
…and it still has nothing to do with reference frames.
@DREMT
Ball4 makes this argument because he still fails to understand this demonstration
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216364
and this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216367
There is one axis of rotation at the Earth’s axis. A person on Earth is not rotating on their own internal axis, but if the distance from the Earth’s axis to the person is zero; they share the same ONE axis of rotation.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k5myntxo2y
In this example, the distance from the axis of rotation changes from 0 to 10. It is only one rotation and the bahavior changes based on the distance of the object from the one singular axis
NEVER two.
Ball4 thinks a 2nd axis of rotation magically appears at some point between D = 0 and D = 10.
I agree 100% with your 6:27 AM comment, Ftop_t. Worse, Ball4 will say that there are two axes of rotation “inertially”, when the distance is greater than zero, but only one axis of rotation “as observed from the inside of the orbit” when the distance is greater than zero. Even though we are observing your Desmos demonstration from a POV that is outside of the orbit, and are plainly arguing that there is only ever one axis of rotation for the object.
You cannot get through to someone like Ball4, no matter what you say.
The other inane argument is that a Kepler orbit is not a rotation because it is not a perfect circle.
The mental gymnastics these dolts perform is truly breathtaking.
It is an established law – Conservation of Angular Momentum
In the Earth-Moon system, the Moon is continually receding from the Earth. This is increasing the angular momentum of the moon much like a satellite that moves to a higher orbit is gaining angular momentum.
The source of the Moon’s gain is the slowing of the Earth’s axial rotation speed. The days are getting longer.
“Angular momentum is the ROTATIONAL analog to linear momentum.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
In order to cling to the belief that an orbit is NOT a rotational motion, you have to accept that the Earth-Moon system is in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.
In other words, the Earth is losing angular momentum to a non-rotational motion.
If the moon’s orbit is not a rotation, then the loss of angular momentum by the Earth that increases the moon’s orbital distance is a violation of the conservation of angular momentum.
I see that ftop_t and DREMT still cannot explain earthshine incident on only one lunar face and sunshine incident on all lunar faces at the same time – the reason the Moon can both be rotating and not rotating at the same time is because of observer location wrt to the object.
Just like ftop_t’s stick is straight and bent at the same time depends on location of observer. There remain accelerated frames and just one physically inertial frame for the observer despite ftop_t and DREMT bungling.
“Just like ftop_ts stick is straight and bent at the same time depends on location of observer.”
Perfectly sums up the stupidity of the spinner argument.
The physical world is not physical. In Ball4’s world:
The sun can be physically smaller than the Earth
Rigid bodies are only sometimes rigid
Perspective and illusion have supremacy over facts and reality
Someone who believes,
“the Moon can both be rotating and not rotating at the same time is because of observer location wrt to the object.”
is curious why I can’t explain reality to them?!?
Ball4 says:
”I see that ftop_t and DREMT still cannot explain earthshine incident on only one lunar face and sunshine incident on all lunar faces at the same time the reason the Moon can both be rotating and not rotating at the same time”
———————————-
Ball4 doesn’t understand that with a single rotation there will always be shine on all sides from outside the rotation and shine on less than all sides from inside the rotation.
A nice handy tool to know.
Of course we can make objects violate that rule by creating another rotation so that orbiting objects can show only one face outside the rotation and all faces inside the rotation.
Clint R beat Bill 10:48 am to that particular ref. frame wisdom in Clint R explaining for DREMT that ref. frames do NOT transcend the lunar axis rotation issue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1068129
“Ball4 doesn’t understand that with a single rotation there will always be shine on all sides from outside the rotation and shine on less than all sides from inside the rotation.”
Exactly, Bill. “A single rotation” meaning a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Ball4 will never get it as long as he lives. Oh well, his loss.
More specifically, lunar motion is one single rotation viewed from “inside of it orbit” as Clint R explained to DREMT (DREMT leaves out from where viewed as always) and Bill 10:48 am comment now concurs with Clint R that ref. frames do NOT transcend the lunar axis rotation issue. DREMT will never comment correctly on the lunar rotation issue.
Clint R and Bill are in agreement with me and disagree with you, Ball4. Obviously. For you to pretend otherwise is ridiculous and pathetic.
There is no pretending DREMT.
Bill and Clint R really have corrected DREMT as they point out that the lunar rotation issue does NOT transcend reference frames due to being viewed from “inside of it orbit” and from “outside of its orbit”.
I know DREMT is deeply disappointed by DREMT’s obvious loss but Bill and Clint R are both happy with the win.
You are a desperate, pathetic and ridiculous troll.
Ball4 continues his ridiculous delusion that a rotation on an external axis is a fictitious rotation.
Its the only argument he has and can’t even meet Swanson’s requirements of proof of providing a quantitative model that determines what a rotation is.
He seems to actually believe science is conducted by declaration and fiat. So he declares it fictitious and then claims it must be viewed in an inertial frame of reference that doesn’t contain fictitious elements. Pure declaration!!! And contrary to every expert source so far provided on the matter.
Ball4 says:
frames do NOT transcend the lunar axis rotation issue.
————-
No you are mistaken Ball4. Reference frames are transcended because you tell the moon’s rotation is on the earths axis from any frame of reference. The advantage of the inside and outside just allows for a lot less squinting when trying to see which axis it is rotating on.
Bill writes lunar rotation do NOT transcend reference frames: “with a single rotation there will always be shine on all sides from outside the rotation and shine on less than all sides from inside the rotation.”
Then Bill writes the opposite of what Bill wrote. Funny. Bill is spinning on Bill’s own axis.
Ball4 acts surprised when people correct him on his endless misrepresentation. Now he will say that it was not misrepresentation…
The spinner rotation model support has certainly devolved down to a quiet murmur. Can a murmur be a model?
“Of course the innumerate on this website can watch the NASA Moon Orbit visualization for days and not figure out why the rotation is clockwise vs. counter-clockwise”
The presence of Antarctica might be a clue, for those people.
Antarctica is where it supposed to be. Not on the Moon.
Still waiting for the Moon-is-just-orbiting libration theory.
Still waiting for the explanation of axial tilt. If there is no rotational axis then what the heck is that?
“The presence of Antarctica might be a clue, for those people.”
For the really, really, unbelievably stupid, I will just directly explain that it’s because the NASA Moon Orbit visualization is a POV of the Earth from the South Pole. That is why the Earth is shown to be rotating clockwise and why the moon is shown to be orbiting the Earth clockwise. Normally, of course, the convention is to think of the orbit from above, looking down at the North Pole, rather than below, looking up at the South Pole, so the moon would be orbiting the Earth counter-clockwise and the Earth rotating counter-clockwise.
So its ‘Look a squirrel!’
Still no explanation from the non-spinners of the Libration beautifully observed in this video.
Still no explanation from non-spinners of axial-tilt without an axis.
Still no explanation of why a simulation of a line of points rotating while also stretching and shrinking (IOW translating) is somehow proof that an elliptical orbit is just a rotation.
You really don’t understand anything.
Libration is an optical experience from earth. Put a yard stick in a pool, do you think the stick bends when it is underwater and then straightens when you pull it out?
Stand at home plate, does the baseball get physically bigger when it is thrown from the mound?
From earth, we move closer and further from the moon each day as the earth rotates. The radius of the earth is 6,371. As it rotates, the distance from the moon to the observation point varies by greater than 1.5%.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/earths-moon/by-the-numbers/
In lunar astronomy, libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers and caused by changes in their perspective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
Since you are not very bright, here is a simple demonstration on visual perception
As the green dot travels around the circle, the remote circle APPEARS to get larger and smaller. In the physical world, the objects are not changing size, but optically they appear to
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ql0fbaeiob
Hold your coffee cup at arms length and use your other hand to make it fit between your finger and thumb. The coffee cup isn’t actually that small. As you bring your arm closer the cup appears to get bigger, but it is actually the same size.
You should audit a 3rd grade class where you can explore these things further.
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
Have no answers? Try bullying. It makes you feel better about yourself.
#2
Those who I no longer respond to directly at this blog are nevertheless welcome to comment at the following video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Otherwise, please butt out of my threads. Thanks.
grammie pup doesn’t “own” this blog or anything that he posts. If grammie pup won’t respond to those with which he disagrees, he should STFU and go away.
Swanson, if I start a thread, I have every right to politely request that those I no longer respond to butt out of it. Since I do not own Roy’s blog, they have the right to ignore that request and continue to comment anyway…and I have the right to make the request again if they do so. I have the right to make the request as many times as necessary, until they stop commenting on the thread…and I will do so if I have to. Sorry if that upsets you, but that’s just the way it is.
grammie pup, Please feel free to ignore my posts, so that I may present my understanding without your idiotic interruptions.
You keep butting in on my threads, Swanson, not the other way around.
Still well within what
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
(Feb 2022) predicted.
A new update to this will occur when Roy has brought out the full March data.
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part time on my laptop.~j254~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~j254~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page.
__________ https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
Is the $19,220 before or after deducting the costs of hooker clothing?
don’t forget the deduction for agency fees!
And for the electrons.
Has anyone seen a graph or calculation of decadal trends for the sub categories such as NH, SH, Tropics, etc. I assume each is somewhat different than that for Global temperatures.
I wonder how the heterogeneity during this period is any different from paleo reconstruction of past periods. My instincts tell me that the various regions have had their own variability trends during the entire Holocene but have never seen a paper comparing the different periods to the modern period. The question recognizes all the limitations of paleo reconstruction, which might make valid comparisons almost impossible.
See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/ for full graphs of Roy’s data.
RLH
Outstanding. You have done an unbelievable amount of work. I see there is lots to digest. I hope I’m up to the task and that if I have questions you won’t mind addressing them after I analyze it all.
Thanks.
Sure.
For the RSS satellite temperature series, there is a plotting tool that allows selection of the nominal atmospheric layer and the region of interest here:
MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool
OLS straight trend lines assume there is nothing short of infinity that is of interest.
RSS has lost credibility. If you look at the graph at your link, they show a steady trend line through the data with the data adjusted to fit the trend line. That is cheating.
There is a flat trend between 1998 and 2012 the IPCC has corroborated in their recent AR6 review. They are trying to explain it as being due to natural variabity but they acknowledge the flat trend. RSS makes it appear as if the trend continued normally through that period.
If someone wants to number-crunch a trend over the entire range, that’s one thing, but to impose such a trend on the data on a graph showing the trend is cheating. A trend line fitted to existing data, complete with a 15 year flat trend, should not disturb the existing data.
Since RSS aligned itself with NOAA, who are known fudgers and cheaters, they have lost all credibility.
OLS produces a single straight line. Not that I agree that OLS is useful as anything other than an observation of behavior in a period. Not future nor past outside of that.
Not talking about the straight line. Compare the data behind the line between 1998 – 2012 then compare it to UAH. RSS and UAH used to agree till RSS became affiliated with NOAA.
It’s obvious that current RSS trend is higher because they fudged the data to make it fit the trend line.
GR
I am hopeful the data is not fudged.
Merely the algorithms interpreting the data?
GR: Roy has already set out the reasoning for RSS and UAH differing. It is down to the use (or non use) of satellites in the period they differ.
Robertson
” Since RSS aligned itself with NOAA, who are known fudgers and cheaters… ”
Your endless insults against people doing work while you never do more than guessing and insulting, are here as disturbing as your dumb, primitive ideas about lunar spin, Newton, Einstein, viruses etc etc.
You are yourself a cheating SOB.
Unfortunately, it appears that RSS decided that it was better to follow the politics and the money rather than the science. There was a time that RSS was engaged in collegial and frank discussions of why models were doing what they were doing — correcting their errors and pointing out to others how to improve their models. But in their last revision — timed to come out just before an IPCC meeting — they arbitrarily adjusted their data to fit the alarmist message without going through meaningful peer review — in fact, riding over internal objections they had. If the revision had been subjected to the type of review that Dr. Spencer’s work receives, then that revision would have never seen the light of day. Until RSS rectifies that move, I have little interest in their work.
Denny
If a calculation is enough, there is no need for doing big work when you want to know these decadal trends.
Simply look at the data accessed via the four links visible at the end of Mr Spencer’s monthly anomaly presentation; each link points to one of the four atmospheric layers observed and processed by the UAH team (LT, MT, TP, LS).
In these files, you see for each month, from Dec 1978 till present, 27 anomaly series:
– 8 * 3 latitudinal series (Globe, NH, SH, Tropics, NH/SH Extra-Tropics, North Pole, South Pole)
– 3 regional series (CONUS, CONUS+AK, Australia).
At the end of the files, you see a trend row with the 27 decadal trends.
*
Tropics: 20N-20S
NoPol/SoPol: 60N/S-82.5 N/S (the 3 topmost and bottom most latitude bands don’t contain data).
*
Wrt trends, an interesting UAH chart showing their complete 2.5 degree grid cell trends is
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
Due to the (geographically nearly correct, but distorting Mollweide projection, it is some what tedious to look at trends near the Poles.
In such cases I prefer to use a simple, rectangular representation of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid which, though geographically incorrect of course, nonetheless appears more legible.
“Due to the (geographically nearly correct, but distorting Mollweide projection, it is some what tedious to look at trends near the Poles”
Mollweide is not distorting, it is just equal area.
Again and again, your stubborn fixation…
I am not stoopid enough to present this geographically incorrect, but perfectly legible information:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCIoZqp0ImvktVLUkJ0yNet1DVVafhzG/view
using a Mollweide projection.
The poor readers would then have to use maximum zoom setting in the browser (and possibly a magnifying glass as well) to see the gauge gird colours in the Arctic, like here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
100 % correct, but… by far not as legible as
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
which contains exactly the same information, because despite ‘mollweided’, Roy Spencer’s chart nonetheless contains the original, unweighted trends.
If Roy Spencer’s chart would contain latitude weighted trends, you wouldn’t see any contour spline filled with the ‘+0.45’ colour, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b0ukO9HEMR5JQXVFOoea0nIxxN7LOsP3/view
*
You never and never processed nor presented any gridded data, and it shows.
But… you are always right.
Weiter so, Mr le professeur de classe primaire…
Area weighting on a globe/sphere means that there is only a tiny actual area at the poles to take into account. That a Mollweide projection shows perfectly.
A Mercator projection makes the poles as important as the equator, which is definitely not the case.
And Greenland 14 times the size that it really is, the same rough size as Africa.
Much better for this last month
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
” A Mercator projection makes the poles as important as the equator, which is definitely not the case. ”
And he still doesn’t understand that not so much the area-saving by latitude weighting matters, but above all that of the contents of the areas.
Stubborn, and despite ignorance in all possible areas, opinionated to the end.
The difference between the Non-Spinners’ attitude wrt lunar spin and RLH’s wrt what is discussed here is equal to zero.
RLH’s urge in considering Mollweide projections as the only one necessary tool for coping with Earth’s sphericity is his own ball-on-a-string.
No wonder that RLH, like Clint R and Robertson, names everybody who disagrees with his stubborn views an idiot.
So Blinny, why do you think that Roy uses Mollweide projections?
And why does
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
use the same treatment of latitude as me/Willis does?
“the contents of the areas”
Blinny still doesn’t get that the size of the areas the contents are in varies with latitude.
Denny,
The decadal trends for UAH regions (NH, SH, Tropics and much more) are all at the bottom of this page.
https://tinyurl.com/437t8whp
(Tiny url because the weird filters on this blog don’t allow the original link)
Graphs for all of these (and more) are at
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
That’s a good page of graphs, Richard.
I put the LT 12 month and the CTRM graphs in adjacent tabs. I can’t see any significant difference.
Did you ever discover whether using mean/median or hourly made any significant difference to the temperature records? My hunch was that it wouldn’t.
Median is statistically correct, regardless.
“I put the LT 12 month and the CTRM graphs”
LT is the same as Global CTRM.
Has anyone got a link to the lower stratosphere data graphed? Thank you in advance.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_ls.jpg
for Feb. Mar 2022 out when Roy updates the data.
Barry Foster
Should you, like me, appreciate the superposing of related plots to compare their series, here is a comparison of the LT and LS anomalies till Feb 22:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
The complementary behavior of LT and LS during greater volcanic eruptions (El Chichon, Pinatubo) is amazing.
The exact reason for the LS peak in March 2020 is unknown to me. Some said it was in response to the huge fires in Australia which happened shortly before.
Maybe we see, though it was weaker than the two eruptions above, some traces of Honga Tonga in the LS in a few months (June or so).
For Tropopause see
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_tp.jpg
For Mid Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_mt.jpg
For Lower Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
for other graphs of Roy’s data (and other stuff) see
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Continues to agree with SSTs at a 4-6 month lag. Values should remain low for at least another 3-4 months.
What happens next depends on ENSO.
NASA agrees.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Sorry. Meant NOAA.
This is NOT a NOAA opinion. it is merely model runs by one of the groups under the NOAA umbrella. There are others.
NOAA officially supports the IRI/CPC forecasts here hosted by Columbia University and is a monthly process of developing official ENSO predictions using several NOAA (NASA is under NOAA) models along with international models and a panel of experts who don’t always agree with the models.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Here unlike the CFSv4 model linked above, the official prediction is still a transition to NOAA Neutral over coming months.
Bill Hunter
We disagree about a lot of things, but here I don’t mind, and say
Thank you.
Note the spaghetti effect, typical of NOAA. They have likely included every imaginable curve based on probabilities from 10% to 90% likelihood.
Those are for different forecasts. The heavier dotted is the consensus mean. As it says on the chart.
You trust NOAA, I don’t. I think they are deliberately misrepresenting the forecast. Of course, no one can accurately forecast ENSO.
In the recent IPCC review, AR6, they re-affirmed the 15 year flat trend from 1998 to 2012. They have justified it as being due to natural variability, which is bs. After they produced that information re the flat trend, in 2013, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a trend during the same period.
They claimed 2014 the warmest year ever based on a 48% probability but they did not reveal that it was a probability. You have to read the small print.
Only alarmist cheaters would carry on like that. Your trust in them is what I question.
Putting out a graph with such a spaghetti-like curve is bs. It’s intended to mislead and to downplay the La Nina.
“no one can accurately forecast ENSO”
The unpredictability is well known at this time of year. Outside that forecasts can be quite accurate.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
Three-year history of sea surface temperatures in the Nio-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific for 8 previous double-dip La Nia events.
RLH says:
Those are for different forecasts. The heavier dotted is the consensus mean. As it says on the chart.
——————–
‘consensus mean’??? Do experts actually talk in such silly language?
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/refman1/auxillar/consmean.htm
CONSENSUS MEAN is well defined. In the above just substitute models with labs.
“Compute an estimate of a consensus mean, and the associated uncertainty, based on the data from multiple laboratories {models}”
LMAO!
RLH thats a pretty crazy concept! Consensus means ‘general agreement’ here it is a bunch of models that don’t agree!!
how do they get the computers to actually agree?
LOL! I guess that the term ‘consensus mean’ is actually just one of those egotist-like terms that evolves as meaningful simply by virtue of being a member of an exclusive club.
” Note the spaghetti effect, typical of NOAA. ”
Again, this stupid blah blah of the one who
– discredits, denigrates and insults the most on this blog
but
– has the least technical (let alone scientific) competence.
*
Robertson doesn’t even know what is an ensemble of several time series members, and what these ensembles are for.
I would welcome UAH introducing the very same technique.
NOAA does by the way a good job: they plot the latest members in time in blue, and the oldest ones in red: that helps in a much better understanding of how the forecast dynamically moves over time.
“I would welcome UAH introducing the very same technique”
Measurements are not forecasts. They are the solid black line on the graph up until ‘today’.
Jesus are you dense.
” Robertson doesnt even know what is an ensemble of several time series members, and what these ensembles are for. ”
Manifestly, your knowledge is exactly at Robertson’s niveau.
*
What does the ensemble time series technique have to do with forecasts?
An example:
Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Atkinson, C. P. and Killick, R. E., 2019
An ensemble data set of sea‐surface temperature change from 1850: the Met Office Hadley Centre HadSST.4.0.0.0 data set
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, 7719-7763.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JD029867
From the abstract:
” HadSST.4.0.0.0 comprises a 200-member ‘ensemble’ in which uncertain parameters in the SST bias scheme are varied to generate a range of adjustments. ”
Further below:
” Kennedy, Rayner, et al. (2011b) generated an ensemble of 100 members that comprise the HadSST.3.1.1.0 data set.
They calculated a range of corrections by varying poorly constrained parameters in their bias adjustment scheme.
They used metadata from a number of sources (e.g., instructions to marine observers) to assign a measurement method to each observation and took estimates of the systematic errors associated with each measurement method from the literature.
The residual uncertainty was combined with uncertainties from other sources of error such as sampling and local measurement errors (Kennedy et al. 2011a and b).
An ensemble approach to quantifying uncertainties was also used for the ERSSTv4 data set (Huang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2015).
The parameters they varied to generate the ensemble were associated with all steps in the data set creation process, and only a subset relates directly to the correction of systematic errors. ”
*
That, RLH, is the reason why I name you the ‘elementary school teacher’.
Because though you might never have been one, your behavior perfectly matches that of all these people I discussed with during the last 50 years.
Stubborn, and despite ignorance in all possible areas, opinionated to the end.
But supported by others.
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
Measurements are not forecasts.
Why did it not go lower this time?
Those who rely on models based on previous sequencies will show that it is likely to fade soon (see above).
angech
Well, did you ask in Roy Spencer’s February report for January why it didn’t go up this time?
2021 12 0.21
2022 01 0.03 | -0.18
The Lower Troposphere is known to have a strong, lagged response to ENSO signals.
Maybe there was a sudden downtick in the current La Nina which might have led to January and February going low. We’ll see next month…
RLH says:
April 3, 2022 at 5:07 AM
no one can accurately forecast ENSO
You can make a pretty good prediction by taking Bindidong’s forecast and just inverting it upside down
The February anomaly has changed. Now it is negative, not null.
You are correct.
2022 02 -0.01
Past anomalies are frequently updated.
In the ‘skeptic’ world this is seen as ‘fudging the numbers’. But not when UAH do it.
The LT data for Feb 2022 have been updated?
Yep. Before it indicated zero climate change (0.00) and now it indicates climate cooling (-0.01).
Note that Christy et al. 2003 assess the monthly uncertainty at +/- 0.2 C so 0.00 and -0.01 are not statistically significant even at the 1 sigma level of 0.1 C.
You should note that the 0.00 or -0.01 is compared to the most recent reference period.
“…and now it indicates climate cooling…”
It was -0.05 last year. So that means 0.04 warming in a year, or a warming rate of 0.4C / decade. jk.
It was 0.03 for March in 1988
1988 3 0.03
so that makes your observation kinda moot.
It was a joke, aimed at those who pull out single months and claim it means cooling.
Well the last 7 years show that also.
https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi
You said since 1988. Trend since then was essentially the same as it since the start of the UAH data. +0.136C / decade.
Here’s what the 2015 trend looks like in context.
https://imgur.com/a/fPKJQ7d
No I pulled out one month in 1988 (as you did). That img graph uses OLS to show that the last 7 years have been cooling as you requested.
Your graph agrees with that observation.
Though it does introduce some slightly odd statistical behavior.
https://imgur.com/a/T3Nd5xn
What ‘slightly odd statistical behavior’ ?
These estimates are fully correct, nothing odd to see here.
What is requested however, is to accurately interpret them.
Bellman
I guess you too noticed how much this RLH guy looks like a weather vane.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1232156
” OLS straight trend lines assume there is nothing short of infinity that is of interest. ”
*
Quick in discrediting linear estimates and those who use them, like RSS (but of course not not UAH who does the very same).
