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 teachers working hard to raise that to 50%
in the industrial era, you could generally be as gay as you wanted in private America, as long you made some kids, kept up appearances, and didn’t draw religious ire
open license went out with the Georgians, because the Victorians had watched all their licentious relatives slowly going mad from syphilis
or as Kipling put it:
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
does any of it matter today? hardly, in fact the blue model is doing us all a huge favor by not breeding
feel sorry for their kids though
“dont worry, weve got kindergarten teachers working hard to raise that to 50%”
You are quite susceptible to being riled up by alarmist right wing propaganda, it seems.
“In other words, if all homosexuals moved to an island, they could not survive more than a century.”
The same would happen if you moved people of one gender to an island, regardless of their sexuality. Or if you moved sterile people to an island.
So what?
Your POV is simply that homosexuality is unnatural. The animal kingdom begs to differ. So does the entirety of human history.
“There is nothing in a homosexual male that could not prevent him loving a woman”
Yes there is: the same thing that prevents you loving a man as you would a female partner.
Note your double negative there though, betraying what you meant. Something to investigate? 😉
The evidence that homosexuality is natural is so abundant you have to be ideological to deny it. Or perhaps some fear and loathing so great it clouds judgement.
My friend has perfect pitch. I don’t. He didn’t learn it, he was born that way. His son has it too. People are wired differently to you. Accept that and move on.
Barry, when you strive to pervert reality, then you desire to pervert everything.
It’s the “slippery slope” thing. Once you start down it, it’s hard to stop.
Empty rhetoric from you yet again. Clint. Nothing substantive, as ever.
https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
Wrong barry. You’re trying to pervert reality, and you got caught.
That ain’t “empty rhetoric”. That’s reality.
The question you need to ask yourself is why you’re bent on perverting reality?
“Caught?” You made an announcement with no substance.
You have made no argument, no counter with any content or reference to the discussion, nor even any specificity on what I was “caught” doing.
Your replies are so empty there is nothing to attach a response to.
If anyone is “perverting reality” it’s you.
barry, your comment condones perversion. You’re trying to promote perversion.
It’s as simple as that.
Climate change
“Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earth’s weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to natural causes. Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking, cement production, and forest loss are additional sources. Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth’s surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth’s surface. As the planet heats up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, amplifying global warming.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
This is quite silly.
Can anyone explain “climate change” better than wiki?
If not, how has rising CO2 levels changing weather pattern.
And does anyone think governments can provide better weather patterns, assuming we allow governments to try to make better weather patterns?
It seems this must be some insanity of people living in cities.
Can agree that Urban heat island effects have had larger effects upon local air temperature than CO2 or any greenhouse gas.
And as far as I am aware, CO2 levels [which are higher in cities} has never effected weather patterns.
But UHI effect can effect weather. They apparently cause more fog in India and UHI effect can create rain shadows:
–“There’s a debate about how cities affect rainfall,” Shepherd answers. “There are several hypotheses about what is going on, but they primarily involve the urban land use and urban aerosols.” The first hypothesis deals with the urban “heat island” effect. Cities are made of heat-absorbing materials like concrete, steel, and asphalt. Add to that the heat pumped into the atmosphere by the machines that are concentrated in cities and a lack of cooling vegetation, and the temperature goes up. Average temperatures in a city can be as much as six to eight degrees Fahrenheit higher than surrounding rural and suburban landscapes. Called the urban heat island effect, this increased temperature may provide a source of unstable air. If air over a city is warmer than the air surrounding it, it wants to rise. As the city-warmed air rises, it cools and forms rain-producing clouds that soak the area downwind.–
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UrbanRain/urbanrain2.php
gbaikie….”Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts on Earths weather patterns”.
***
Sheer bs. Climate is an outcome, not a driver. It is a statistical average of weather over a 30 year period.
” Climate is an outcome, not a driver. It is a statistical average of weather over a 30 year period.”
I’m happy with that, but think it through. Global warming from whatever cause increases the amount of heat in the climate system. That changes the weather, increasing windspeeds and rainfall.
The average conditions for the 30 years before the global warming are different to the thirty years after the global warming. The climate has changed.
The climate is always changing.
RLH, True but irrelevant. The rate of change of AGW is much faster than that over the past 10,000 years during which human civilization appeared. And, there’s the remote possibility that AGW will trigger the return to another round of Ice Ages like the end of the Eemian warm period.
So you believe.
“And, there’s the remote possibility that AGW will trigger the return to another round of Ice Ages like the end of the Eemian warm period.”
Remote only in sense we don’t know. I don’t think human activity will cause us to return to glaciation period. But the pattern is that we return to glaciation period.
And don’t think that happens within 1000 years.
Though it depends what returning to glaciation period means.
One could choose to call any period after the peak interglacial temperature, returning to a glaciation period.
As our ice house global climate has been cooling over the last few million years, returning to a glaciation period has changed.
An interglacial period 10 million years ago, was warmer then we are currently. Simple proof/evidence is that earlier than 5 million years, Greenland had no ice sheet. And currently we have an ice sheet on Greenland. Or existence of ice sheet on Greenland, would first occurred in glaciation period about 3 million years ago.
So only sense of last couple million is Greenland ice sheet not called a glaciation period.
Which indicates to me, a poor way of defining a glaciation period.
But if returning to glaciation period is getting a cold as Little ice Age, then it should happen within few centuries, is my guess.
[And within a century we could living on Mars, and within few centuries be a spacefaring civilization. If you spacefaring civilization you easily change/control our global climate.
And I think without being spacefaring, we could easily change/control our global climate- but governments can’t do anything and I don’t think we want any government to control our weather or global climate. But the world could vote on such matters. And people could further vote in the sense funding such things.
And few people now, want to pay much money to pay for any governmental effort to control climate change. Governments seem have long track record of losing any “war” they decide to have.
“a poor way of defining a glaciation period.”
A glaciation period is growth of polar sea ice.
Hmm, is growth of polar sea ice, have a runaway effect?
Never wondered about that before, hmm.
It seems with south pole, it’s always “hard” to grow a greater extent of polar sea ice.
Whereas with northern arctic the land area “supports” growth polar sea ice and the growth polar sea ice makes a mega continent tied together with thick polar sea ice. And during “a glaciation period” the northern arctic sea ice can get very thick. Some say it can get 1000 meter thick. And it seems quite different as compared to southern polar sea ice.
So, instead of runaway effect, Northern polar sea is reinforced by surrounding land areas. Or land feedback cooling effect- and presence of land masses can make the ice perhaps 1000 meters thick.
So southern polar region lacks land area helping polar sea ice growth. And southern is less stable and seems one might have large moving rafts of sea ice.
Oh well, this doesn’t seem to help defining glaciation period.
Hmm, it seems a glaciation period can be thought as re-charging period {warms the average temperature of the ocean], which results the global warming event, which makes the short period of interglacial period be quite warm.
A ocean warming period with very cold polar regions.
A time when there is very extreme weather.
A period when there is largest extent of polar sea ice.
Earth’s global surface air temperature is controlled by the average temperature of the Ocean.
Earth average ocean temperature is the coldest it’s been in 34 million year icehouse climate which is called Late Cenozoic Ice Age:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Earth does not normally have average surface air global air temperature of 15 C. Earth presently has average surface air temperature of about 15 C, because it’s ocean has average temperature of about 3.5 C. And we had this ocean temperature of about 3.5 C for the last 5000 years.
The average global ocean surface air temperature is 17 C and average global land surface air temperature is about 10 C, which when combined gives the global average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
What is the greenhouse effect?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.”
This is incorrect. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas.
The idea that CO2 controls climate climate is based on idea that CO2 levels caused glaciation and interglacial periods.
People have wondered what caused glaciation periods within our Ice Age and it was proposed over hundred years ago that changes in trace gases caused these glaciation and interglacial periods- and now know this is false. CO2 levels are the lowest levels during glaciation periods and only rise after leaving the glaciation period- or it’s backwards in terms of causation.
The false idea that CO2 levels cause 33 C is related to idea the CO2 causes warming which results more water vapor.
What causes higher levels of water vapor is the tropical ocean which has average surface temperature of about 26 C.
This warm ocean water causes higher water vapor. And tropical ocean surface is always warm even in the coldest periods times of glaciation period.
“The idea that CO2 controls climate climate is based on idea that CO2 levels caused glaciation and interglacial periods. ”
I don’t know where you get that idea. Ask anyone in the trade and they’ll tell you that the forcing for glacial and interglacial periods are Milankovich cycles, with CO2 acting as an amplifying feedback.
entropic…”…with CO2 acting as an amplifying feedback”.
***
Come on, Ent, get serious. If you are going to use a term like amplifying feedback you need an amplifier. Where is the amplifier?
Feedback is not an amplifier. It is a sampled signal at the output of an amplifier, sent back to the input of the amplifier to affect the overall gain of the amplifier. If the sign of the feedback signal is positive, it adds to the input signal causing signal gain. If negative, it reduces amplifier gain.
Based on that, explain how CO2 causes amplification? If you are thinking back-radiation from CO2 can amplify the surface temperature, think again. The argument that it can is very sad scientifically.
Gordon
” Feedback is not an amplifier. It is a sampled signal at the output of an amplifier, sent back to the input of the amplifier to affect the overall gain of the amplifier. If the sign of the feedback signal is positive, it adds to the input signal causing signal gain. If negative, it reduces amplifier gain. ”
You are applying the definition and processes used in electronics. I’m not sure that applies outside electronics.
I’ll describe the early Holocene and perhaps we can come to a common picture.
Changes in the Earth’s orbit raised the average temperature 65N latitude by 1.2C.
This caused several changes which caused further warming.
Snow melted faster than it fell, ice sheets and sea ice retreated Northwards. Decreased reflection from ice and extra heat taken up by open water absorbed more heat.
Extra water vapour evaporating from the warmer ocean increased heat detention by the greenhouse effect.
Extra CO2 released from bogs and the ocean also increased the greenhouse effect.
The overall result was that between 20,000 years and 10,000 years ago there was a direct increase of 1.2C, plus indirect increases of 3.8C due to processes triggered by the initial direct warming.
Perhaps you could help me understand your thinking by describing the Holocene warming using your terminology?
Milutin Milanković isn’t your father, Svante Arrhenius was:
“Between 10,000 and 100,000 calculations later, Arrhenius had some rough, but useful, results that he published in 1896. If CO2 levels halved, he concluded, the the Earth’s surface temperature would fall by 4-5C. There was a flipside to his calculations: doubling CO2 levels would trigger a rise of about 5-6C.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/jun/30/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment2
That would corresponding rise/fall in H2O vapor too.
That would require a corresponding…
Exactly, the planet isn’t unstable.
This is what Gordon is finding difficult to understand.
The direct effect of increasing CO2 is only the first part of the process. The indirect effects of that temperature rise on albedo, water vapour, etc lead to a further increase in temperature.
Thus doubling CO2 directly increases temperature by 1C and will trigger another 2C of warming due to knock-on effects for a total warming of 3C.
Your task is to show that the equivalent doubling of H2O vapor has occurred in the same period that CO2 has doubled.
stephen p anderson says:
April 5, 2022 at 6:11 AM
Exactly, the planet isnt unstable.
Rather depends on what you mean by unstable. It stayed between 0C and 100 C for 4 billion years, between 5C and 25C for 600 million years, between 9C and 15C for 2 million years and around 14C for 10,000 years.
I wouldn’t expect it to stay at 14 C indefinately. Still plenty of time and opportunity for massive changes. You might care to contemplate why it is as stable as it is, and what might change it.
The planet doesn’t have positive corrective feedback loops. If it did we wouldn’t be here.
RLH says:
April 5, 2022 at 6:58 AM
“Your task is to show that the equivalent doubling of H2O vapor has occurred in the same period that CO2 has doubled. ”
You are familiar with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClausiusClapeyron_relation
Apply it to Earth surface conditions and you find that the water vapour content of the atmosphere increasea by 7%/C. There will be an equivalent increase in WV greenhouse effect.
The full maths is beyond my pay grade but the numbers look something like this.
Doubling CO2 raises radiation to the surface by 4W/m^2. That increases temperature by 1C. That increase WV by 7% and increases the WV greenhouse effect. Temperature rises further.
By the time we reach equilibrium WV has increased by 21% and is contributing an extra 8W/m^2.
8W/m^2 from WV and 4W/m^2 from CO2 raises the surface temperature by 12W/m^2.
At 0.27C/W/m^2 that is 12*0.27 = 3.4C
Ent claims: “Doubling CO2 raises radiation to the surface by 4W/m^2. That increases temperature by 1C.”
Wrong again, Ent. Physics and science are above your “pay grade”. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.
“Clausius-Clapeyron relation”
I am aware of what they say will happen. Your task is to find evidence that H2O vapor has actually increased in line with that.
RLH says:
April 5, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Clausius-Clapeyron relation
“I am aware of what they say will happen. Your task is to find evidence that H2O vapor has actually increased in line with that. ”
I’m busy this evening. Could you review the evidence and let me know.
Your claim. Your proof.
“Your task is to show that the equivalent doubling of H2O vapor has occurred in the same period that CO2 has doubled.”
Why do you ask to show that WV would double in line with CO2? I can see no basis for this request in Ent’s remarks.
See Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
C-C relationship:
“Its relevance to climatology is the increase of the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere by about 7% for every 1 °C (1.8 °F) rise in temperature.”
7% =/= 100%
Arrhenius made his mistake by getting the cart before the horse. An increase in temperature will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 , but not the other way around.
“An increase in temperature will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 , but not the other way around.”
Thats your mistake
It works both ways. An increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2 by releasing the gas from CO2 sinks.
An increase in CO2 causes in increase in temperature due to an increase in the strength of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
No, there is no increase in GHE from CO2. I think we get some warming from water vapor because it has a higher heat capacity than Nitrogen or Oxygen but it is due mostly to conduction and convection, with very little radiative heat transfer. But it is all speculation and not understood.
The Sun warms the surface by day due to radiative heat transfer. It cools at night. The surface warms the atmosphere mostly from conduction and convection. The atmosphere doesn’t warm the surface.
Stephen
“The atmosphere doesnt warm the surface. ”
Fohn winds?
Ent, an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature.
Physics and science are above your “pay grade”.
“Ent, an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. ”
You believe that increased CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. That’s a long way from showing it, especially when the weight of evidence is against you.
Wrong again, Ent. It is NOT my belief. It is physics and thermodynamics. You understand neither.
You have no appreciation for reality. You believe passenger jets fly backwards.
stephen p anderson says:
April 5, 2022 at 8:30 AM
The planet doesnt have positive corrective feedback loops. If it did we wouldnt be here.
I can think of three examples.
1) A snowball Earth event begins with mountain building followed by rapid weathering. This strips CO2 out of the atmosphere. Reduced greenhouse effect and negative feedbacks allow temperatures to fall to 5C and worldwide glaciation.Weathering stops.
Perhaps 2 million years later enough volcanic CO2 has accumulated to start temperatures increasing and start the ice melting. Positive feedbacks are decreasing ice albedo and increased heat uptake by open water which increase the ice melt.
2) In the early Holocene orbital changes triggered NH warming. Once again decreased ice albedo and increased open water provided positive feedbacks.
3) The climate has been warming since 1880 and by most measures it is accelerating. Positive feedbacks? Our old friends decreasing ice albedo and increasing open ocean surface.
If you define a positive feedback as pulling with the change and a negative feedback as pulling against the change, be glad of both.
Negative feedbacks help stabilise the planet in moderate conditions.
Positive feedbacks help pull us out of extreme conditions.
Though not at present. Positive feedbacks are pulling global temperature further away from our civilization’s designed optimum of 14.0C.
What I mean is if GHE were true then more CO2 would cause more warming which would lead to more CO2 and on and on. We would have been gone long ago. You speculate a lot. Present a testable hypothesis other than GHE. GHE has been falsified.
I’m not going to vote for politicians who want to curb fossil fuels. The Biden administration’s Transportation Secretary is trying to do another end around the law. We need to take him to court to stop him. The Transportation Secretary has no authority to impose restrictions on vehicle mileage.
You’re thinking like an electronics engineer expecting positive feedback to be exponential and go to infinity.
I’m thinking like a biologist who expects positive feedback to follow a sigmoid curve and level off at a limit.
Consider the Arctic Sea ice positive feedback. As sea ice extent decreases the combination of lower ice albedo and increased open water cause the Arctic ocean to absorb more heat and accelerate global warming.
This won’t go to infinity. The Arctic ocean has a limited area. When all the sea ice melts the positive feedback reaches its limit.
Similarly in the Antarctic. The sea ice can shrink until it reaches the coast, but no further. Once gone, the Southern ice albedo positive feedback reaches its limit.
Again, you’re a great speculator. You should write science fiction.
ET: Most people assume that 20-22 degrees C is the ‘normal’ temperature for humans with a relative humidity of between 30% and 70%.
EM,
You wrote –
“I’m thinking like a biologist who expects positive feedback to follow a sigmoid curve and level off at a limit.”
You are obviously thinking like an ignorant biologist, who has never heard of the logistic difference equation (also known as just the logistic equation etc.). Don’t bother looking it up if reality offends you.
Your attempts to substitute climate crackpot fantasies for generally accepted definitions is not going to achieve much at all. Climate is just the statistics of past weather events. If you have some physical basis for claiming that that the effect of atmospheric CO2 on particular weather events can be quantified, please do so.
Of course you can’t, which puts you firmly in the delusional climate crank class.
C-C relation is not about CO2. It’s about the water capacity of the atmosphere according to pressure and temperature. In simple terms atmospheric capacity for holding WV increases by 7% for every 1C temp rise.
Do you have any reasoning to equate a doubling of CO2 with a doubling of WV, based on what Ent said?
I think you just emitted wind and can’t back it up with anything.
A doubling of CO2 brings 1C temp rise if all else remains equal, according to the IPCC (and Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen – ‘skeptics’ qualified in atmos physics).
100% =/= 7%.
I ask again – from what in Ent’s comments, or even elsewhere, do you insist that anyone needs to show that WV should thus doubles in line with CO2 doubling?
Entropic man wrote, “Thus doubling CO2 directly increases temperature by 1C and will trigger another 2C of warming due to knock-on effects for a total warming of 3C.”
This is vintage AGW propaganda. There is no experimental evidence that CO2 will increase temperature and subsequently cause more warming by increasing water vapor. This is all from an unverified hypothesis at the root of the AGW religion in which you, barry, are a major shaman.
> There is no experimental evidence that CO2 will increase temperature
I think you reached the Intermediate Level on that one, Chic:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Chic,
My challenge was:
“from what in Ent’s comments, or even elsewhere, do you insist that anyone needs to show that WV should thus doubles in line with CO2 doubling?”