But even a tick quicker to use these linear estimates whenever they fit his narrative:
https://imgur.com/a/T3Nd5xn
I have long stated that OLS trends are quite misleading. Especially on long term cyclic data.
As long as you use OLS-based estimates everywhere when needed, your reply is irrelevant.
Find me any statistical source that says linear trends are useful on cyclic data.
Bellman,
You wrote, “jk” (just kidding, I presume).
The UAH 13-month running average shows that there has been essentially no warming in seven years. Your subsequent comments suggest you might think a trend indicates something different. Would you mind clarifying your position?
A trend is better than looking at a single month. But with the amount of variability in UAH data, a 7 year trend tells you very little. You can find 7 year trends that are dropping at 0.4 C / decade or increasing at 0.8 C / decade.
Then there’s the fact that RLH is selecting 7 years becasue he knows it gives a negative trend. Start the trend in 2014 and there’s a positive trend, start in 2013 and the trend is over 0.2 C / decade, start a couple of years earlier and the trend is 0.35 C / decade – twice as fast as the overall rate of warming. The question is, why choose the past 7 years? Do you think it’s more significant than the past 8, 9 or 10 years?
The most misleading part is to ignore the starting point for the trend. 2016 was a very hot year, it’s almost inevitable that a trend starting just before then will show a decline, but what’s ignored is that the actual temperatures are well above the previous trend – which is what my graph was showing.
Exactly, Bellman.
To look at 7 years just because their trend supports the intended narrative is very similar to drawing a line on a temperature series, and to say:
” Between start end end of my line, the anomalies are the same, thus no warming can have taken place in between. ”
while ignoring the fact that the trend between the two points is higher than that of the entire time series.
Chic Bowdrie,
I like to put the last 25 years on one graph with separate trend lines before and after the 2014 PDO switch. It tells the real story.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/trend
“The UAH 13-month running average shows that there has been essentially no warming in seven years.”
It suggests there has been no warming of the lower atmosphere.
Richard M
You think that brief excursion into positive PDO was enough to cause over 0.2C warming in a single year?
Why not look over the whole cycle. PDO was mostly positive up to 25 years ago, then turned negative with an increase in temperature, then turned briefly positive again also with an increase in temperature. Does this tell the “real story”?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/trend/plot/uah6/to:1997/trend
Bellman,
“The question is, why choose the past 7 years? Do you think it’s more significant than the past 8, 9 or 10 years?”
The seven years between 2015 and today were chosen because the temperatures in those years are roughly the same. It does not matter how warm or cool it was before or during that period. It is simply B = A, nothing more, no matter what the trend is. A trend doesn’t change what the data actually is.
IOW, between the start and end of my line, the anomalies are the same, REGARDLESS OF WHAT warming may have taken place in between.
Chic Bowdrie,
You say the 7 year period was chosen because the temperatures were roughly all the same. But the claim was that there had been cooling over those 7 years.
I don;t know why you think it’s relevant to look for periods where temperatures are roughly the same unless you are trying to make a spurious claim that this disproves the idea that there has been any warming.
It really isn’t that complicated. Some people here think that trends rule. But a temperature trend is only a statistical representation of past data and there are infinitely many trends depending on how far back you go and what record you use.
Please understand when next I write “about” I am referring to data points represented by measurement error. The UAH temperature about now is equal to the UAH temperature about seven years ago, nineteen years ago (last month), and apparently around 1988 according to RLH.
I don’t think it is relevant to waste time looking for particular trends or making spurious claims. Why do you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1232298
The bottom line is that trends say nothing about what the UAH temperature average will be next month.
“I dont think it is relevant to waste time looking for particular trends or making spurious claims. Why do you?”
Of course not, because your interest is in creating tearing down strawmen, not in actual science.
Its not complicated to understand. The models predict long-term trends.
They don’t predict year to year noise like that produced by weather, ENSO or volcanoes.
To test theory, we need to compare observations to models. That means comparing observed long term trends to modeled long-term trends.
That means looking at trends with ALL the data points, not just the extrema or spikes which are strongly influenced by the short-term noise.
Even simpler.
Farmers and gardeners like myself need to know about climate. We need to know when its safe to plant seeds or plants outside. That info is based on a long term average climate for the area. It would be idiotic to base it on one particular year, which could be an outlier.
It is a long term average over the last 30 or 40 years.
Thus if climate changes, it is going to show up as a change in that 30-year average. And of course the average is over all the years.
Here is how the climate, the 30 y average, has changed over time, globally in the last century or so.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from/mean:360
Chic Bowdrie,
“I don’t think it is relevant to waste time looking for particular trends or making spurious claims. Why do you?”
I don’t. I was trying to demonstrate to someone why making a claim about a particular trend, i.e. the last 7 years, was spurious.
But claiming “The UAH temperature about now is equal to the UAH temperature about seven years ago, nineteen years ago (last month), and apparently around 1988 according to RLH. ” is just as spurious. You’re comparing low points in the current period with high points last century and claiming that means there’s been no warming.
“Some people here think that trends rule.”
Who thinks that? No one that I can see.
The sentence is very ambiguous. Perhaps you could elaborate?
Bellman wrote,
“You’re comparing low points in the current period with high points last century and claiming that means there’s been no warming.”
There was warming and cooling both. We don’t know the future regardless of what the trend indicates. You, Nate, and barry are really thick not to get that.
“We dont know the future regardless of what the trend indicates. You, Nate, and barry are really thick not to get that.”
You keep saying that “we” base our understanding of the future on the trends.
RLH implies much the same.
I’m pretty sure I can speak for the others – and certainly for myself – when I say (yet again), that I don’t forecast future climate on the current trends.
So maybe stop with the straw man all the time.
The world will continue to warm because of the physical properties of the continued emission of so-called greenhouse gases, not statistical analysis of observed temperatures.
You should stick with trends. At least there is actually measured data there, not some unverified hypothesis that is not even falsifiable.
“You should stick with trends.”
Looks like you will stick to your straw man position.
So that’s how you operate. Invent a POV for someone and then carry on as if that’s their POV when it isn’t.
Bellman,
The reason I started in 1997 is because the AMO turned positive right before then. Hence, the PDO and AMO were in opposite phases prior to that time. This would have muted the effect of the PDO.
” We dont know the future regardless of what the trend indicates. You, Nate, and barry are really thick not to get that.”
Chip tries to move the goal posts, falsely accuse, and create new strawmen all at once.
Lest anyone continue to think I am arguing with strawmen, moving goal posts, falsely accusing, or inventing POVs, I will restate my opinions for the record. The temperature of anything now that was the same previously, has not warmed or cooled despite the fact that it was warmer or cooler in between. Anyone who thinks that the record of the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures is either delusional or running a con.
My being skeptical about the effect of CO2 on global temperature is more honest, knowledgeable, and scientific than anyone supporting the AGW religion. They are either gullible, ignorant, too embarrassed to admit being wrong, or they simply know they can get by without proving it.
Did I leave anything out?
“My being skeptical about the effect of CO2 on global temperature is more honest, knowledgeable, and scientific than anyone supporting the AGW religion.”
Tee hee hee..
You’re starting to sound like DREMT on the Moon’s rotation. He too is ‘more honest, knowledgeable, and scientific than anyone’ who disagrees with him.
“Anyone who thinks that the record of the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures is either delusional or running a con.”
Simply point out where anyone of us has stated ‘the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures’.
Else, if you are honest, admit that this is a strawman.
Nate demonstrates his expertise in obfuscation by comparing my skepticism to someone else’s conviction. And instead of simply agreeing with me about trends not predicting the future after barry’s “the world will continue to warm” response, Nate claims a strawman by arguing with a strawman.
Nate, would you agree with barry that the world will continue to warm if the trend since 1998 was 0.13K/decade cooling?
Barry was clear that
“The world will continue to warm because of the physical properties of the continued emission..”
So you accuse us of claiming something we didnt.
But still you claim to be more honest!
You can continue to obfuscate and claim whatever you want. But the logic goes like this:
A: World will warm. B: Emissions continue. Barry: If B, then A. The trend is B. Conclusion: A.
Do you doubt the trend that emissions will continue or that emissions continuing will not lead to more warming?
Sure, if you want to pretend that the past T trend is the only evidence thats out there that supports the GHE theory.
Thats how denialism works.
I never wrote that. That’s how you obfuscate.
“…my skepticism to someone else’s conviction.”
I’ll just set the record straight here. I have no strong opinion or belief on the question of the moon’s rotation. I’m merely skeptical of the position that it rotates on its own axis. I could still be convinced either way on that, of course. However, 90% of what I comment on re the moon is correct whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis.
Basic facts like the moon issue transcends reference frames (I have explained exactly what I mean by that, and exactly how it does so, too many times to mention), that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the MOTL, that a ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis, etc etc. All these things, which take up the vast majority of my commenting on the issue, are still correct whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis.
Only about 10% of my posting on the issue is only correct if the moon rotates on its own axis, and incorrect if it does not.
Got that last paragraph the wrong way round, of course:
Only about 10% of my posting on the issue is only correct if the moon does not rotate on its own axis, and incorrect if it does.
” I have no strong opinion or belief on the question of the moons rotation”
OMG
We’ll just ask Roy to go back and delete the 47,311 posts of yours that said otherwise.
had5
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded11_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
…don’t get me wrong…if someone asked me whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis, I would of course answer that it does not. I might even go so far as to say that it’s settled. However, I just wouldn’t describe it as a conviction. I try to keep an open mind on the matter, as I do with everything else, that’s all. I challenge myself on what I think, all the time. I wouldn’t have commented here on the matter for so long, otherwise.
Chic,
You’re pretending that the trends you were referring to when you fabricated my POV were CO2 trends?
“Nate, would you agree with barry that the world will continue to warm if the trend since 1998 was 0.13K/decade cooling?”
This is about basing predictions on observed temperature trends, not CO2. You’ve consistently presented this straw man as if Nate or I hold this view.
Check out the dodginess of your ‘rebuttal’.
“A: World will warm. B: Emissions continue. Barry: If B, then A. The trend is B. Conclusion: A.
Do you doubt the trend that emissions will continue or that emissions continuing will not lead to more warming?”
No, you weren’t talking about CO2 trends when you invented my POV. Yes, my POV is that the world will continue to warm with continued CO2 emissions, regardless of the trajectory (trends) of those emissions.
But you’re slowly being dragged into acknowledging our POV, over the hurdle of you trying to ‘win’ the conversation at any cost.
Sorry, barry. Comparatively speaking, what you have to say is not very interesting. I think we are done listening to you.
Correct. If you track the 3-digit file month-to-month you’ll notice that many of the past months change on each update. Most of the time it isn’t enough to flip the rounding at 2-digit, but occasionally (maybe 1% of the months) it does. The effect on the trend is insignificant though. What isn’t insignificant is the effect the bias correction adjustments made to the data have on the trend. Going through the various methods papers for each version I see nearly 0.3 C/decade worth of adjustments netting out to maybe +0.05 C/decade as compared to the unadjusted trend.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1232135
Exactly, bdgwx, well noted.
The 2-digit rounding of the current trend is a plague:
Year month 5-digit 2-digit 5-digit diff 2-digit diff
2021 7 0.13509 0.14 -0.00003 0.00
2021 8 0.13497 0.13 -0.00012 -0.01
2021 9 0.13507 0.14 +0.00010 0.01
With 3 digits atdp, we wouldn’t have such flips.
All months then show 0.135.
The same happened in January this year.
*
There are here really people who tell us
” From 0.14 down to 0.13, that is significant. ”
But when you show them the real reason for the -0.01 C difference after rounding (about a ten thousandth of a degree before rounding), they discredit that as an academic exercise on numbers or so.
Incidentally, the same people are always silent when the opposite effect occurs. Seems only cooling info matters to them.
So what.
Climate related comment sorry to interrupt the debate about the moon.
I am back in support of the idea that some of the warming last century was related to solar activity because at about 2000 there was an abrupt decrease in solar activity, and there is minimal warming subsequent to that solar decline in the last 25 years of data. The apparent return to a 3rd La Nina will most likely continue this near zero warming trend for another few months to near the end of the year. So I don’t disagree that CO2 will eventually catch up to global temperature and cause additional warming, but in the next 25 years it has nearly complete saturation of its ability to warm further. In other words, it appears climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. I’d guess like 1.1 to 1.5C (ECS).
The real ECS, like the real long term trend, will not be decided for at least a decade or two.
aaron…”I dont disagree that CO2 will eventually catch up to global temperature and cause additional warming…”
***
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 has anything to do with recent warming. It’s far more likely that we are still re-warming from the Little Ice Age. Dr. Syun Akasofu thinks we should re-warm at 0.5C/century.
It’s interesting that the IPCC, in AR6, made a note that the LIA is being omitted from their consideration since they deem it to be uncertain and regional. Yet, they are willing to declare CO2 warming as unequivocal, based largely on claims of scientists in the 19th century.
There is plenty of proxy data and written records to claim the LIA was a global cooling of 1C to 2C. There is one example in particular. The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps expanded enormously, expanding down a valley, wiping out villages and farms. No one builds farms where a glacier is known to exist.
The IPCC, in their claim the LIA was regional, is being ingenuous. What could possibly cause Europe to cool enough for such a glacier expansion and leave the rest of the world untouched? There were also years of crop failure in the Scottish Highlands to ward the end of the 17th century due to extremely cold weather..
The written record from settlers in North America was that areas which are now Florida and Texas were subjected to such cold weather during the LIA that crops failed. There is also good proxy evidence in South America and China.
Then it seems you would “have to say” some of cooling of Little Ice Age was due to solar activity.
And maybe lack of any significantly large known volcanic eruption in the last 100 years could related to warming.
I am still unsure what caused the cooling of the Ice Age.
Lately I have been wondering if related to artic sea ice.
Could be a combo of solar activity and volcanic aerosols. Since the extent of the LIA was 400+ years, I doubt that volcanic aerosols would hang around more than a few years.
Yes.
What seems evident is we having 5000 years of cooling.
[Though actually, probably longer.]
And we periods of ups and downs- which seem to related to ocean- ie ocean circulation- in century long periods.
{anyhow, Little Ice Age could just been last dip}
Volcanic activity seems like it effects the tropical ocean heat engine. Or it seems volcanic activity in the tropics has more climate effect.
I would tend to think all such cooling and warming periods are mostly in northern Hemisphere- which doesn’t mean it’s not global.
I say the global climate of last 2 million, is largely about northern hemisphere.
Or one reason why is southern hemisphere colder than northern hemisphere by about 1 C, is because southern hemisphere warms the northern hemisphere.
[Ocean warms and land cools, northern hemisphere has more land area. And if arctic ocean is always frozen- it’s similar to added even more land the northern hemisphere. Which severe cooling effect in northern hemisphere- but also southern hemisphere loses more heat]
There you are.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
5000 years of cooling, including the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
gbaikie
” I am still unsure what caused the cooling of the Ice Age. ”
Surprisingly and hopefully not an exception confirming the rule, Robertson sometimes is able to learn from what he earlier discredited and denigrated ad nauseam:
” Could be a combo of solar activity and volcanic aerosols. ”
Here are some of these dirty aerosol producers:
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes, VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Aores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and inbetween all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
*
During that period, there were two Solar Minima (Wolf and Spörer).
That’s all correct, but is half the story.
*
Years ago already, I presented a really scientific study about that, where you really could see while reading what for a work the authors did, and how carefully they presented that it in their document:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Gifford H. Miller, Áslaug Geirsdóttir & al. (2011)
Their abstract:
” Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes.
However, the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived.
Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 14301455 AD.
Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium.
A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.
Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg.
The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea-ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required. ”
*
Often discredited, especially at WUWT by its Nomenklatura, and here by… Robertson.
No one has ever published any really valuable scientific contradiction.
Most have till today still no idea of how strong all these eruptions have been. And the authors of the study weren’t informed about the hugest one because ice cores mentioned it, but it was first located in 2012.
Link to the ‘Abrupt onset’ arcticle:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
That’s interesting.
I have not thought of blocking of sunlight with high elevation particles from volcanic eruption in regard low angle of sunlight in/near polar regions.
It could be something like night during daytime hours.
And over longer periods, a larger effect of the dimming due the low angle of the sun.
” It could be something like night during daytime hours. ”
This is exactly what has been reported in various European countries by contemporary people in the year 1258 following the Samalas eruption, which was way stronger than that of the nearby Tambora volcano in 1815:
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1307520110/asset/4124ff30-3cbb-426e-84d4-35874b24c454/assets/graphic/pnas.1307520110fig03.jpeg
Found in
Source of the great A.D. 1257 mystery eruption unveiled, Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Indonesia
Frank Lavigne & al. 2013
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
Aaron S
” but in the next 25 years it has nearly complete saturation of its ability to warm further. ”
Where do you have that from?
Saturation? That good ol’ nonsense has now really become a bit aged, hasn’t it?
There are gazillions of 15 µ photons compared with the small amount of CO2 molecules, but the time delay between absorp-tion and reemission is about 100 µsec.
*
CO2 doesn’t not warm, Aaron S, and H2O doesn’t either. They do not ‘trap heat’: the popularization of science sometimes has harmful effects through simplified and misleading explanations.
The effect of H2O and CO2 is merely to lower direct escape of upwelling IR, because the reemission paths are arbitrary, hence not necessarily directed to outer space again.
A little extra effect is due to CO2: unlike H2O which nearly fully precipitates above the Tropopause, it is present at altitudes up to 50 km; what it reemits to space hence will have much less energy than what reaches outer space directly, because of the much lower temperatures.
*
No reason at all to fear, however: the vast, vast majority of upwelling IR passes unimpeded through the 8-12 µ atmospheric window.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here.
AaronS,
You wrote, “So I dont disagree that CO2 will eventually catch up to global temperature and cause additional warming,…”
Seems to me the context of what you wrote preceding that means you meant, “Although I don’t disagree….”
In any case, why would you claim CO2 will cause additional warming, considering you are aware of the possibility of complete saturation?
Perhaps you have succumbed to the tiresome arguments from AGWarmists like Bindidon that CO2 should cause warming because much less energy will be radiated to space without data to support the shoulda.
Bowdrie
” Perhaps you have succumbed to the tiresome arguments from AGWarmists like Bindidon that CO2 should cause warming because much less energy will be radiated to space without data to support the shoulda. ”
You intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
This last paragraph was visibly an addendum (” A little extra effect “).
You clearly omitted the main point:
” The effect of H2O and CO2 is merely to lower direct escape of upwelling IR, because the reemission paths are arbitrary, hence not necessarily directed to outer space again. ”
Not so very untypical for you, as well as your stupid ” AGWarmists ” blah blah.
*
I read an excellent article about that, but… in French:
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
It contains lots and lots of things you manifestly are not at all aware of.
I’m sure that if I would translate the article, you would discredit it.
‘I want to keep the cheap gallon for my big SUV’ or so…
Yeah.
If I translated and read your article, would I find data supporting your main point?
“The effect of H2O and CO2 is merely to lower direct escape of upwelling IR, because the reemission paths are arbitrary, hence not necessarily directed to outer space again.”
If so I would be grateful to learn.
If there is no data indicating CO2 increases global temperature, then it is just another tiresome AGW argument.
Yes.
And much more, including among others
– the gradual invasion of the atmospheric window at 8-12 µ, the main channel for IR output to space, by H2O with the help of CO2 (if I well remember, due to the so-called band broadening);
– a mathematical calculation of an n-layer greenhouse. Amazing.
Some people, while of course not knowing everything, know what they are talking about.
Bindidon,
Did you think I would not read your link because it was in French?
Why would you answer “yes” to my specific question, “would I find data…?”
The article was mostly a review of the cartoon GHE model SANS DATA. From the conclusion:
“In this article, we have presented a model that takes into account two key aspects of the greenhouse effect often overlooked in more simplistic models: the existence of a vertical atmosphere temperature gradient and saturation of the absorp.tion of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide.
“The calculation of the radiative balance of the Earth in response to a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide is based on solid physical foundations and no longer fundamentally difficult. Climatologists focus on the modelling of far more difficult nomenes: change in the concentration of water vapour, role of clouds and aerosols, etc. Nevertheless, it is important to create simple models that enable understanding the mechanisms at work. To understand is to be able to make a mental qualitative representation of these mechanisms. But simple does not mean simplistic: we have seen that the one-pane greenhouse is very incomplete for interpreting the change in the greenhouse effect due to CO2. The model at N windows solves the saturation paradox but, on the other hand, it does not represent the fact that in the atmosphere there are exchanges by convection which govern the vertical temperature. By this article, we hope to have contributed to overcome these shortcomings. This is what justifies treating, as we have done, the absorp.tion properties in a global way and in a simplified geometry.”
It is just another tiresome AGW argument. Writing in French doesn’t make it any better. There is still no evidence that a change in CO2 will increase global temperature.
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part time on my laptop.~j254~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~j254~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page.
__________ https://fulwork08.blogspot.com/
Good article on the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps and its relationship to the Little Ice Age. It clearly shows how this glacier has advanced and retreated related to the LIA.
https://www.unige.ch/forel/files/1315/8737/1361/Chamonix_Eng4.pdf
The timeline of its current retreat shows it has nothing to do with CO2 warming.
Another, more comprehensive glacier watch related to Little Ice Age.
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/environmental-change/little-ice-age-glacier-variations.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gmvn_gzcFI
Scott asks does evil exist?
And he seems to mean, do demons and evil spirits, exist.
Which is not what I associate with evil.
I would put demon and evil spirits as in same category as ghosts.
I google it, and most definition didn’t mention demons and evil spirits.
“Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm.”
But one says:
“An evil force, power, or personification.”
And:
“(epithet) the Evil One
the Devil; Satan”
I would say it’s a shortage of good. It more of lacking of good.
I not worried about Satan if he/she is in a good mood.
But I don’t believe in Satan or ghosts.
Dennis Prager who I regard as expert of Evil say evil is not dark, it’s bright, and you have to look away from it.
Difficult to confront. You want to run away from it. You want pretend it doesn’t exist.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/evil
War is quite evil. But then again, everyone seems to want to look a car accident. And also war is something people like to watch.
Anyhow, Scott calls it mental illness.
I tend to think evil person is a damaged person. But not a damaged person who wants to become un-damaged.
And the lack of doing anything for the mental ill, is quite evil.
gbaikie…”And:
“(epithet) the Evil One the Devil; Satan”
***
You should read Elaine Pagels on the derivation of Satan.
“It is not a name but a word in the Hebrew language (satanas) meaning adversary. The ancient languages tended towards personification of common themes, so Satan is one who opposes either in daily life or in the formal sense as the courtroom prosecutor. The Old Testament presents Satan in both these contexts.
There is no Biblical basis for the popular fiend of common folklore (sometimes called Lucifer) but people may be labelled as ‘Satan’ because they oppose the truth as with Peter in Matthew 16 and the Pharisees in John 8:44 ”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-word-Satan
I prefer the popular fiend of common folklore, but I don’t like lawyers, much, either.
Good and evil are things that people do to each other.
The cold equations are neither. The asteroid that destroys your civilization is not good or evil, it just is.
Ent, is attempting to pervert reality an evil act?
You do that much more than I do. What do you think?
Ent, you have repeatedly claimed that passenger jets fly backwards, to protect your cult beliefs. Is that an act of evil?
And now, you falsely accuse me. Is a false accusation an act of evil?
We can detect and deflect a space rock.
US tax payers pay +20 billion a year for NASA
and spend another +40 billion for military space.
Therefore it would certainly be evil if we get hit by a deadly space rock.
It’s also evil when World Health Organization fails in their sole task.
It’s also evil when news gives it’s endless fake news.
And it’s evil to pedal “climate change”- which one many fake news things.
Governments have always been evil, the only issue, is can be pushed in the direction of being less evil. No success in that regard anywhere in the world, lately.
Good and evil are relative terms. Is evil natural? God put evil there. War is in our nature. What is the purpose of war? It is so that the victor’s DNA dominates. Why is rape in our nature? War and rape are how our DNA dominates. Why is rape a crime? Because we’re not supposed to rape our women; we’re supposed to rape our enemies’ women. Do you think those Russian soldiers are not raping Ukrainian women? And vice versa? It is all about the DNA.
stephen p anderson
I can’t disagree with some of your points. I can say, however, that although our species does have instinctual behavior it also possess a mind. Whereas DNA may allow a victor’s DNA to dominate it can also be considered an evil activity because of the suffering and death it produces. Our intelligence gives us the capacity for empathy. Same with rape, even if enemy woman, we can emphasize with the woman and see our actions cause suffering and misery and then curb the desire. We curb desire all the time in normal life to create a social society that functions.
Our DNA also instruct us to co-operate. Or else the entire history of civilization is based on an animal that is malfunctioning.
Our DNA also give us a mind with which to weight the value of acts, investigate ethics and so on.
I don’t know why some people think our reptilian brain is all we have.
stephen p anderson,
By nature, you are a son of Adam, thus you ARE under the curse of sin and death. Evil, is disobedience to Gods Law and now happens as a result of the fall into sin. This answers ALL of your questions but you will deny this fact, since you blame YOUR DNA and not the fact that you are dead in your trespasses and sins!
So, you think you are guiltless if you have not committed any of the acts to which you refer! But, the LORD commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. Do you do this? Can anyone, in their fallen condition under the curse of sin and death, do this? NOT possible. But you do, do what comes naturally, and that is to continue to break the commands of God and do evil. Simply by not obeying the command to love HIM!
Moreover, all of the evil to which you point, is what happens when we DO NOT love the Lord our GOD!
War is NOT in our DNA, sin is, and it is opposed to all that God commands unless and until we are INCLINED to repent and believe the message of salvation found only in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah.
To repent means to turn from, and believe is a synonym meaning to trust Him. Thus, to believe the gospel means that you see who God is and what he requires, perfect obedience. And who man (you are) is and what he (you) deserve(s); the wrath of God upon disobedience.
However, this separation and enmity is remedied since He sent His only begotten Son to stand in the place of a (repentant) sinner under the curse of sin and death to “propitiate” (turn away the wrath of God upon them) by enduring the wrath of God in our place (by crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection). As a result we then are imputed with His Righteousness (since HE alone obeyed the Law of God perfectly without sin and reverses the curse of sin brought on by Adam and his imputed sin) and we are declared righteous by His work in our stead. This is justification by faith! That is, we are declared righteous, by His atoning sacrifice. This is GRACE!
G-Gods
R-Riches
A-at
C-Christ’s
E-Expense
We then are called to live righteously by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit and are to put sin (remaining corruption) to death. This is mortifying sin and is known as sanctification. WE are SANCTIFIED (by the work of Christ), past tense, but are called to a sanctified life, yet continue to sin and repent daily since our nature has been set free so that we are able to obey, yet not perfectly. The word of God is a necessary component in our sanctification as we seek to glorify Him by obedience (not earning our salvation but in response to it) by learning and knowing His word of truth so that we know what our response to His GRACE should be. This is a different heart motivation, our hearts desire now is to obey, not be at enmity with him.
Before redemption this is the condition of the heart:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings. Jeremiah 17:9-10
After redemption this is the condition of the heart:
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. 8For in finding fault with the people, He says,
BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL BRING ABOUT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH,
9NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO BRING THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE ABOUT THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT WHICH I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, DECLARES THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11AND THEY WILL NOT TEACH, EACH ONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EACH ONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, KNOW THE LORD,
FOR THEY WILL ALL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TOWARD THEIR WRONGDOINGS,
AND THEIR SINS I WILL NO LONGER REMEMBER.
Hebrews 8:7-12 which is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jesus said on the night of His betrayal, while eating the Passover with His disciples: “For this is My blood of the NEW COVENANT which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:26-30 but esp. v28.
Beloved, this is a call to repentance! Not by me, but through me. I am merely the messenger, an ambassador for my MASTER!
Go Fish: Only if you believe on a book that was mostly composed in the Middle Ages and is full of myths.
RLH, you have ZERO credibility on this subject.
You must deny the existence of Abraham, Joseph, Egypt, Israel, the Exodus, Moses, the Prophets, the whole Old Testament Scriptures and other historical writings, the Middle East dynamic since the book of Genesis, Jesus the Messiah:- His life, ministry, arrest, trial, flogging, crucifixion, death, burial and RESURRECTION, and the eye witnesses that then proclaimed His message: the message of the Gospel that for over 2000 years has impacted and shaped ALL OF HISTORY since, while risking their very lives for a lie! And many of them dying to defend the truth!
I DON’T THINK SO!
The sad thing is we could see climate optimum temps within natural variability and the hoaxers would find confirmation.
Yes, read Shapiro below.
“climate optimum temps”
What does ‘optimum’ mean in this context?
FFS, Roy please ban these Moon spinner trolls.
Get your own website dorks. Roy’s site is actually about something important, there’s a chance that it could actually make a difference in public opinion if it wasn’t for the fact that the first five zillion messages are about your petty feud about the semantics of moon rotation.
You’re a bunch of immature dumbasses. And one of you needs to seriously seek psychological care.
Leon
I have a place it could be discussed, rather than here…in the comments at this video:
https://youtu.be/qo-aQIX9ois
Just need the others to take the hint, and we can be off this site and out of your hair…leaving you to your ever so important climate debate which I have never seen you taking part in anyway.
How many times do you have to try an persuade others to promote your rather poor attempt to show something as true that others have long ago concluded as false?
If people want the discussion off this blog, I have a very suitable venue for it. Otherwise, it’s here to stay I’m afraid.
I went there and it wouldn’t let me post. Some nonsense about setting up a channel.
So you will continue to annoy everybody unless they follow you down the rabbit hole.
You probably wouldn’t like it, Entropic Man, as being a member of YouTube would require you to be accountable for the things you say. Whereas here you get to call people "deniers" or "denialists", and the like, and continuously act like you believe you are superior to others.
RLH, you could have just completely ignored the link. I didn’t ask you to leave countless comments about it, but none actually at the video itself.
I don’t follow down rabbit holes, thank you.
You just continuously respond here.
Just as you continuously post about your rabbit hole.
You know, RLH, the more you comment, the more you just draw attention to it. So, thanks for that.
I have no problem with drawing attention to the fact that it is crap.
I have no problem pointing out that it isn’t.
Oh it’s crap all right.
You can say that all you like. I know that it isn’t.
You know a lot of false things.
I think the only thing we disagree on is the moon issue, so I have no idea what your massive problem with me is. Why is that such a big deal?
Because you make it so.
You’re responsible for your own comments, RLH. You can’t blame the moon discussion on me, as much as you all seem to want to.
I blame you for continuously posting incorrect claims that unscientific.
You don’t get to decide what’s scientific or unscientific.
Yet you do. Apparently.
No, not at all.
So all your posts that claim ‘scientific’ or ‘unscientific’ are to be ignored. Doesn’t leave much then.
I should be saying that to you, not the other way around.
Leon,
A giant planet extinction event could be about to occur in which all of the planet’s citizens are on their knees praying toward the heavens in anticipation, and thirty seconds before the asteroid collides, many of this blog’s posters’ only concern will be posting the last “Moon: Is it spinning or not?” post.
Leon, don’t miss the subtle revelations from the Moon issue, as carried over to the AGW nonsense. The AGW nonsense is based on misunderstandings of physics from over a century ago. The misunderstandings have been fortified by layer upon layer of agenda-driven propaganda. Very few people have the physics background necessary to sort through all of the nonsense.
The Moon nonsense is based on misunderstandings of observations from centuries ago. The only misunderstandings of physics is with the accompanying “tidal locking” nonsense. So the Moon issue is as easy to understand as a ball-on-a-string.
And as with the AGW nonsense, the Moon issue is all a “matter of faith”. You can see that with the fervent effort of the cult idiots to protect both their AGW nonsense and their Moon nonsense. If you’ve followed the Moon issue very long, you realize NONE of the “Spinners” have ANY knowledge of the relevant physics.
Regard the Moon issue as an easy-to-understand model of the perversion of science going on with the AGW nonsense. Don’t be afraid to learn.
Go play on Dremt’s channel where you can indulge your delusional lunatic theories without bothering the rest of us.
You’re scientifically illiterate and lack respect for others.
So go and you won’t be missed here.
Ken, if reality and science bother you, that’s your problem not mine.
You can’t identify ONE thing that I have stated that is scientifically inaccurate. You just make things up to support your invalid opinions.
You have stated that the Moon does not rotate on its axis, once per orbit of the Earth. This is scientifically false. It does.
Only if you believe, troll RLH. You have NO science. You don’t understand any of this. You claimed you understood vectors, but you failed.
All other scientists agree with what I wrote. Only you and your tiny, tiny clique think otherwise.
Clint,
There is a subtle difference. The utopianists want to use the AGW nonsense to control outcomes. I don’t think they’ve figured out how to use the “Moon: Is it spinning or not?” issue to control outcomes.
The cult attempts to use the bogus lunar rotation with their invalid explanations as to how Moon got here. Moon is a huge embarrassment for the cult, as they can not explain how it got where it is. All of their guesses fail. They need it to be rotating. Without axial rotation, its creation is even harder to explain.
Same with Darwinism. Evolution has become an embarrassment.
“lunar rotation”, i.e. rotation about its axis, is real.
Lunar rotation is NOT real, but trolls are real…unfortunately.
Quite right, Pup.
Here is the Final Proof:
https://www.tomorrowtides.com/the-moon-does-not-spin.html
lunar rotation is real.
Willard and RLH both prove Clint R correct…trolls are real.
Let’s play Moon Ball:
https://postimg.cc/hhsvcRcr
Strange. His understanding of the argument seems to be regressing.
Kiddo’s darnedest Chewbacca Mode.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I suppose it is clear whose side I take here.
In case it’s not, Clint R, Willard and stephen p anderson.
If RLH lacks credibility in my area of confidence, and he does, I must conclude by the scientific observable data he lacks credibility on this matter as well.
Almost forgot DREMT!
NOT Willard! LOL, my bad.
Hi RLH,
Unfortunately, my reply comments drop to bottom. But since it’s early in this thread perhaps you will see this. Regarding ECS Methane feedbacks to initial warming that bridge the initial temperature change to the powerful albedo feedback have been exploited during the Eemian or last interglacial when Sea Level was 6 to 9m higher and the methane have not had deep time to replenish. There are several others possibilities, but curious what mechanism(s) are you are thinking is lagging and could modify ECS? I do find it ironic solar ECS (basically a lag) has been downplayed. Lags are definitely real.
Regarding the LIA, when I did my school there was no doubt a LIA occurred, but then it seems to be trendy that LIA is a regional phenomenon associated with the Atlantic (AMOC) and confined to NA and Europe. I need to read up for proxy climate records from Asia and S Hemisphere to determine for myself because I just don’t know enough about it. I would appreciate any evidence via literature that it was a global phenomenon (ie solar) and not just sampling bias from the western world collecting most paleo data early on. I suspect it was global but patchy, and therefore significant for global temperature but hard to reconstruct from limited data.
The problem with all paleo records is that mostly they do not agree with other paleo studies for the same period. See my website for some examples, https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/ Also see https://climateaudit.org/ for PAGES info
There is no doubt that the LIA affected the NH but SH data at the time was quite poor.
Studies have shown that it was within the natural variability that should be expected.
“Even if the study doesn’t test for the influence of specific culprits for each epoch, it points to natural climatic variability as the most likely explanation”
The rest is conjecture I suspect.
As much as I saw the bank draft which had said $4075, I be certain ThatMy father in regulation ought to realia receiving money of their spare time from their computer.. There moms pleasant friend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the mortgage on there domestic and bout a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ____ https://hugeincomstar.blogspot.com/
I find it rather amusing that Dr. Roy claims that climate change is a matter of faith when his own 40+ years of scientific observations confirm that global average temperatures have been rising at a rate of at least 1.3 deg C per century – oh well.
In any case, during March I posted some more climate change videos:
https://youtu.be/NINbP0jWFZw
Climate Change May Be Hazardous To Your Health
https://youtu.be/ywr58hSFAKM
Black and Brown Carbon Emissions are Warming the Arctic and Melting Glaciers
https://youtu.be/rUIbdq0dOA0
Cradle To Grave Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines, Hybrids, and EVs
https://youtu.be/o3GMea2dtmI
Arctic Warming, Climate Change on Steroids
Enjoy.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land)”.
Mark Shapiro,
Please explain why you find humor in Dr. Spencer’s statement.
With a definite Northern Hemisphere bias.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
What’s that here again, elementary school teacher?
This has nothing to do with any global coverage: the graph has been made and published at WUWT by Willis Eschenbach on the base of Berkeley Earth’s LAND-ONLY trend data.
Unfortunately, Willis’ graph is wrong, because you (!!!) wrongly urged him to draw the plots with a cosine-like weighting, what is absolutely incorrect.
*
Latitude weighting of temperature grid bands is not the same as the latitude weighting to be applied for e.g. sea ice stored in grid cells, which evidently is very well cosine-based: sea ice is a surface.
For temperatures, the formula to be applied is very different, and leads to very different results.
“Latitude weighting of temperature grid bands is not the same as the latitude weighting to be applied for e.g. sea ice stored in grid cells, which evidently is very well cosine-based: sea ice is a surface.
For temperatures, the formula to be applied is very different, and leads to very different results”
Oh really. Please do tell me how latitude weighting (globe) and area weighting (sphere) are so different and what the different equations would be.
You claim it is wrong but also acknowledge that 30S to 30N is 50% of the Earth’s surface. Just as the graph shows. You just don’t get area weighting do you?
P.S. Look at the numbers. <0.2c/decade even for LAND BASED NH temperatures. From 1950 to 2020.
Sorry. It is for both Hemispheres.
And Roy claims +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land. Are you saying that SH is warmer or colder over land than the North?
And you keep telling us that 0.02c is neither here nor there.
Using a regularly spaced latitude grid is the equivalent of a Mercator projection.
Using the grid I asked Willis to produce is the same as using a Mollweide projection i.e. surface area weighted.
” You just dont get area weighting do you? ”
Oh oh oh.
The elementary school teacher trying to explain me how to process time series.
Firstly, what you decide to name ‘area weighting’ mostly is named ‘latitude weighting’.
Under ‘area weighting’, most people understand the average of single measurement points into an area (a rectangular grid cell, or a triangle in a spherical triangulation) encompassing these points.
In the WUWT graph, the image is compressed according to the decreasing relevance of latitude bands on a sphere, from the Tropics up / down to the Poles.
But the values of the trends keep unchanged.
You still don’t want to see why you are wrong.
And this won’t help further I guess:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1233552
I don#t care.
As I said previously, using a regularly spaced latitude grid is the equivalent of a Mercator projection.
Using the grid I asked Willis to produce is the same as using a Mollweide projection i.e. global area weighted.
This doesn’t matter if we are talking about a sphere at the surface or all the way up to the Stratosphere.
You will stubbornly go on with your delusion no doubt. Won’t change the science.
50% of the surface of a sphere is covered by 30S to 30N. 25% is 90S to 30S. 25% is 90N to 30N. Nothing will change those facts.
P.S. I said nothing about trends. Only values which do require latitude weighting.
There is a simple physics reason why the high latitudes show much less warming in summer, compared to winter, and it has nothing to do with the warming mechanism.
It is simply that exposed seawater with ice chunks in summer has a much higher heat capacity and latent heat, than fully sea ice covered ocean in winter.
In summer the air T barely budges above 0 C as a result, while any additional heat gain simply melts more sea ice.
Not so in winter.
RLH says: P.S. Look at the numbers. <0.2c/decade even for LAND BASED NH temperatures. From 1950 to 2020.
BEST says 0.256 C/decade since 1960 here:
BEST NH Land page
I get 0.236 C/decade starting with 1950 using NH Land data here:
BEST NH Land Data
The thermal load required to melt ice is much bigger than that required to raise air temperatures by even a few degrees.
I note that neither Mark B nor Nate make any observation on latitude/area weighting.
Do you have any evidence that the area weighting has been done all wrong by climate science?
If not, then its yet another RLH non-issue.
See above claims by Blinny that surface area weighting on the graph I showed is not appropriate.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Others support my latitude/area weighting graph
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
“Do you have any evidence that the area weighting has been done all wrong by climate science?”
So NO is the answer, then.
As that comment was aimed at Blinny and his challenge to my/Willis’s graph, I welcome the fact that you support what I said.
As I said, using a regularly spaced latitude grid is the equivalent of a Mercator projection.
Using the grid I asked Willis to produce is the same as using a Mollweide projection i.e. surface area weighted.
RLH says: I note that neither Mark B nor Nate make any observation on latitude/area weighting.
It’s clear my comment was directed at the apparent discrepancy between your statement about the BEST NH land temperature trends and their own assessment.
If you don’t want to explain or defend that statement or to revisit your calculations, that’s your prerogative and I’m not inclined to waste time on it.
Are you saying that Willis’s treatment of Min/Max trend data for Berkley is incorrect?
Note that this is a quartile by quartile treatment.
OK, just another RLH imagined problem that doesnt actually exist in climate science.
Nate says that
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
is not part of climate science!
Is that supposed to be evidence that climate science is doing area weighting wrong?
No.
Still an imaginary problem.
Blinny claimed that my/Willis’s graph was wrong. Do you accept that or not?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
This is exactly the same treatment for latitude as
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
“Unfortunately, Willis graph is wrong, because you (!!!) wrongly urged him to draw the plots with a cosine-like weighting, what is absolutely incorrect”
How is that relevant to climate science doing area weighting wrong?
We are discussing what Blinny said. Or anyone else purporting to use Mercator projections (or similar) to represent area on a globe.
I don’t know why you would find 1.3C per century to be remarkable.
The proxy data shows much wider swings over the past ten thousand years of the Holocene interglacial.
The CET record, the longest I have seen, shows much wider swings, both up and down, over the past 450 years.
Even the UAH record shows wide swings. Just see how much the temperature has dropped since the peak in 2019.
No one has come up with a satisfactory reason for why temperature rises and falls except that its part of normal climate.
Why do you think the recent modest warming in our climate is due to carbon dioxide? There is no evidence to support the claim.
Think of any long term trend as a signal and the variation as noise.
In this context the climate and any long term climate trends as signal.
Short term variations are noise and can vary considerably more than the trend.
ENSO neutral conditions match the normal global temperature. El Nino goes about 0.2C above normal and La Nina about 0.3C below.
Weather mostly jiggles about in a band +/-0.1C from the norm.
Regarding long term trends. The natural forcings are either neutral or trying to cool the climate. The only things forcing warming are CO2 and land use.
Why CO2?
1) Observations of the primary and secondary changes predicted by the theory have been observed.
2) No other alternative processes of similar magnitude have been observed.
Did you read Roy Spencer’s last post?
Quote
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.
Unquote
Quote
1) Observations of the primary and secondary changes predicted by the theory have been observed.
2) No other alternative processes of similar magnitude have been observed.
Unquote
Given the first quote, the statements in the second have no basis in fact.
Emyr will believe what he wants to think, and nothing will alter that. He will keep repeating the same crap contrary to any logic and continue to assume he’s correct. The agenda is paramount, not the science, math, physics, chemistry, or reason.
Ken
“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. ”
I’ve wanted to discuss this.
Say the satellite data gives an uncertainty of +/-5W/m^2 in input and OLR.
That sets boundary conditions on the energy imbalance. It is unlikely to exceed 10W/m^2 net uptake or 10W/m^2 net OLR.
We see a warming trend, so we can eliminate all of the uncertainty leading to a net energy loss from the planet.
That leaves a band for the imbalance ubetween 0 and 10W/m^2 energy gain.
We can get closer.
Add together the energy needed to warm surface and atmosphere the energy needed to melt ice and the energy warming the ocean, you can get the total energy input and can calculate the energy imbalance. Given that 93% of the energy imbalance goes into the oceans you can simplify by Just looking at the ocean energy budget.
We can consider Wijngaarden and Happer paper showing that if we double CO2 in the atmosphere we get reduction of direct thermal radiation to space 3Wm^2.
Since the CO2 increase from 280 to 410 ppm CO2 is not a doubling of CO2 There is no way a reduction of direct thermal radiation to space of 0 – 10 Wm^2 can be entirely attributed to CO2. Not more than perhaps 2Wm^2; too small to have an impact on climate.
E man,
“We can get closer.”
That’s a laugh. You are getting closer to flimflammery than ever before. If the satellite data is +/- 5 from 1 W/m2, then the range is -4 to 6 W/m2.
And 93% of 1 W/m2 is 1 W/m2 +/- whatever the ocean uncertainty is. Get real.
Let’s see.
IIRC the most recent estimate of annual ocean heat content increase was for 2020, an increase of 1.4*10^23joules.
Divide that by 31536000, the number of seconds in a year, and you get 4.4*10^14 Joule seconds, 4.4*10^14 W.
Divide by 5.1*10^14, the surface area of the Earth in metres, and you get an energy imbalance of 0.86W/m^2.
That’s not far off Roy Spencer’s estimate of 1W/m^2
It’s also enough to raise UAH temperatures by 0.13C/decade.
So why does Berkley show that <0.2c/decade on land since 1950 to 2020 is the most common over most of the Earth for most of the year?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
Do the same calculation starting with sea level rise and you get 0.28W/m^2.
All the different surface based approaches give energy imbalances between 0 and 1 W/m^2.
That is well within the uncertainty range of the satellite data.
“We can consider Wijngaarden and Happer paper showing that if we double CO2 in the atmosphere we get reduction of direct thermal radiation to space 3Wm^2. ”
∆F=5.35ln(560/280)= 3.7W/m^2
Harper’s got it about right.
When you factor in the effects of a climate sensitivity of 3 that becomes an increase of 11.1W/m^2.
At equilibrium the warming effect of a forcing is 0.27C/W that becomes a temperature increase of 11.1*0.27=3.0C
Ent, are you still believing in that bogus ΔF equation nonsense?
If you understood science, you would know that moving mass within a system does NOT result in an increased temperature.
But, you don’t understand science. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Regarding long term trends. The natural forcings are either neutral or trying to cool the climate. The only things forcing warming are CO2 and land use.”
Wow. Apparently you were born yesterday or at least some time during the short-term trend.
> I don’t know why you would find 1.3C per century to be remarkable.
I can think of at least two reasons why:
You don’t think in term of speed.
You think there is a conspiracy to remove your individual rights.
There is a conspiracy to remove my individual rights.
Its called Net Zero. The restrictions under Net Zero will make COVID look like a picnic. Here in canuckstan the plan is to cut access to fossil fuels by 40% by 2030.
We’re already seeing our currency being devalued by carbon taxes and the knock-on effect of carbon taxes inflating the price of every product that requires energy to produce and bring to market.
Ken, you’ve gone to great lengths to misrepresent others and to pervert science.
You’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. It’s people like you that facilitate things like Net Zero.