You replied to me by name but did not answer the question.
I think, as RLH has left this alone, that it was a silly contrivance of his. Nuff said.
Agreed. Your question arose from an interpretation of RLH’s “equivalent doubling of H2O vapor” allegedly meaning a 2K temperature rise caused by 1K CO2 increase that Ent postulated.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1234959
I simply pointed out where Entropic man’s claim came from.
appears most consistent with models predicting an ECS around 1.2 to 1.7
so depending on what carbon sinks do, most likely the current linear satellite-era trend continues, with no acceleration, through around 2050 to 2070
and of course tens of trillions of dollars in wasted mitigation in the meantime, causing more excess deaths than all the wars of the 20th put together
after that the wobbly long-term equilibrium random walks until the next big volcanic activity ends our fragile interglacial, and our civilization too if we’re not smarter by then
Where to start…
Models don’t predict ECS.
There are just a few who estimate it so low.
They are outliers.
Far from being GCMs, they’re just balance-sheet exercises.
They’re present-biased.
All they do is to shift the warming away for a decade or two.
We’ll still be stuck with the same problem anyway.
Anyone who did Texas BBQ should know that low heat still cooks.
Investing in infrastructures is very seldom a waste.
Need I go on?
every GCM prediction carries an implied ECS prediction
but thanks for the basic logic fail, as I now feel comfortable ignoring future replies as a further waste of time
do feel free to go on at great length
> every GCM prediction carries an implied ECS prediction
No, and no:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity
Also recall that the models to which you handwave ain’t no GCM, that there are different types of sensitivity, and that uncertainty is far from being the luckwarmers’ best friend.
“every GCM prediction carries an implied ECS prediction”
ECVS is an output of GCMs, not ‘implied’, not an input. It is an emergent proerty.
Some GCM runs are done with a fixed ECS to explore what would happen. That’s not that ECS estimates are based on, obviously.
Worse than that, Barry –
Sensitivity is a property of the system, it’s not a state.
Predictions are about states.
barry, Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfSvFuW8XXI
Scott mentions “war crimes”
I don’t disagree with what he is saying re Putin but he’s obviously not well informed as to the real problem.
Before the Russians invaded, and for the previous 8 years, there were atrocities committed by both sides. That is a fact recorded by Amnesty International. The so-called Kyiv forces representing the Ukrainian government and the rebel faction representing the eastern provinces, have committed random executions and torture.
For all we know, the crimes of which Putin is being accused were the work of either side with scores to even. In other words, we have no verified proof but Biden is willing to leap to conclusions. Innocent people, before the invasion, have been executed for trying to get home and coming up with the wrong answer as to whose side they were on.
In one occasion, the Kyiv forces were holding a guy when his cell phone rang. It was his wife and she presumed he was being held by friendly forces. She sunk him in the doo doo by claiming he was on the rebel side. They executed him.
As the guy said in the video, this could be a serious problem for ending the conflict. How do you bargain with someone you have labeled a war criminal? Even the idiot Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, is raving about war crimes when he has no proof of what happened.
> he has no proof of what happened.
C’mon, Gordo.
How about mass graves:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/twfj2k/mass_graves_and_hundreds_of_bodies_found_near/
Besides, you’re using the One Single Proof.
You won’t like where you’re going with that.
Entropic man,
You are doing a lot of crystal ball gazing lately. Here are some of your latest forecasts:
“Thus doubling CO2 directly increases temperature by 1C and will trigger another 2C of warming due to knock-on effects for a total warming of 3C.”
“Apply it to Earth surface conditions and you find that the water vapour content of the atmosphere increasea by 7%/C. There will be an equivalent increase in WV greenhouse effect.”
“An increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2 by releasing the gas from CO2 sinks. An increase in CO2 causes in increase in temperature due to an increase in the strength of the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
The former is easily demonstrated in a laboratory, while the latter is an unfounded circular argument. You cannot use an unmeasurable effect to claim CO2 affects temperature.
“Positive feedbacks are pulling global temperature further away from our civilizations designed optimum of 14.0C.”
That last one is particularly interesting. Are you suggesting civilization designs global temperatures and not the Master Designer?
Anything that pops into his head is immediately Natural Law. It’s a new science that he has founded. It’s called Zero Objectivity Science.
Been looking at this site for awhile now. Since I’ve looked at the satellite data charts the per decade warming hs been at .14C, except recently where it has dropped to .13 as it is currently. The ICCP is on again about how we, or really they, need temperture rises to be no more than 1.5C/century. Well looks like we have been below that since 1979 satellite data was available and the rate would seem to be dropping, not rising, despite ever increasing emissions of CO2 and concentrations in the atmmosphere. So to me this does not seem to be a problem at all. Am I missing something, Roy?
The part you are missing is the political agenda. Its not about science anymore; its about making ‘great reset’ happen.
Paul Delaney
Agenda or not, these IPCC people don’t talk about UAH, measuring temperatures 4 km above ground: they talk about temperatures at the surface.
And, oh miracle: while UAH’s job is, according to the Skeptics, at least 100 % correct,
– all surface temperature measurements are exaggerated, fudged, wrong, uncertain
and, of course,
– all other lower troposphere temperature measurements are exaggerated, fudged, wrong, uncertain as well
according to the very same Skeptics.
Problem solved.
*
Inevitably, one day the next El Nino will awaken from its slumber, and then it all starts again with the anomalies moving up for a while.
And a few years later, when it runs out of power, the Third Viscount will again ‘enjoy’ us with his ridiculous monthly posts:
The new Pause lengthens: now X years Y months
Blinny: Sorted out area (latitude) weighting yet for a profile from the North Pole to the South Pole?
7 years and 6 months
binny…”these IPCC people dont talk about UAH, measuring temperatures 4 km above ground: they talk about temperatures at the surface”.
***
UAH has the capability of measuring right to the surface. Your number of 4 km is totally misleading. The centre frequency for measured oxygen microwave radiation is centred at 4 km on their weighting curves. That does not mean radiation from O2 molecules at lower altitudes is not gathered.
I mean, your leder-hosen is too tight. You don’t seriously think they take a measurement at 4 km and extrapolate to surface level, do you?
Look at the set of weighing curves below. Look at the curve for channel 5 which covers surface temperatures and peaks at about 600 millibars. That pressure corresponds to nearly 4000 metres = 4 km. The curve extends all the way to the surface, meaning it is reading microwave emissions from oxygen all the way to the surface.
Channel 5 is centred to receive microwave radiation at 53.596 0.115 Ghz. They know from the emitted O2 frequency what altitude it is at and what its temperature should be.
Roy explained that UAH does not use the readings right at the surface because there are artefacts in the signal.
Still, they could if they wanted to.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
“I’ve looked at the satellite data charts the per decade warming hs been at .14C, except recently where it has dropped to .13 as it is currently. The ICCP is on again about how we, or really they, need temperture rises to be no more than 1.5C/century. Well looks like we have been below that since 1979 satellite data was available and the rate would seem to be dropping, not rising, despite ever increasing emissions of CO2 and concentrations in the atmmosphere. So to me this does not seem to be a problem at all.”
RLH should be along any minute to tell you that you can’t make a prediction from a linear trend.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1235438
Or perhaps not, as your remarks favour his more general POV, I think.
You could us an old NOAA trick and make your prediction with a 5% confidence level. You need to adjust for the bs-factor.
Did you reply in the wrong spot, Gordon? Your remark has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
paul…”The ICCP is on again about how we, or really they, need temperture rises to be no more than 1.5C/century”.
***
The IPCC does not talk in scientific terms, it talks in probabilities….likely, most likely, uncertain, etc. They have developed their own scale of probabilities for what it all means and that scale corresponds to nothing in physics.
Furthermore, there is chicanery afoot. They plot behind the scenes to see which papers they will review, ensuring the papers reviewed correspond with their pseudo-science.
> The IPCC does not talk in scientific terms, it talks in probabilities
C’mon.
Gordo.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
The IPCC states that it is impossible to predict future climate states.
Rightly so, because climate is the statistics of weather, which involves the atmosphere, the fluid dynamics of which are chaotic in nature – as acknowledged by even the dunderheads (mostly) who comprise the hogs slurping at the trough laughingly referred to as the IPCC.
C’mon, Wee Willy – what’s it to be today – pseudo-intellectualism, or pseudo-science?
Maybe you could try the Mike Flynn Mike Flynn diversion, or sock-puppets, or anything else which will avoid you having to acknowledge reality.
C’mon, then. Give it your best shot while I have a good chuckle, moron.
Mike Flynn, Mediocre Fool,
You say –
“climate is the statistics of weather”
You’re not talking in scientific terms according to Gordo.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Poor attempt at diversion, dummy.
I see you kept your hand in your trousers long enough to get the “Oh! Oh! Oh!” moment.
Good for you! You may choose to ignore the reality that climate is the statistics of past weather if you wish. You can put your hand back in your trousers now.
Practice makes perfect, you know.
Mike Flynn, Meditative Fibrillation,
You replied to a comment that emphasized Gordo’s
“The IPCC does not talk in scientific terms, it talks in probabilities”
If you think that your mention of statistics is a diversion, that’s your prerogative.
Willard has you so hard on a string that you reply to him even when he’s not talking to you, and when he hasn’t really said anything at all.
b,
What particular form of mental defect leads you to think I value your opinion?
I agree with you on one thing though – ” . . . he hasnt really said anything at all.”
I comment as I wish. Nothing you can do about it.
Carry on.
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://greatwork01.blogspot.com/
tim f…” 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”.
***
I am not following this debate closely so maybe I am taking you wrong. I presume the analogy used above refers to back-radiation from CO2 being added to SW solar as an additive quantity.
There is a good reason those quantities cannot be added. They are not in the same frequency range or intensity. When I was at university, one of the profs had invented a 1 megawatt light that would illuminate an entire playing field with one lamp. If that light represented solar energy and you held a flashlight pointed at the same surface, would it make the illuminated surface brighter?
Don’t think so.
The frequency/wavelength range of IR from CO2 is nearly off the IR end of the solar spectrum and the intensity there is so low there could be no appreciable heating.
But, there’s another problem. Your incandescent lights have a mixed bag of frequencies/wavelength. When you illuminate a surface using them, the fluxes are not adding, they are illuminating the surface independently, each light adding its own radiation to the surface.
The atoms on the surface would experience twice the input EM, but the wavelengths are not added. The light is far too incoherent for addition. With a diffraction grating, you can shine incoherent light through it and the grating will focus the light so it breaks it into specific wavelengths. Specific wavelengths can add and subtract, but the overall incoherent light from one light bulb cannot add it’s wavelengths to the wavelengths of another light bulb.
It’s the same with back-radiated IR from CO2 or WV. It is incoherent and cannot be added to the incoherent light from the Sun. Even if it could be added, it’s of such low intensity compared to the Sun’s radiation that it would be negligible. It would be like trying to heat a room with a flashlight.
When I mentioned pointing a flashlight at a surface illuminated by a 1 megawatt lamp, I mean shining them both from the same location. So, if the larger lamp is 20 feet above the surface, so is the flashlight.
“and you held a flashlight pointed at the same surface, would it make the illuminated surface brighter?
Dont think so.”
Then think about this. If the megawatt bulb was off, then would turning on the flashlight make surface below brighter? What if you turned up a dimmer switch so the megawatt bulb was set at 1 W? 2W? 10W? 100 W? 10,000W? There is no one value where the flashlight suddenly stops adding light to the surface below. The light from the flashlight becomes an infinitesimal fraction of the total light, but it is still light.
“the fluxes are not adding, they are illuminating the surface independently, each light adding its own radiation to the surface.”
You need to clarify! You just said the radiation adds, but the fluxes do not! The fluxes arriving at the surface are indeed adding and making the surface brighter (and hotter). When I am talking about fluxes adding, I always mean multiple fluxes ARRIVING at a single surface. I do not mean the multiple fluxes LEAVING multiple independent surfaces (eg you can’t add 300 W/m^2 leaving from one piece of ice to 300 W/m^2 leaving from a second piece of ice and get 600 W/m^2 leaving from ‘the two pieces of ice combined’ or any such nonsense.) (I think this is the part Clint doesn’t grasp).
“Even if it could be added, its of such low intensity compared to the Suns radiation that it would be negligible. It would be like trying to heat a room with a flashlight.”
So we seem to have established the “even if” part. Yes they can be added. You yourself said ‘radiation adds’. We can see with our eyes that two bulbs are brighter than one.
Now for the intensity part. Yes, sunlight is very intense, and thermal IR is not. But sunlight come from one very tiny part of the sky, while IR comes from every direction. Using your megawatt bulb analogy, one 10W flashlight will add a negligible amount of light, but 100,000 flashlights from all directions would add just as much as the single 1 MW bulb!
Gordon,
“When I was at university, one of the profs had invented a 1 megawatt light that would illuminate an entire playing field with one lamp.”
Really?
Can you provide evidence of such a light bulb?
They refer only to a 300,000 watt model but in the second link they talk about a megawatt model.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/25/business/business-technology-at-last-a-use-is-found-for-the-brightest-light.html
Bottom of page 21…reference to a megawatt version being capable of melting a small car into slag.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=jg_8NhCOLTEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=ubc+nodwell+megawatt+lighting&source=bl&ots=nC5mU02koH&sig=ACfU3U2nDUtMMTfwFo9-hdJqdeWmnynZxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt8ceFmoP3AhVFDDQIHRm_AfkQ6AF6BAhgEAM#v=onepage&q=ubc%20nodwell%20megawatt%20lighting&f=false
Getting ready to turn in my Nenana ice classic guesses. Im going pretty late this year as its currently snowing hard. Instead of going with most common dates going for the long shot hoping fewer people will share my jackpot. Theres a camera on the tripod out in the river. Its still a winter wonderland. Ice is 31 thick. Might be latest year ever.
https://webcams.borealisbroadband.net/icecam/icecammega.jpg
May be duplicate…sorry about that…lot my place.
binny…”these IPCC people dont talk about UAH, measuring temperatures 4 km above ground: they talk about temperatures at the surface”.
***
UAH has the capability of measuring right to the surface. Your number of 4 km is totally misleading. The centre frequency for measured oxygen microwave radiation is centred at 4 km on their weighting curves. That does not mean radiation from O2 molecules at lower altitudes is not gathered.
I mean, your leder-hosen is too tight. You don’t seriously think they take a measurement at 4 km and extrapolate to surface level, do you?
Look at the set of weighing curves below. Look at the curve for channel 5 which covers surface temperatures and peaks at about 600 millibars. That pressure corresponds to nearly 4000 metres = 4 km. The curve extends all the way to the surface, meaning it is reading microwave emissions from oxygen all the way to the surface.
Channel 5 is centred to receive microwave radiation at 53.596 0.115 Ghz. They know from the emitted O2 frequency what altitude it is at and what its temperature should be.
Roy explained that UAH does not use the readings right at the surface because there are artefacts in the signal.
Still, they could if they wanted to.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-weighting-functions_fig9_252235249
What the elementary school teacher still did not manage to sort out
*
A. Independently of any graphical representation, the latitude weighting formula giving for UAH the best possible fit to their original data is as follows:
Tlats[n:m] =
sum[i in n:m] (Tlat(i) * cos(i)) / sum[i in n:m] (cos(i))
where
– Tlat(i) is the average of all grid cells in the latitude band i
– cos(i) is the radian cosine of the middle of the latitude band i.
Tlats[n:m] is the weighted average for each month in the zonal time series depicted by [n:m] (Globe, NH, SH, Tropics, NoPol, SoPol, etc).
*
1. Here is a chart comparing
– UAH 6.0 LT, original data
– UAH 6.0 LT, Bin’s 2.5 deg grid processing without latitude weighting.
https://i.postimg.cc/Y95Qmnkq/UAH-6-0-LT-globe-orig-data-vs-Bins-grid-no-latweight.png
*
2. Here is a chart comparing
– UAH 6.0 LT, original data
– UAH 6.0 LT, Bin’s 2.5 deg grid processing using the formula above.
https://i.postimg.cc/VvWDRQKk/UAH-6-0-LT-globe-orig-data-vs-Bins-grid-latweight.png
Any 12-year old child can see and understand the difference between (1) and (2). If Bin’s evaluation of UAH’s grid (orange plot) wasn’t dashed, the original plot of UAH’s evaluation behind it (blue) would be invisible.
*
B. Independently of the graphical representation of the grid cells (rectangle, 3D sphere like that of Nick Stokes, Mollweide, etc etc), this representation will be correct only if it uses the same latitude weighting as that used to generate the time series out of the data, based on the formula above.
I could use Mollweide, there are enough gnuplot examples how to do; or Nick’s sphere as I did years ago; but I’m too lazy, and above all, I’m not RLH’s footman.
I therefore keep using the rectangular shape – not, as he permanently urges to insinuate: because I think a Mercator projection would be correct – but because it is way way easier to both create and inspect.
*
3. Here is a rectangular representation of UAH’s trend grid according to (1), i.e. without data latitude weighting:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vmu_penDkcZYjcs6wMVj9DvZFC7CWmA9/view
This rectangle is based on exactly the same data as Roy Spencer’s representation of the UAH grid cell trends using a Mollweide projection: a comparison shows evidence.
*
4. Here is a rectangular representation of UAH’s trend grid according to (2), i.e. with data latitude weighting:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b0ukO9HEMR5JQXVFOoea0nIxxN7LOsP3/view
This rectangle corresponds as much as possible to the original UAH time series, by using the best possible approximation to the formula above.
As opposed to (3), averaging the entire cell trend grid now gives as result the same trend as that of the original UAH time series.
*
Thus, for the really last time: using Moolweide is only a geometrical affair, which does not affect the CONTENTS of what is represented.
**
If RLH is so fixated on his Mollweide hobbyhorse: why does he not process UAH’s grid data by his own, and shows us how it looks in a Mollweide projection?
I eagerly await his excellent results! I’m patient, I await them in fact since months already.
What’s the LONGITUIDE for each LATITUDE at the surface. The surface area is one times the other.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 20N and 90N.
Your Mercator/rectangular grid does not reflect that.
My (and Willis’s) treatment does (as do others).
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
This is not about trends, but about values/area.
Idiot.
You name me an idiot?
You, still not able to understand what I wrote, though it has been perfectly explained?
*
” And Greenland 14 times the size that it really is, the same rough size as Africa. ”
How can a person aged far over 70 write such a trivial blah blah concerning this discussion?
As if not everybody would know that.
*
And why do you still not understand that in what I’m explaining, not the surfaces matter, but the DATA?
Why can’t you understand that if you average
– all grid trends shown in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/december2021/2021_Trend_Map.png
or
– all grid anomalies shown in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
you will obtain
– an average trend for 1979-now
or
– an average anomaly for February 2022
differing from the values published in the monthly report, despite the Mollweide representation of the grid data?
Why is that so complicated to grasp that making, in a picture, grid cell SURFACES akin to how they look on a sphere DOES NOT CHANGE the VALUES stored in the grid cells, and that this must be taken into account?
How can you not understand what EQUAL AREA means?
This is nothing to do with trends. At all.
This is about value/area.
You do not dispute that a rectangular/Mercator grid is wrong in that it does not take the difference in Longitude at any given Latitude into account.
For the 66 2.5 degree latitude bands used by UAH 6.0 (UAH 5.6 had 72), I perfectly recall to have computed 6 years ago, using the cosine approximation:
— 30S-30N : ~54 % of the 66 (~504 Mio km²)
— 30S-60S plus 30N-60N: ~33 %
— 82.5S-60S plus 60N-82.5N: ~13 %
And you dare to think I would ignore or discard such a major information!
How is it possible to be so arrogant?
*
” How can you not understand what EQUAL AREA means? ”
I understand that perfectly.
” This is nothing to do with trends. At all.”
Who spoke about trends? I spoke about VALUES representing trends, or anomalies, or absolute values, or whatsoever.
” This is about value/area. ”
And here we see that you still don’t understand what I mean: namely that a correct representation of UAH’s grid (or of any other) requests for a latitude weighting of the values.
*
” You do not dispute that a rectangular/Mercator grid is wrong in that it does not take the difference in Longitude at any given Latitude into account. ”
Why should I dispute such an evidence? YOU are here the one dishonest person who endlessly insinuates that.
But personally, I would rather have written
” You do not dispute that a rectangular/Mercator grid is wrong in that it does not take the difference in Latitude at any given Longitude into account. ”
And again, you dare to think I would ignore or discard such a major information!
How is it possible to be so arrogant?
*
I hope once more that you will stop stalking me about that, because it gets really BORING.
But I know by experience that stalkers never stop disturbing others.
Never.
Your rectangular/Mercator grid does not account for the fact that Longitude differs for each value of Latitude, but treats them as all the same.
Thus the area for each value of Latitude is wrong in your treatment.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 20N and 90N.
Your Mercator/rectangular grid does not reflect that.
Typo.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30N and 90N.
Your Mercator/rectangular grid does not reflect that.
You made the same mistake three times.
Typo.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30N and 90N.
Your Mercator/rectangular grid does not reflect that.
(Copy paste does that).
In order to find out how much the strong el Nino years 1998 and 2016 poked out above the usual variability in terms of global temperature, I detrended the series so we could observe the difference if there was no linear trend in the data:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/detrend:0.579/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/trend/detrend:0.579
Unsurprisingly, 1998 was by far the warmest departure from the mean, and 2016 was the second warmest departure from the mean in the entire UAH LT record.
Is it any wonder ‘skeptics’ have based their temp trend ‘analyses’ on or the year before these huge spikes in the temp record? There is no better method to promote a non-warming narrative using linear trend analysis than by making these very particular selections.
Here is the same graph with 12-month running means.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/detrend:0.579/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/trend/detrend:0.579
Even clearer. Look at 1998. ‘Skeptics’ made hay out of that selection for years. They will continue to do so with the 2016 start date, but physics won’t allow that argument to live as long.
barry, the satellite record started from a cold period. Sorry.
Did you believe that ice cubes can boil water?
Clint R,
Of course he does. He thinks that concentrating the 300 watts emitted by one square meter of ice into one square centimeter, resulting in a flux intensity of 100 x 100 x 300 watts per square meter (3,000,000 watts per square meter), must generate an enormous temperature!
After all, he probably used a magnifying glass to concentrate sunlight at some time, discovering that concentrating sunlight can start fires, boil water, burn the legs off ants, and all the rest. He forgets that the temperature of the sun is quite a bit higher than that of ice.
barry, like climate clowns in general – Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Trenberth etc. – don’t understand the difference between degrees of hotness (temperature), and flux intensity. These idiots realise that adding temperatures is just stupid, so they figure that if they confuse the issue with “energy balances”, people will rush about claiming that temperatures really can be added, through the miracle of “adding fluxes”.
It’s all nonsense, of course, but there’s one born every minute.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1235661
barry got caught attempting to pervert reality. His only response is to link to his failed attempt.
I bet he tries such nonsense again.
Clint R,
Thank you for confirming that I would have wasted my time clicking on Barrys link.
You are far more tolerant of idiocy than I. Dimwits who are unable to say what they mean often take refuge in posting links, to cover up their lack of understanding.
Some idiot even linked to a full IPCC report when asked to justify some unsupported assertion or other.
Civilised countries like India and China, whose cultures go back thousands of years, tend to be more accepting of reality. They seem to favour fact over fantasy, which might explain why between them they mine about 14 million tons of coal per day.
In the meantime, China at least is forging ahead with fusion power, recently setting a record of maintaining a fusion reaction for 17 minutes or so. Of course, the tokamak reactor they used was a Russian design, the US being apparently fixated on on things that are more fantasy based – solar, wind, unicorn farts and so on.
The future might be interesting indeed.
Clint didn’t click on the links either. If he did his comment would bee more than empty rhetoric.
But you’ve marked it down as substantive. Figures.
Two trolls mutually reinforce their troll behaviour.
Maybe one of you could deal with the point eventually?
Nah. It’s not in you to engage on topic.
Now barry, if I didn’t check your link, how did I know it was repetitive?
You’re not very good at figuring things out, are you?
That… does not make any sense, Pup.
That’s…because you’re braindead, worthless Willard.
Not really, Pup.
Here’s something that makes more sense:
https://youtu.be/YIeBxf4W-FI
Willard, please stop trolling.
barry,
You do realise that the “phenomenon” to which you refer is just a set of temperature observations?
Just like summer, winter, and so on.
I wonder if you are deluded enough to believe observations control what is being observed?
You know, like the idiots who believe that the statistics of past weather (climate) controls future weather! You couldn’t be that stupid, could you?
Two replies that do not address the point at all. Yawn.
b,
The main point might be the shape of your head.
If you disagree, you might like to say why you believe that observing temperatures tells you anything at all except what the temperature measuring instrument indicates?
I suppose you think that a thermometer in a vacuum chamber will magically get hotter if you allow the chamber to be filled with 100% CO2 at ambient temperature. No?
Why is that, do you think?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1235661
b,
Following Witless Wee Willy’s bizarre tactics, are you?
Pointless and irrelevant links just show that the linker is pointless and irrelevant.
I suppose you hope that onlookers might think that you are an intellectual giant, and there is knowledge to be had by following your link. Alas, there won’t be. Not worth the effort of clicking. If my assumption is wrong, I’ll no doubt find out.
Moron.
Mike Flynn, Mechanical Fraction,
How do you know that Barry’s link is irrelevant if you don’t click on links?
With that kind of logic, no wonder you feel so smol.
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“How do you know that Barrys link is irrelevant if you dont click on links?
Moron. If it was relevant, someone would say so. What did you find relevant about his links? Or cant you be bothered to click on the links of a moron yourself?
Go on, dummy – tell me why Barrys links are relevant, if you wish. I say they arent, without even having to look. Prove me wrong if you feel like it.
What an idiot you are.
The link is relevant. I say so.
Ken,
You wrote –
“The link is relevant. I say so.”
Good for you. Keep the mystery going. Not relevant to me, of course. That’s why I don’t bother wasting my time following it.
As expected, barry tries the same nonsense again.
His first mistake was trying to pervert reality.
His second mistake was using the word “physics”. He should NEVER use a word that proves his cult religion wrong.
You don’t get to decide what is and what isn’t physics.
Sorry RLH, but you don’t get to decide who decides.
You have NO meaningful background in physics. You don’t even understand vectors. Vector addition is one of the first things you must learn in physics. You couldn’t solve the easy problem. You’re a braindead cult idiot who trolls 24/7 because you don’t have a life.
Hope that helps.
I understand the practical use of vectors quite well thank you. I have even been trained in it.
That’s your belief, RLH. But reality doesn’t support your belief.
You couldn’t solve the easy vector problem. Worse yet, you couldn’t even understand the solution!
Trolling seems to be your only talent. But at least you do that quite well. Too bad it’s a worthless talent.
I passed exams testing my knowledge. A lot more than you have ever done I suspect.
Just because your ‘application’ of vectors is not what others use just make you wrong. As usual.
“Vector addition is one of the first things you must learn in physics. ”
Tee hee hee!
So sez the dude who tries to add momentum to force vectors, and is morally opposed to adding radiant flux vectors.
Troll Nate makes things up because he has NOTHING.
It is Clint R who has NOTHING. As usual.
I recall neither trolls Nate nor RLH were able to solve any of the easy physics problems. They have NOTHING except their false accusations.
Are you talking about the problem where you “voluntarily” miscalculated a simple trigonometric function, Pup?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It was your authority figure, the IPCC, who fist made the announcement in 2013 that a flat trend existed between 1998 and 2012. Alarmist whiners, no doubt influenced by idiots like skepticalscience, started raving that the end points were the problem. Not so, even with the 1998 spike the trend is flat.
Anyone who has studied calculus can see that by eyeballing the areas under the curves.
As for woodfortrees, even a slight change in a parameter can change a trend from positive to negative. Binny changes professional analysis all the time using Excell in the same manner.
Look at the red average curve for the 1998 spike and it is followed by dip into the negative anomaly region. That dip cancels the spike.
“Alarmist whiners, no doubt influenced by idiots like skepticalscience, started raving that the end points were the problem. Not so, even with the 1998 spike the trend is flat.”
The 1998 spike is a major reason why the trend is flat for so many years afterwards.
Take a look. I’ve detrended the record to remove warming so that the spikes can be compared evenly.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/detrend:0.579/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2022.08/trend/detrend:0.579
No wonder ‘skeptics’ spent ten years talking about trends from 1998. The trend was bound to be negative or flat for some years after, owing to how massive the spike is.
The IPCC mentioned it because of the hullabaloo that was raised about. And they rightly pointed out that endpoints can have a significant effect on short-term (less than multidecadal) trends.
We had a new big el Nino in 2016. Guess what the ‘skeptics’ are doing with that? Same old story.
barry…”The 1998 spike is a major reason why the trend is flat for so many years afterwards”.
***
Don’t follow your logic.
You could say the trend has been flat for 40+ years, since 1979, except for brief cooling departures caused by volcanic aerosols and La Ninas, and brief warming departures due to El Ninos.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s the Escalator Trick all over again:
https://skepticalscience.com/escalator
The trick is simple:
1. Pick the highest local as the left end point.
2. Pick the lowest local as the right end point.
3. There is no third step, and the second step is facultative.
Gordon, the trends you and other skeptics have been talking about are linear trends. You cite the IPCC constantly on this – that’s based on a linear trend.
Do end points make a difference? They sure do with 15 year trends.
Look at the difference between the 15 year trends when all we do is shift the start date by one year.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2018/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2012/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend
From 1996 to 2011 the trend is +0.04 C/decade
From 1997 to 2012 the trend is -0.02 C/decade
From 1998 to 2013 the trend is -0.08 C/decade
Shifting the start date by 2 years changed the trend by 0.12 C/decade – almost as much as the current warming trend.
If you have a problem with linear trends, then stop citing the IPCC on this. And don’t cite all the ‘skeptics’ who for nearly 10 years exclusively used linear trends to claim no warming since 1998.
Yes, end points make a significant difference to the linear trend when the period is short and there is a lot variability in the data. That’s why ‘skeptiocs’ focus on short term trends.
That’s why ‘skeptics’ are now talking about trends since 2015/2015. It’s because that puts a huge spike at the beginning of a linear trend, which will cause the trend to be flat or negative for a while.
Does this make sense? Do you get the point?
Should be… 2015/2016.
And look what happens if we shift the start date forward one year from 1998 – still 15 year trends.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2018/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2014/trend
The trend changed from -0.08 to +0.03 C/decade just by shifting the 15 year trend forward by a single year. A change of about 0.1 C/decade!
Yes, Virginia, end points have a significant influence on short term trends.
Barry: And your point was?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sine:10/from:1990/plot/sine:10/from:1992/trend/plot/sine:10/from:1991/trend/plot/sine:10/from:1990/trend
This…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1235661
I didn’t set the parameters, Richard. ‘Skeptics’ did.
You’re an intelligent guy. You can see these cretins not responding to the point. Maybe you will.
I was pointing out that using linear trends on cyclic data is an exercise founded in futility.
Sine waves are so much realer.
You mean like daily and yearly figures are?
Just because you can represent them like so does not mean they truly are, Richard.
“I was pointing out that using linear trends on cyclic data is an exercise founded in futility.”
Yes you were, for the hundredth time.
You joined the cretins in not responding to the point.
So what long term cyclic behaviors do you think might makeup that ‘trend’?
Long term cyclic behavior?
Temperatures not CO2.
Gordo was talking about temps, not CO2.
But then: how do we explain temperatures using temperatures?
Do you think that long term cyclic behavior in temperatures might give a clue?
You mean like this?
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-019-0400-0/MediaObjects/41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png
W needs to be excused. He’s a casualty of the Hokey Schtick indoctrination program, available on DVD or 8 track.
Now find me even 2 proxy records that agree in the underlying temperature swings over the period they overlap.
Harder to get into deep times cycles without reconstructions, Pozzo.
> Now find me
That’s not how it works, Richard.
You want cycles, you go fetch them yourself.
Well all the proxy records I have examined so far have no corresponding swings in the data. In fact if you add enough of them together then, as expected, they produce a flat line.
Corresponding swings of and to what, Richard?
Next you’re gonna argue that CO2 does not impact temperatures.
Well if proxy records were showing global temperatures then swings in that would show up in their figures. They don’t.
Say it, Richard.
barry says: In order to find out how much the strong el Nino years 1998 and 2016 poked out above the usual variability in terms of global temperature,. . .
The code for the 2011 Foster/Rahmstorf paper that uses multiple regression to estimate the global temperature contribution of El Nino (MEI), solar intensity (TSI), and aerosol optical density is open sourced.
Updating the temperature series and the regressors gives an estimated El Nino impact as in the following figure. Note that this shows impact for GISS and RSS series only, UAH estimate is virtually the same as RSS.
MEIv2_Influence_on_Global_Temperature.png
The code produces an adjusted time series with the estimates for MEI, TSI, and AOD removed which looks like this for UAH TLT:
UahTltFR2011Adjusted.png
Why use ENSO. Surely the PDO would be more appropriate?
RLH says: Why use ENSO. Surely the PDO would be more appropriate?
The variance of the residual using MEI is smaller than running the same analysis using PDO. This strongly suggests that MEI is a better metric for explaining sub-decadal variation in the various temperature anomaly series:
Using MEIv2: UahTltFR2011AdjustedSmoothed.png
Using ERSSTv5 PDO: UahTltFR2011AdjustedWPdoSmoothed.png
That said, the MEI and PDO indices are largely covariant so either can be used in this sort of analysis to support the conclusion that the short term trend in temperature anomalies is down to phenomena in the Pacific circulation and not some fundamental issue with GHG theory.
Using linear fits on quasi cyclic data is an exercise in futility.
T is quasi cyclic at both daily and yearly periods. It is likely that any physical feedbacks are likewise. We already know that orbital factors are.
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo.jpeg
ENSO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/amo.jpeg
GAT, PDO, AMO
https://tinyurl.com/yck2c5c5
With 15-year averaging to get a feel for cycles:
https://tinyurl.com/56s25vkx
RLH says: Using linear fits on quasi cyclic data is an exercise in futility.
You understand that’s not what’s being done, right?
What’s being done is applying a level of rigorous analysis to your hypotheses that long term cycles manifest in the PDO and/or AMO are somehow driving significant temperature change. This analysis finds very little correlation, which largely diminishes the case for causality.
entropic…”Youre thinking like an electronics engineer expecting positive feedback to be exponential and go to infinity”.
***
PF does not have to cause an amplifier to run out of control. It is used in a very controlled manner in an oscillator. An LC tank circuit can be installed in the input of a transistor amplifier. When excited, it oscillates naturally at a frequency determined by the L and C values.
Simply turning on the power causes current to run through the tank and it begin oscillating naturally. The oscillation will die off due to resistance in the tank circuit. If it is injected once per cycle by a controlled positive feedback the tank will maintain its amplitude very nicely without running away.
This kind of PF is represented by the equation:
G = A/(1 – AB)
Where G = overall gain
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback
***********************
Im thinking like a biologist who expects positive feedback to follow a sigmoid curve and level off at a limit.
***
Can your feedback be represented by an equation. Is there a gain factor, or are you dealing with various levels of negative feedback?.
From what I can see you are talking about straight exponential growth that is not related to positive feedback.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1123357.pdf
You need to distinguish between a positive feedback that leads to exponential growth and a feedback that is strictly a linear control mechanism. A servo motor system, for example, has no gain and relies on the sign of a feedback signal to control the speed of a motor. Gain requires an amplifier.
*******************
Consider the Arctic Sea ice positive feedback. As sea ice extent decreases the combination of lower ice albedo and increased open water cause the Arctic ocean to absorb more heat and accelerate global warming.
***
A significant amount of ice decrease year round should indicate a warming environment. You seem to be suggesting that the initial melting of ice is due to anthropogenic gases. That theory suggests GHGs warm the surface and the warming surface releases more water vapour, increasing the GHG amount in the atmosphere. The end result is an exponential growth in global warming.
I fail to see how positive feedback fits into that scenario. For one, I don’t think GHGs are warming the surface. As I have claimed in other posts, that theory contradicts the 2nd law, it represents perpetual motion, and it contradicts basic quantum theory.
For another, I don’t see the feedback path or how it leads to amplification. As I see it, the planet cooled for 400+ years till 1850 and now it’s re-warming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_samer_1.png
Be warned of a very cold April in eastern Canada and the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/G2qj7TM/gfs-T2m-us-62.png
” UAH has the capability of measuring right to the surface. ”
As usual, Robertson writes bullshit for the umpteenth time.
I repeat, for umpteenth time again, that UAH DOES NOT MEASURE THE SURFACE.
This is due, as has been explained by Roy Spencer, to a major bias created when sounding ocean surfaces using a microwave sounder.
The contrary is the case: in order to generate a correct LT time series, UAH has to create a synthetic product out of a weighted sum of the layers above.
In the document
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products
Methodology and Results
we read:
” The brightness temperatures (Tb) of three primary layers are monitored: the lower troposphere (LT), mid-troposphere (MT), and lower stratosphere (LS, Spencer & Christy, 1993), nomenclature which refers to the layer of peak sensitivity.
Additionally, we now produce a tropopause (TP) channel product, which in combination with MT and LS is used to calculate a
revised LT product.