You’ve pooped in your own tent, now wallow in it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1162030
> We’re already seeing our currency being devalued
U sure:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CADUSD%3DX?p=CADUSD%3DX
Were already seeing our currency being devalued U sure:
Yes I am sure. When the government prints an additional 30% of the existing money supply then the price of everything goes up 30%, its called devaluing the currency. Thats what inflation means; your dollar buys less.
All by itself Carbon Tax costs 4% of inflation. That’s before the knock-on effect is calculated.
> Carbon Tax costs 4% of inflation
You’re almost right, Ken:
https://globalnews.ca/news/8681032/bank-governor-carbon-tax-boosted-inflation-rate-by-nearly-half-a-point/
It’s 0.4%.
And for fossil fuel prices.
So yeah, you’re almost right.
Almost.
“The CET record, the longest I have seen, shows much wider swings, both up and down, over the past 450 years.”
Yes, my city does also. Its called local weather. Every heard of it?
Nothing to do with Global climate change.
The CET is considered a good proxy for the UK and also for most of Europe, at least that part of it experiencing a North Atlantic maritime climate.
e.g.
https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-1650-to-1699-ad/
from
https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-11000bc-to-present/
“Weather over the North Atlantic is largely determined by large-scale wind currents and air masses emanating from North America. Near Iceland, atmospheric pressure tends to be low, and air flows in a counterclockwise direction. Conversely, air flows clockwise around the Azores, a high-pressure area. The meeting of these two air currents generates prevailing westerly winds across the North Atlantic and over western Europe. In winter these winds meander at altitudes of about 10,000 to 40,000 feet (3,000 to 12,200 metres) over North America in such a way that a northward bulge (ridge) is generated by and over the Rocky Mountains and a southward bulge (trough) develops over the eastern half of the continent. This geographically forced flow pattern sets the stage for the frequent intrusion of cold air masses from Canada and Alaska to the Atlantic seaboard. Large temperature contrasts occur between the polar outbreaks and mild air from the Pacific or tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico or Gulf Stream. Along these zones of contrast, which are called fronts, extratropical (or wave) cyclones (low-pressure areas) are formed, and these develop into strong vortices as they move northeastward toward Newfoundland and Iceland. Their growth rate depends largely on the temperature contrast, so that storms in winter usually are stronger than those in summer.”
I find it rather amusing that…you claim to be knowledgable of physics, yet you have NO physics to support CO2 can warm the planet. The last time you tried, all you could come up with was a vacuum tube can burn your fingers.
You seem to have no concept of science, physics, or reality.
40 years of data doesn’t show 1.3 deg C per century, for that you need at least 100 years of data,
Are you one of the debils who just draw straight line through 40 years and extends it into forever ???
Dr. Shapiro,
Dr. Spencer did not claim that climate change is a matter of faith. His previous blog post was his opinion that “human causation [of global warming] is mostly a statement of faith. As most objective people know, climate is always changing.
I viewed your video on black and brown carbon. You said, “…black carbon particulates have a surprisingly large impact on climate change, second only to the emission of carbon dioxide.” Do you have any evidence that increases in CO2 will further increase global temperature or prevent future global cooling?
As an extension of your claim that population growth increases black and brown emissions, do you think that net-zero carbon emission policy justifies the probable unintended consequences of greater starvation and cold weather deaths?
> probable unintended consequences
Where are Chic concerns for evidence now?
Roy said it was matter of faith, while also admitting that the currently available evidence suggested to him that most of the warming is likely human caused.
IOW, although his own faith points in the opposite direction, as a scientist, when he looks at the evidence, it supports AGW.
But for some reason, he assumes that most OTHER climate scientists are coming to the same conclusion as he does, NOT by looking at the science, but by applying their faith.
He wants us to have faith that he can read other people’s minds.
The King of Obfuscation is now peering into crystal balls.
Regardless of what Dr. Spencer or anyone else “believes” about how much warming is caused by humans, we have a scientific method for determining facts, if not the truth itself.
There is no definitive evidence of how much CO2 can effect global temperature. That said, assuming a known relationship, only 5% of CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fuels. The majority of the increase in CO2 emissions results from population growth and global warming. Without scientific evidence definitively indicative of the attribution of the growth of CO2 emissions, the claim of mostly human causation is TOTALLY a statement of faith.
“There is no definitive evidence of how much CO2 can effect global temperature.”
In your opinion.
But there is no evidence that you look at the evidence objectively.
In fact you have made it clear that you have a double standard for the evidence.
“The majority of the increase in CO2 emissions results from population growth and global warming. ”
And it just so happens that FF emissions are correlated to population growth and CO2 concentration growth.
But those correlations can be safely ignored in your correlation equals causation fallacy?
Yes, FF emissions are correlated to population growth, but non-FF emissions are twenty times greater. Just ask the IPCC.
So, yes, the FF emissions can be safely ignored. Give me a few minutes while I update my spreadsheet showing the data.
“but non-FF emissions are twenty times greater.”
Yeah unless they exhibit a NET annual input they are irrelevant.
There is no point in showing a spreadsheet model without having real measurements detecting a growth in the input of natural CO2, from an identified source, with a demonstrated mechanism.
Er, make that give me a few more hours.
Why is China hoarding food? Given that every time there is a grand solar minimum, there is a dynasty change. Do you think they know something about upcoming climate conditions that we don’t?
https://heartstonenetwork.com/title/victory-gardens-for-life/
SC 25 March updated
https://i.postimg.cc/654FZZzP/msolar-cycle-comparison.jpg
There was a double SSW at high latitudes in March and it shows in the measurements. Arctic -0.31 in February and +0.74 in March, meanwhile in the tropics -0.08. Isn’t that odd?
https://i.ibb.co/TMt4H0b/100mb9065.png
Equatorial Pacific and Atlantic surface temperatures are now below average (1981-2010).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/satlssta.png
The break will last.
https://i.ibb.co/Tkb3ybp/Screenshot-2.png
La Nia is doing well.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202204.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
But according to Blinny, it was all supposed to be gone a few days ago.
To be fair you have to wait for the end of April , but then rub his face in it
I think he said ‘gone by April’, not ‘end of April’.
Lets see , I save his stupid predictions and tantrum outbursts ,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098140
sez April , so when exactly can we start laughing ???
By the way , at the end of April the ENSO will be even lower than now so his fail will get still better by then.
+0.15 deg. C in La Nia.
Fascinating.
Fascinant? Pourquoi?
2021 02 0.20
2021 07 0.20
2021 08 0.17
2021 09 0.25
2021 10 0.37
2021 12 0.21
2022 03 0.15
100 % La Nina.
And that is all wrt the 12 monthly means within 1991-2020, i.e. on average 0.14 C lower than with the old reference period.
La Nina n’est vraiment plus ce qu’elle tait au bon vieux temps, me semble-t-il.
Exactement.
Eh ben zut alors, j'ai d'nouveau oublié ce foutu
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Fallait bien sûr lire: “ce qu’elle était” !
Tu es un idiot.
Pourquoi devrais-je me soucier de réactions aussi médiocres qu'infantiles ?
Doesn’t make you less than an idiot.
The solar wind magnetic field in the 25th solar cycle is still weaker than in the previous cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/MsWKzpS/Screenshot-2.png
Sun’s intensity: SC24 versus SC25
As some will recall, it’s not so terribly long time ago that allegedly better knowing people predicted a cycle SC25 going from scratch lower than its predecessor SC24.
All these people of course have only one single, common goal: to gather arguments for an incoming global cooling. One might think they are paid by Heartland or GWPF.
Here is a comparison, this time based on Silso’s SSN daily data (the solar flux managed by the Canadian Space Weather Agency is on shut down since March, 18).
https://i.postimg.cc/52YyDLtg/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25.png
These dumb Coolistas are exactly the complement of the Warmistas who never get tired to tell us about some imminent catastrophe.
This does not mean that in one or two years, the situation might change; but so far, the Coolistas are ‘plain wrong’.
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/3fm8a65r (merci tinyURL…)
As much as I saw the bank draft which had said $4075, I be certain ThatMy father in regulation ought to realia receiving money of their spare time from their computer.. There moms pleasant friend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the mortgage on there domestic and bout a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ____ https://hugeincomstar.blogspot.com/
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part time on my laptop.~j254~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~j254~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page.
__________
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part time on my laptop.~j254~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~j254~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page.
__________ https://hugeincomstar.blogspot.com/
For the two ignoramuses who stalk me all the time about these La Nina forecasts (as if it was my personal mistake that JMA, an excellent forecaster for the Nino3 region, unluckily failed last year to predict La Nina’s sudden rebirth).
Here are three snapshots of NOAA’s CFS V2 ENSO forecast for Nino3+4:
– 1) Sep 8, 2021
https://i.postimg.cc/mDKxKz6x/nino34-Mon080921.gif
– 2) Dec 13, 2021
https://i.postimg.cc/MTCQfYd3/nino34-Mon131221.gif
– 3) April 3, 2022
https://i.postimg.cc/R0nLXWfJ/nino34-Mon03042222.gif
Thus, as you two are since all the time gullible followers of NOAA CFS V2, you should have been ‘plain wrong’ in September and December of last year with respect to April this year.
*
We will see whether this time, JMA’s Tokyo Climate center gets it right, or… fails again:
https://i.postimg.cc/4xRWqbfb/TCC-ENSO-forecast-Nino3-030422.png
(Nino3 is a bit warmer than Nino3+4.)
*
But… what you two are trying to distract from with your lamentable attacks is that it’s not us making the wrong predictions.
They come from those who publish them and, in fact, sufficiently warn us all that a forecast is… a forecast, and not the Holy Truth.
*
I know: especially the elementary school teacher never stops stalking.
We all know: once becoming a stalker, you won’t stop stalking anymore. This is pretty like masturbating.
There he goez trying to blame his zshit forecast on somebody else, No – You failed.
You post it you own it Bindidork
I don’t care about your primitive insulting trash.
The problem with relying on forecasts that are mainly based on what has gone before.
On that basis the ‘three bean salad’ has very little chance at all.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
Don’t try to obfuscate, elementary school teacher.
Pointless, useless.
Idiot.
“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”
So what will you say if that actually happens?
I was sure you wouldn’t understand, elementary school teacher.
With ‘Pointless, useless.” I of course did not mean the contents of this excellent article, but your reply as such which is, wrt what I wrote above: pointless, useless.
Idiot 2.
Well it’s currently below both deep blue lines in the three-bean-salad graph so what do you expect to happen now?
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Elementary school teacher, you can name me an idiot as long as you want.
Why should I care about such flimsy, infantile reactions?
Because the data shows otherwise than you claim.
Others support my latitude/area weighting graph
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
Why is China hoarding food?
That has of course nothing to do with an allegedly incoming GSM.
It has to do with
– the increasing difficulty of feeding the soon-to-be 1.5 billion people
– the rapid increase in desert landscapes in large parts of the country,
and above all,
– the increasing uncertainty of the political situation in the world, which has become more and more unstable, especially since the wars against Chechnya, the Ukraine and in Syria, which were dictatorially staged by the murderer Putin, because they move from a local conflict to a global affair.
binny…”the wars against Chechnya, the Ukraine and in Syria, which were dictatorially staged by the murderer Putin…”
***
You don’t have the slightest idea what has been going on in the Ukraine since 2014. There has been a civil war between the Ukrainian government and two eastern provinces which are Russian-speaking Ukrainians. It was started when a coup over-threw a democratically-elected pro-Russian president. The eastern Ukrainians did not like that and wanted to withdraw to form independent states.
Where was the Ukrainian army when the coup occurred? Why did they not arrest those who created the coup?
Since 2014, the eastern provinces have been negotiating with Russia to be recognized as independent states. The Ukrainian government reacted by calling them rebels and sent the army in to control them.
Wonderful!! The army is there to control rebellious Ukrainians who are pro-Russian but absent when a democratically-elected pro-Russian Ukrainian president is ousted in a coup. A US Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, was in the Ukraine before the coup trying to negotiate who the next president would be BEFORE the sitting president was ousted.
The European parliament was obviously informed about the coup because they were fighting with Nuland over who would be the next president. The EU wanted Klitschko, the ex-boxer. What we have here is the West interfering in the affairs of a foreign country to replace a pro Russian, democratically-elected president with one sympathetic to the West.
From 2014 to 2019, after the coup, a pro-fascist, neo-Nazi, Andriiy Biletsky, sat in the Ukrainian parliament. He formed the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and is a known white-supremist.
Another fascist, white supremist pre-dates him. Oleh Tyagnibok, head of the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party, has been around since the early 2000nds. He made a speech one day applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and ‘other scum’ during WW II.
There is another fascist group called the Right Sektor operating in the Ukraine as well.
Tyagnybok was, of course, referring to the Ukrainians in western Ukraine who fought with the Nazi, forming SS divisions like the SS Galatia division. They helped exterminate Jews, Poles, and Russians. Therefore, by other scum, Tyagnybok was referring to Poles and Russians.
You need to wake up man, it’s not Putin who is the murderer, the murderers were already inside the Ukraine, helping run the country and determining policy. Why do you think the president in 2015, Poroshenko, passed a law making Ukrainian war criminals like Stepan Bandera into Ukrainian heroes?
The EU parliament refused to recognize the law for obvious reasons. Bandera was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes. He worked for the Abwehr.
Before you go calling me a crackpot, look it up on the Net. It’s all there, from reliable sources.
> You don’t have the slightest idea what has been going on in the Ukraine since 2014.
C’mon, Gordo.
You don’t either:
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
“One month later, in March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraines Crimea region”.
***
There was a vote that the west claimed was rigged. Think it over. Most Ukrainians in Crimea are Russian by ethnicity and they voted to join Russia. Why is that so strange?
*********************
“Armed conflict in the region quickly broke out between Russian-backed forces and the Ukrainian military”.
***
The Ukrainian government admitted they were using neo-Nazis like the Azov battalion. The Ukrainian forces themselves would not engage in house to house fighting but the zealots in the Azov battalions loved killing Russians.
You seem to be missing the obvious. What kind of democratic government would allow the coup that led up to this engagement and what kind of democratic government would try to attack its own citizens? They were no threat to the Ukraine in general, only that they wanted to withdraw from the Ukraine.
We’ve had a similar situation in Canada with Quebecois separatists like the FLQ. We sorted it out with a vote…that’s what democratic countries do. Mind you, we had to run off an FLQ cell who murdered two people.
You are just arguing for the sake of being contrary. It’s your MO.
C’mon, Gordo.
Your mention of the FLQ is not only stupid and wrong (like a decade wrong) it’s quite frankly disgusting.
Have some more democracy:
https://twitter.com/LatestAnonPress/status/1510405901676650497
Useful Gordons back then and now.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Useful-Idiots-ONLINE-COLOR.jpg?d=2040×1360
Bottom line is the west has a rather sordid role in the Ukraine conflict that goes back to the neo-con GW Bush administration and continued by Obama in attempting to get Ukraine into NATO (only failing due to German resistance)
That is without question a major provocation but in my view does not excuse Putin for what he is currently doing.
Worse Putin’s accusations of Nazis run the country isn’t without significant merit since in 2017 Ukraine passed into law a religious registration act related to religions influenced by foreign countries. Similar to a gold star mandate. Far worse than what Trump was accused of for his ban on muslim immigration.
The law was aimed the Moscow branch of the Christian Orthodox Church.
Ukraine cited Crimea as the reason but 65% of Crimeans are Russian and only 15% Ukrainian the rest Crimean Tatars. Tatars have long been dominated by other ethnic groups, kind of like Native Americans. I in Crimea Tatars make up about 12% of the population.
IMO, its questionable if the US should be involved in this in any way especially considering our record of provocations against a post Soviet Russia pushed relentlessly by both the NeoCons and Liberal Hegemony groups led by every administration since the Soviet breakup, except perhaps the Trump administration whose policies came to no avail in trying to normalize Russian relations because of the anti-Russia mob.
The main guy talking about this is this guy.
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
He is very much against the exportation of democracy by force of arms and intrigue. He also expresses that we should not be such blind supporters of Israel and bend over to the expansion of settlements into Palestinian areas without penalties associated with our full support. Very clearly a wise man. Worth a listen to.
“in attempting to get Ukraine into NATO (only failing due to German resistance)”
Eastern European countries who did join NATO are thanking their lucky stars. Russia has been deterred from invading any of them.
The mass murder going on in Ukraine makes abundantly clear why THEY wanted to join also. There was no encouragement needed.
There was no legitimate threat to Russia from Ukraine.
military alliances are always controversial. like putting nuclear missiles in cuba. if you WANT war this is how you do it! provoke, provoke, and provoke. but no doubt you naively believe war is ok because of its ability to export democracy and the american hegemony.
we are exceptional. . . .right?
Ukraine democracy is not a US export.
there are many who would disagree. what is nato’s mission?
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/04/04/how-ukrainian-nationalist-movement-post-wwii-was-bought-and-paid-for-by-cia/
democratic socialism on the march goosestepping through ukraine.
“https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/09/world/europe/putin-russia-war-ukraine.html”
What a country Russia is becoming.
“democratic socialism on the march goosestepping through ukraine.”
And yet somehow a Jewish president…
We have some some goosesteppers in the US. Remember they all met in Charlottesville? And they have them in other European countries.
Ya know, that ‘freedom of speech’ thing.
But if they are present in Ukraine they need to be bombed? They and their neighbors killed? Their cities need to be turned into rubble?
AFA, the eastern Ukraine is concern. The Ukrainian government has been trying to take back provinces in Ukraine that Ukrainian rebels took over almost immediately after the coup against the Ukrainian President that vetoed the deal with the EU in 2014.
That little civil war reduced voter turnout in the 2018 Ukrainian election by almost 30%. A rather good example of real voter suppression.
But the question I would like answered is currently Biden says he does not want to have US troops involved in Ukraine. But before the invasion what he was trying to do was get a commitment via NATO to have US Troops involved in Ukraine. So what’s up with that?
Robertson
Don’t waste time explaining what I know better than a Scotsman who’s moved to Canada and is looking at everything on earth through the wrong side of the telescope.
Your ‘reliable’ sources are all contrarian, pseudoskeptic blogs, which have NOTHING to do with the reality.
Robertson
You are not only ignorant in puncto science and engineering: you are ignorant about politics too.
” Since 2014, the eastern provinces have been negotiating with Russia to be recognized as independent states. The Ukrainian government reacted by calling them rebels and sent the army in to control them. ”
That is so incredibly naive of you to believe that…
If you would be informed like we are here in Europe, you would have perfectly understood that the eastern provinces did never negotiate anything.
It was Putin’s strategy since over 20 years to instigate the pro-Russia people everywhere in contiguous, ex-USSR republics to become ‘independent’, i.e. to move to Russia.
For decades, Putin and his willing henchmen have dreamed of restoring the former USSR from within the Russian Federation.
See Chechnya between 1994 and 2009, South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnystria in Moldavia, etc.
*
The true Fascists currently, are… Putin, his nearby butt-kissers, and in addition: the Wagner group and the Chechen terrorists around Kadyrow, and nobody else.
*
Why do you think anyone in Russia who tries to talk about the war in Ukraine is denounced and imprisoned for up to 15 years?
*
How is it possible to be so nave, so uninformed and to focus on historical fascism a la Azov, while the Russian army is currently laying waste to Ukraine and responsible for the murder of countless civilians?
*
Regardless what you write on this blog about: you are and keep the maestro of misrepresentation and misinformation.
binny…”The true Fascists currently, are Putin, his nearby butt-kissers, and in addition: the Wagner group and the Chechen terrorists around Kadyrow, and nobody else”.
***
Believe what you want. My interest is in preventing a nuclear war none of us will likely survive. I have no interest in the bs being fed to use by apologists for fascists in the Ukraine. Democratic countries do not allow a democratically-elected president to be removed by fascist rabble then carry on as if nothing had happened.
The Ukrainian government in 2015 passed a law making known Nazi war criminals into Ukrainian heroes. Look up Stepan Bandera and SS Galatia. These creeps are lauded today in the Ukraine in parades.
Look up the Azov battalion, the Svoboda Party, and Right Faktor…all fascists with neo-Nazi sympathies.
The eastern Ukraine provinces who wanted to be independent were provoked by a pro-Russian president being ousted in a coup in 2014. Look it up, it’s all on the Net. The US Congress knew about it since they voted to stop supporting the Azov battalion due to their neo-Nazi sympathies.
C’mon, Gordo.
Quit projecting:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1500495309595725831
Gordon, Don’t leave out the foreign registration act Ukraine passed in 2017 into law that requires anybody practicing Russian Orthodox religion must register with the authorities. Gold stars anybody?
ALL relgions are registered in Ukraine, according to US State Dept.
Nothingburger.
nate the state department wants ukraine in nato.
https://www2.stetson.edu/religious-news/190117b.html
ukraine has a long history of abuse. here they are seizing the property of ethnic russians via a bogus religious reregistration requirement.
i am not on either side and abhor what is going there. but it has been a long time coming and the west has done nothing but enflame the problem.
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
“RRN does not intend to certify the accuracy of information presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the articles as they appeared in news media of countries of the former USSR.”
Ukraine wanted to be in NATO. Can you blame them?
it doesn’t matter what ukraine wanted to anybody out side of ukraine. obviously they would want us to commit the lives of our soldiers to resolve a conflict that has been going for more than 300 years.
there really aren’t any good guys in this conflict. read the cia report on it. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/ukraine/
bottom line this is a bitter ethnic conflict where people have been abused on all sides. israel/palestinian and shia vs sunni or kurds in iraq.
ukrainian violence against russian speaking people has been going on ever since the breakup of the soviet union. for a time we embargoed arms sales to ukraine for the corruption and violence.
https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/ukraine/eu-arms-embargo-on-ukraine
and of course finally exactly what does nato do now that the soviet union broke up?
Bill,
Why the need to find an excuse to somehow justify the naked agression of Putin, the brutal Russian invasion and destruction of its much smaller neighbor?
Putin has shown no concern for human lives, not even those of russian speakers.
Thus the notion that his reasons for the invasion are to stop alledged persecution of russian speakers or the russian church is ludicrous.
Putin in his own words made it clear that Ukraine is not a country. He believes it should be part of the Russian empire again.
BTW, you may be missing some of the context of your article:
“for a time we embargoed arms sales to ukraine for the corruption and violence.
https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/ukraine/eu-arms-embargo-on-ukraine”
That embargo was during the period that the Russian-backed President of Ukraine was in power and was violently suppressing protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
After he left power and took refuge in Russia, the article notes that the EU ended their embargo:
“After the change in political leadership in Ukraine and the armed rebellion in Eastern Ukraine with Russian involvement on 16 July 2014 EU Member States agreed to discontinue the application of their agreement of 20 February 2014 on export licences.”
you would be referring to the US led 2014 coup against the democratically elected Ukrainian government?
nate you seem to be the only believing the presence of facist nationalists killing soviet born russian ethnic people and stealing their assets is a justification for Putin’s actions. As i see it Putin is no better nor no worse. EU can have the ukrainians if they actually want them, AFAiC, the Russians can have them too. it is none of my business regarding what europians, ukrainians, or russians want. they can sort it out for themselves. imo, the only reason i can see for this cold war version 2.0 is greed.
you need to explain to me what the value of nato is supposed to be and what its end game looks like. near as i can tell it looks like an instrument for the american hegemony.
“US led 2014 coup against the”
Oh?? Who said so? Russian State TV?
So you seem fine with Putin turning cities into rubble and killing 10s of thousands of civilians?
Many people in E European countries are thankful right now they are in NATO and not being bombed by Russia.
Nate says:
US led 2014 coup against the
Oh?? Who said so? Russian State TV?