MT is computed from MSU channel 2 (MSU2) or AMSU channel 5 (AMSU5); TP is computed from MSU3 or AMSU7; and LS is computed from MSU4 or
AMSU9. ”
*
The formula with the weighting factors for the three upper layers I have somewhere, but can’t find it. It has been posted numerous times here.
**
” I mean, your leder-hosen is too tight. You dont seriously think they take a measurement at 4 km and extrapolate to surface level, do you? ”
Apart from very arrogant tones coming from one of the most ignorant persons writing on this blog, Robertson does not underśtand anything, because he doesn’t know anything really, what in turn is due to the fact that instead of learning, he prefers to stay in guessing.
*
According to the data everybody knowing how to do can process out of
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
the average temperature of what is measured for LT is about 264 K, what corresponds, when taking into account a lapse rate of -6.5 K / km, to an altitude of about 3.7 km aka 640 hPa.
“in order to generate a correct LT time series, UAH has to create a synthetic product out of a weighted sum of the layers above”
Are you suggesting that the various layers are not connected, one to the other?
Are you saying? Are you suggesting?
What’s that? Why these stupid, irrelevant questions?
Think of your own, RLH, and come out with useful results.
And stop asking me all the time, it’s BORING.
Everybody else knows that each layer is directly connected to each other layer. Except you apparently.
The response curves of the various bands for AMU/ASMU are well know and used not only by UAH but also RSS but also every other satellite series that also use those instruments.
It so happens that UAH has checked the response curve they use against other balloon data and have concluded that the values they use are correct.
It is you who are stubborn and boring. Unable to think things through in a logical, scientific fashion.
This is pure polemic again, and above all is no answer to what I wrote, which has nothing to do with the question whether or not the atmospheric layers are connected.
What I wrote was (taken directly from Christy/Spencer):
In the document
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products
Methodology and Results
we read:
” The brightness temperatures (Tb) of three primary layers are monitored: the lower troposphere (LT), mid-troposphere (MT), and lower stratosphere (LS, Spencer & Christy, 1993), nomenclature which refers to the layer of peak sensitivity.
Additionally, we now produce a tropopause (TP) channel product, which in combination with MT and LS is used to calculate a
revised LT product.
MT is computed from MSU channel 2 (MSU2) or AMSU channel 5 (AMSU5); TP is computed from MSU3 or AMSU7; and LS is computed from MSU4 or
AMSU9. ”
This has nothing to do with layer connection.
It has to do with the fact that the inevitable contamination of the LT data by the surface has to be compensated using a mix of TP, MT, LS.
This was an answer to Robertson’s ridiculous claim that UAH accesses surface data as well.
If you don’t understand that: why should I communicate with you?
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 20N and 90N.
Your Mercator/rectangular grid does not reflect that.
“why should I communicate with you?”
Why indeed?
RLH wrote:
Those “response curves” which you reference are created using a theoretical math model, which includes several assumptions, including surface emissivity. RSS publishes their curves, UAH has not, to my knowledge. The UAH LT is created combining the theoretical curves for the MT, TP and LS, their method has so far never been explained.
In order to make their comparison of balloon data regarding how well the LT calculation matches reality, UAH first creates a simulated LT based on those theoretical curves. That’s necessary because, there’s no direct comparison possible given that the balloon data is reported at discrete pressure levels.
https://imgur.com/a/i5zdvgG
“Fig. 2. MSU weighting functions computed from radiative transfer theory for the chosen reference Earth incidence angles, and the resulting LT averaging kernels computed from a linear combination of the MT, TP, and LS weighting functions (the dotted line is for LT computed from AMSU). Also shown is an estimate of the global temperature trend profile (dashed) from the average of RAOBCORE and RATPAC radiosonde data used to determine the stratospheric sensitivity of the new LT averaging kernel”
https://imgur.com/a/INTEsSr
“Fig. 10. Explained variance between four satellite microwave temperature datasets and various radiosonde and reanalysis datasets for yearly anomalies, 1979-2015, in mid-tropospheric temperature (MT). Radiosonde datasets and reanalyses are on the horizontal axis with each satellite temperature dataset individually represented by the vertical bars.”
“UAH has not, to my knowledge.”
See Fig 2 above.
Last time I checked, a weighting function was a mathematical expression, not a graph.
“The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2, 3, 4 or AMSU5, 7, 9 (MT, TP, LS):
LT = a1MT + a2TP + a3LS, (1)
where a1=1.538, a2=-0.548, and a3=0.01. As seen in Fig. 2”
That’s better.
Now, can you reconstruct the response curves, like ES is asking?
See
APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Product
You mean this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
Yup.
The basic substance first appeared at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf
RLH, Your several replies regurgitating earlier posts ignore the fact that UAH has not provided a table of weights vs pressure level as RSS does. Using the graphs, such as the “Figure 2”, doesn’t provide a way to compare the weighting with RSS or anything else. From the RSS web site:
Must I repeat myself again? RLH still doesn’t get it. The method used to produce those curves is not presented, including what assumptions were made in performing the computations.
Interesting that, per figure 7, the UAH weighting function for TLT changed between UAH version 5 and version 6. That alone would reduce the temperature trend by including more tropopause and stratosphere in the coverage.
ES: You can get the weights from the graph if you like. What values would you suggest are the correct versions instead and where is your comparison to balloon datasets to demonstrate that your choice is correct?
MB: The paper that Roy et al produced shows the effects of the change. Are you suggesting that they were incorrect?
> You can get the weights from the graph if you like.
That’s great.
Even greater would be to have the weights that help reproduce all of Roy’s future graphs.
I follow what the data shows.
You could also follow up with Roy, Richard.
He responds to your emails.
RLH says: MB: The paper that Roy et al produced shows the effects of the change. Are you suggesting that they were incorrect?
It’s not a matter of being “correct”, it’s a matter of being “different”. The v6 LT curve includes more of the tropopause and lower stratosphere than does v5.
One might reasonably expect v6 to have a lower long-term warming trend based on the understanding that there is long term cooling in the stratosphere component.
See Fig 10 above for confirmation of the calculations.
“You could also follow up with Roy”
I do.
So you know that Eric is right, Richard.
Why keep denying?
RLH wrote:
You are again missing the main point, which is, what assumptions did UAH use to calculate those weighting functions. For example, did they start by calculating the weights for each of the individual scan position and then apply their polynomial smoothing and selection for view angles, simulating the process they use to produce the MT? The comparison with balloon data must first create simulated MT data from the balloon measurements, since the balloon data is not altitude weighted. Did they use the RSS weights for RSS and NOAA STAR weights for the Star series comparison?
And, what temperature profile did UAH use in their calculation of MT, TP and LS weights? Did they simply start with the temperature profile from the US Standard Atmosphere with a surface temperature of 288 K and a constant temperature of 216 K from 12 km to 20 km? Is that a realistic assumption for Arctic Winter or tropical conditions?
ES: Do you think it is coincidence that Fig 10 above shows a good correlation of UAH to the profiles that Radiosonde and reanalysis provide? Much better than RSS does?
“The comparison with balloon data must first create simulated MT data from the balloon measurements, since the balloon data is not altitude weighted”
Radiosonde and reanalysis DO provide altitude measurements in their data. They would be useless without them.
RLH wrote:
Well DUH. But, bright guy, how does one compare these data with the altitude weighted data as captured by the MSU/AMSU instruments? One can not simply average the measurements over some range of altitude, which would be the equivalent of applying the same weighting to each measurement and summing the result. To be at all realistic, the same weighting as that for the satellite data should be used, which, BTW, is based on a theoretical model. Thus, I think that in order to compare the RSS data with the balloon data, one must apply the same weighting as that for the RSS processing. Remember too, the RSS TLT product uses only one channel, not three like UAH with their LT. I suggest that the UAH figure 10 isn’t convincing proof of their accuracy..
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 20N and 90N.
Fact.
I think you have a typo.
Thank you
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30N and 90N.
Coal is not a dirty fuel for electricity generation plants. There are in use very much sufficient technologies for filtering and capturing almost the 99,9 % of the corresponded ashes.
CO2 in emission gasses is not a pollutant…
CO2 (trace gasses) 0,04 % content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause any rise (warming) to the global surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems we can’t accurately measure the warming effect from increasing CO2 levels.
No one says the increased CO2 level have cause much increase in global surface air temperatures.
I think per doubling of CO2 levels, that probably the increase is a tenth to 5 tenths of one degree C which would difficult to measure and is an insignificant amount.
The global average surface temperature is about 15 C.
15 C air temperature is a cold air temperature.
The “El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle” has much larger effects upon warming and cooling the global surface air temperature.
The 15 C average surface air temperature is comprised of global ocean surface and global land surface air average temperature.
About 70% of Earth surface is ocean surface, and it’s average surface temperature is about 17 C and since it’s most of global surface, the ocean surface temperature controls global air temperature. The land surface where most people live has average air temperature of about 10 C.
Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C. China is about 8 C. Canada is about -3 C and US is about 12 C.
India which about 1/3 the land area of US, has over billion people living there and has average temperature of about 24 C.
24 C might seems quite warm, but this average temperature is largely about having a warmer night and winter temperature or one could say India has a more uniform temperature or does have wide swings in a temperature. Or one have hotter summer days in China, and certainly colder nights and winters.
Canada might seem very cold, but most Canadian don’t live in most
of Canada where it is colder- most Canadians live within 200 km of US/Canada border. And as general thing most town are located in warmer region of any country- people tend settle where there is more moderate climates.
And what people might consider ideal climate conditions would be a “tropical island paradise” which have very uniform air temperatures. Say, the Maldives: “Temperatures average between 26 °C and 29 °C throughout the year, with the warmest temperatures occurring between March and April.”
Jamaica: About 27 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/jamaica
And room temperature might set at say 25 C {77 F}
No one does 15 C [59 F]. Or most people living in a house are living at higher average temperatures.
And if living in city, one can urban heat island effect which can range from 1 to 10 C added to average temperature- mostly to night time temperatures.
And warming land average temperature are mostly increases to night time temperatures and winter temperatures.
Or global warming is not about increases daytime high air temperature. Or world highest recorded daytime temperature was measure about 300 miles from me, and it measured over hundred years ago. And rather disproving global warming the lack of present day higher daytime air temperature, is proof or confirmation of global rise in average temperature.
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t understand why ‘skeptics’ have a problem with adjusting data to correct issues with them. RSS describe their corrections for the satellite record thus:
Since the early days of the global satellite temperature monitoring efforts, adjustments to the data have been necessary. Satellites must be intercalibrated during overlapping periods of operation due to differences in absolute calibration of a few tenths of a degree C. Furthermore, slow decay of the orbit altitude causes the multi-view angle method of lower troposphere (LT) temperature retrievals (Wentz and Schabel, 1998) to become biased cold, and a dependence of the calibrated MSU measurements on the instrument temperature (Christy et al., 2000) causes a spurious warming of the Tb over time….
Next, we apply a trend adjustment of NOAA-11 relative to NOAA-10 and NOAA-12, and another trend adjustment of NOAA-14 relative to NOAA-12 and NOAA-15. These force an average match between the middle satellite’s trends to the bounding satellites’ trends during their mutual overlap periods…
The intercalibrated and trend-adjusted data are then used to compute residual gridpoint anomaly annual cycles, which are smoothed with a four-term Fourier series. Those smoothed gridpoint cycles are then removed from the anomalies.
Next, an MSU channel 3 calibration drift correction is applied, using global averages linearly interpolated…
If there is good reason to make these corrections, why do ‘skeptics’ trash the very fact of them? They don’t even investigate what the corrections are for!
All those RSS adjustment are probably why RSS is always warmer than UAH.
But the REAL problem is with the perversions of physics. The cult idiots are making claims that ice cubes can boil water. Of course, the cult MUST believe that nonsense to then believe CO2 can heat the planet.
> The cult idiots are making claims that ice cubes can boil water.
Your incredulous distortion is duly noted, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1204360
It might be time to stop burning that straw man or else you’ll warm the planet.
Wow, Willard responded in 10 minutes. And with a link and blockquote! He’s pulled out all the stops trying to avoid more embarrassment for his cult.
I must have really hit the target. So why not continue…
Yes, the idiots do really believe ice cubes can boil water. Ball4 even clearly admits it. The rest are more timid. They want it to be true, so they try to twist, spin, and pervert reality. Folkerts and Norman are the most dedicated to the perversion. Followed closely by braindead bob, Nate, and Ent.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> I must have really hit the target.
Keep repeating “making claims that ice cubes can boil water,” Pup.
One day you’ll be right.
Even better, one day you’ll be relevant.
I must have really hit the target. So why not continue…
Yes, the idiots do really believe ice cubes can boil water. Ball4 even clearly admits it. The rest are more timid. They want it to be true, so they try to twist, spin, and pervert reality. Folkerts and Norman are the most dedicated to the perversion. Followed closely by braindead bob, Nate, and Ent. Poor, worthless Willard doesn’t understand any of it, as usual.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Everything confirms that Pup should troll a bit more.
Clint R
You pulled my name into this. You do not understand the GHE and are hopelessly confused by your own misconception of the process. I have correctly explained it to you dozens of times and each time fails to enlighten you so you go off on your strange obsession with this idea that GHE means “ice cubes can boil water”.
I think maybe 20 times now or more, the GHE does not mean CO2 is adding heat to the Earth surface from above. The Heat is negative from surface to atmosphere. The energy emitted by the surface exceeds what it receives from the atmosphere as downwelling IR (except cloudy nights).
The GHE is an insulating effect. The atmosphere acts as a radiant barrier from the surface to space. The amount of heat the surface loses is lowered by GHE so that the incoming solar will cause the surface to reach a higher energy level.
It works the same way as insulation will allow a heated pipe to reach a hotter temperature than a non-insulated pipe.
When you say “ice cubes boil water” is what the GHE is stating it would be the same as saying insulation will boil water in a pipe.
It is that stupid. I do not think you will ever understand the actual GHE nor will you attempt to try and understand it.
So as long as you remain on this blog you will keep posting that GHE means ice cubes can boil water (wrong as you are to conclude this).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1236982
Clint R.,
> All those RSS adjustment are probably why RSS is always warmer than UAH.
The text barry quoted is misattributed. It actually comes from Spencer, Christy, and Braswell (2017), UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results.
That’s correct, Brandon. barry is having a hard time with this.
Let’s talk about about having a hard time, Clint.
Correctly attributed, your logic would give, “All those UAH adjustment are probably why UAH is always cooler than RSS.”
barry’s correct: contrarians who dis adjustments to raw data tar their own favorite temperature series.
Correct again, Brandon. Cold is cooler than hot.
The dispute is not about the relationship between cold and hot, Clint. But do carry on.
Brandon, please stop trolling.
–I dont understand why skeptics have a problem with adjusting data to correct issues with them.–
Adjusting data {in the best light] indicates faulty measurements.
And if concerned about .3 C change of global temperature and one is admitting one measures poorly, it’s a problem.
Global temperature have change in last 7 years and couple years ago, the world was going to end in 12 years.
The problem is you like the idiots claiming warming our cold world, could vaguely mean the end of the world.
We in a 34 million year ice house global climate, and in a glaciation period 20 million years ago had average global surface temperature warmer than 15 C.
Or last 2 million years of the 34 million was much colder than the earlier 32 million year of our Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
The only vaguely “end of world” is returning to the global climate of our last glaciation period.
And worst climate change in our Holocene period, occurred 5000 years ago, when the Sahara desert, become a vast desert it is today.
[Due to the 5000 years of global cooling.}
Though with recovery from the disasters connected to cooler Little Ice Age, there is hysteria of world ending, soon- to promote trillions of dollars schemes of alternative energies, which btw, don’t work now, and would not work if we get much cold or warmer.
Why make wind mills and solar panels if worried about a myth of global extreme weather- is any improvement to a tornado if it has wind wills and and solar panels in it?
“The problem is you like the idiots claiming warming our cold world, could vaguely mean the end of the world.”
There’s so much wrong with that comment it’s hard to know where to begin.
1. I don’t think that way.
2. Even if I did I can’t do anything about it, so what “problem?”
3. “Vaguely” describes your comment nicely. ‘Waffle’ also works.
4. Straw men are cheap to make, easy to knock down.
5. Slips, “Warmer is better!” in there.
6. Total statement is pure rhetoric.
But that’s politics for ya.
See UAHs reasons for v6.1 here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf
Yes, I well knew the text was from UAH. I deliberately attributed to RSS to see what people, namely the resident ‘skeptics’ would do.
They did not disappoint.
The details are of no significance to them. They just diss what they don’t lie as if they understand it.
barry, please stop trolling.
https://www.epa.gov/ – Coal Ash Reuse
Coal ash, also referred to as coal combustion residuals (CCR), can be used in different products and materials. Coal ash can be beneficially used to replace virgin materials removed from the earth, thus conserving natural resources. EPA encourages the beneficial use of coal ash in an appropriate and protective manner, because this practice can produce positive environmental, economic, and product benefits such as: reduced use of virgin resources, lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced cost of coal ash disposal, and improved strength and durability of materials.
” 25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 90S and 30S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30S and 0S.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 0N and 30N.
25% of the surface of a globe/sphere is between 30N and 90N.
Fact. ”
*
That fact still does not change anything to the other fact that if we display a grid representing data on a sphere without accounting for an appropriate latitude weighting of that data, the representation of the grid will always be incorrect, regardless whether you display it
– as a rectangle;
– as a projection;
– as a (way better) 3D representation of a sphere (like do e.g. Nick Stokes and Clive Best).
Without a latitude weighting of UAH’s grid data, your charts (a month’s absolute values, anomalies, or trends) will show the same error as the time series in purpur below:
https://i.postimg.cc/Y95Qmnkq/UAH-6-0-LT-globe-orig-data-vs-Bins-grid-no-latweight.png
With a correct latitude weighting of the data, your UAH grid chart will show no errors like shows the time series in dashed orange below:
https://i.postimg.cc/VvWDRQKk/UAH-6-0-LT-globe-orig-data-vs-Bins-grid-latweight.png
*
With a simple-minded,cosine based latitude weighting of the data, your UAH grid chart will show the same, far bigger error as the time series in red below:
https://tinyurl.com/5exnht6c
*
It doesn’t matter what data you have: temperature, pluviometric data, snow mass, etc etc; in absolute, anomaly, trend form, or what ever.
Fact is and remains that it won’t help you to put that on a perfect 3D-sphere, or on a Mollweide projection.
You have to perform a latitude weighting of the data itself.
No Mollweide representation will help you when calculating the exact sea ice extent out of HadISST1’s unweighted 1 degree grid: it only tells you that near the Poles, the ice surface per latitude band looks smaller than near 55N: what of course everybody knows.
*
That is all I wanted to get clear, and I don’t know why such an evidence can lead to such ridiculous discussions.