——————–
yes a democratically elected ukrainian president was overthrown with cia help in 2014.
there is no question about that. use of ex-fascists and nazis to harrass the soviet union and later Russia is well documented.
lots of articles on that. . . .here is a more recent one.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/04/04/how-ukrainian-nationalist-movement-post-wwii-was-bought-and-paid-for-by-cia/
Nate says:
So you seem fine with Putin turning cities into rubble and killing 10s of thousands of civilians?
————————–
is lying the only argument you have. . . .again?
Nate says:
Many people in E European countries are thankful right now they are in NATO and not being bombed by Russia.
———————-
what have they done to thank us nate? let us pay the bill?
Here is an interesting work, showing a prediction for SC25 just before it started:
Prediction of Solar Cycle 25
Leif Svalgaard
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.02370
” Prediction of solar cycle is an important goal of Solar Physics both because it serves as a touchstone for our understanding of the sun and also because of its societal value for a space faring civilization.
The task is difficult and progress is slow. Schatten et al. (1978)
suggested that the magnitude of the magnetic field in the polar regions of the sun near solar minimum could serve as a precursor for the evolution and amplitude of the following solar cycle.
Since then, this idea has been the foundation of somewhat
successful predictions of the size of the last four cycles, especially of the unexpectedly weak solar cycle 24 (the weakest in 100 years).
Direct measurements of the polar magnetic fields are available since the 1970s and we have just passed the solar minimum prior to solar cycle 25, so a further test of the polar field precursor method is
now possible.
The predicted size of the new cycle 25 is 12810 (on the new sunspot
number version 2 scale), slightly larger than the previous cycle. ”
*
Worth spending a read.
bellman…”You said since 1988. Trend since then was essentially the same as it since the start of the UAH data. +0.136C / decade”.
***
The 0.136 value is a number-crunched value from inputting raw data into a calculator then taking an average. It fails to reveal the reality.
The IPCC announced in 2013, a 15 year flat-trend from 1998 – 2012. UAH data extends it to 18 years. The IPCC recently re-confirmed the flat trend in AR6 and blamed it on natural variability.
That’s a serious joke. They are claiming that CO2 takes an 18 year holiday every so often. That bs comes from Kevin Trenberth when he admitted in the Climategate email scandal that the warming has stopped and no one knows why. After the fact, he blamed it on the ocean which was allegedly hiding the heat.
You cannot claim a real 0.136C/decade warming when nearly two decades over the range showed a flat trend. You’d have to break it into several ranges. The first 18 years showed a rewarming from cooling via volcanic aerosols. When that effect was removed by UAH, the trend over those 18 years was about 0.009C/decade.
Then we have the super El Nino warming from 2015 – 2016, which appears to be forming a new flat-trend since 2016.
> That bs comes from Kevin Trenberth when he admitted in the [But CG] scandal that the warming has stopped and no one knows why.
C’mon, Gordo. You’re outdoing yourself right now. There are too many errors to point out.
Pick one.
Always the same, stubborn blah blah.
You are UAH’s greatest butt-kisser on this blog: why do you dare to contradict what Roy Spencer publishes?
Blinny’s an angry white man. His Nazi utopia is long-gone. If only it could be resurrected and Blinny in charge.
Anderson
If Nazi-like people would take control over the US, you would be one of their very first butt-kissers, because you are a perfect opportunist, and would quickly seek their near.
But true Nazis never trusted butt-kissing newcomers, and they would soon take you to one of their GESTAPO dungeons to find out who thinks like you.
That was their unshakeable logic: anyone who they suspected of something automatically had to have other same-thinkers and accomplices in their near.
Well… first the fingernails, then the toenails, then the teeth.
And then it got really bad for people like you, Anderson.
Better to die then than to survive as a living cadaver, huh?
*
I myself would have preceded you long ago because, unlike you opportunist, I would have of course refused to put my arm up and say something like ‘Heil Hitler’.
Blinny,
We know you. You have a swastika on your bedroom wall and a painting of Himmler in your bathroom.
Blinny,
AWG, not AGW. Angry White German.
binny…”I myself would have preceded you long ago because, unlike you opportunist, I would have of course refused to put my arm up and say something like Heil Hitler”.
***
There were a lot of good Germans who wanted to resist and who tried. I imagine no one was very brave when surrounded by SS or Gestapo types who were all saluting. It would be far more prudent to play along.
As we say over here, he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day.
Blinny is full of crap. He believes all “denialists” should be locked-up and Blinny is the jailor. Nazi.
clint…”I find it rather amusing thatyou claim to be knowledgable of physics, yet you have NO physics to support CO2 can warm the planet”.
***
The IPCC has even less. In the Summary for Policymakers for AR6, they lay out several reasons to back their ridiculous claim that anthropogenic warming is unequivocal. Not one of them refers to scientific proof.
Their strongest proof is that 19th century scientists claimed CO2 ‘could’ warm the atmosphere. Not one of those scientists, like Fourier, Tyndall, or Arrhenius, proved it could and two of them thought any warming would be beneficial. Of course, the IPCC did not include those opinions.
The queers have captured Disney.
https://tinyurl.com/yckf6kx9
James Morrow is another right wing sensationalist. Take the culture wars somewhere else, please.
What goes around, comes around. They might as well enjoy it while the politically-correct are supporting them. That could turn around pretty quick.
It may be an overcorrection in favour of groups marginalised for centuries, but how sour do you have to be to begrudge a little sunshine for people different to you who finally are seeing themselves represented in everyday life, art and entertainment?
Keep your shirts on, boys, and don’t clutch those pearls too tightly. The world will be just fine re this. There are far more concerning matters to fill your pretty little heads with.
It is abnormal behavior. It always has been. Should abnormal behavior be represented as a role model for children? They will wreck Disney.
Barry, by the way, the culture wars are here and in our faces.
The ‘culture wars’ are a construct of a few university types, a bunch of conservative politicians who have found a way to excite their base, the media who love sensationalism, and the fearful conservative public, whose latest iteration of reds under the beds is ‘wokeness’.
You’re being played, Stephen.
Stephen, it is patently obvious that homosexuality etc is a natural phenomenon, as seen throughout the animal kingdom including homo sapiens. It’s just stupid to deny it.
We’re just shaking off centuries of fear, loathing and repression that caused incalculable damage to people who didn’t fit in with the narrow view of life. Don’t align with that kind of evil.
Kids will be fine. The majority will be heterosexual, and a minority will be homosexual, but now the minority won’t be persecuted because the (Western) world has determined it’s ok to be sexually non-normative. That is progress.
I didn’t say it wasn’t natural.
I did not say it wasn’t natural.
Should Disney be promoting Psychopathy Day or Paedophilia Day? I’m trying not to equate homosexuality with these more severe abnormalities, and I believe homosexuality is a mostly harmless abnormality. Homosexuals should be free to pursue happiness like everyone else. But should Disney be promoting queerdom? No.
What are you gonna do about that, Troglodyte –
Are you gonna short DIS?
Best of luck!
I think that’s a good call Chihuahua.
Tell me when you do so, Troglodyte.
I enjoy looking at short squeezes with my morning tea!
“Should Disney be promoting Psychopathy Day or Paedophilia Day? I’m trying not to equate homosexuality with these more severe abnormalities…”
And yet you are. It’s good that you know better.
There’s no slippery slope here.
If we decided that anything abnormal should not be included in Disney, we would have to bin half their material, starting with the first feature length presentation Disney ever made. There are dwarfs in it!
Although Disney has been mostly middle-road fare, it has often dealt with the notion that it’s ok to be non-normative. Dumbo learns that his abnormally large ears are actually a special power. Alice acclimatizes to a world of freaks and learns that even the strangest creatures can be her friends. The Ugly Dachshund is a hero despite having a self-identity that people laugh at (although the ‘Dachshund’ eventually reverts to a ‘normal’ identity). There are a number of films about aliens helping Earthlings and the other way around.
Historically Disney films portrayed women as victims – fragile, helpless, and usually bound for completion via romance. In the last 15 years or so Disney has been portraying more self-assured women who make their own way. There is no doubt that this is a good idea. Why would we not want young girls to see themselves as being in charge of their own destiny?
That change comes from social impetus. Now Disney is including gender diversity.
Sexuality has always been a feature of Disney films. virile manly scooping up winsome women, Princes kissing Princesses etc. Now Disney is acknowledging that there are other forms of relationships.
Would you say that Disney is ‘promoting’ the idea of confident women? I’d say that they have moved with the times and are reflecting the evolving social paradigms. And that is what a conservative movie house does – reflects thee society as it is, for the most part. It’s avant garde productions that push the boundaries.
” But should Disney be promoting queerdom? No.”
They are promoting acceptance of people who are simply different from, but not harmful to, us.
In America we used to be intolerant of Catholics, Jews, the Irish, Asians, etc.
We used to be intolerant of sharing bathrooms or hotels with Black people.
We used to be intolerant of interracial couples.
We used to be intolerant of gay couples.
We used to be intolerant of marijuana users.
What we accept inevitably changes over time.
In each case, conservatives are the last to accept these changes.
But ultimately they do, or they die off.
Nate says:
In America we used to be intolerant of Catholics, Jews, the Irish, Asians, etc.
We used to be intolerant of sharing bathrooms or hotels with Black people.
We used to be intolerant of interracial couples.
We used to be intolerant of gay couples.
We used to be intolerant of marijuana users.
What we accept inevitably changes over time.
In each case, conservatives are the last to accept these changes.
But ultimately they do, or they die off.
———————
Sorry Nate. Most of the above wasn’t foisted on people by conservatives. Conservatives typically only object to how the folks who caused the problem want to legislate to assuage their guilt. Grooming our children in particular.
to put more simply for Nate. To promote intolerance you need apriori some sense of belonging to something like a collective with a strictly defined identity to imagine if some other group doesn’t belong to the larger group.
conservatives generally see it on an individual basis, like dope pushers, thieves, murderers, child abusers, etc. are individuals that don’t belong in town.
the difference is conservatives like to stay out of the business of others and collectivists like to make your business their business.
It was a conservative that introduced this subject, and off-topic to the forum to boot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1233691
If only conservatives would let people get on with it.
seems a reasonable piece by sky news.
strange but i got through 18 years of education without a single teacher finding it necessary to my education to discuss their personal or anybody else’s sexual proclivities. beyond some basic information regarding the outcomes of the reproductive urges we all experience all that proclivity stuff was learned in private with someone else with compatible interest.
it is truly sad that so many can’t handle life without consistently hearing approval from others. Perhaps thats the biggest loss of moving away from religion where we are assured that God loves all of us. if God loves you what else matters?
“conservatives generally see it on an individual basis”
Oh yes?
“it is truly sad that so many cant handle life without consistently hearing approval from others.”
Conservatives generalise just as much as anyone else. You seen them talking about ‘leftists’? The Republican party, and their recent leader constantly carp on about ‘liberals’. In the US a huge tranche of conservative public see Democrat voters as a monolithic entity.
How about you, as an individual, keep your condescension about groups of people unlike you to yourself? Love thy neighbour and all.
“the difference is conservatives like to stay out of the business of others ”
OMG
Unless it involves who they have sex with, how they have sex, who they marry, what gender roles they adopt, their reproductive choices, what recreational drugs they use, on and on.
And conservatives on the SCOTUS have made it clear they do not believe that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution, even when it comes to what consenting adults do in their bedroom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
barry says:
”it is truly sad that so many cant handle life without consistently hearing approval from others.”
Conservatives generalise just as much as anyone else.
—————–
thats not a generalization barry. there are many and you are the one filling in between the lions as you get your collective back up.
——
——-
——
barry says:
You seen them talking about leftists? The Republican party, and their recent leader constantly carp on about liberals. In the US a huge tranche of conservative public see Democrat voters as a monolithic entity.
How about you, as an individual, keep your condescension about groups of people unlike you to yourself? Love thy neighbour and all.
———————–
Barry i don’t have a ‘party’ or a ‘religion’ though my upbringing is Christian and Democrat and I continue to cling to many of those values while respecting and adopting new values from other groups like Eastern mysticism and modern conservatism.
the west so busy proselytizing to rest of the world needs to step back a bit and chill. to those who get that basic idea it may seem like its condescending but its not it is simply a recognition of the beauty of calmness and the simple. i.e. we have all at times been there in that other place.
Nate says:
”the difference is conservatives like to stay out of the business of others ”
OMG
Unless it involves who they have sex with, how they have sex, who they marry, what gender roles they adopt, their reproductive choices, what recreational drugs they use, on and on.
————-
there is a lot to unpack there. life is not a simple classification of people. the heart of conservatism is individualism in freedom, responsibility, and choice. religions themselves are collectives where what people think bear little resemblance to thinking for oneself.
it would be a mistake to equate conservatism exclusively to republicans, especially neocons. the entire republican party isn’t conservative though few would admit to that.
take me for example. i don’t object to any of the above from a legal standpoint with few exceptions.
1. who they have sex with should be consenting adults.
2. how they have sex has significant health issues (both public and private).
3. who they marry has legal ramifications (more on that later)
4. what roles they want to play is not my concern though men in womens sports and bathrooms is an unnecessary and unfair physical risk to women.
5. i am fine with reproductive choices as long as all the souls have a say so. i suppose you are not on board with the ‘all’ part.
6. i believe the use of all drugs should be decriminalized but recognize that substance abuse is probably the nation’s biggest problem and it begs for better management.
on gay marriage. One needs to recognize multiple interests. One is marriage is primarily a religious institution. Thus churchs should be able to accept or excommunicate based upon the church’s doctrine. two, its an individual choice. So gay people should be able to marry at least in some legal respect. Its a legal issue and a subsidy paid by the general population in various ways such as tax relief thus the public has an idividual interest in what is subsidized.
In my view the tax relief provided for marriage arose out of combination of church doctrine and the efforts of the church for heterosexual couples to forego sex until marriage for the sake of the resultant children. So in honor of that tradition as it seems of public interest to protect children from disfunctional families.
But why subsidize it at a level of love, fornication, or sodomy? What is the public to gain from that beyond Children not being born out of wedlock?
IMO if we want to subsidize partnerships between couples you should have a valid reason for doing so
.
Nate said:
And conservatives on the SCOTUS have made it clear they do not believe that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution, even when it comes to what consenting adults do in their bedroom.
————————–
which amendment are you referring to Nate?
Sounds like for Bill, personal liberties are limited to those behaviors he and his religion (“as long as all the souls have a say so.”) or his traditions deem proper.
“So in honor of that tradition as it seems of public interest to protect children from disfunctional families.”
If not, he will dig deep to find excuses to make those behaviors dangerous to society.
So what is ‘disfunctional’ or ‘deviant’ is judged by him and his religion!
So ‘deviant’ sexual behaviors in the bedroom between adults is deemed dangerous to society, by him, and his religions, and thus CAN be regulated.
But requiring public mask-wearing to protect society is deemed an infringement on liberty.
Tax breaks for gay marriage is not ok for Bill. But equal protection, 14th amendment. says otherwise.
Its all rather self-serving and contradictory.
Nate says:
Sounds like for Bill, personal liberties are limited to those behaviors he and his religion (as long as all the souls have a say so.) or his traditions deem proper.
So in honor of that tradition as it seems of public interest to protect children from disfunctional families.
If not, he will dig deep to find excuses to make those behaviors dangerous to society.
So what is disfunctional or deviant is judged by him and his religion!
So deviant sexual behaviors in the bedroom between adults is deemed dangerous to society, by him, and his religions, and thus CAN be regulated.
————————
why do always find it necessary to create strawmen when you are in debate supporting your arguments? observation would suggest you can’t find a decent argument that will stand on its own.
i already said i am not religious. but i do believe in individual rights for all humans. so when does life begin? i don’t know and any choice seems arbitrary. considering that what you are deciding on is life and death for one being and convenience for another; it seems if one is to be fair one should find some way to balance that situation. it doesn’t seem fair to look at it as black, abortion at anytime, or white complete subservience to making a poor choice about preventing pregnancy. thats about how far i go. i do know that abortion isn’t a good thing at any time but its also not a good thing that women be involuntary slaves for nine months either.
Disfunctional? single parent households are disfunctional. thats well established. and i don’t think it can be adequately fixed by relying on an uncaring and unloving school system to fill the void.
Deviant? thats your word. i didn’t use it. what is deviant to you?
and i already said what two consenting adults do to each other in private is of no concern to me. so till you strawmen into the fallow field of your arguments and see if you can grow a decent argument.
But requiring public mask-wearing to protect society is deemed an infringement on liberty.
Tax breaks for gay marriage is not ok for Bill. But equal protection, 14th amendment. says otherwise.
Its all rather self-serving and contradictory.
Nate says:
In America we used to be intolerant of Catholics, Jews, the Irish, Asians, etc.
We used to be intolerant of sharing bathrooms or hotels with Black people.
We used to be intolerant of interracial couples.
We used to be intolerant of gay couples.
We used to be intolerant of marijuana users.
————————–
mostly democrats thought that way nate. you guys love to try to turn all that authoritarianism and prejudice around and blame others. LOL! Gosh Nate! that is in fact exactly what prejudice is and conveniently it also in your mind justify regulation!
“i already said i am not religious”
Then it makes no sense for you to say this:
“i am fine with reproductive choices as long as all the souls have a say so.”
“Disfunctional? single parent households are disfunctional.”
You said this, in the context of gay marriage:
“So in honor of that tradition as it seems of public interest to protect children from disfunctional families.”
“Deviant? thats your word. i didnt use it. what is deviant to you?
No I guess not. You said
“But why subsidize it at a level of love, fornication, or sodomy?”
As if gay marriage could be described thus.
“What is the public to gain from that beyond Children not being born out of wedlock?”
Indeed children benefit from a being in stable, two parent families that come with marriage.
But the marriage tax benefit does not require children. That is a separate benefit.
“and i already said what two consenting adults do to each other in private is of no concern to me.”
Your #2
“how they have sex has significant health issues (both public and private).”
certainly did express your concern about it!
As usual you blurt out a bunch of stuff then have to walk much of it back.
“mostly democrats thought that way nate.”
Revisionist history.
Conservatives, regardless of party opposed Civil Rights legislation.
Liberals, regardless of party, supported Civil Rights legislation.
The Moral Majority, was a conservative movement that thought ‘that way’ about most the issues mentioned above.
Nate says:
mostly democrats thought that way nate.
Revisionist history.
Conservatives, regardless of party opposed Civil Rights legislation.
Liberals, regardless of party, supported Civil Rights legislation.
The Moral Majority, was a conservative movement that thought that way about most the issues mentioned above.
———————————————–
B.S. Nate you need to study your history. Conservatives are the classic liberals. todays liberals are social liberals. social Liberalism was never popular back during the times of the attitudes you speak of. all the racists were democrat and they weren’t classic liberals. you are talking in archaic and imprecise language. these were entirely different people with a different language. Democrats may have been called conservatives in 1950’s. but that was a different conservativism, a different time, different people. Ronald Reagan was a democrat and a classic liberal opposed to racism in the democrat party.
he was a republican by the time of the Kennedy administration saying the democrats were abandoning classic liberalism and departing from his way of thinking about individualism. social liberals bought into the kool-aid that an all powerful government could be formed to eliminate inequality which would be a worthy replacement for freedom (though it is being hawked as harmonious with freedom). it took me longer to figure out that the democratic party had abandoned classic liberalism as i was like you until i realized my sources were lying to me.
Barry Goldwater was the grandfather of modern conservatism and cleared the way for the Reagan Revolution and helped define the libertarian movement. he was a member of the NAACP and voted in the Senate for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. he supported the 24th amendment. He supported homosexuals serving openly in the military, environmental protection, gay rights, abortion rights, and the legalization of medicinal marijuana. All classical liberalism issues. today many conservatives work in environmental protection and feel abortion rights have gone too far, while i support legal recreational use of marijuana i abhor how its being hawked. gay marriage, i wrote on that already and what is needed is a fresh look at the governments role in subsidizing marriages.
all the social liberalism stuff is new, used to be sold as communism. its inefficient and wasteful and breeds sloth and disfunctional families.
“the heart of conservatism is individualism in freedom, responsibility, and choice.”
Actually that is libertarianism, although conservative ideology in the US particularly does include those precepts. Not so in the credo of mainstream conservatism in other polities.
The heart of conservatism is maintaining the status quo. Values that are common among (non-extreme) conservative groups in modern democracies include free markets, private ownership and maintaining social values.
Bill,
I agree that the parties have evolved. Republicans in 1900 were the Progressives. Dems in 1930s were the Progressives.
But you should also understand that Libertarian and Conservative are not the same thing.
“Barry Goldwater was the grandfather of modern conservatism and cleared the way for the Reagan Revolution and helped define the libertarian movement.”
Barry Goldwater was an interesting character, more of a Libertarian as he got older. He did not vote for the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Bill, though many northern liberal Republicans did. Along with many northern liberal Democrats and of course the President.
The Democratic party lost the South in 1968, as a result.
Reagan was a big supporter of the Moral Majority and vice-versa. Reagan was all about traditional values. Reagan was a big supporter of the military and an interventionist abroad.
The Moral Majority and Ronald Reagan were not Libertarian.
To illustrate that party was secondary to the issue of race and Civil Rights:
Goldwater won 5 states in the Deep South who traditionally voted Democratic, because of his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, though he lost the overall election in a landslide.
“Ronald Reagan was a democrat and a classic liberal opposed to racism in the democrat party.
he was a republican by the time of the Kennedy administration saying the democrats were abandoning classic liberalism and departing from his way of thinking about individualism.”
Why the need to revise history?
Reagan was an FDR Democrat. FDR was liberal supporter of civil rights who started many govt social programs.
Obviously HE departed from that way of thinking.
Nate, admiring FDR and being a democrat in the 1940’s doesn’t extend to 100% of FDR beliefs. I realize that might be a tough concept for an epigone such as yourself to grasp. Same goes with your lumping in the moral majority. i would say indeed the majority of Americans are moral. you can exclude yourself if you feel you don’t qualify as a member of course.
“single parent households are disfunctional. thats well established”
Do we ban single parent families, or do we give equal treatment to same sex parents under the law?
barry says:
Do we ban single parent families, or do we give equal treatment to same sex parents under the law?
—————–
Who advocating banning anybody Barry?
And equal treatment under the law for individuals is as far as I know isn’t an issue. Some issue has been made that couples should have rights but I don’t see an advocacy of a right for all couples just fornicating and sodomizing couples.
That brings up the question of why fornicating couples where individuals of that couple have different sex gets special treatment under the law.
As near as I can tell it is marriage of a couple of individuals of a different sex is an institution that predates at least the modern religions but was carried forward into governments with written laws by religion. I also suspect it was developed to produce a desirable outcome for the progeny of that couple. Used to be men slew the children of other men when they nabbed a woman.
Thus it was the duty of the man to protect the woman and the children. And for performing that duty and for the protection of the couple they actually started giving incentives to enter into marriage.
But I seriously doubt the incentives were provided explicitly to promote fornication. Fornication isn’t exactly something governments need to provide incentives for. Adding sodomy to the list of things that we will provide incentives for seems rather. . . .uh. . . .more weird than incentivizing fornication as the State does have an interest in people creating children.
This is just logical not discriminatory. Perhaps though since incentives are provided equally to barren couples of the same sex, likely on the basis of not being able to predict that, the question of legal subsidies for marriage is something that we need to look a bit deeper into for the rather mundane purpose of not harming peoples feelings and perhaps for the purpose of fairer taxation policies that don’t favor people for reasons not beneficial to children or the state.