Of course, I’ll continue to present spheric grid data in rectangular form (containing of course correct data wrt latitudes, he he), and will consistently ignore RLH’s urges to drop his little Mercator poops below my comments every time.
*
Best regards from Google Maps!
https://www.google.com/maps/@70.2383968,-9.6728338,3z?hl=en
Maybe RLH will try to teach them that their maps are wrong because Greenland is the same size as Africa on them.
“That fact still does not change anything to the other fact that if we display a grid representing data on a sphere without accounting for an appropriate latitude weighting of that data, the representation of the grid will always be incorrect, regardless”
A cross section from pole to pole, as I described, requires that latitude is marked closer together as you approach the poles as otherwise the poles are ‘too important’ in the graph.
All use of Mercator projections are a distortion of actual reality, no matter who uses them. That is why Mollweide and other equal area projections came about in the first place. They are properly used when values per area are displayed.
You cannot just apply cosine weighting to things that already corrected for latitude as you correctly show. Otherwise you create mathematical fiction. But I never said that was appropriate.
The facts are that the graph that I got Willis to create for min/max data produced by Berkley Earth
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/distribution-of-decaled-trends-by-latitude-from-berkley-earth/
is the correct way to treat things as
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV
shows.
I don’t expect you to admit that you are wrong. You take stubborn ignorance to a new height.
“Of course, Ill continue to present spheric grid data in rectangular formular form” because you are an ignorant prat who ignores science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection
“As a side effect, the Mercator projection inflates the size of objects away from the equator. This inflation is very small near the equator but accelerates with increasing latitude to become infinite at the poles. As a result, landmasses such as Greenland and Antarctica appear far larger than they actually are relative to landmasses near the equator, such as Central Africa.”
A rectangular grid such as you continue to use is the equivalent of a Mercator projection.
“A cross section from pole to pole, as I described, requires that latitude is marked closer together as you approach the poles as otherwise the poles are ‘too important’ in the graph.”
Are you two perhaps arguing about two separate issues? About how to CALCULATE correct averages vs how to DISPLAY the data? A Mercator projection *visually* enhances the data near the pole, but if the proper cosine weighting is used in *calculations*, the answer will still be right.
Ie, that the poles will *look* too important but will not *be* too important.
A cross section North to South as I describe requires that the display is correct in its contents. An equal latitude spacing does not achieve that.
Or are you claiming that https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV is incorrect?
I think what I am claiming here is that:
* if you want to analyze directly from that graph then you would need to plot it with the correct cosine weighting.
* if the graph is simply to convey the ideas, but the calculations are done directly on the data in the background, then there is no requirement that the graph must be scaled properly.
If the scaling is incorrect (such as minimizing its center) how would you judge it as being correct?
RLH, “how would you judge it as being correct?”
To me, the core issue relates to the “it” we are trying to judge. The main goal in Bin’s work (the “it”) seem to be creating an accurate time series. To do this correctly requires properly doing a weighted average. It does NOT require plotting the results on a world map — let alone on any given projection.
It seems akin to plotting something on a linear scale vs a log scale. It is not wrong to do it one way or the other, just different. The different plots HIGHLIGHT different things, but each is ‘a correct plot’.
So why do you think that Roy uses Mollweide projections for
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
and do you agree that a non-linear Latitude scale accurately represents that on a North/South cross section?
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV seems to think so. Are you saying that they are right or wrong?
“The main goal in Bins work (the it) seem to be creating an accurate time series”
Blinny doesn’t create anything. Those are Roy’s figures that he just plots on a rectangular grid.
You need to understand that the areas that each of his pixels covers is like comparing Greenland with Africa.
Hard to dance around that, Richard:
“It does NOT require plotting the results on a world map let alone on any given projection.”
Keep trying!
“Blinny doesnt create anything. Those are Roys figures that he just plots on a rectangular grid.”
I have not followed all the details, but my impression is that bin has analyzed the data and ‘created’ some time series plots from them. That mathematical analysis would count as ‘creating something’.
And again (and you all can correct me if I am wrong), the *plot* is just a visualization; an afterthought. Sure, an equal-area plot is better in some ways, but it is still just a ‘visual aid’. It does not seem to play any direct role in the creation of the “product” = the weighted average time series.
Blinny has a rectangular presentation of Roy’s data that does not take into account that longitude decreases with higher latitudes.
https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV is a much better N-S cross section presentation.
Much the same as Mercator is a projection of a globe that is well considered to be a poor way of showing the Earth’s actual surface on a flat piece of paper.
“It does NOT require plotting the results on a world map let alone on any given projection”
Equal area has long been considered the best way to portray things that are value/area related from a globe to a flat piece of paper. Particularly where the actual shape is not that important but area is.
Try Google Earth
https://earth.google.com/web/@75.99019793,-44.98918116,-2569.72654763a,12807759.37935591d,35y,358.96971712h,0t,0r
You opinionated discourse about Mollweide is here a non-sequitur, but you will never admit it.
I repeat:
No Mollweide representation will help you when calculating the exact sea ice extent out of HadISST1s unweighted 1 degree grid: it only tells you that near the Poles, the ice surface per latitude band looks smaller than near 55N: what of course everybody knows.
*
That using a Mollweide representation is more akin to a sphere’s reality: that is absolutely evident, so evident that it is not even worth to be mentioned.
But to see on a chart that an area with 100 % ice near the Poles looks smaller than an area of the same size with 100 % ice at +-50 degrees latitude: that does not at all help the engineer who wants to compute the sea ice extent for 50N-90N and 50S-90S
To do this, s/he has to, perform a latitude weighting of the DATA, independently of whether the generated data is represented later on by
– a rectangle;
– a Mollweide projection;
– a 3D-representation of a sphere.
Why are you so incredibly fixated on this secondary representation problem?
The correct generation of the data is the major issue.
*
Your insults like
“… because you are an ignorant prat who ignores science. ”
do not let look you like a person having any respect for science.
You are a polemist insulting on this blog everybody having an opinion differing from yours, exactly as do Clint R, Robertson, Swenson and a few others.
And like these three, you would never have the balls to behave like this at WUWT: you know full well that Watts and Rotter would have you kicked out within hours.
Like the three, you shamefully abuse Roy Spencer’s tolerant indifference.
Your Mollweide fixation is the perfect pendant to Clint R’s and Robertson’s ball-on-a-string.
Being correct is not your style I accept. Much the same as your inability to accept that using already rounded data in subsequent calculations is bad practice.
P.S. I have posted this on WUWT already and Willis’s graph came from there. It was not challenged.
I notice you don’t challenge https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV as being wrong.
Bindidon, you’ve got a serious case of reality-phobia. For your own mental health, I recommend you get out of your basement, get some fresh air, and try to meet some sane people.
Maybe even get a ball-on-a-string to play with, or learn to ride a bicycle so you can learn how the pedals work.
Life’s too short to live in fear all the time.
Here’s some information that may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
You’re trolling again, Pup.
Try this:
https://youtu.be/-pHhb4biR9k
Thanks for stalking me, Willard.
It confirms I’m on target…and effective.
That’s where you’re wrong, Pup –
I’m escorting you out.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Much the same as your inability to accept that using already rounded data in subsequent calculations is bad practice. ”
Here again, you give one more time the level of your dishonesty.
Your all the time repeated dishonest insinuation is wrong: the fact that I use, for monthly averages of USCRN data, their hourly data instead of their subhourly data has, below the 3rd digit after the decimal point, no influence. (UAH for example uses only 2datdp.)
You are the one who never was able to give on this blog any valuable proof of your dishonest insinuations.
I still await this proof.
And I guess that while continuing your dishonest insinuations, you will never publish, like I did for hourly data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
a monthly USCRCN time series based on subhourly data, neither in absolute let alone in anomaly form, to finally prove I’m wrong.
Like all persons loving insinuations, you simply lack the courage to do that.
“Your all the time repeated dishonest insinuation is wrong: the fact that I use, for monthly averages of USCRN data, their hourly data instead of their subhourly data has, below the 3rd digit after the decimal point, no influence. (UAH for example uses only 2datdp.)”
You complained that USCRN was wrong in the last digit in their monthly figures (rounded), even though this was due to your using already rounded hourly data to compose your monthly figures.
I notice you dont challenge https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV as being wrong.
” P.S. I have posted this on WUWT already and Williss graph came from there. It was not challenged. ”
Wrong.
You didn’t post Willis Eschenbach’s original graph.
You posted the one he published at WUWT after having accepted your wrong proposal of modifying its original according to the (indisputable) fact that the 30S-30N band represents 50 % of Earth’s surface.
This has the same effect as performing a cosine-based latitude weighting of a temperature anomaly or trend grid.
I have shown you this many times, but like Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, you automatically discard everything that contradicts your claims.
Why do you insult these people as idiots, when you behave exactly like they do?
*
And, by the way: who at WUWT should have any interest in challenging such an irrelevant detail?
“You didnt post Willis Eschenbachs original graph”
Because it is based on a linear plot of latitude which does not take account of the fact that Longitude at 80S is considerably shorter than Longitude at 10S (which the new graph does).
It correctly reproduces that 50% of the Earth’s surface lies between 30S and 30N. Yours doesn’t.
You still think that a rectangular grid/Mercator projection is the ‘correct’ way to display a sphere on a flat piece of paper.
I notice you dont challenge https://imgur.com/a/QiqldXV as being wrong.
Assump.tions and scientific facts.
The Earths Greenhouse Warming Theory is based on scientific insights, but those scientific insights are very much mistaken.
Those scientific insights seemed so obvious, that no one had seen they were simply assump.tions.
Assumptions so seemingly and intuitively right, those assumptions have been taken as granted, and on those assump.tions the entire Greenhouse Warming Theory was based
But unfortunately those assump.tions, which were not considered as assump.tions, but as solid scientific facts had been very much mistaken.
Those mistaken assumptions are:
1). The planet surface absorbs the entire not reflected portion of the incident solar fluxs EM energy. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assump.tion).
Due to its sphericity, a smooth surface planet has a strong specular reflection, which is not covered by the satellite measured planet average surface Albedo a.
2). The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vise-versa. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assump.tion).
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !
The T = ( J /σ )∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesnt work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assump.tion, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assump.tion was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
Lets see:
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition.
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stoves inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
After multiple interactions with the stoves walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stoves inner walls
The EM energy emitted out of the stoves hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m).
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ∕ ⁴ (K) (2)
as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature definition is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction, which doesnt describe the real world processes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:”
***
S-B was developed from an electrically-heated platinum filament wire in the temperature range of 550C – 1200C. It works in that temperature range because we can see the colours given off and equate them to electromagnetic radiation intensity. We cannot make the same assump.tions in the infrared range or lower. There is no one-to-one relationship and the S-B constant does not apply.
Furthermore, blackbody theory, a primitive theory developed by Kircheoff circa 1850, was intended only for bodies in thermal equilibrium.
It’s well explained here with mathematics.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.5881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Gordon Robertson
Please say it isn’t so! You linked to the crackpot Claes Johnson who knows nothing of physics and spends his time making up false information and has zero experimental proof of anything.
That is a sad thing. Also I pointed out to you the STefan-Boltzmann relationship works quite well at all temperatures. I gave you actual experimental evidence and also explained to you IR thermometers. You lie all the time and believe the crackpots. You don’t give up on the lying.
You lie, are proven wrong. Ignore the proof. A few threads later you repeat your endless lies and falsehoods. Over and over. You might be one of the most dishonest humans around.
Clint R is either a bot or one of the dumbest of humans and you seem to be one of the most dishonest liars.
You lie about nearly everything you post. Why are you so okay with dishonest lying? When did you discover that lies are a good thing that needs to be repeated?
Thank you, Gordon, for your respond.
I visited the very important paper in the pdf you linked in your comment.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.5881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
It will take me a while to read it carefully thru, because there are many very interesting views and topics, everything is very good, every page is very interesting…
Thank you. You always see things in a positive scientific way, your views are of a scientist who always search for the scientific truth and rightfully criticizes the old outdated postulates.
Thank you again,
Christos
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Since 2002 the CO2 level has increased 48% of the increase from 1800 to 2002. The average global temperature reported by UAH is about the same as it was in 2002. The average of all agencies shows a temperature increase since 2002 of about 0.1 C. All agencies report a downtrend since the El Nino peak in 2016. I wonder how much more evidence will be needed for some people to recognize that CO2 level has little, if any, influence on average global temperature. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KaOAe9TlbgkvX6w6VQedwi-5MYWQIj9A/view?usp=sharing
The forcing is logarithmic in CO2. Consistent with the T rise.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/log/plot/gistemp/from:1900/scale:0.11/mean:60/offset:2.51
But T has been falling for the last 7 years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/log/from:2015/plot/gistemp/from:2015/trend/offset:1.68
Nate demonstrates how to obfuscate with graphs…
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1900/scale:70/mean:12/offset:325
…hoping his lame attempt at causation by correlation won’t be exposed.
Chic shows it’s easy to cheat:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1900/scale:500/mean:12/offset:325
Not sure it tells more about Nate than about Chic.
Willard shows he doubled down on Nate’s obfuscation:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1900/scale:5/mean:12/offset:325
Let me raise you, Chic:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1900/scale:5/mean:12/offset:800
Ha, ha, I get it. Good one.
Don’t be so offset, Chic.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The GHE theory is being discussed here. Chip is confused again
Nate demonstrates how to change the goal posts by changing the goal post.
“The forcing is logarithmic in CO2” is actually right in the middle of the bullseye, Chic.
That goes into the Climateball Bingo.
Chic has lost the thread. He needs to go back to Dans post to find it.
To show that coefficients can be found to make the curves match since 1968 is meaningless. The factors that you have to work with start with the depths of the last glaciation which are CO2 190, 275,420 ppmv with temperature changes 0, 9, 10.2 C. When CO2 increased from 190 to 275, T increased by 9 C and when CO2 increased from 275 to 420, T increased 1.2 C. To be logarithmic in CO2 it would have had to increase 10.3 C increasing 275 to 420 ppmv CO2. About the only way CO2 and T can act like they have is if CO2 has no significant effect on T and T is driven by something else.
“The factors that you have to work with start with the depths of the last glaciation”
Uhhh no. That is a terrible idea!
Yet another strawman that CO2 is operating by itself to give us the glacial cycles.
We know that the glacial cycles are driven by the variation in solar insolation.
Nate apparently doesn’t get the point which is a demonstration that CO2 change does not cause climate change even when assuming that temperature change varies with the logarithm of CO2. There is no assumption that CO2 is operating by itself.
Dan,
“There is no assumption that CO2 is operating by itself.”
Huh? Arent you doing exactly that when you try to draw conclusions from this comparison?
” When CO2 increased from 190 to 275, T increased by 9 C and when CO2 increased from 275 to 420, T increased 1.2 C.”
During the period of growth by 9C something else, summer solar insolation at 65 degrees N, was reaching a peak.
Making the false premise that only ONE variable controls temperature and then showing that premise is wrong is all you are doing here.
We can do our best to remove the influence of one of those variables, ENSO, and see what remains.
Here is that done for RSS, and had5.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded10_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded11_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
Nate,
OK, I concede that my attempt does not disprove “The forcing is logarithmic in CO2. Consistent with the T rise.” Instead I’ll use the observation that CO2 has no significant effect on climate because during previous glaciations CO2 change lagged T change.
Nate would have us believe that we should only pay attention to the logarithmic relation during the last 50 years and forget about what happens in the thousands of years between interglacials.
Poor Chip unable to rebut what I post. Trolls anyway.
What’s to rebut? You didn’t post anything but obfuscation.
I’m waiting for you to rebut or obfuscate how the T and CO2 correlations then and now don’t match and why.
“Yet another strawman that CO2 is operating by itself to give us the glacial cycles.”
That’s what’s on the table, Chic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1237922
OK, the coin dropped.
Nate argument is that the log relationship holds for 50 years with nothing but the occasional ENSO variability, but everything else was messing with the log relationship during the glacial periods. This is the typical obfuscation we get from Nate.
Where is the solid evidence of AGW going to be revealed? You know, something other than a correlation.
“but everything else was messing with the log relationship during the glacial periods”
Chip doubles down on his ignorance of glacial cycles.
“Nate argument is that the log relationship holds for 50 years with nothing but the occasional ENSO variability”
Actually didnt say that. I was simply addressing Dans claim that the lack of warming in last 7 years should cast doubt on the effect of gradually increasing CO2.
It doesnt.
Don’t call me ignorant for being unable to reverse engineer your obfuscations. I don’t get the logic. Are you claiming other things interfering with the log relationship in glacial times don’t apply during the last 50 years?
“I was simply addressing….” No, you were simply obfuscating, as usual. Dan did not claim that “the lack of warming in last 7 years should cast doubt on the effect of gradually increasing CO2.” Those are words you misappropriated to him.
The bottom line is you only have causation by a correlation and substantive evidence that CO2 increases temperature. Dan is simply stating the fact that the historical correlation is not so good.
That is “…NO substantive evidence….” A typo, not a Freudian.
“Dont call me ignorant for being unable to reverse engineer your obfuscations. I dont get the logic.”
Yes indeed you are bad at logic, critical thinking, and reading comprehension.
” Are you claiming other things interfering with the log relationship in glacial times dont apply during the last 50 years?”
Why would anyone think that variation in Earth’s orbit that occurs over 10s of thousands of years that causes the variation in ‘summer solar insolation at 65 degrees N” and is responsible for the glacial cycles that occur over 10s of thousands years, would be applicable to T change in the last 50 years?
Yes that is being quite ignorant.
Nah. The forcing is logarithmic in CO2. From 2002 the increase was 40% of the previous increase. Consistent with T increase.
“The forcing is logarithmic in CO2”
But CO2 has been increasing for the last 7 years but T has been reducing. See above.
But the uncertainty in your trend estimate exceeds your trend estimate, so your conclusion is in doubt.
You fail to reject the null, that it is still warming.
So you are saying that the effects of CO2 on T take longer to appear than 7 years?
P.S. Measurements are not estimates as such. They are something that happened.
> So you are saying that the effects of CO2 on T take longer to appear than 7 years?
Sometimes it’s a bit longer than that:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0710915105#F1
So how come the rise in CO2 matches so well the rise in T?
How come you pretend it doesn’t, Richard?
Because no matter how you try to ‘fit’ it, it undershoots/overshoots quite badly at some time in the record.
See below.
What are the odds that a noisy signal you can only witness once lands right in the middle of that corridor, Richard?
“undershoots/overshoots”
This is not rocket science. More than one thing affects global T.
Everyone in climate science understands that.
It seems you are working awfully hard to remain ignorant of this fact.
RLH
“So you are saying that the effects of CO2 on T take longer to appear than 7 years?”