We may for example wish to subsidize people coupling up for more reasons than fornication and sodomy. That was an issue with my wife who had a sister than lived with her mother and where they shared incomes to survive neither making enough to get by living separately. Obviously love was involved but not sexual love. Why not treat them specially in the eyes of the law? Why discriminate against any couple who lives with another for reasons other than fornication and sodomy?
So the point isn’t whether couples of the same sex should be treated equally as a couple its a matter of why the government should encourage it.
Its also a matter of religious institutions being able to believe in what they believe in and be free from outside pressures of considering religious people to be bigots based upon the codes of morals they have adopted, even if you don’t agree with those morals. Banding together in a religious institution by a congregation isn’t a whole lot different than banding together as a couple.
Personally I could care less who wants to declare themselves a couple or what reason they do. But I do have an interest in the policies of the government, which involuntarily enslaves me to perform its business, to do that to the minimum necessary and do it efficiently.
Here’s the IPCC proof, from the Summary for Policymakers, that humans warming the climate is unequivocal.
1)Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850.
***Duh!!!! re-warming from Little Ice Age
2)The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 18501900 to 20102019 is 0.8C to 1.3C, with a best estimate of 1.07C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0C to 2.0C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0C to 0.8C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by 0.1C to +0.1C, and internal variability changed it by 0.2C to +0.2C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979…
***Double-duh!!!…likely is not science. Furthermore, they are implying that without natural variability it would be even warmer. Natural variability leading to warming is not allowed in the IPCC psyche.
3)Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence). It is likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed precipitation changes since the mid-20th century and extremely likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed changes in near-surface ocean salinity.
***Triple-duh!!!….’likely’ and medium confidence ia not science.
4)Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 19791988 and 20102019 (decreases of about 40% in September and about 10% in March). There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability. Human influence very likely contributed to the decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1950.
***quadruple-duh!!! Very likely is no more scientific than likely. Also, glacier and ice expanded enormously during the LIA and now they ice is retreating.
5)It is virtually certain that the global upper ocean (0700 m) has warmed since the 1970s and extremely likely that human influence is the main driver. It is virtually certain that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of current global acidification of the surface open ocean.
***double-double-duh plus 1!!!!…virtually certain is no more scientific than likely, very likely, or medium confidence.
COnclusion…The IPCC are a load of bluff artists without the slightest interest in science. There is not a shred of evidence in their literature that supports CO2 as a cause of global warming.
Another monthly anomaly, another oh so meaningful dot on the graph.
7 years of recent cooling? Where have we seen that before?
https://tinyurl.com/48y7vktn
Shall we make it 10 years?
https://tinyurl.com/bdz7zz2j
Point is, Barry, since the 2016 EN extreme, the trend has been essentially flat.
BTW…the IPCC re-affirmed (in AR6) their claim in 2013 of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012. They are now blaming it natural variability.
15 years of natural variability!!!
Gordon Robertson
“Point is, Barry, since the 2016 EN extreme, the trend has been essentially flat. ”
When you compare the UAH long term trend from 1979 with the trend from 2016 you get this.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/trend/every/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2023/every/trend
If a long term cooling trend had started in 2016 you would see the green line starting at the same temperature as the red line and then dropping well below it.
What you actually see is the green line starting well above the red line and then converging with it. This is what you see when an event moves the temperature well above the long term trend and in subsequent years temperatures revert to the long term trend.
It’s good the world is generally warming. The reverse will be troubling.
“BTW.. the IPCC re-affirmed (in AR6) their claim in 2013 of a flat trend from 1998 2012. They are now blaming it natural variability.”
Wrong yet again, Gordon. AR5 also attributed the 15-year trend to natural variability. Here’s the quote from the AR5 SPM:
"Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."
AR5 SPM
There’s the link above. You can correct yourself. My bet is you won’t.
Another of the countless fabrications you vomit up here. IPCC are not “now” attributing the 15-year trend to natural variability. They have consistently done so.
You’re a grab-bag of talking points with little understanding.
“Point is, Barry, since the 2016 EN extreme, the trend has been essentially flat.”
I addressed that very point. Whooosh!
Click on the link bub. 7-year flat trends are quite common in a generally warming world.
You just read the first couple of sentences of a post and start sounding off without taking time to understand what has been said. It makes you appear stupid. And repeated asinine retorts in this vein indicate that this is not merely an appearance.
Gordon Knee-jerk.
barry, please stop trolling.
How alarmists cheat by abusing peer review…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
Replaying some olde hits, are we?
barry, please stop trolling.
Internal documents reveal that Exxon knew about AGW, and an investigation shows how they got Bob and Mike fired:
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/259628-exxonmobils-war-against-climate-scientists/
Are you on your way out the door? I thought you were leaving for 30 days.
C’mon, Gordo.
When did I say that exactly?
You didn’t have anything to say about the article, Gordon?
About 1/2 of human global CO2 emission are using coal, and China burns 1/2 of the coal in the world.
The CO2 from passenger cars has a negligible impact on climate change. As does breathing of more than 7 billion people.
Maybe Bush didn’t want to cause troubles for investing in China.
Bush was globalist.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Internal documents reveal that Exxon knew about AGW, and an investigation shows how they got Bob and Mike fired: . . . “
You really are a gullible little rabbit, aren’t you?
Exxon got a couple of anonymous donkeys fired? Really? Who cares?
You do realise that warming occurs due to increased heat, don’t you, not increased CO2.
By the way, climate is just the statistics of past weather, so the term “climate scientist” is nonsense.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
I missed you yesterday. Where were you?
Whacky Wee Willy,
What particular form of mental defect leads you to think that mindlessly trolling achieves some benefit for you?
Trying to get me banned by claiming that I am Mike Flynn, just shows how stupid you are.
It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Dr Spencer obviously knows the truth – that you are a deranged moron.
Have you discovered that there is no Greenhouse Theory, or are you still claiming that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?
Witless moron.
Why are you still denying you are Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet?
I would miss you if you were gone for too long.
Your contributions to the Dragon Crank discourse are invaluable.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Going through the Climategate emails and the reaction to them, I am focused on the famous Trenberth comment…
“Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, lamented the travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.
Immediately, the spin doctors jumped all over it. Trenberth’s statement is obvious, he noted the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty. The IPCC later confirmed his statement between 1998 and 2012.
The spin doctors took the angle that he was actually lamenting the unavailability of precision in instruments to detect the warming.
Duh!!!
In other words, because thermometers cannot detect warming, they lack precision. Since we are talking about less than 1500 thermometers being used to detect surface temperatures and hardly any are being used to detect ocean temperatures over the oceans, the averaging required preclude any precision other than what we have already.
The UAH telemetry is far more comprehensive and accurate than thermometers and it did not detect any warming over the period referenced by Trenberth. Neither did the IPCC, yet Trenberth used the stupid argument that the missing heat was being stored in the oceans.
Catastrophic global warming/climate change is a hoax.
–Catastrophic global warming/climate change is a hoax.–
The biggest climate change was when Sahara Desert became mostly grassland for thousands of years, and then became Sahara desert that we have today.
If “catastrophic global warming/climate change” could change Sahara Desert back into having forests, rivers, and lakes- that would be nice.
The fuss is about nothing, as we living in an Ice Age.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s obvious that by “the reaction” to the CG emails you mean the lowest part of the contrarian sphere. In fact the safe bet is that you read Marc’s and that you can’t link to what he said for most of his newsies about that are MIA.
If you ever have an email number, I’ll take a look for you:
https://climateball.net/but-CG/
I have a page to finish.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Still going for obfuscation and baseless assertions?
You wrote –
” . . . what he said for most of his newsies about that are MIA.”
That would be moron-speak for what plain English statement?
What is an “email number”? Is that how climate cranks communicate their secret knowledge using email?
Here, Mike =
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/MIA
You know I love when you are playing dumb like that.
Do continue.
The counter to spin is to provide more context and content.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. 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.”
This passage was interpreted by the ‘alarmist’ side to mean that Trenberth is saying the climate monitoring system is inadequate.
People who make other interpretations tend to ignore the full quote.
“Trenberth used the stupid argument that the missing heat was being stored in the oceans. ”
And as soon as the Argos buoys came on line they confirmed it. Trenberth was correct that energy was continuing to accumulate as ocean heat content throughout the pause.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3AEarth's_Heat_Accumulation.png
EM,
Trenberth is obviously ignorant of the fact that warmer water rises to the surface. No heat trapping in the depths – the man’s a fool.
He’ll probably be shuffled into an administrative position with an impressive title, to keep him out of trouble.
But hey, who cares? He no doubt getting a good salary without having to accept any responsibility for anything at all. Ah, the never ending cornucopia that is “climate science”! What’s not to love?
Swenson
The warmer water has already risen to the surface, which is why the ocean is stratified as in the second figure here.
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_heat_storage_transfer.html
It doesn’t stop downward heat transfer by turbulence and diffusion.
Bottom water, which is cold water that permeates upwards all over the world, is formed by freezing (or getting very cold) of sea water at high latitudes.
Great news for Team Gordo:
GREEN COSSACKS SAY DOUBLING UKRAINE INVASION – HORSEPOWER CAN CUT ITS CARBON FOOTPRINT IN HALF
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/04/putincuts-carbon-footprint-of-invasion.html
Team Gordo Gordoes –
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/tvfi9c/the_reaction_of_average_russian_young_people_to/
Some day in the future global average surface air temperature will 16 C.
But how many decades will it take?
And what Earth be like if it’s average global temp was 16 C?
Say it’s 2090 AD. And world population is about 11 billion, China population is about 800 Million, US about 500 million and Europe at some lower population {but could include Russia and/or other states in another 70 years, or also EU could disintegrate- but existing states should have lower population}.
United Africa could have 2 billion people {or more} and due to large population, be the world’s superpower.
I don’t think 16 C is warm enough to green the Sahara but the states of Africa would probably terraform it. And terraforming Sahara desert into mostly grassland.
Probably have 50 to 100 million people living in ocean settlements and will be mining ocean methane hydrates. People {say a million} could living on Mars and more million people living other places in space. And may not have SPS beaming power to Earth surface, yet.
It seems we have stopped “exploring Antarctica” and a few million people will live there.
It seems if Sahara desert has grassland and forests, that adds at least .5 C to global average temperature.
So what does average temperature of 16.5 C, look like?
gbaikie
” It seems if Sahara desert has grassland and forests, that adds at least .5 C to global average temperature. ”
Certainly not.
Because though grassland and forests considerably reduce the albedo compared with sand and white rock, and thus solar radiation penetrates the ground, vegetation is known to produce a cooling effect.
Well there could be some way that doesn’t create water vapor- but I don’t know how.
But one could grow stuff [not grassland, generally] which result in less water vapor and with a dry ground.
I did quick google search. And didn’t find a quick answer.
One thing mentioned is that plants create water- which I sort of forgot. It seems lots say effect weather and climate. Makes moderate temperature.
How vegetation alters climate
“New York, NY A new Columbia Engineering study, led by Pierre Gentine, associate professor of earth and environmental engineering, analyzes global satellite observations and shows that vegetation alters climate and weather patterns by as much as 30 percent.”
…
“Vegetation can affect climate and weather patterns due to the release of water vapor during photosynthesis. The release of vapor into the air alters the surface energy fluxes and leads to potential cloud formation. Clouds alter the amount of sunlight, or radiation, that can reach the Earth, affecting the Earths energy balance, and in some areas can lead to precipitation. But, until our study, researchers have not been able to exactly quantify in observations how much photosynthesis, and the biosphere more generally, can affect weather and climate, says Julia Green, Gentines PhD student and the papers lead author.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-vegetation-alters-climate#gs.vrf5sw
I would say people used to know, but apparently now, they don’t.
More searching:
–By Carolyn Gramling
JANUARY 3, 2022 AT 9:00 AM
Africas Great Green Wall initiative is a proposed 8,000-kilometer line of trees meant to hold back the Sahara from expanding southward. New climate simulations looking to both the regions past and future suggest this greening could have a profound effect on the climate of northern Africa, and even beyond.–
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/africa-great-green-wall-trees-sahel-climate-change
And:
“Led by the African Union, Africas Great Green Wall project launched in 2007 and is now roughly 15 percent complete. Proponents hope the completed tree line, which will extend from Senegal to Djibouti, will not only hold back the desert from expanding southward, but also bring improved food security and millions of jobs to the region.
What effect the finished greening might ultimately have on the local, regional and global climate has been little studied and it needs to be, Pausata says. The initiative is, essentially, a geoengineering project, he says, and when people want to do any type of geoengineering, they should study these possible impacts.”
I didn’t know they were doing this, but it seemed predictable they would.
And apparently they don’t know it’s effects.
A line of trees doesn’t seem like it would have much effect- but it seems to count at least as a good experiment.
And they will probably do more. Using cattle is also thought to “help”.
Solar panels which raise global temperature by .5 C
Solar panels in Sahara could boost renewable energy but damage the global climate heres why
Published: February 11, 2021 8.01am EST
https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-in-sahara-could-boost-renewable-energy-but-damage-the-global-climate-heres-why-153992
“This warming is eventually spread around the globe by atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the worlds average temperature by 0.16C for 20% coverage, and 0.39C for 50% coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform though the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.”
[Not that I believe solar panels increase temperatures, and 50% or 20% of region is, of course, bat shit crazy]
Team Gordo reached East Anglia:
https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1510570644592803845
Does anyone actually waste their time dancing to Whacky Wee Willy’s jangling discordance?
My assumption is that the moron is just too embarrassed to admit openly that he cannot produce any science to back up his fantasy, so he links to random irrelevancies.
Just another irrelevant climate crackpot.
“Does anyone actually waste their time dancing to Whacky Wee Willys jangling discordance?”
You do – every time you reply. He’s got you on a string.
b,
Not at all. I was referring to Wandering Wee Wily’s attempts to inveigle people to click on his irrelevant and pointless links.
I assume that even you realise the pointless stupidity of following his links.
Of course, I may be overestimating your intelligence. You don’t need to bother confirming my error, if this is the case.
How do you know, Mike?
You never follow any link!
In your decade of trolling this website under various sock puppets, you never needed links.
The power of empty assertions is yours!
Flynnson
I am happy to confirm Barry’s opinion: you yourself are nothing more than an moron and another irrelevant crackpot (I omitted the word “climate” of course, useless in relation to you).
It’s worth noting that you constantly manage to insult people with whatever suits your dysfunctional brain, as if you were a poorly programmed blogbot.
Binny,
If weak minded people choose to feel insulted, what is it to do with me?
As to opinions, the accumulated opinions of every climate crackpot in the the world (plus five dollars) will probably suffice to buy a cup of coffee.
Maybe you believe that your opinions are valuable. Out of more than seven billion inhabitants of the globe, I doubt you could name many who value your opinions about your ability to predict the future by furiously analysing the past.
Feel free to bleat about being insulted or offended. I don’t care. Nor does anybody else.
Nobody cares about your stupid, stubborn, ignorant garbage, last of all me.
I care what Swenson thinks, he is one of the more witty, intelligent commenters on the blog. He sure gets you lot wailing and gnashing your teeth.
It is not true that this solar cycle is stronger than the previous one, as can be clearly seen by the level of galactic radiation compared to previous cycles. The level of galactic radiation that reaches Earth is controlled by the strength of the solar magnetic field, so its systematic increase indicates a weaker solar magnetic field.
https://i.ibb.co/tBgCjTS/onlinequery.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Thus, according to your claim, neither the Sun Spot Number
https://i.postimg.cc/52YyDLtg/SSN-Silso-daily-SC24-vs-SC25.png
nor the solar flux
https://i.postimg.cc/PfKtvPpT/Solar-flux-F10-monthly-SC25-vs-SC24.png
can be considered a valid measure of solar activity.
Interesting point, no doubt!
Another stratospheric intrusion will cause a dramatic drop in temperatures in the central US, and the cold front could produce thunderstorms and tornadoes.
https://i.ibb.co/yfvfvVH/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f120.png
Ren
When exactly is this above expected?
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-2022-dramatic-arctic-cold-season-return-united-states-canada-mk/
RLH, You need to pay more attention to facts. Your link goes to a story dated 26 March, so the projected cold blast was to arrive two weekends ago. Yeah, it got a bit chilly around here in Western NC, but that’s not unusual for Spring, IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zrwnMXf5g
Massive Storm Coming! Multiple Days Enhanced Risk For Severe Weather. Be Prepared! POW Weather
Apr 4, 2022
RLH, Looks like typical Spring weather for the SE U.S. as the warmth from the tropics begins to push to the North against the Arctic cold. FYI, the Arctic sea-ice usually hits maximum in March, so there’s lots of ice and snow to build those cold air masses which must return toward the south as the warm air pushes northward.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10687151/April-showers-snow-Met-Office-issues-yellow-weather-warning-frost-blankets-Scotland.html
RLH, So what? Is that snow unusual for Spring, especially after a large volcanic eruption and those large forest fires in the Western US and Siberia last year? You are again cherry picking a single event over a short period which is meaningless from a scientific point of view.
Do you deny that the last 7 years have shown a decrease in global temperatures?
RLH, your reply is again based on your cherry picked time period in which you start with the year 2014, a period which starts with the 2016 El Nino. This is the same sort of misdirection presented by denialist for years, using the years 1997 thru 2015, a period which also began with a large El Nino. So, what happens if you instead select the period Dec 2000 thru Nov 2021?. Well, the global LT trend over that period shows a warming of 0.15 K/dec, not cooling.
Typical spring weather for many parts of the Ststes.
La Nia in action – a tropical cyclone is approaching the east coast of Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I have a problem.
I can calculate the energy imbalance between solar input and OLR starting from three ocean changes, ∆ocean heat content, ∆T or ∆sea level.
Straightforward algebraic physics.
What I haven’t been able to do is use the energy imbalance to calculate the rate of global temperature.
I can observe empirically that a 1W imbalance is producing a surface warming rate of 0.18C/decade, but I don’t have a way to generate a predicted value for comparison.
Can anyone suggest how I could calculate the expected warming for different energy imbalances.
I don’t contribute to this discussion, because only people having sufficient knowledge in this difficult field should.
” … expected warming for different energy imbalances. ”
Maybe you find an answer in the document I googled for using what you wrote as search key:
https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1105.1140
If not, there are several more links to inspect.
Sorry, in that form the link is of no use to you.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140
Binny,
That link is no use to anyone who accepts reality.
You do realise that it refers to a non-existent “human greenhouse effect”, “forcings”, and repeats the nonsensical and incorrect fallacy that melting sea ice raises sea levels.
The usual pseudo-scientific rubbish, presented as serious science.
Nobody cares about your stupid, stubborn, ignorant garbage, last of all me.
Bindidon
A quick scan suggests that
1) Green’s function is what I’m looking for.
2) There’s a lot in that paper I will need to read carefully and digest.
Thank you. This will keep me out of mischief all week.
Here is a “back of the envelope” approach.
If (a big if) all the energy simply warmed the atmosphere uniformly, then (approximately) …
m = 10,000 kg/m^2 (for earth’s atmosphere)
c = 1000 J/kg (for air)
P = 1 W/m^2 (your proposed imbalance)
Q = 3 x 10^7 J/m^2 in one year
Delta(T) = Q/mc = 3 C in one year = 30 C/decade
On the other hand, if the energy uniformly warmed the oceans, the number is much different (much more mass and higher specific heat). I get about 0.0003 C in one year = 0.003 C/decade.
Since heat some warms the atmosphere and some warms the oceans, the answer presumably is between 0.003C/decade and 30C/decade. Not a very tight bounds!
OR working backwards from 0.18/decade, we get that about 2% of the ocean is warming, which seems reasonable. The surface warms. And some some warmed water circulates down into the depth, but most of the ocean will not warm anytime soon. We also get that 99% of the warming is in the oceans, and less than 1% is in the atmosphere.
Again, all of this is very rough. It makes some BIG assumptions. But it is at least in line with 0.18 C/decade from a 1 W/m^2 imbalance.
Thank you. That’s my approach. I’m a sceptic.
“A sceptic will question claims, then embrace the evidence. A denier will question claims, then reject the evidence.”
Neil Degrasse Tyson
I’m not a professional physicist but I know enough to do back of the envelope calculations as an independent check on the published data.
“Only a fool will embrace questionable evidence without verifying the skeptical claims.”
Chic Bowdrie
Skeptical: relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
Tim,
Or you could take the 1 W/m2 increase in OLR per two decades and multiply by the 0.266 dT/dW/m2 conversion factor and get 0.133 K/decade warming trend that we see from the UAH lower troposphere averages.
Chic, my problem with “multiply by the 0.266 dT/dW/m2 conversion factor” in this circumstance is that we are then left with the question “where did the 0.266 dT/dW/m2 conversion factor come from?”
What “first principles” can you present to justify the value 0.266 dT/dW/m2? This seems like a circular argument. Use the observed warming rate and imbalance to find 0.266 dT/dW/m2. Then use 0.266 dT/dW/m2 to predict the warming.
Tim,
The 0.266 factor comes from the inverse of dW/m2/dT of the SB equation evaluated at 255K which in turn is the hypothetical SB temperature generating 240 W/m2 OLR. Admittedly, it’s only theoretical. But you have to admit the range of uncertainty surrounding my estimate is a lot narrower than one arrived at by your process.
Actually it is not “my estimate.” I first saw it on a website that has been discussed at this blog several times. I would be interested in your take on the article TESTING AND REFUTING THE CENTRAL PREDICTION OF THE ‘AGW HYPOTHESIS’ at https://okulaer.com/
No one knows how much cold water falls.
Cold water falling is long term cooling, and short term warming.
You missed this Ren
The ongoing heatwave spell sweeping the north and northwest India regions since March 26 is likely to prevail till Thursday, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said on Monday.
If realised, this present spell could be the longest in the season so far, that too affecting a large geographical expanse across Jammu, Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Odisha.
The IMD, in its April temperature outlook report, had forecast harsher and hotter conditions over northwest and central India this month. This comes after March remained India’s warmest ever since 1901.
In two days, very cold air from the north will begin to enter the central US. Under the clouds of the low, temperatures will remain very cold. Frontal thunderstorms will occur on the eastern side of the low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2022040406/gfs_z500_mslp_us_11.png
As much as I saw the bank draft which had said $4075, I be certain ThatMy father in regulation ought to realia receiving money of their spare time from their computer.. There moms pleasant friend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the mortgage on there domestic and bout a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ____ https://hugeincomstar.blogspot.com/
One has to be very naive to think that Putin is only concerned with the Donbas. The Donbas was planned from the beginning as a pretext for Russia’s subjugation of Ukraine. Russia never wanted to recognize Ukrainians as a separate nation. The truth is that Ukrainians have been fighting for independence since the mid-17th century, since the Khmelnitsky uprising. Ethnically, it was originally a multinational mixture that developed its own language and a partially democratic government.
ren
Thanks for correcting idiots like Robertson with is dumb Nazi trash.
You, as a Polish person living in a country closest to Ukraine and Belarus, have far more authority to contradict such ignorance of history than I ever would have.
binny…”You, as a Polish person living in a country closest to Ukraine and Belarus, have far more authority to contradict such ignorance of history than I ever would have”.
***
Ignorance of history???? Are you denying that Stepan Bandera and the SS Galatia existed? If so, give me proof. They committed atrocities against Jews, Russians, and the people of Poland.
Are you denying the Azov battalion fighting for the Ukrainian army since 2014 are neo-Nazis? The US Congress has recognized them as neo-Nazis and discontinued support for them.
Are you denying that a law was passed in the Ukraine in 2015 to honour Ukrainian war criminals as heroes? The EU parliament is aware of it and has disapproved of it.
Are you denying the Svoboda Party in the Ukraine have fascist sympathies? Their leader applauded Ukrainians in WW II for fighting ‘Jews and other scum’. He is referring to Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis. Since Jews, in general, as civilians, were not fighting, he is labeling anyone who fought against the Nazis as Jews and scum.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re becoming a propaganda war machine.
Here’s a real one:
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2021/04/30/wagner-group-mercenaries/
How much do you bet they’re in Ukraine right now?
Mercenaries work for anyone, if the money is right. There are mercenary groups based in the US and the UK.
Gullible Wee Willy,
This Wagner Group?
“Russias Wagner Group Doesnt Actually Exist
And that makes it all the more challenging to get to grips with.”
– Foreign policy.com.
Sounds like the Wagner Group might just be another of your fantasies, like Mike Flynn, Warnie, and others.
Oooooh! Behave yourself or the Wagner Group (or the bogeyman) might get you!
Do you think the Wagner Group stole your Greenhouse Theory, and that’s why you can’t find it?
Moron.
As much as I saw the bank draft which had said $4075, I be certain ThatMy father in regulation ought to realia receiving money of their spare time from their computer.. There moms pleasant friend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the mortgage on there domestic and bout a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ________ https://greatwork01.blogspot.com/
ren…you might want to check what Ukrainian fascists did to your countrymen in Poland during WW II. They committed atrocities against, Poles, Jews, and Russians. The same factions are operating in the Ukraine today, going so far as to have fascists sitting in the Ukrainian parliament.
I am not siding with Putin or the Russians, I am simply keeping an open mind and researching the history. My primary interest is in averting a nuclear war.
Look up SS Galatia and Stepan Bandera. They are now regarded as heroes in the Ukraine.
Also, look up Oleh Tyagnibok of the Svoboda Party in the Ukraine. He was quoted in a speech recently applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and ‘other scum’ in WWII. The other scum would include Russians and Poles.
There are factions in the Ukraine right now who are not friends of Poland. Putin wants to get rid of them.
Where did you get your information that Putin has any interest in subjugating the Ukraine? It was Russia who set them free in 1992 and during his 20+ years in power, Putin has made no move to subjugate the Ukraine. His only concern is them being included in NATO.
We in the West lied to the Russians about NATO’s interests. We assured Russia that NATO would never expand beyond Germany but now it is in Poland. Who do you think will be one of the first nations attacked by nuclear missiles if a war breaks out?
Robertson
You are an absolute liar, and you know that.
Shame on you, you disgusting Putin butt-kisser!
binny…the depth of your denial is only exceeded by your idiocy.
Gordon Robertson
It is really a sad thing you still try to support the evil Putin. I guess you just ignore what is going on and pretend he is a good guy saving the world.
Here you need to educate yourself on Russia and what goes on in Eastern Ukraine. Putin is totally corrupt and evil. Nothing good about him or anything he does. He will be charged as a war criminal as data is collected.
https://medium.com/dfrlab/russian-companies-continue-to-expropriate-ukraines-natural-resources-illegally-ace08ce415c3
It is strange. You think evil people like Putin, Lanka, and Duesberg are good guys and NASA is a corrupt lying agency with evil intent. I don’t know how your brain processes information but it seems as if the more evil someone is in reality the more you like them. Odd behavior.
norman…your article is full of crap. The Russians signed a deal with the eastern Ukraine provinces like Donbas, recognizing them as independent states.
You seem to have an issue with hardening of the mental apparatus. You seem to know a lot more about Putin than I do. I am only trying to learn what is going on in the region and what I am learning is alarming.
As for Lanka and Duesberg, both are scholars who have contributed to science. Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean and proved to a German court there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of the measles virus. In fact, he has offered a 100,000 Euro award to anyone who can prove its existence using current scientific literature.
Duesberg discovered the first cancer gene and proved that HIV cannot cause AIDS, and that AIDS is a lifestyle issue. The late Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, claimed the same thing well after Duesberg.
Yet, you rate both of them as evil.
Gordon Roberston
Why do you believe that paper is full of crap? Because it goes against your wanting to justify Russia’s evil invasion and destruction of Ukraine? I give no justification. I am hoping the World will give Ukraine the weapons they need to drive Russia back to their own borders.
France has lowest April night temperature since 1947 – April 2/3.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/spring-season-2022-cold-outbreak-forecast-europe-mk/
How’s things in the UK, Richard?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10687151/April-showers-snow-Met-Office-issues-yellow-weather-warning-frost-blankets-Scotland.html
Barry Foster
Correct. The average night temperature was -1.5 C, and the lowest temperature last night was -9.3 C in Mourmelon, near Reims (Northeast). Last year at that time was similar.
We weren’t much better off in southern Germany last night, with -14.5 C in Meßstetten.
In the Berlin area, however, it was not nearly as cold (0 to -3 C).
There was End of March much snow in many German places, surprisingly even in Hamburg – but one more time, except where I live…
*
It seems to me that unless this weather is due to the current La Nina, we might begin to pay for an in between long series of ‘uncold’ winters :- )
The price: increasingly cool springs and harsh westerly winds (today 7/8 Beaufort, really unusual.
But… when I compare
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=04&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=16&ireq=true
with
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=04&year=2010&metparaid=TNLD&period=16&ireq=true
I see no reason to complain.
That’s a pretty deep thrust of Arctic air that far south, all the way to Spain. They blamed it partly on the La Nina but gave credit to the Arctic air. I think it was La Nina alone causing the issue.
The perception that burning fossil fuels causes climate change is easily debunked. It is based on the false perception that increasing CO2 is causing planet warming.
It is simple to calculate what the average global water vapor increase rate would be as a result of planet warming. The methodology and an example are given in Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . The average global water vapor increase has also been accurately measured since Jan 1988 by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation. The Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomalies up to their last report which is for Dec 2021 are presented at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202112.time_series.txt .
These two are plotted on the same graph, Fig 7 in Sect 7 which shows that measured WV is more than possible from just planet warming.
This demonstrates that:
1. There have to be other sources of WV. (about 90% of the ‘extra’ WV is from irrigation, Sect 6)
2. Global warming was initiated by measured WV increase, not CO2 increase.
3. Average global temperature increase results from measured WV increase not CO2 increase.
4. Because CO2 increase has no significant effect on temperature it cannot have a significant effect on climate.
All of average global temperature increase attributable to humanity since before 1895 can be accounted for by WV increase alone. Sect 17 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
You have probably, or possibly, been asked what calculations must be made to provide as credible an average global temperature as possible.
But would an average energy required to change the temperature be a better calculation to describe global warming, or?
The closer to the poles, the less energy is required to increase the temperature, right? More energy is needed to raise the temperature in the tropics, right?
Possible conclusion: As less energy is required to raise the temperature at, for example, northern latitudes, and this increase is easily affected by variation in wind and ocean currents, this becomes a very low indication of global warming (especially if a strong global increase is claimed). Thus, temperature measurement of the tropics will really be the only parameter that indicates anything.
If this is included in the calculation for UAH, I apologize for a possibly stupid question Roy.
PS. Excuse my English, I’m not English speaking.
At the top of the thread, you see four links to files showing monthly temperatures and trends (LT, MT, TP, LS).
Please click on the LT link, and move to bottom.
There you see the UAH trends for several latitude bands and regions in the lower troposphere, what gives you a first idea.
Of course, the temperature (anomalies) are latitude weighted: the coefficient in the Tropics is higher than in the polar regions.
For graphs of the various global vertical bands see
Lower Stratosphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_ls.jpg
Tropopause
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_tp.jpg
Mid Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_mt.jpg
Lower Troposphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
For the various latitude bands for the Lower Troposphere see
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Looks like we’re f*cked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60984663
yup…
“[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. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Oppenheimer may have been pessimistic about the timing but he got the trend direction right.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z.epdf?sharing_token=uEvEu-o1TVRtz4qqcSFXhtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OkweMbawmVFM1UCLmLxuyBpGKtFJa1_BxzJ7UFQSQZ6HoKWiVpxr-PXXpBdXS0aLJYrb-T2bjp5Y_Cku7vSenHblt81qi9olu_1s3zBCVWxhOj7h1yPvukczp8OW-fMInax-64I97Ydyz8yOYptdpaLuUfk5JMXGjlcK0iPR_bAbZezMr6HR87nF1y-C5ApXrPDDheDZbRuS7KnTcwWcPIrhf0J4AhCj_Wfnpjfu1E0v7CpjtzkM_mV8MDsJdSgKcZ_ooLr6EFhE-v6Qhk1ivl&tracking_referrer=www.npr.org
Don’t sweat it, EM.
Next Pup is gonna poast teh Goddard’s old clippings.
I thought you might regale us on your memories of 1132 AD in Alsace. How about it, W.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017_07_21_20_20_35-down.gif
Let me raise you, Pozzo:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Brillo’s link is interesting.
Following the dates mentioned in the Observer’s article, one suddenly asks:
” Where has the LIA gone in this hot stuff? ”
Has the LIA suddenly only been present in the winters in France?
brillo…likely willard…I am going to consult Roy about having realclimate added to his list of banned sites.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s “realclimatescience.”
And ask Richard. He knows how to contact Roy.
Oppenheimer was pessimistic…AND dead wrong!
Just like you, Ent.
On Oppenheimer prediction I will agree with Clint R. Entropic man you are in the wrong region. The Southwest does have megadroughts the Platte River is not dry nor has it been. He was quite wrong in that prediction and it makes him appear a fanatic.
In 2019 the Platte had a record flood and closed many roads for long periods of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkoIFjgfi8
https://www.drought.gov/states/nebraska
Willard
A dry year does not make a dust bowl or dry up a river.
Why not click on 1895 monthly option which shows both wet and dry years and see what the long term pattern is. Not much, some dry years, some wet years. No long term trends.
Sorry Clint R is correct about Oppenheimer’s prediction. It was wrong and still is.
Norma,
Click on “Historical Conditions.”
You will see “2000-Present (Weekly),” “1895-Present (Monthly),” and 0-2017 (yearly).”
The yearly chart is the clearest one to show that there are indeed more extreme events nowadays, both dry and wet.
So your implicit argument is silly.
Sometimes, you’re just like Gordo but with a more solemn voice.
I just read through some of the AR6 Summary and the Main Report. It is a work of fiction. The IPCC are mentally deranged.
Spoken by a guy who can’t figure out that the energy lifted by convection to the upper atmosphere is “dissipated” to deep space via thermal IR radiation.
swannie…”Spoken by a guy who cant figure out that the energy lifted by convection to the upper atmosphere is dissipated to deep space via thermal IR radiation”.
***
Don’t now where you earned your physics. I am talking about the Ideal Gas Law…PV = nRT.
Part of it states that pressure is proportional to n = number of atoms or molecules. As the number of molecules of air decreases with altitude the pressure decreases.
The IGL also states that pressure is proportional to temperature. If the number of molecules per unit volume decrease, the pressure decreases, and so does the temperature.
Why are you having so much trouble with that?
Let’s take an example of a cubic metre of air at the surface. We know the pressure is 1 atmosphere and the number of molecules corresponding to 1 atm is known, We might presume the temperature to be the 15 C average claimed for the Earth.
If we use the same cubic metre container at the top of Mount Everest, at about 30,000 feet. The pressure drops automatically to 1/3 atmosphere. So, does ‘n’. The is fact, based on measurement.
The temperature also drops proportionally and naturally.
No radiation to space involved, temperature drops proportionally with pressure as altitude increases. Temperature is a measure of heat, therefore the heat content dissipates naturally with altitude.
Art wrote:
The pressure doesn’t “automatically” drop as a 1 m^3 parcel of air moves to a higher elevation. The parcel is actually lifted to the higher elevation via convection and thereby gains both in volume and gravitational potential energy. More importantly, your choice of 30,000 ft. elevation is usually not above the Tropopause, above which the temperature begins to increase with increasing altitude. How is that possible with your model?
Gordon,
You were doing so well with the Ideal Gas Law, until you said this:
“Temperature is a measure of heat, therefore the heat content dissipates naturally with altitude.”
This is not true, the heat is still in the gas.
It is just spread out.
We are f*cked, but only because too many people attach any credibility at all to the climate change claptrap regurgitated in the article.
At this rate, were never getting back to climate optimum.
As near as I can tell the climate optimum is when the ice is all gone.
When all polar sea ice in the summer is gone.
I have a question for the contributors here regarding one of the preferred methods of addressing an energy imbalance allegedly caused by humans.
If energy received from the Sun is converted to electrical energy by PV cells and then stored at sufficient scale to replace the use of fossil fuels. Why wouldn’t that human activity itself create an energy imbalance ?
All the battery capacity in the world would meet grid requirement, in USA only, probably for less than a second.
The ‘energy imbalance’ you are suggesting doesn’t amount to anything.
Ray
It is a matter of scale.
https://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026
The amount of energy hitting the Earth from the Sun is 10,000 times the amount of human energy use.
N,
Unfortunately, at night, there is no energy from the Sun at all. Even worse, all the energy from the day flees to space. That’s why the temperature falls.
CO2 provides no energy at all – day or night.
See a possible problem trying to describe the GHE?
Dimwit.
norman…the limitation is in the solar cells used to convert the energy. Thus far, none have been designed for high current outputs, therefore thousands have to be paralleled to get appreciable currents, hence power.
I don’t imagine any solid state device likes sitting in direct sunlight all day either.
In Scotland, they have dabbled with using the tides to generate power. Don’t know how that is going.
The energy captured by PV cells and large scale storage will eventually be used. When it is used that energy will be released so in the “long run” there is no net change in energy balance directly attributable to PV + storage generation/storage/discharge cycle.
It’s somewhat analogous to biomass used as fuel. Energy from the sun is used in the production of that plant matter and released when it is burned. The difference is that biomass captures and stores CO2 as well as energy.
mark b …”It’s somewhat analogous to biomass used as fuel”.
***
Are you dealing with a full deck? Biomass is a reference to the burning of trees. Of all the stupid ideas created by eco-weenies, this has to top the list.
And, once again, what is the energy balance to which you refer?
Ken,
I’m not really talking about batteries. Storage is proposed as mostly pumping water uphill or making hydrogen
Pumping water uphill isn’t really storing energy; its inefficient, you won’t get as much energy out when the water is used as the energy required to pump the water uphill. The heat from the energy expended doing the work goes directly to space.
Same same for Hydrogen. It takes more energy to crack water than you get when you burn the Hydrogen. The heat from the energy expended doing the work goes directly to space. Too the resulting water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2. So the only place where you get energy imbalance is in reducing direct thermal energy to space due to GHE of water vapor.
I think best energy storage is heating the entire ocean.
If warm cold ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C to cold ocean with average temperature of 4 C, it will reduce global energy costs.
Pumped storage in the UK has a long history.
https://www.british-hydro.org/pumped-storage/
“The Ffestiniog Power Station is a 360Mw pumped-storage hydro-electricity scheme near Ffestiniog, in Gwynedd, North Wales. The power station at the lower reservoir has four water turbines, which can generate 360Mw of electricity within 60 seconds of the need arising. The station, commissioned in 1963, was the first major pumped storage system in the UK. The upper reservoir is Llyn Stwlan which can discharge 27 M3/s of water to the turbine generators at the power station on the bank of Tan-y-Grisiau reservoir.”
Pumping water up hill to store energy works quite well, if height and volume is available.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hydroelectric-station
Duh!!! It’s powered by nuclear energy. The power to pump the water uphill comes from power produced by a nuclear energy plant.
The article admits that the net output comes at a loss.
Why are we bothering with Mickey Mouse wind and solar farms when we have nuclear power to harness?
Because it is cheaper.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf
As much as I saw the bank draft which had said $4075, I be certain …That…My father in regulation ought to realia receiving money of their spare time from their computer.. There moms pleasant friend began doing this four much less than 20 months and as of now paid for the mortgage on there domestic and bout a appropriate Acura. you could test here
For more detail ____ https://hugeincomstar.blogspot.com/
Norman,
Thanks for the link.
I understand we are small players in the climate. About 4% of CO2 annual emissions causes an energy imbalance of 1 watt /sqmtr out of 240? A 240th ?
Your excellent article is probably only considering electricity not total energy as electricity replaces all other sources. I make our current 17.7 Terawatt energy use about one 1,000th of Suns energy received by Earth so ten times more than the article.
The article does suggest solar harvesting coverage similar to what I’ve come up with. I came to about 2% of total planet surface if PV cells were the only energy source.
A modern PV cell will at peak production harvest over 100 watts/sqmtr, obviously the length of energy storage will vary substantially.
The question came to me after reading Dan Pangburn’s stuff here along with another article about using hydrogen as a fuel for het aircraft. At least here in Australia the solar overbuild is supposedly to be utilised by production of hydrogen. If Dan is at least partially correct perhaps storage of PV cell energy plus adding water vapour ( especially at the tropopause) might create an equivalent delay to the method it replaces ?
Anyway, cheers. Thanks for the response
Ken,
Totally agreed.
Because the storage methods are so inefficient and the source so intermittent, the production oversupply is planned at between 5 and 10 times requirements. The amount stored necessarily needs to be very large. Of course the total battery capacity is planned to also increase exponentially particularly in transport.
Cheers and thanks
Have you seen Elon Musk’s battery in Australia? Its too expensive to store large amounts of electricity.
The current draw on any battery system at peak load periods would be so immense the battery’s available energy sources would be hard put to maintain the charge. I doubt if they could. In Australia they’ve had major headaches trying to run from solar and wind farms.
Most commercial power systems in North America run at 600 VAC with 347 volt phase voltages. For residential, the 3-phase voltage is lowered to 120 VAC but it is fed from a different kind of 3 phase system.
They do that for efficiency. Most solar cells run at 12 volts or 24 volt D.C. You’d have to convert the D.C to AC then use a transformer to increase it to three-phase power at 600/347 volts for industrial use. That would require a totally new power grid system with new transformer and motor systems.
However, some industrial systems run on 480/277 volt systems/ And lets not forget the residential systems that use a 240 volt phase voltages that is split to give 240/120 volts single phase for residential.
But wait, there are 3-phase systems that feed residential high-rise systems and they are 208/120 volt systems. One contractor wasn’t paying attention and installed electric water heaters in an apartment that were the wrong voltage.
It would be a major infrastructure headache to get these systems running from a battery supply. Then how about vehicles? Do we convert everything to electrical?
entropic…”Can anyone suggest how I could calculate the expected warming for different energy imbalances”.
***
What energy is not balanced? Are you talking about electromagnetic energy or thermal energy? There is an internal thermal imbalance between the Tropics and the Poles. There is also an imbalance in the distribution of incoming solar between those regions.
How can you possibly calculate thermal imbalance in such a chaotic system?
If you mean EM in versus EM out, you have to account for what happens to the EM converted to heat and vice versa. How exactly do you go about that?
It’s a mistake to think that EM in has to equal EM out. You have to consider that EM in may only be maintaining the heat in the Earth’s system and that presents a different problem than a system where energy in = energy out in real time.
“What energy is not balanced?”
It is clear from context that he is talking about global EM energy in vs global EM energy out. I am not sure how you missed that.
“How can you possibly calculate thermal imbalance …?”
He’s not! He is attempting to calculate the TEMPERATURE CHANGE that would result FROM a given, hypothesized energy imbalance.
“It’s a mistake to think that EM in has to equal EM out. ”
And of course, no one does that. The two will always be *close* but it is exactly this imbalance that causes variations in global temperatures.
“You have to consider that EM in may only be maintaining the heat in the Earth’s system ”
Heat (aka internal energy) is maintained in the earth system when energy in – energy out. It is the *difference* that matters, not energy in itself.
Tim,
You are looking idiotic.
You can’t find a single instance of an object magically heating up in the absence of sunlight, can you?
Put a large rock in your yard. Now convince yourself it doesn’t cool at night, in winter, during a solar eclipse, when it’s raining, snowy . . .
The oldest exposed rocks are about 4 billion years old. They are no hotter than nearby plants, or the water which laps them. No heat accumulation after 4 billion years, it seems.
Your dreams are not reality, Tim. But hey, if reality is too much for you, keep dreaming, if it makes you more comfortable.
I deal with science, not ‘magic’. Nothing ‘magically’ heats up in my world view.
In all of your examples, it is the degree of *imbalance* that matters — whether on scales of one rock or the whole planet; whether on scales of 1 second or 4.5 billion years. That is ‘reality’. That is what I said in my post.
“Now convince yourself it doesn’t cool [sarc] … ” and “No heat accumulation after 4 billion years …” fits EXACTLY with what I wrote! You might try reading for comprehension before simply repeating your misguided talking points.
Folkerts says: “I deal with science…”
Folkerts, you “deal with science” by trying to pervert it.
Clint, if you have something to contribute, please do. What specifically that I wrote here do you disagree with? What in this comment ‘perverts science’?
Thanks for asking, Folkerts. This will get you started:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1013870
Unfortunately I don’t have as much time to waste here as trolls do, so I haven’t added your latest perversions, yet. One of your latest being that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface could heat it to 325 K. Norman went over the cliff for you on that one.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> This will get you started:
There’s nothing in that comment that meets Tim’s “here,” Pup.
“Here” refers to his comment, not Roy’s.
If you want to know the difference, start here:
https://i.redd.it/pvvshxquvlp81.png
Cint:
1) You are not referring to “this comment”. Bad reading skills.
2) Your example denies that two light bulbs shining on a surface are brighter than one. That two beams of sunlight focused together could warm a surface more than a single beam of sunlight.
Double fail!
Folkerts, it’s easy to understand why you would want to run from your past. But you need to learn from your mistakes.
Clint, I would be happy to learn from mistakes. But so far you have not found any. (Well other than a few things like occasionally misspelling “pedal”.)
Two lightbulbs ae brighter than one. Two sunbeams focused on the same spot make it warmer than one sunbeam. That is all I have ever claimed. Not that that ice can boil water or any such nonsense.
So I guess it is up to you — engage with what I *actually* write, or continue to attack strawmen.
Folkerts, are you in denial of your past?
You should be.
You claimed that 315 W/m^2 arriving a surface from two different sources would result in the fluxes adding, which would result in a temperature of 325K. Are you denying that? Are you denying your own comments?
Yes, you are. You’re denying your own words.
You have to, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. I bet you just keep going here, in full denial. Maybe your poor groupie Norman will come in to help you in your denial.
I am not going to start denying now something that is perfectly true.
If I have a surface in a dark room, the surface will be dark and the surface will be the temperature of the room.
If I turn on one light bulb that provides 315 W/m^2 to the surface, the surface will be lit, and will warm above the temperature of the room.
If I turn on a second light bulb that also provides 315 W/m^2 to the surface, the surface will be lit even brighter, and will be even warmer.
I can’t figure out how anyone would argue with this.
Folkerts, you must have realized you’re wrong. You haven’t mentioned the 325K. You say the second 315 W/m^2 will be “even warmer”. So you’re backing away from your own nonsense.
You claimed two 315 W/m^2 fluxes would heat a surface to 325K. You even provided the bogus calculation:
315 + 315 = 630, then the S/B temperature is 325K.
That’s WRONG.
If that were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.
Keep backing away from your own words. You might back into reality some day.
I’m not denying or backing away. I am leading you by tiny steps so we can find some common ground. Otherwise you seem to keep jumping to strawmen.
Baby Step 1: Do two light bulbs together light up a room more than one bulb by itself? If each provided 315 W/m^2 to a surface, do they together provide 630 W/m^2?
There is NO common ground between reality and nonsense, Folkerts. There is only reality. You’re into nonsense.