No, the effects of CO2 have already appeared, I am saying something completely different.
See if you can figure it out.
Nate might be of some help, but your mileage may vary.
“So you are saying that the effects of CO2 on T take longer to appear than 7 years?”
Clear effects of CO2 on global T is over multidecadal periods.
If the variation is as much as 0.5 C per annum (UAH data) then it could take a few decades to get a statistically significant result for a trend of 0.013 per annum (the current UAH linear trend).
I just tested UAH data to see when it achieves statistical significance on linear trends. 28 years was the only period that ensured a statistically significant trend regardless of end dates chosen. IOW the signal rose above the noise (95% CI) between 20 and 30 years.
Linear trend seems appropriate to your query, because the effects of CO2 (+feedbacks) are meant to be roughly linear in this kind of time frame.
“Clear effects of CO2 on global T is over multidecadal periods.”
Do you not understand the correlation by causation logical fallacy?
Plus, barry, it sounds like you are doubling down on trends predicting future temperature, unlike Nate who claims neither of you do.
Earlier you wrote, “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.”
If you believe the emission trends causing the temperature trends continue, then surely you believe temperature trends predict future temperature rise.
“Plus, barry, it sounds like you are doubling down on trends predicting future temperature, unlike Nate who claims neither of you do.”
You will be entirely unable to quote me doing so, because I do not do so.
I’ve corrected you on this a few times now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1235522
But you insist on being a troll about it. What is wrong with you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1237005
You can have the last word, barry.
Thanks
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1239034
“Do you not understand the correlation by causation logical fallacy?”
That’s not a fallacy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do you guys pretend that ONLY CO2 is supposed to cause T to change? When you are obviously aware that ENSO also does!
This is the fallacy of ignoring the counterfactual.
So the graph that matches the rise in T to the rise in CO2 can’t be correct.
Are you saying that ENSO should not have its usual effect? Why?
Now you are contradicting yourself!
Maybe think twice and type once.
The graph posted above shows a ‘close relationship’ between CO2 and T yet somehow the last 7 years of decline in T with a rise in CO2 have had no effect, El Nino’s/La Nina’s included.
Nate’s post in case you forget.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/log/plot/gistemp/from:1900/scale:0.11/mean:60/offset:2.51
or if you prefer
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/log/plot/gistemp/from:1900/scale:0.11/offset:2.51
(Doesn’t match too well before his cherry picked start date).
“and T yet somehow the last 7 years”
Im showing real data. So you tell me why youre confused.
Me too. Are you saying that https://imgur.com/a/be8rloi is not correct?
Why did you choose 1900 as your start date? Was it because before that the 2 curves did not fit so well,
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/log/plot/gistemp/scale:0.11/offset:2.51
Fairer comparison.
Take ln(C/275). Adjust T to be 0 at start.
Scale T as needed.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.00364/log/scale:2.3/plot/gistemp/offset:0.3/scale:0.33
Nate, do you know where that bogus equation came from?
The “275” (more often it’s 280) should be a clue.
The 275 corresponds to the cherry-picked period that supposedly supports the CO2 nonsense.
Did you know you could match the sales of McDonald’s hamburgers to atmospheric CO2. That “proves” CO2 is causing more McDonald’s outlets.
The funny thing is that it actually does, Pup.
Nate: So now the ‘match’ undershoots in the 1980s. Not a good look for you.
It is well known by all that 1950-1980 was not a period of warming.
To again and again build the strawman that AGW theory requires ONLY CO2 RISE to explain the T record, is not a good look for you.
In this plot
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.00364/log/scale:2.3/plot/gistemp/offset:0.3/scale:0.33
it should be realized that going back from 1960, the CO2 forcing must gradually approach 0 in 1880.
Thus the overall 140 year trend of theoretical CO2 forcing and T rise is a good match.
One should also be aware that CO2 is not the only GHG increasing, nor the only forcing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
So would you care to come up with a GHG curve that fits the observed rise in T? Parceled out in the main gasses that make it up.
While you’re at it, add in the natural cycles, such as ENSO, that also are needed.
Nate writes, “Thus the overall 140 year trend of theoretical CO2 forcing and T rise is a good match”
and
“CO2 is not the only GHG increasing, nor the only forcing.”
Which is it then?
Still no data showing the AGW implication that increasing CO2 increases global temperature.
> Still no data showing the AGW implication that increasing CO2 increases global temperature.
Repeating a falsity does not make it truer, Chic:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/8%20-%20Temperature%20Change%20and%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Change%20-%20FINAL%20OCT%202021.pdf
“Understanding which of these changes might occur in the future, and how large those changes might be, remains a topic of vigorous research.”
Still no data showing the AGW implication that increasing CO2 increases global temperature.
“Still no data showing the AGW implication that increasing CO2 increases global temperature.”
Chic’s seen data many times. It is always dismissed, denied, diminished.
He’s decided on his point of view, and no data can change his mind.
nate…”The forcing is logarithmic in CO2″.
***
Explain the flat trend from 1998 – 2012 declared by the IPCC and increased to 18 years via UAH data. A logarithmic warming related to CO2 would surely have produced a positive trend during that period.
As Trenberth lamented in the Climategate emails, the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. So, how can a logarithmic warming stop?
C’mon, Gordo.
That’s not what Kevin said, in fact he was not even talking about that. And the logarithmic scale has nothing to do with Da Paws:
https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
Think.
Nate,
You have been misled by a misleading graph. Apparently you either did not look at or did not grasp the graph at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KaOAe9TlbgkvX6w6VQedwi-5MYWQIj9A/view?usp=sharing
What am I supposed to learn from that Dan?
No one in Climate Science, certainly not I, are claiming that CO2 was the driver of glacial cycles.
The driver was Earth’s orbital variation and subsequent solar insolation changes.
And no denies that warming will produce additional CO2 outgassing. It is basic chemistry.
But to claim that since warming increases CO2, that therefore CO2 CANNOT produce warming, is a big logical fallacy.
“All agencies report a downtrend since the El Nino peak in 2016. I wonder how much more evidence will be needed for some people to recognize that CO2 level has little, if any, influence on ave”
Why would you think gradual CO2 rise should turn-off the known effect of ENSO ?
Ignoring the counterfactual. If the GHE effect is 0, what would you expect T to be doing?
Long term or short term?
What would T be doing in last 7 y?
Following natural ‘cycles’. Mostly.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah_lt.jpg
What has nino3.4 done last 7 years? What has PDO done last 7 y?
Varied. But T has gone down even though CO2 has gone up.
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg
ENSO 3.4 to Jan 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
PDO since 2015
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipdo_2015:2023.png
MEI since 2015
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imeiv2_2015:2023.png
Are you saying that natural cycles (ENSO and PDO) and not CO2 have driven the last 7 years of temperature decline?
Are you saying that you think the gradual CO2 rise should turn-off the known effect of ENSO?
So you are admitting that natural cycles have overridden the effect of CO2 on the last 7 years temperature.
“So you are admitting that natural cycles have overridden the effect of CO2 on the last 7 years temperature.”
I am saying what I have been saying throughout this thread.
AGW is expected to produce a gradual long-term warming trend.
OTOH, it is well known by climate science that ENSO is the dominant source of short-term variability in global temperature, with the rare exception of a strong volcanic eruption.
To suggest that observing the well known effect of ENSO, somehow casts doubt on AGW is ludicrous.
Earth can walk and chew gum at the same time.
If we want to remove the effect of ENSO from the record to see what remains, we can do that. As I showed you, an ongoing upward trend is what remains.
Here is RSS w nino3 influence removed.
“http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded10_12month_low-pass_loess1.png”
Same for had*cru5
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded11_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
“AGW is expected to produce a gradual long-term warming trend”
But if you consider AGW to be overstated then you expect that natural cycles will explain most of the warming that we see.
“12month low-pass loess”
Are you kidding! Try 15 years.
No not kidding.
Did you miss the point that after removing the ENSO influence, the underlying rising trend remains?
Thus if there is a 3peat La Nina, it matters not.
La Nina 3 years in a row without a significant El Nino preceding it would be unique according to the post I referenced.
“Did you miss the point that after removing the ENSO influence, the underlying rising trend remains?”
Did you miss the point that wavelet analysis show that there are cycles that 10s to 100s of years long that need to be taken into account?
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=94379
“1) For the periods 1950-1976 and 1998-2012, global temperature increased little, with positive AMO and negative PDO indices; subsequently, the rate of temperature increase weakened.
2) Global temperature increased again in 1976, with the reversal of the AMO and PDO indices from negative to positive. More specifically, AMO, PDO, and Nio3.4 (ENSO index) exhibited fractality change from multifractality to monofractality, providing them stability. Generally, the PDO was influenced largely by the ENSO. But, around 1960 and around 2000, whose periods corresponded to hiatus periods in global warming, the influence of the ENSO on the PDO was weak.
3) In 1998, the AMO increased and PDO decreased and global temperature increased little and the multifractality of PDO, and Nio3.4 was weak, which corresponded to the change from multifractality to monofractality in 1976. Wavelet analysis showed the leads of PDO and Nio3.4 indices with respect to global temperature. Consequently, the PDO and ENSO showed large influence on global temperature and, further, on the global warming hiatus.”
PDO to Jan 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/pdo.jpeg
ENSO 3.4 to Jan 2022
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
“Did you miss the point that after removing the ENSO influence, the underlying rising trend remains?’
Did you miss the point that wavelet analysis show that there are cycles that 10s to 100s of years long that need to be taken into account?”
OK so the last 7 y cooling is gone, so changing the subject are we?
Standard, RLH.
The problems with cyclomania is that it makes no quantitative predictions, can’t explain the long term trend, and is never falsifiable.
So for example, known cycles ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO cannot account for last century of warming. They only help explain the wiggles on the overall warming trend.
What to do? Speculate that there must be other cycles, that give just what we need!
Is there any evidence for such, from wavelets? No.
Its not a real theory if it can’t be tested and falsified.
Nate,
What makes you think that I think that CO2 rise would turn off ENSO?
Most likely he doesn’t think. Nate writes what he has to to defend his AGW dogma. His MO is to obfuscate.
Dan,
You stated that:
“All agencies report a downtrend since the El Nino peak in 2016.”
This is true. Because ENSO’s influence on short term temperature is strong and has been downward since 2016. Also reflected in PDO.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1237822
” I wonder how much more evidence will be needed for some people to recognize that CO2 level has little, if any, influence on ave”
This simply does not logically follow.
CO2’s influence is supposed to produce a slow and long-term increase. It cannot be expected to dominate over strong ENSO influences over a short term.
This is like, after a colder than normal week, declaring that Spring is not coming this year!
“It cannot be expected to dominate over strong ENSO influences over a short term”
So natural cycles override CO2 as the driver on T over the last 7 years at least.
ENSO is only a tropical effect (directly).
Yep. And when its influence is removed:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded10_12month_low-pass_loess1.png
what remains is onward and upward.
“what remains is onward and upward.”
This from the guy who denies “the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures.”
“what remains is onward and upward”
Or part of a long term < 30 year temperature cycle.
Which your LOWESS needs to be at least 15 years long to show.
Nate,
As documented here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350530743_Historical_Data_on_Global_Warming_provided_by_US_Government_Agencies I discovered 14 years ago that "carbon dioxide change does not cause climate change". The observation from the Vostok data is that temperature changes and CO2 change follows later. CO2 was not driving T change then and it’s not driving T now.
It is not difficult to calculate the WV increase that occurs as a result of T increase. The method is described at Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . But WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation since Jan 1988. Graphed together in Figure 7 this shows that measured WV is 40% more than calculated from T increase as reported by HabCRUT5. This demonstrates that warming from the atmosphere, if any, is caused by WV increase, not CO2 increase.
I am well aware of ENSO oscillations (there have been 4 since 2016, I treat them as noise), and AMO oscillations (still high but expected to drop soon). The T downtrend since 2016 is only an observation, not a prediction.
“This from the guy who denies ‘the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures.'”
The debate in this thread has been about the claim that short term cooling proves AGW cannot be happening.
Never has been about ‘the past temperatures will indicate future temperatures.’.
So why is Chip constantly confused and blurting nonsense? That’s also up for debate.
“CO2 was not driving T change then and its not driving T now.”
Yet another statement of a strawman, then a logical fallacy, Dan.
Nobody in climate science is suggesting that CO2, by itself, caused glacial cycles.
We know that orbital cycles caused higher insolation on arctic ice sheets which melts them and warms the planet. Which causes melting of permafrost and outgassing of CO2.
If a causes b, that does not rule out that b can cause a.
If we see warming then CO2 outgassing, that DOES NOT imply that more CO2 cannot cause warming.
The evidence is that both can happen.
“The observation from the Vostok data is that temperature changes and CO2 change follows later”
This has never been disputed, just ignored.
There is only one constant in these discussions. Nate will obfuscate any comment that goes against your commitment to AGW dogma based on CO2 emissions causing global warming. Unlike Nate, I have no problem with the possibility of CO2 affecting temperature, if it can be demonstrated empirically. So far no cigar. My skepticism is enhanced by the likelihood that CO2 rise from FF emissions are conflated with natural emissions which in turn are confounded by source.
Of course short-term cooling doesn’t prove no AGW same as your rising CO2 doesn’t prove longer term warming. “Both can happen” is not evidence. Until global temperature is directly tied to increases in IR absorbing gases, the null hypothesis–no AGW–and business as usual should prevail.
Nate,
I will concede that the observation that CO2 did not drive T then only suggests that CO2 is not driving T change now. Although the scenario that you described is extremely unlikely, I don’t see how to rule it out. The reason why CO2 is not driving T now was expressed in the paragraph that followed the statement: “CO2 was not driving T change then and it’s not driving T now.”
” Although the scenario that you described is extremely unlikely,”
What part is unlikely and why?
“Of course short-term cooling doesnt prove no AGW same as your rising CO2 doesnt prove longer term warming. ‘Both can happen’ is not evidence. Until global temperature is directly tied to increases in IR absorbing gases, the null hypothesisno AGWand business as usual should prevail.”
Again, Chic, this particular discussion was never about providing, again, ALL the evidence in support of AGW. It was simply about addressing Dan’s claims.
Nate, This is why CO2 is not driving T now.
It is not difficult to calculate the WV increase that occurs as a result of T increase. The method is described at Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . But WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation since Jan 1988. Graphed together in Figure 7 this shows that measured WV is 40% more than calculated from T increase as reported by HabCRUT5. This demonstrates that warming from the atmosphere, if any, is caused by WV increase, not CO2 increase.
Dan, we have been over this. You made an error in the analysis of trends and still have not fixed it. The WV trend is close to that expected from your simple warming model.
Water is a GHG but condensible, while CO2 is not, thus CO2 is required to maintain the GHE and warmth that results from it.
Several different models have found that when CO2 is removed, the Earth ends up in an ice-ball state.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1239980
Nate, Yes, we have been over this, but YOU got it wrong. Perhaps you never saw this where I explained the problem https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1204486 The correct analysis is clearly shown at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . The measured WV trend is 40% more than calculated from the Ha*CRUT5 report of average global temperatures.
Your statement “Water is a GHG but condensible, while CO2 is not, thus CO2 is required to maintain the GHE and warmth that results from it.” has no logical basis. If CO2 level drops below 150 ppmv we’re all dead anyway.
Demonstrating this using demonstrably faulty models is misinformation.
“has no logical basis.”
Other than physics, which is logically based and empirical.
You seem to acknowledge that the GHE is real and water vapor can cause it. But both CO2 and water produce a significant GHE.
The logic of the ice-ball Earth is clear, but you depart from it.
Without the CO2 portion, there is cooling, water vapor drop, more cooling and water condensing, sea-ice formation, increased albedo as a result, more cooling and Earth becomes an ice-ball.
As far as the calculation, I tried your exact method in Excel and got same result as my method, but it didnt match yours.
Science is not valid if it cannot be reproduced by others.
Apollogize, Dan.
Correction, when I try a simplified version WVn = WV0 +0.067*WV0*(Tn-Tn-1), of your method I get my result, a slope of 0.0398.
When I try your exact method, WVn = WVn-1 +0.067*WVn-1*(Tn-Tn-1), I get close your result 0.0298.
The difference is interesting.
Your equation depends on the exact T history, while mine does not.
For yours, two T histories could end at the same T, but the final WV would not end the same.
I don’t think that makes physical sense because WV should be only a function of T, not T history.
So sorry, actually we need it to be
WV(T) = WV0 +WV0*(0.067)*(T-T0)
which is what I used.
It has no history dependence. It is just pressure is function of Temperature.
This agrees with Clausius Clapeyron (CC) over a small range of temperature.
CC gives P = P0*exp(A(1/T0-1/T) for a small change in T, dT = T-T0, we get:
P = P0 *(1+AdT/T0^2) where A is a constant
P = P0 + P0*(A/T0^2)*dT
so that matches WV = WV0 + WV0*(0.067)(T-T0)
“Science is not valid if it cannot be reproduced by others.”
That’s classic Nate.
There is nothing wrong with science. An experimental result to be valid, it must be reproducible. The method needs to be sufficiently explained so that it can be properly reproduced. Nate and Dan used different methods to analyze the same data. Nate used a trend which only estimates the exact result based on Dan’s “historical” method.
I explained it previously to Dan here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1197584
Chic: You brought me back from a mental eclipse. Thanks.
Nate: Physics proves that you are wrong. By your reasoning it would not matter whether T ramped up in half the time and stayed constant to the end or ramped up steadily from start to end. Not good. You would be ignoring feedback of/from being warmer.
That equation that you (and a lot of others) are calling CC is an approximation derived from CC assuming some things are constant which are not. Correct CC applies only at saturation and is the exact relation between volume change and enthalpy change during phase change.
“You would be ignoring feedback of/from being warmer.
That equation that you (and a lot of others) are calling CC is an approximation derived from CC assuming some things are constant which are not. Correct CC applies only at saturation and is the exact relation between volume change and enthalpy change during phase change.”
Its YOUR model Dan, not mine. The model you are testing is based on the CC relation, that WV pressure is determined by Temperature, not T history. This is of course only going to be approx true.
But the point is that is the model that you are testing, and want to falsify it does not depend on T history. Your version of it is an approximation that WV increases with T with 6.7%/degree C.
There is nothing in that theory that predicts WV is a function of T history.
That your theoretical curve seems to depend on T history is incorrect.
“WVn = WVn-1 +0.067*WVn-1*(Tn-Tn-1)”
Translation of your discrete equation to continuous pressure v T diff equation:
WV becomes P,
dP/dT = 0.067P
dP/P = 0.067dT
integrate ln(P/P0) = 0.067 (T-T0)
P =P0exp(A(T-T0)), where A is a constant.
but as we saw above the ACTUAL equation for P vs. T is
P = P0 exp[A(1/T0-1/T)].