You keep trying to pervert reality. The issue is not about light bulbs. Use ice cubes for your example. Then it’s not as easy to pervert the situation. 315 W/m^2 is the emission from ice at 0°F (273K). Ice cubes can NOT raise a surface to 325K, like you’ve claimed. That’s nonsense.
By refusing to address you’re own words, you’re “backing away”.
“You keep trying to pervert reality. The issue is not about light bulbs. Use ice cubes for your example.”
And see, this is you going off on a tangent. The issue is about how to add flux in general. You seem to agree (but won’t say out loud) that fluxes from two light bulbs arriving at a surface do indeed add to make the surface brighter and warmer than one bulb.
Once you can admit that this is correct conclusion (ie not a ‘perversion’), then we can move on to ice.
Me trying to keep you on the issue is somehow “going off on a tangent”? Is there ANYTHING you won’t try to pervert, Folkerts?
Fluxes do NOT simply add, in general. That’s why your nonsense would have ice cubes boiling water. You keep trying to bend reality to fit your cult beliefs.
Reality doesn’t bend.
“Fluxes do NOT simply add, in general. ”
You still can’t seem to grasp the simple and fundamental difference between the the flux LEAVING from a surface (often called “radiant exitance”) and the flux ARRIVING at a surface (often called “irradiance”). Two fundamentally different types of fluxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometry
Irradiances DO simply add, in general. This is what I have always been claiming.
Radiant exitances DO NOT simply add, in general. This is what you mistakenly think I have been claiming.
So again, do you agree that irradiances add?
PS. To warm a surface, we are interested in the IRRADIANCE that comes in and gets absorbed BY a surface. So the fact that IRRADIANCE adds is directly the issue here.
Folkerts, deal with this:
You keep trying to pervert reality. 315 W/m^2 is the emission from ice at 0F (273K). Ice cubes can NOT raise a surface to 325K, like you’ve claimed.
By refusing to address you’re own words, you’re “backing away”.
“Ice cubes can NOT raise a surface to 325K, like you’ve claimed.”
Sigh! I have NEVER claimed that surfaces with RADIATIVE EXITANCE of 315 W/m^2 (like ice) can warm something to 325 K. [Feel free to look for an example if you like; you won’t find one.]
I HAVE claimed that a surface with two IRRADIANCES of 315 W/m^2 (like from two light bulbs, or from one lightbulb and a sheet of ice) can be warmed by those two IRRADIANCES to 325 K.
You simply keep confounding radiative exitance and irradiance, and project an error that I never made.
PS Clint, you keep claiming things like I am ‘denying my own words’ or ‘running from my past’. In fact, I am denying YOUR words, YOUR projections. I have never claimed the things you think I have, like ‘ice could boil water’.
In this case, it is your inability to grasp the difference between radiant exitance and irradiance that leads you to continue misunderstand. It shows up clearly in “You claimed two 315 W/m^2 fluxes would heat a surface to 325K. ”
I claimed two IRRADIANCES (incoming fluxes) of 315 W/m^2 would heat a surface to 325K.
You mistake that for a claim that two RADIANT EXITANCES (outgoing fluxes) of 315 W/m^2 would heat a surface to 325K.
If you didn’t get it before, you hopefully get it now.
Tim,
“Once you can admit that [light bulb fluxes add] is the correct conclusion (ie not a ‘perversion’), then we can move on to ice.”
This is the wrong way around, because light bulbs are more complicated than uniform material like ice. Can you demonstrate with an appropriate experimental apparatus that two 315 W/m2 uniform material heat sources will “irradiate” a surface to 325 K?
Sorry. I meant by adding a second uniform material source heating a given surface with 315 W/m2 will increase the temperature of the surface to 325K by adding a second source.
Tim, third time is the charm, hopefully.
Can you demonstrate that adding a second source (a little sun, for example) irradiating a surface with 315 W/m2 actually doubles the flux.
Gee, maybe someone with an I-phone can download an app, get a couple flashlights and do some experimentation?
You know
Evidence talks bullshit walks.
Chic, I don’t quite follow your various attempts at questions. So let me make a couple quick general comments.
1. An ‘appropriate experimental apparatus’ would actually be quite involved to demonstrate these results. We are awash in fluxes higher than 315 W/m^2 all the time from the walls and ceiling and ground, etc. So the first step would be to do all the experiments at, say liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the background. Then you would have to carefully heat some ‘material source’ and measure fluxes. and do it all in a vacuum to reduce conduction and convection.
2. When you say “315 W/m2 heat sources” that sounds like radiant exitance. When you later say “irradiating a surface with 315 W/m2” then it sounds like you are meaning irradiation.
* Two (or three or a million) radiant exitances of 315 W/m^2 will never warm a blackbody surface above 273 K.
* Two irradiances of 315 W/m^2 would definitely warm a blackbody surface to 325 K.
I understand experimental difficulties. But if we only have your theoretical opinion, how do you expect to disprove claims that fluxes don’t add?
Irradiating a surface with 315 W/m2 was my meaning. But if you need to increase the baseline to make the experimental design workable, then that is what you should do. For example, make a surface irradiated with 500 W/m2 go to 364K by doubling the same source.
Or provide a link to a paper demonstrating your claim. Surely this has been done already?
“But if we only have your theoretical opinion, how do you expect to disprove claims that fluxes dont add?”
But we don’t just have “my opinion”! We have a couple centuries of data, backed up by solid theory. There are literally textbooks written about radiative heat transfer that engineers use all the time to design real stuff!
Thanks,Tim.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Besides the Three Bean word salad posted above has anyone put himself up to predict a third La Nina for the 22 23 winter ?
Does that count, Eboy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1233484
Whacky Wee Willy,
Is someone supposed to click on a link that you can’t be bothered explaining?
Just how stupid are you?
Good morning, Mike.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Not only stupid. Delusional into the bargain. You apparently believe Mike Flynn has been banned, in spite of the fact he has commented here, fairly recently.
You then claimed he was an impersonator, because you couldnt accept that you were a victim of your own fantasies!
Carry on your pointless idiocy, moron.
Mike, Mike,
You keep hurling the same abuses over and over again.
How does it work for you?
Please remind me again the appropriate Einstein quote.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Why do you persist with an obviously pointless fantasy that I am some person who has been banned? If you choose to play the “poor abused me” card, you probably won’t get too much sympathy.
Don’t blame me if you can’t handle the truth.
You ask to be reminded of an Einstein quote. Why should I remind you of anything? Are you so feeble-minded you need to be continuously reminded that you are delusional and stupid?
If you get sick of whining about being abused, you could always moan about how offended or insulted you feel – as if anybody gives a toss about the “feelings”of a dimwit like you!
If you want to be adored, worshipped, and revered, maybe you could produce the Greenhouse Theory [snigger] which you are so sure you had in your possession. Unfortunately, the contents of your fantasy don’t translate to reality too well, do they?
Carry on, moron.
Mike, Mike,
The answer to your silly question is quite simple –
You’d be useful for a change.
Here’s you, with Gordo’s silliness du jour:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-304759
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
So your reason for calling me Mike Flynn is that you are delusional?
You may quote Mike Flynn as often as you like. As you correctly quoted, CO2 GHE believers are obviously a pack of bumbling, fumbling, clowns.
Why you appeal to authority which doesn’t support you is beyond me.
Why not just produce your Greenhouse Theory, you moron?
Because it doesn’t exist – that’s why!
Carry on.
No, Mike –
My reason to call you “Mike Flynn” is that you’re obviously Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/houston-area-flooding-seen-from-space/#comment-261164
Vintage September 5, 2017 at 12:45 AM.
Ignore Willtards and the likes trolls
Are you saying that
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-three-bean-salad
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
is not a valid article?
Or that
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
is not a suggestion as to what will happen?
Cherry picking the outlier model again?
Why?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20220329.sstOutlooks_nino34.png
Are you saying that CFSv2 is faulty?
Care to work out what
https://www.climate.gov/media/14287
looks like with up to date data?
“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”
The word ‘unprecedented’ comes to mind.
Are you saying that BOM model is faulty?
See how silly that question is?
If the results later on this year show that CFSv2 is more accurate, will you acknowledged that fact? (And yes, it the results prove otherwise then I will accept the inverse likewise).
Here’s the real question for you RLH.
If there is a 3-peat La Nina, what would that tell us about AGW?
Would it tell us that AGW is not happening?
Or would it simply tell us that there is natural variation, like ENSO, independent of whatever AGW is doing?
Which is something we already knew.
“If there is a 3-peat La Nina, what would that tell us about AGW?”
That we are experiencing unprecedented cooling, at least in the tropics.
Why is it that climate models are not subject to what in AI would be considered pruning., where the most unrepresentative of them would not be progressed any further? This would include models with parameters that turn out to be simply wrong.
> Why is it that climate models are not subject to what in AI would be considered pruning
It never goes well when you use concepts you don’t master, Richard. Why are you doing this to yourself?
“Why is it that climate models are not ..”
Why do you assume climate scientists are not doing obvious things?
“That we are experiencing unprecedented cooling, at least in the tropics.”
And that would tell you what about AGW?
“Why do you assume climate scientists are not doing obvious things?”
Because the evidence is that they are not.
“And that would tell you what about AGW?”
That it is likely that the models and theories that are currently in use are not sufficiently well thought through.
“It never goes well when you use concepts you dont master, Richard”
Are you suggesting that I don’t understand AI?
Naty didn’t see the last two La Ninas coming , how would he see the next one.
Stuck on stupid he is
> Are you suggesting that I don’t understand AI?
If you think that pruning is relevant for climate modulz, Richard, you bet.
Discarding those that are obviously wrong would hold in every other discipline other than ‘Climate Science’ it would seem.
“Because the evidence is that they are not.”
You never show the evidence. Where is it?
Show us or shut up!
“Naty didnt see the last two La Ninas coming”
?? Eben is drunk-typing again.
“That it is likely that the models and theories that are currently in use are not sufficiently well thought through.”
You really feel that you are well-informed about how climate modeling is done?
Ive seen no evidence thus far that you are.
No model of any kind has successfully predicted weather more than 10 days out.
No model of any kind has reliably predicted ENSO conditions more than 6 months out.
But here you are declaring that climate models should be able to do that and much more.
because they are “not sufficiently well thought through.”
> Discarding those that are obviously wrong would hold in every other discipline
That’s not how pruning works, dummy.
https://analyticsindiamag.com/what-is-pruning-in-ml-ai/
“Pruning as a concept was originally introduced to the field of deep learning by Yann LeCun in an eerie titled paper Optimal Brain Damage. The word pruning means trimming or cutting away the excess; in the context of machine learning and artificial intelligence, it involves removing the redundant or the least important parts of a model”
“No model of any kind has successfully predicted weather more than 10 days out”
Tell that to the various weather forecasting services.
e.g. https://www.gismeteo.com/weather-oxford-998/month/
“You really feel that you are well-informed about how climate modeling is done?”
I have done quite a bit of computer modelling and I think I understand quite well how climate models are constructed.
The main limitation is that they do not have a fine enough grid in both time and space to cover clouds and the like, relying instead on ‘parameters’ instead of real science. Those parameters are then ‘tuned’ to produce what is believed to be the ‘right’ answer.
“parameters instead of real science. Those parameters are then tuned to produce what is believed to be the right answer.”
The models use real physics. Parameterization is as essential in the climate models as it is in weather models which obviously do work.
Evidently you dont understand what they are doing. You think they ought to be able to predict ENSO.
You think weather can be successfully predicted 30 days out?
Gullible.
> I have done quite a bit of computer modelling and I think I understand quite well how climate models are constructed.
You obviously don’t, Richard, just like you have no idea what Yann was talking about:
http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-90b.pdf
Climate models ain’t no neural networks.
Barry, the Weasel, always trying to weasel his way out of comments he has made.
“GR…Point is, Barry, since the 2016 EN extreme, the trend has been essentially flat.
[Barry the Weasel]I addressed that very point. Whooosh!
Click on the link bub. 7-year flat trends are quite common in a generally warming world”.
***
A couple of years ago I quoted the IPCC on the 1998 – 2012 flat trend and you called me a liar. When I cited their comment, you tried to weasel out of it by changing the focus. Same as you are doing now, using 7 year flat trends when referencing a 15 year flat trend which turned out to be an 18 year flat trend.
You called me a liar as well when I claimed NOAA are now using less than 1500 reporting stations to cover the entire land surface. When I cited their exact words, you moved the goalposts. Bindidon did you one better, he claimed the article was too old (2015).
You are typical of the alarmist genre, Barry. You are all a load of bs-artists who spread propaganda thick like its bull**** equivalent.
Barry has been quite unfair to you, Gordo –
You’re more a mythomaniac than a liar.
And you are the typical breed of human who is so lost in his conditioning that he fails to recognize the difference between myth and fact.
There is none so blind, as a Willard who fails to see. I have heard of blind mice but never blind rats.
C’mon, Gordo.
I stopped counting at 100 untruths. On this page alone. It can ramp fast.
Take your series of untruths about the FLQ. There was one dead directly involved, not two. It was in 1970, whence the Referendum was in 1982. The October Crisis wasn’t decided democratically – Trudeau declared the martial law.
You can’t be lying through your teeth like that day in day out. So I think the most plausible explanation is that you get a kick out of saying stuff.
Think.
Gordon,
You quoted me then didn’t respond to what I said.
Go back, click on the link showing 7-year cooling periods in the overall UAH record. Then you will finally understand what I said. Well, probably not, but I’m an eternal optimist.
YOU mentioned the 7-year trend from 2016 – you even quote yourself doing that just above. That’s what I replied to. Are you unable to respond to that point?
“A couple of years ago I quoted the IPCC on the 1998 2012 flat trend and you called me a liar.”
Nope, I called you a liar about NOAA “slashing” thousands of weather stations from their database.
And what do you say now?
“I claimed NOAA are now using less than 1500 reporting stations to cover the entire land surface.”
Moving goalposts much?
That is also still wrong. NOAA still use 7000+ stations for their monthly dataset. The number of stations that regularly update their data to NOAA has increased to 3000+.
Re 15 years: What I said was that you omitted the rest of the quote from the IPCC, which contextualises the short-term trend, and that the trend was not flat – it’s 0.05C/decade for the period (but not statistically significant).
I can’t help it if you just post talking points without understanding the subject. But I can point out how misleading it is to do so.
Let’s hear it again from AR5:
"Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."
In the Technical Summary of the same report they call the non-significant trend a hiatus. They also mention in that same section that short-term periods do not reflect long-term trends.
But you omitted that from your comprehension as well. You’re only up for the talking points, not the understanding.
You do realise that one of the main reasons the trend is flat for that period is that it begins with one of the largest el Nino spikes in the record, right?
But no, that gets dropped from your understanding as well. It interferes with the talking point.
The NOAA article is from 2010, not 2015.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
It’s out of date. There are now over 7000 stations in the monthly GHCN, and over 3000 that report to NOAA regularly.
There are even more stations in GHCN daily database – tens of thousands, though less quality controlled than GHCN monthly.
Thousands of stations were not “slashed” from the record. They’re still there!
THAT is the lie you kept telling.
Although NOAA controls GHCN, GHCN is not NOAA. It is a database of all available stations. NOAA uses less than 1500 of them.
proof…
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of the truth. Mahatma Gandhi
*************************
Sujata Raisinghani, Environment Canada spokeswoman, was quoted as saying that “it’s not clear why fewer Canadian weather stations are being included in global temperature records than in the past.”
She also said only 35 of the 600 weather stations in Canada in the 1970s are folded into the World Meteorological Organization and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration global databases, along with only our Eureka station out of 100 Arctic stations operated today.
‘During the 1995 federal government cuts, as an Environment Canada scientist, I was ordered to provide station data in order to cut up to 70 per cent of our hydrological inland water stations for B.C.
This was just part of cutting lighthouses, weather stations, hydrological stations and networks, etc.
Simultaneously, 40,000 federal engineers and scientists were laid off by Prime Minister Jean Chrtien.
Environment Canada research was deliberately decimated, data collection was to stop and future research was only to use old stale data. As a scientist, in good conscience, where public health and safety was concerned, I could not continue.
That canard reminds me of an old story:
[WILLIS] So on a whim I thought I’d take a look at the first station on the list, Darwin Airport, so I could see what an inhomogeneity might look like when it was at home. And I could find out how large the GHCN adjustment for Darwin inhomogeneities was.
[NICK] Darwin was extensively bombed in Feb 1942, which may explain the 1941 issue.
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
The wonder of it is that after 13 years of talking about station dropout Chiefio has never, to my knowledge, done an analysis to see whether the dropout has an effect on the global temp record.
13 years!
Within a year of his first claiming there was a problem, ‘skeptics’ (including Roy Spencer) and others did the analysis and found no significant difference between the record of dropped and included stations.
When questioned about it Chiefio said he didn’t have time….
There are even more stations in GHCN daily database tens of thousands, though less quality controlled than GHCN monthly.
oops – the last para was meant to be a link.
“When questioned about it Chiefio said he didnt have time.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/kusi-coleman-tv-show-discussion/
“Although NOAA controls GHCN, GHCN is not NOAA. It is a database of all available stations. NOAA uses less than 1500 of them.”
As I said above….
“There are even more stations in GHCN daily database tens of thousands, though less quality controlled than GHCN monthly.”
And you are STILL WRONG.
NOAA uses 7000+ stations for GHCN monthly. Over 3000 stations are regularly updated, not less than 1500.
You STILL don’t understand that the majority of GHCN monthly data are from stations that do not update to NOAA once a month. The reason there are so many quality controlled stations is that they went back through historical records and compiled them. A large number of those historical records come from stations that stopped operating even BEFORE the effort to collate the material started.
Either you’re incredibly stupid or a liar. You’ve seen this material. I’ve provided the links a couple dozen times – for you.
Retrospectively adding data from stations that no longer exist GHCN is not “slashing” weather stations.
Why are you so perennially dense about this?
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”Stephen, it is patently obvious that homosexuality etc is a natural phenomenon, as seen throughout the animal kingdom…”
***
I await the wrath of Norman after what I have to say on the subject. I am fully aware of his feeling on the subject and I can understand them. I see no future in a world where we cannot speak openly and be heard without emotional reactions.
Bary, are you trying to say human homosexuals are at the same mental level as found in the animal kingdom? You see, in the animal kingdom, they manage to reproduce despite their homosexual interests. Left to their own devices and declared interest in the same sex, human homosexuals would be extinct in about 100 years.
What is obvious is that our sexuality is designed to prolong the race. We are designed to procreate, as in the animal kingdom, and any other use of those mechanisms is about lust. I call it perversion, not meaning anything related to hatred. It is a perversion of the way we were designed.
I am not stating this out of naivete or religious conviction. I have been around the block a time or two with women and have considered myself very fortunate to have met and experienced as many women in my lifetime as I have encountered. I have acquired a keen awareness of the difference between love and the purely physical feeling of lust.
Love is not lust. Some people claim there are different kinds of love but that is not possible. The mental space related to love is unique, it is a state where one loses awareness of his/her immediate needs and the focus is purely on the other person’s needs. With lust, and the so-called other types of love, the context is the opposite. The focus is on one’s own needs and interests.
There is no such things as romantic love, romance being a fantasy. It may induce feelings of pleasure, but pleasure is not love. It’s a fulfillment of one’s own desires. Love has nothing to do with one’s desires.
One can love a woman or love a man. However, when lust comes into it via sexual feeling, it is a perversion of the original design. That applies equally to heterosexuals, and speaking from experience in that area, I know that sheer lust is a perversion, albeit a pleasant one. Nothing to do with love whatsoever.
If there have been errors in the genetic makeup of certain people then I feel badly for those people. I have no interest in seeing homosexuals harmed in any way, I am simply tired of the on-going politically-correct propaganda surrounding them. I wish they’d go about their business and shut up about it. Stop filling the mind’s of children about it till they are old enough to discover for themselves.
You claim society has accepted homosexuality as a norm, which is fairly optimistic. You might say, for now, that is partially true, but who knows what lies around the corner?
Homosexuals are allowed to marry now and adopt children. I think that is immensely unfair to a child who has no awareness of the situation and what may lie ahead for him/her. When other children learn of the child has two male parents or two female parents, they may start bullying the child. I think it is selfish of homosexual couples to impose that on a child.
As far as being natural. No child is born with a sexual preference since children don’t acquire sexual desire till adolescence. Claiming that children are born homosexual or heterosexual is bs. AFAIAC, it appears to be an acquired trait related to the confusion of adolescence.
Now we have men with male apparatus claiming to have women trapped inside them. They compete with women in athletics and win due to our stupid political-correctness. They are even allowed into female dressing rooms. I think men doing that are exhibiting the highest level of selfishness and are lacking in awareness.
You can have your theories on the subject, I’d like to see us return to a state of better mental health where people are not so full of themselves re their desires and egos.
“Bary, are you trying to say human homosexuals are at the same mental level as found in the animal kingdom?”
No – that is a straw man you have just fabricated for your rhetorical convenience. Any argument you make therefrom is purely your own BS.
“What is obvious is that our sexuality is designed to prolong the race.”
We are not the sum of our sexuality or reproductive potential.
A complete acceptance of homosexuality will not result in the extinction of the human race.
Your effort to turn love into a utilitarian venture is supremely unconvincing. It’s just rhetoric. We are romantic creatures. And we are sentimental, irrational and creative. This is human.
Homosexuality is as natural as being albino, a dwarf, having red hair or green eyes. Most people don’t have these attributes. Imagine if we had the same attitude to red-haired little people that some curmudgeons have towards homosexuality.
The world you would have for homosexuals would be torture for them. It’s not your ideology or mine that matters, Gordon.
barry…”Homosexuality is as natural as being albino, a dwarf, having red hair or green eyes”.
***
Prove it.
****************
“A complete acceptance of homosexuality will not result in the extinction of the human race”.
***
Not what I said. I said, if homosexuals were left to their own devices re sexual preference, they would be extinct in a century. In other words, if all homosexuals moved to an island, they could not survive more than a century.
I saw the error in my argument, forgetting heterosexual couples would produce more. The point I was trying to make was obvious, homosexuals can never have their own children.
I wonder why you don’t get it that heterosexuality is a basic function of life. There is nothing in a homosexual male that could not prevent him loving a woman and having a family, the distinction is in sexuality and related lust.
I think it’s sad that you missed entirely what I was saying about love. You are doomed to never have it because you have no sense what it is. Love is not an idea or a thought, it is a state of being that is without condition or choice.
If you have truly experienced love for another human being you will be aware it has nothing to do with sex or romance.
From a biological point of view genes and phenotypes which make you unlikely to reproduce are selected against and disappear very quickly.
Homosexuals have been about 3% of the male population for as far back as we can measure, so there must be some advantage.
Last time I looked there were two hypotheses.
1) Whatever causes homosexuality in men causes women to become more attractive to men and have larger families. If the gene(?) means that a woman has four children instead of two, she’s ahead even if one of them is gay.
2) Back in our hunter gathering days a gay man would gather with the women rather than hunt with the men. This gave them extra protection increasing the survival rate of the gay man’s kin. The extra survivors among his kin counterbalanced his own failure to reproduce.
3% is too high. I saw a statistical study years ago, and it was closer to 4 sigmas than three. It was about 1.3% of the population. It seems we have given such a small percent of the people a lot more rights than the rest of us. And, it isn’t enough. Now they want to be able to compete athletically against women and be rewarded for it.
“It seems we have given such a small percent of the people a lot more rights than the rest of us.”
A lot more rights?
Can you name three?
don’t worry, we’ve got kindergarten teacher