So my point is simply that equation that you are using and discretizing and applying to the T data is NOT matching the actual equation you need to be testing.
Nate: “The model you are testing is based on the CC relation, that WV pressure is determined by Temperature, not T history.” You have been misled that the CC equation is involved. The saturation vapor pressure vs temperature is a property of water and that is what is used. Because it is a property, of course time is not involved with that. I don’t see how an approximation adds any information.
It’s not a model subject to being falsified; it is simply a calculation in steps. The output of each step is the input for the next step. What you are missing is that the temperature, and thus the amount that WV, changes with each step. It most certainly does depend on T history. The WV change at each point depends on the T change at that point.
The error in the way that you want to do it is that it does not include the effect of the 0.067 feedback. If T doesn’t change until the end there is no contribution from feedback. In the real world, the feedback is distributed over the time period.
My calculation is as exact as can be done with the data available.
Your calculations only show that your approximation produces an approximate result which is different from the exact result.
“…that WV pressure is determined by Temperature, not T history.”
Dan, this is simply Nate obfuscation. He makes up meaningless statements like that to argue anything opposing his AGW religion. Your equation/methodology does NOT match his preconceptions, so he will continue to debate you until your patience is exhausted.
And Chip can’t follow the science being discussed, follows the troll handbook instead.
“Its not a model subject to being falsified; it is simply a calculation in steps. The output of each step is the input for the next step. What you are missing is that the temperature, and thus the amount that WV, changes with each step. It most certainly does depend on T history. The WV change at each point depends on the T change at that point.”
But you are trying to falsify a model, Dan!
“It is simply a calculation in steps.”
You are the one using a calculation in steps. Can you show where these steps come from? Has some one else used these same steps?
What equation is the basis for these steps?
Your claim that it should depend on T history is from where?
It certainly seems from your article that the model you are trying to falsify is based on:
“The saturation vapor pressure vs temperature”
which you make clear:
“is a property of water and that is what is used. Because it is a property, of course time is not involved with that.”
Indeed so! It is a property of water vs. temperature, not a property of T history.
You are calling it a feedback, but you are not calculating its feedback effects. IE from the radiative forcing produced by WV. That is included in your model.
Nate: What part of “It’s not a model subject to being falsified” do you not grasp?
“What equation is the basis for these steps?” The input for a month is equal to the output from the previous month. Is that concept too complex for you?
Your questions are beneath ignorant. Apparently you lack the engineering/science skills to understand this stuff.
Nate, either you are purposefully lying about me not following or you are making things up so that it doesn’t require you to open your mind and realize your religion continues to bias your thinking. As I explained here…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/#comment-1197584
…your trend method inappropriately converts an exact numerical integration into a bad estimate.
IMO your argument is doubly flawed. Besides the trend method problem, you convert the observed dWV/dT = 0.067*WV into dP/dT = 0.067*P and then use slight of hand to convert P = P0exp(A(T-T0)) into P = P0exp[A(1/T0-1/T)] without explanation.
Ironically, I use your CC approach to add my temperature driven CO2 to the atmosphere and the result is 10 ppm/delta C. Try deriving the 0.067 constant using your CC method with the actual WV data.
That should be 10 ppm/delta T, which is consistent with glacial CO2/temperature ratios.
“then use slight of hand to convert P = P0exp(A(T-T0)) into P = P0exp[A(1/T0-1/T)] without explanation.”
Nope I never did. Those are not equivalent, nor did I ever say they were!
Chic, If you cant read what I wrote, and follow the discussion, then why are you posting?
“Nate: What part of ‘Its not a model subject to being falsified do you not grasp?”
You have made claim that you are testing a model, and claiming to find it doesnt explain the data. Then WTF are you saying here?
‘What equation is the basis for these steps?’
“The input for a month is equal to the output from the previous month. Is that concept too complex for you?”
Again, when you turn a differential equation into a discrete equation, one that integrates step by step, it can be tricky, you have to do it right. I do this in my work.
You should be able to explain what equation you are starting with and how you convert it to your discrete version.
You seem unable to do that.
And again, your math results in WV P depending on T history, while the basic theory shows that WV P is supposed to simply be a function of T.
So if the WV P is supposed to increase 6.7% with each degree of T rise, then it should do that, regardless of whether the T went up down or sideways in between.
“Your questions are beneath ignorant. Apparently you lack the engineering/science skills to understand this stuff.”
Lame insults are not an answer, just an excuse.
Nate: The way you are doing it the path followed by T would not make any difference. By your method, you would get the same answer whether all T occurred immediately or all at the end of the period. Common sense tells us that is wrong. What if T went up to Tmax at mid period and then ramped down to the starting temperature at the end. By your method, there would be no WV increase. Elapsed time at temperature and the average T for that time increment must be taken into account. The method described at Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com does that to the extent that data is available.
Nate: Your mistake is in the translation of the numerical integration algorithm into an analytical one. The key is realizing that n and n-1 are a month apart. The analytical equation should be: dwv/WV/dƟ = R dT/dƟ where Ɵ is time. Solution of this requires that T be expressed as a function of time; a practical impossibility. All this is avoided by using the algorithm present in Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com which gives the most accurate answer possible from the available data.
On April 17, 2022 at 8:08 AM, Nate writes,
“P =P0exp(A(T-T0)), where A is a constant. but as we saw above the ACTUAL equation for P vs. T is P = P0 exp[A(1/T0-1/T)].”
After accusing Nate of “slight of hand to convert P = P0exp(A(T-T0)) into P = P0exp[A(1/T0-1/T)] without explanation,” he says,
“Nope I never did. Those are not equivalent, nor did I ever say they were!”
Then the King of Obfuscation asks, “If you cant read what I wrote, and follow the discussion, then why are you posting?”
As I’ve told King Nate before, I will continue as often as possible to point out whenever he obfuscates.
I do agree with the nutjob alarmists that there have been two step-changes since 1979 in the UAH data. Salby describes them in one of his lectures. However, the step changes indicated non-systematic changes and no correlation. Salby shows how CO2 evolves as the integral of temperature.
Step changes can just as easily be a long term cycle (>30 years) that we are only seeing part of.
They can also be not really step changes but artefacts of noisy data.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
When you have proved that there are no long term cycles. Even noise will be subject to that.
No one has to disprove an assertion.
There are cycles quasi-periodic fluctuations at various timescales in the climate system. None of the ones mentioned here could explain the warming of the last century.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/pdo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/amo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
The above all show term long periodicities as various wavelet scans have shown. They also all combine to influence global temperatures.
Combining them all together will produce a cyclic series that is many decades or centuries long.
Then you have ocean currents and thermohaline circulations to add to the above as well as the various atmosphere ‘cells’.
All in all a complex system that could just as easily explain quite a large proportion of ‘the rise’ quite apart from the AGW gasses argument.
“They also all combine to influence global temperatures.”
Unproved assertion. Significant ENSO events are shown to influence global temperature. PDO likely does, and AMO looks to me like it aliases global temps.
regardless, none of those curves can explain the general warming of the Earth’s surface over the last century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CQb9eGXKpU
But, of course, High Winds, Severe Weather & Heavy SNOW are just normal USA Spring weather.
Cycle 25 Progression
https://youtu.be/-wC68Xt3nx8
Blinny will be along soon to say that you have got it all wrong.
So far we have
Nate
Willard
Bindidon
Tim Folkerts
Mark B
and I’m sure there are others, who distrust the data that Roy presents here but somehow find the reason to post continuously on his blog.
Roy is a good guy, with integrity, who allows a diverse amount of opinion. He puts up with us as long as we don’t attack him personally, disparaging his professional status, which is only fair.
What gets me is when the alarmists turn around and quote Roy when it suits them.
> who distrust the data that Roy presents
A quote might be nice.
And why would that be?
Maybe you could paste your copy of the Greenhouse Effect, and I’ll post a nice quote.
How’s that for a “deal”, dummy?
I was not asking you, Mike.
Tut tut.
This blog is, ideally, a forum for discussing climate science. Do you think it should be fan club instead?
Now, since there are two or more differing analyses of the LT trend, at this point distrust of all of them is warranted.
They all rely on the same instruments with slightly different treatment of the supplied data. Those treatments are different, true.
The ground based thermometers rely on point samples being truly representative of bulk air temperatures which are outside on the chaotic surface boundary layer they reside in. Even more reason to distrust them.
And changing the methodology from Tmiddle to Tmean without keeping those 2 series separate is just statistical nonsense.
> Those treatments are different, true.
The biggest difference is that one is reproducible whereas the other is not, Richard.
I thought you were an Auditor’s fan. Haven’t you got his most important memo?
Are you suggesting that UAH or RSS is wrong?
No, Richard. I’m suggesting you didn’t got the most important memo from the Auditor.
Would you like me to remind you?
RLH,
The moron is just saying he hopes you will mistake his silliness for intelligence, rather than mental aberration.
Try asking him for the copy of the Greenhouse Effect which he claims to possess, and see how he turns to water. Willard is a delusional moron.
“The biggest difference is that one is reproducible whereas the other is not”
So is UAH or RSS ‘reproducible’?
Or are you saying that an arithmetic mean and median are somehow not ‘reproducible’?
“Are you suggesting that UAH or RSS is wrong?”
Obviously they can’t both be correct.
Nor can 2m ground based thermometers.
Nate:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2000/offset:-0.22/plot/uah6/plot/rss/from:2005/offset:-0.42
to take account of UAH not using the same satellites as RSS between 2000 and 2005 (see Roy’s published papers).
RLH says: Are you suggesting that UAH or RSS is wrong?
All temperature anomaly series are estimates with inherent uncertainties.
Examination of the process used to derive a particular estimate may expose parts that are inherently flawed, and in that sense “wrong”, but “right” in the absolute sense is not reasonably attainable. What we’re left with is estimates of uncertainty in our metrics.
All measurements are going to have uncertainties with regard the actual temperature they try and measure.
For instance, point samples at a single height of a bulk vertical temperature field are subject to more uncertainties and assumptions than do area/volume sampling of the same field.
YMMV.
The use of statistics that are better suited to normal/gaussian statistics on biased bimodal ones are, at best, a poor statistical fit.
Means, for instance, are much less preferred than medians on the climate data we have. See any statistics textbook.
Each time you get corrected you return to that misleading claim, Richard. It’s not the strongest point.
Willard: Every time you get the write/speak, you show yourself as an idiot. Not a good place to be.
We can revisit your last claim about pruning if you want, dummy.
It’s something I happen to know.
Training or pruning is the same things really. Results that are not close to the required answer do not proceed on towards the solution.
E.g. see
https://analyticsindiamag.com/what-is-pruning-in-ml-ai/
The dozen independent groups anslyzing the surface data or reanalysis data have reached near agreement. Not so the satellite data.
If a surface station here or there has error it will not change the global T much.
Whereas if the analysis of satellite data has an error or an instrument is faulty it does affect the global trend significantly.
Here’s the bit that is going above your head, Richard:
https://analyticsindiamag.com/what-is-pruning-in-ml-ai/
Do you think that climate models are tree processors?
> Training or pruning is the same things really.
Not really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%E2%80%93beta_pruning
Compare and contrast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
Not the same computational paradigm. Not the same problem space. And that’s notwithstanding the fact that most climate models are not even AI-based!
“notwithstanding the fact that most climate models are not even AI-based!”
I did not say that they were, purely that any rational person would discard models that produced outcomes that have been demonstrated to be false by measurements taken in the meanwhile.
“Training or pruning is the same things really”
They both disregard numbers that are not close to producing outcomes that have been shown to occur.
“The dozen independent groups anslyzing the surface data or reanalysis data have reached near agreement”
Using the same incorrect basic statistics. And, no, even their results are not the same, in some cases not even close.
“If a surface station here or there has error”
If a methodology is wrong, then they will all be wrong also.
T is not a normal distribution on either a daily or yearly basis even though some erroneously think so. You can’t get a normal distribution from quasi sinusoidal data. It is bimodal and often skewed.
The middle of a range of a set is not the same as arithmetic mean of the same set on a statistical basis.
> any rational person would discard models that produced outcomes that have been demonstrated to be false
That’s, like, false. The MET won’t ditch its models because it did not rain the day they said there were 80% chances of rain. Economists won’t ditch their models because inflation did not turn out to follow the path they forecasted. Same for epidemiologists.
There are two things worse than not following a strategy. The first is not to stay the course. The second is act without one.
Modelling is a bit like democracy: it’s the worst way to do science, except for all the others.
> They both disregard numbers that are not close to producing outcomes that have been shown to occur.
Again, false. Pruning cuts a leaf from a decision tree. Learning corrects a rule or a policy based on training feedback.
One constrains the state space. The other orients a classifier. It’s like conflating the finger and the Moon.
To delimit a state space makes sense for strictly deterministic processes, like in Chess. Climate is about rolling dice. Pruning would serve no real purpose.
They both disregard numbers that are not close to producing outcomes that have been shown to occur.
False on both counts, Richard.
Pruning orients a decision, it does not make a move impossible And you don’t know which or if model runs (not models, runs) are impossible. In fact you do know that they all follow the same laws as the others.
By your logic it can’t have never rained when it did not.
So they really do both disregard numbers that are not close to producing outcomes that have been shown to occur.
By reducing choices or by removing the cases.
barry…”I dont understand why skeptics have a problem with adjusting data to correct issues with them. RSS describe their corrections for the satellite record thus:”
***
The adjustment described by RSS are related to the mechanics of the measuring instruments. UAH actually worked with RSS circa 2005 to fix a slight error with the orbital mechanics. UAH claimed the error only affected the Tropics and was well within the margin of error stated.
On the other hand, NOAA, GISS, and Had.crut change (fudged) the actual data measured by thermometers which don’t have the instrumentation issues experienced by satellites. Long after the data has been documented, NOAA goes back and says, “Oh, this doesn’t look right, let’s change it”. Of course, all the changes are aimed at evening out the trend to show warming.
After the IPCC stated in 2013 there had been a flat trend for 15 years between 1998 and 2012, NOAA went back and amended (fudged) the SST in that range to show a warming where their records had shown no warming in the past.
The work of Tony Heller shows egregious fudging of the long term records by GISS in particular.
However, the mother of all fudgings, by NOAA, occurred when they dropped 90% of the reporting stations from their database since 1990. They admitted in 2010 they are using less than 1500 stations to represent the surface record. To accomplish that, they use climate models to interpolate and homogenize missing stations using stations up to 1200 km apart.
They are using about 4000 Argo buoys to cover the entire ocean, which is 3 times as large as the land surface.
You still won’t understand because you don’t want to understand.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “However, the mother of all fudgings, by NOAA, occurred when they dropped 90% of the reporting stations from their database since 1990. They admitted in 2010 they are using less than 1500 stations to represent the surface record. To accomplish that, they use climate models to interpolate and homogenize missing stations using stations up to 1200 km apart.”
Where do they admit this. I looked at the direct source (NOAA) and the claim is they use 25,000 stations for temperature data and other things.
https://tinyurl.com/bdftzc2v
“However, the mother of all fudgings, by NOAA, occurred when they dropped 90% of the reporting stations from their database since 1990.”
Once again, that is a lie.
NOAA at the time had about 1500 stations that they got data from every month (it’s twice that number now).
In the mid 1990s there was a massive undertaking to collect data from stations that DO NOT REPORT every month.
That’s why there is a drop-off after 1990. Because pre-1990s data was added that didn’t and never has reported to the GHCN data base.
What happened is the complete opposite of what you continue to say. Data wasn’t dropped, it was added – retrospectively.
Do you want to see the 1997 methods paper that explains all this again, or will you fail to read it for the 20th time?
barry, please stop trolling.
rlh…”See UAHs reasons for v6.1 here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf ”
***
Interesting stuff.
A quote…
“So, instead of the past method of calculating LT as a weighted difference between different view angles of MSU2 (or AMSU5), we are now calculating it as a weighted difference between MSU channels 2, 3, and 4 (or AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9) at a constant Earth incidence angle. This has the very important advantage that all satellite data necessary for the LT retrieval come from the same location”.
They explain briefly that the weighting function determines the sensitivity of the receivers to various altitudes. That means a sensitivity to the microwave radiation emitted by atmospheric oxygen, in the range 50 to 60 Ghz. Now they are using three channels on AMSU units, 5, 7 and 9, instead of just 5, which average the same O2 emission data at different portions of their weighting function curves.
By averaging the three different weighted signals it would appear they are getting a more accurate reading.
Also, in the article, they note the effect of weather systems on the readings, especially the difference in transition from an ocean area to a land area. That’s because the emissions over ocean and land differ. I wonder if that is due to a difference in emissions from oxygen in water vapour.
Anyway, land thermometers are likely affected by the same kind of weather systems, especially when placed near oceans. That suggests variations in the average month to month could be influenced by weather systems, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.
2m thermometers are well within the chaotic surface boundary layer. UAH and other satellites mostly measure things above that.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/images/lesson11/2000px-Atmospheric_boundary_layer.svg.png
https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/Troposphere.jpg
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-boundary-layer-includes-a-surface-layer-divided-into-an-inertial-sub-layer-IS-where_fig5_281581503
rlh…not trying to argue with you here, only motivated by lateral thinking.
From what I have read of the PBL it is all about air rising from the surface. They call it energy instead of naming the energy which is heat. Of course, it could be mechanical as well due to the force it can exert on glider wings, etc. Not a word about radiation, which is encouraging.
Does it state in the UAH literature that they cut off the weighting curves at a certain altitude? I have read from Roy that they don’t go right to the surface due to problems with interference from the surface.
A boundary layer is still part of the lower troposphere. There may be different behaviors exhibited within it due to friction between the surface and the air passing over it, but it’s still the troposphere. Sorry, but I can’t get into purely mental divisions of nature based on the human mind.
In one article on the PBL, they talk about adiabatic vertical columns of air. Adiabatic processes are defined as those with no heat transferred into or out of the system while all internal energy is due to internal work. That describes a highly idealized system, like a piston and a cylinder with perfectly insulated walls on the cylinder. Even at that, when a gas is compressed in such a system, the internal energy is due to both heat and work.
There is no way to apply that to a vertical column of air. There is most definitely a transfer of heat into the system to get the air rising and the internal energy is represented by heat and not nearly as much by work, unless strong winds are in effect.
Based on the info at your link, thermometers are shielded from much of the weather in the troposphere due to behavior at the boundary. Therefore, what UAH is measuring is far more indicative of the stable troposphere hence the average temperature near the surface.
I have found the best scientific descriptions are found at Britannica.com. They use real scientists to offer the science whereas Wikipedia allows any idiot to post. I am not referring to your link here, which was to researchgate, if I recall.
Much of the theory we know about the PBL seems to come from models via Navier-Stokes equations. The PBL seems to have a ceiling near 10,000 feet for average situations but it does not indicate if that is 10,000 feet above sea level or over any surface at any altitude.
The peak of Everest sits right in the jet stream, for example and I am sure there is little or no boundary layer over it.
In reality, there is no physical boundary layer. It is simply weather at different altitudes, which may be predictable at certain times and not at others.
The weighting curves used by UAH should extend to the surface but as they have noted, there are situations where surface emissions distort the readings.
Another thought. A thermometer inside a Stevenson screen is supposed to block direct solar radiation and shield the devices inside from precipitation. It is painted white to reflect sunlight but has louvres to allow air circulation.
Even at that, how much does the Sun warm the box, hence the air inside it? If you put a human inside a similar box, I am sure he/she would experience the air inside as being warmer than the air outside.
I would like to see an experiment done where a thermometer was hung outside the box, in the shade and protected from wind, and another was placed inside the box.
The PBL can be as thin as a few hundred feet, sometimes smaller.
GR,
Measuring air temperature is extremely difficult. Most people dont realise that a thermometer in a vacuum chamber will show the same nominal temperature as the air surrounding the chamber.
Allowing a vacuum chamber to slowly charge with air, oxygen, nitrogen or CO2 will have no effect on the temperature of the thermometer.
Thermometers in Stevenson Screens do not measure air temperature. However, if the screens are sited identically, subject to the same radiation variations etc., they should react identically – but of course they dont. The age and composition of the surface coating, the type of timber, the fixings use to secure the thermometers are all variable.
Measuring air temperatures is fairly pointless. Not of much use to man nor beast, particularly if anyone is silly enough to believe they are accurate in absolute terms.
But of course, to the average climate crackpot, they are harbingers of doom, trumpeted loudly at every opportunity.
“Measuring air temperatures is fairly pointless.”
Just like your posts.
When you never leave your mother’s basement, and endlessly type and troll, why bother with predicting weather. Who needs it?
swannie…”RLH, Your several replies regurgitating earlier posts ignore the fact that UAH has not provided a table of weights vs pressure level as RSS does”.
***
Weighting functions related to pressure levels is not a function of UAH or RSS, it is a function of the AMSU receiver. You can find those weighting functions anywhere on the Net.
The weighting functions are because the temperature that the O2 molecules emits differs with height due to the changes in pressure (see lapse rate).
The various receivers onboard are tuned to different frequencies.
Thus we have a normal curve smeared over a range of heights/pressures.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/7d046bc8-d52d-433e-99ba-47e190a0a4d6/jgrd11783-fig-0001.png
rlh…”The weighting functions are because the temperature that the O2 molecules emits differs with height due to the changes in pressure (see lapse rate)”.
***
O2 doesn’t emit a temperature. Maybe that was a typo and you meant microwave radiation. It does emit a fairly precise microwave frequency ‘at’ a temperature, between 50 and 60 Ghz, which is proportional to altitude hence pressure. Pressure is a function of altitude related to gravitational force.
I think the lapse rate theory was created by a lapse in intelligence. It ignores the real cause of decreasing pressure/temperature and presumes somehow that temperature is unrelated to pressure in a gas.
The lapse rate fails to explain why air pressure drops to 1/3 its value at sea level by 30,000 feet in altitude. If the pressure in a gas drops by 1/3 while the volume of the container remains constant, temperature will drop by 1/3 as well. Where in the lapse rate theory do they address a gas dropping its pressure by 1/3 over 10,000 feet?
There are points in the lapse rate theory that makes sense, like the water vapour content precipitating out, releasing latent heat, but there are far more molecules of oxygen and nitrogen than water vapour. A whole lot more.
The notion of an adiabatic column of air is plain silly. Heat can be easily convected in and out of the column and the entire process of rising air began with heat being conducted into the air column at he base. That’s a conveyor belt process.
Furthermore, adiabatic processes require the internal energy to be produced by work, another silly concept. The internal energy of an air packet is produced by heat causing the atoms to vibrate, causing the work claimed.
“O2 doesnt emit a temperature”
No it emits microwave radiation which is directly related to the temperature it is at.
Gordo wrote:
That’s sort of correct, but you are ignoring the downward flow as the surrounding air from higher up is cooled by thermal IR radiation to deep space and then sinks. You are also ignoring the physics which tells us that the warmer, wetter lower density air at the surface is LIFTED UPWARD by the forcing from the cooler, denser air outside the rising column. The lifting process is “work” in the classical thermodynamic sense.
Solar flux update
The Canadian Space Weather Agency has resumed the output of daily solar flux data, suspended since March, 18:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
Apparently SC25 has swallowed his can of Popeye spinach in the meantime.
Despite many announcements from the pseudo-skeptics, it remains nicely on par with SC24.
According to the knowledgeable specialists, it is 99% certain that the SC25 will not reach the level of the Modern Maximum.
That would be asking a bit much after the rather lame SC24.
Bindidon, sunspots are about as useless as your centuries-old astrologers. You’re about as clueless about sunspots as you are about orbital motion.
Did you know you can have as many, or as few, sunspots as you wanted?
That ain’t science.
Next Kiddo will claim that Binny is making him peddle his crankery, Pup. Keep poking until he comes back.
The moron continues with his trolling, hoping that onlookers will confuse his obscure mysticism with intelligence.
Note the lack of any factual reference to anything remotely concerned with science.
What a moron Willard is!
For his 10th year, Mike Flynn Mike Flynns!
The moron continues to avoid admitting that he can’t even copy and paste scientific information about the supposed Greenhouse Effect, let alone provide a copy of the Greenhouse Effect he claims to possess.
What a moron Willard is!
Mike Flynn,
Let me make you a formal offer –
Show me your Insulation Effect theory, and I’ll show you the Greenhouse Effect theory.
Deal?
swenson…”What a moron Willard is!”
***
Actually, he was demoted to intelligent imbecile a bit back.
Weary Wee Willy,
You delusional dimwit.
You wrote in a fit of stupidity –
“Mike Flynn,
Let me make you a formal offer
Show me your Insulation Effect theory, and Ill show you the Greenhouse Effect theory.
Deal?”
Considering neither exists, you merely demonstrate the depths of your detachment from reality. You have nothing to “offer”. You don’t have an Insulation Effect Theory, or a Greenhouse Theory, do you?
Figments of your bizarre imagination are not real. Keep playing with yourself, and imagine someone else is involved. Convince yourself the imaginary shared experience is reality.
[chortle]
> Considering neither exists
Wait, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Are you suggesting you’ve been pulling legs all these years?
So sad, too bad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Aaaaah!
Finally, Clint R comes out again with his succulent ‘centuries-old astrologers’.
I love that.
Btw, top scientist Clint R did not even see that I wasn’t talking about the ‘centuries-old’ sunspots.
Like Robertson, he starts replying after having read at best 10 % of a comment.
Sunspots and radio flux are the ways solar cycles are compared. Neither has enough history to explain variations. All we really know is Sun has magnetic pole reversals, somewhat periodically, and both sunspots and the radio flux are affected.
we do know, that in the case of the Sun, which is essentially a boiling cauldron of hydrogen and helium nucleii and their associated electrons, that the electrons produce magnetic fields when they move. I don’t know if moving protons left over from the hydrogen atom can do the same. I studied electronics not protonics.
Is it possible there are internal plasma flows of electrons that orient the magnetic field one way, then the flow reverses, causing a reverse magnetic field?
The emerging theory about solar cycles (mostly from amateurs that understand physics) involves the “Intermediate Axis Theorem”. A sphere would not have an “intermediate” axis. So for the regular flips we see in solar magnetic poles, it suggets there is more going on than just a sphere. Something within Sun must be contributing to an imbalance in moments of inertia. Possibly some solid, or quasi-solid, structure?
What adds credibility to the IAT is the fact that the polarity flips are periodic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-HMSCDYtM
It’s too bad NASA doesn’t have any REAL scientists. For enough funding, they might induce us to help with the research. How does $5 million each sound? We could probably ask for more, if we weren’t so humble….
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/cls_radio_flux_f107/
This article explains the source of the radio emissions as free electrons passing near an ionized atom. I suppose that means the proton in a hydrogen atom that has lost an electron.
https://www.cv.nrao.edu/~sransom/web/Ch4.html
Here is a comparison I made years ago: SSN vs. F10.7, based on LISIRD data since beginning:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
Made of course using a uniform percent scaling due to the very different value ranges.
thats interesting when the flux line is below the spot line global warming wasn’t occurring. and it appears it is ready for another crossover.
Solar wind
speed: 373.9 km/sec
density: 7.6 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 61
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 12.27×10^10 W Neutral
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +8.2% High
48-hr change: +1.6%
tst
tim f…”GR…the fluxes are not adding, they are illuminating the surface independently, each light adding its own radiation to the surface.
TF..You need to clarify! You just said the radiation adds, but the fluxes do not! *
***
You need to go even deeper and define what is meant by flux.
With electrical applications, we can take two batteries and put them in series to get double the voltage. You can do the same with AC by putting two transformers or generators in series to double the voltage, or even to add a smaller AC voltage to a larger AC voltage (buck/boost). You are, in effect, doubling the number of electrons running through the circuits.
When you talk about a flux field,you are not talking about anything physical that can be added. A flux, as defined by Newton (fluxion) is a variation is a field’s intensity. You can’t add points in the field but you can increase the number of points, making the flux intensity stronger. To me, that is not an addition of fluxes, but an interleaving of fluxes to increase the field strength.
When you use a diffraction grating, you are not adding fluxes in free air, you are adding ‘the effect’ of the fluxes at a surface. Those same fluxes will not add in free air.
GR…Even if it could be added, its of such low intensity compared to the Suns radiation that it would be negligible. It would be like trying to heat a room with a flashlight.
TF…So we seem to have established the even if part. Yes they can be added. You yourself said radiation adds”.
****
I did not mean it adds, I said it adds at a surface. If I worded it to imply fluxes in free air add, then I apologize.
You cannot see radiation moving through air or space, it can only been seen when it interacts with the retina in a human eye. What you are seeing is the response of the retina to the stimulation by EM radiation.
This is crazy I get to certain part of my post and get a screen with an Internal Error message.
the following paragraph causes the error, yet paring it back word by word till no words are left still produces the error.
Same with the target screen used with a diffraction grating. I must confess that my memory of diffraction gratings needed an upgrade. I was confusion them with the double-slit experiment which produced alternating black and white patterns due to light interference on a target screen.
that tim, it posted…go figure…
With a diffraction grating, ordinary white light from an incandescent bulb is broken into its constituent frequencies, producing a spectrum of colour ranging from blue to red. The eye can only see the effect of the frequencies reflected from the target.
The lines in the grating bend each frequency a different amount so the blue end of the spectrum which is shorter is bent less than the longer wavelength, producing a rainbow effect. This can sometimes be seen as an array of spectra side by side. I would imagine that depends on the distance between the lines on the grating.
If the light is a monochromatic green, it is broken into an array of green bars side by side.
I don’t think, in the case of the Young double-slit interference experiment, that fluxes are being added. The instant the EM flux strikes the surface, it is no longer a flux, but a reflection from a surface.
GR,
There are idiots who believe that if you add the flux from ice at 272 K to flux from boiling water (373 K or so), then you have the flux from an object with a temperature of 645 K or so.
Unfortunately, no matter how much ice is added to boiling water, you still can’t melt lead with the resultant flux.
This is why “energy imbalances” which create “global warming” are the stuff of disturbed dreams. No Greenhouse Effect, and slower cooling does not result in increased temperatures. That’s why the effect is called “cooling”, not “heating”, I suppose.
Reality seems to have no effect on idiots who think that “climate” somehow affects “weather”.
Onwards and upwards!
“There are idiots who believe that if you add the flux from ice at 272 K to flux from boiling water (373 K or so), then you have the flux from an object with a temperature of 645 K or so.”
No. There are only “idiots” who don’t understand the difference between fluxes FROM surfaces (which do NOT add) and fluxes TO surfaces (which DO add).
The flux FROM the surface of ice @ 0 C is always 315 W/m^2. No matter how many pieces of ice you have or how big those pieces are. The flux TO a surface coming from ice can be be anything from 0 W/m^2 to 315 W/m^2, which DOES depend on the size/shape/location of the ice.
And here is the key idea that so many people seem to miss. The ONLY way for ice to deliver 315 W/m^2 to a surface is for the ice to completely surround the surface. The only way for boiling water to supply 1100 W/m^2 is for the the boiling water to completely surround the surface. Since it is impossible to “completely surround” with ice AND “completely surround” with boiling water simultaneously, no one things you can add those two fluxes to raise a surface about the warmest temperature (ie 373 K here).
[PS, Even someone making the mistake you THINK people make would predict something like 400 K for the combo; never 272 + 373 = 645 K! ]
“I did not mean it adds, I said it adds at a surface”
And that is what I mean! That is what *everyone* means!
* Irradiance adds.
* Radiant Exitance does NOT add!
“You cannot see radiation moving through air or space, it can only been seen when it interacts with the retina in a human eye. ”
This seems a rather anthropocentric view. Photons and energy still exist in the spaces between emitters and absorbers.
“A flux, as defined by Newton (fluxion) is a variation is a fields intensity. You cant add points in the field but you can increase the number of points, making the flux intensity stronger. To me, that is not an addition of fluxes, but an interleaving of fluxes to increase the field strength.”
But that is pretty much exactly what “addition” means. When two fluxes arrive, the field becomes a sum of the two. The energy becomes the sum of the two. Why fudge with some other vague term like “interleave”?
Folkerts continue his perversion of physics.
Of course, he MUST. He has to protect his cult’s beliefs that infrared from the sky (back-radiation) adds to solar. He believes two fluxes, from different sources, simply add. That’s WRONG, but he has NO regard for science, truth, physics, honesty, or reality. He’s a braindead cult idiot.
An ice cube at 0°C (32°F) emits 315 W/m^2. Folkerts believes that 315 W/m^2, arriving a surface from two different sources, add to 630W/m^2, resulting in a temperature of 325K (52°C, 125°F).
Did you get that? Folkerts is claiming all the flux from two ice cubes could heat something to 52°C, 125°F!!!
It gets worse. When I pointed out that nonsense would mean that enough ice cubes could then boil water, Ball4 jumped in to agree. They all won’t admit it, but the want to believe ice cubes can boil water. They have to believe such nonsense to believe CO2 can heat the planet.
That’s why they’re braindead cult idiots.
It is fascinating how many times Clint can make the same mistake, get an explanation, as still revert to his previous misconceptions.
Listen carefully
“An ice cube at 0C (32F) emits 315 W/m^2.
Yep, this is true.
Folkerts believes that 315 W/m^2, arriving a surface from two different sources, add to 630W/m^2, resulting in a temperature of 325K (52C, 125F).”
Yep. this is also true.
“Folkerts is claiming all the flux from two ice cubes could heat something to 52C, 125F!!!
… and this is where clint goes off the rails. A flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a surface does not have to come FROM *ice* emitting 315 W/m^2. I fully understand this and know in what circumstance such fluxes could add (eg from two small hot filaments emitting 3150 W/m^2) and when they could not add (eg two domes of ice emitting 315 W/m^2). Unfortunately, I suspect such understanding is simply beyond Clint.
Folkerts, when you finish arguing with yourself, let us know.
Clint, when you are ready to move beyond a faulty high school level of understanding, let us know.
Folkerts, you can’t support the nonsense you claim. Like Norman, you’re a phony. Want an example?
You’ve claimed 315 W/m^2 adds to 315 W/m^2 to result in a temperature of 325 K.
Do you deny your own claim?
Yes, or No, will do. There’s no need to wear out your keyboard, unless you’re trying to fake your way out of this.
> you can’t support the nonsense you claim
How do you know, Pup?
You keep putting words in Tim’s mouth.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Its like a two year asking the same question over an over!
“Youve claimed 315 W/m^2 adds to 315 W/m^2 to result in a temperature of 325 K.”
Yes, one irradiance of 315W/m^2 plus a second independent irradiance of 315 W/m^2 onto a singles surface gives a net irradiance of 630 W/m^2, corresponding to a BB temp of 325 K.
[And no, you can’t create two separate, independent irradiances of 315 W/m^2 onto a single surface using 0 C ice, so you can’t use ice + more ice to warm something above 273 K. ]
Yes Folkerts, that’s what you claim. Now, where’s the support?
There isn’t any because what you claim is IMPOSSIBLE. That would mean that ice cubes can boil water — just bring in more ice.
Your claim is: 315 + 315 = 630 W/m^2, which S/B eq. temp. is 325K
So, add twice the ice: 315 + 315 +315 +315 = 1260W/m^2, which S/B eq. temp. is 386K (113C, 235F)!
Sorry, you don’t get to make up stuff to protect your false religion.
Clint, if ice cubes were the only way to produce an irradiance of 315 W/m^2, then you would be on to something. But since there are myriad ways, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Your mirrors and spotlights were funny enough, Folkerts. But now you’ve got a “myriad of ways” to bring 315 W/m^2 to a surface. Still no 325K, however. Even if you used all of them at the same time. Fluxes don’t simply add.
You don’t understand any of this. That’s what makes it so much fun.
Now for your next humorous attempt to pervert physics….
Tim Folkerts
Since you are interacting with Clint R can you assess if you are talking to a person that is incredibly stupid (I have not met a real person as stupid as Clint R) or if it is a hybrid program?
By hybrid I mean mostly it is a program that runs through the same routine over and over (specifically programmed to maximize annoying behavior) but the human programmer steps in once in a while to create the illusion of a real person behind his bot.
The endless repetition of the same points (like Svenson/Mike Flynn) does not seem a human characteristic. I have interacted with some of the available bots on the Internet and they do sound a lot like Clint R.
I am wondering if you are trying to reason with a really stupid human or just interacting with a mindless bot program.
Norman is in full meltdown now. He’s watching his false religion slowly dissolve right before his eyes. His cult heroes are as phony as he is.
It must be so frustrating for him.
“Fluxes dont simply add.”
Irradiances DO simply add.
Radiant exitances DO NOT add at all.
You dont understand any of this (and won’t even try!). Thats what makes it so frustrating.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
Fluxes don’t simply add, and irradiances don’t simply add.
Your two 315W/m^2 irradiances don’t result in a temperature of 325K. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Not only are you a cult idiot, but you can’t learn.
That’s why this is so much fun.
–Folkerts believes that 315 W/m^2, arriving a surface from two different sources, add to 630W/m^2, resulting in a temperature of 325K (52C, 125F).
Yep. this is also true. —
What are two different sources which reach the Earth’s ocean surface?
Such as say, the biggest and second biggest.
A Planet Universal Law Equation.
As you know, to maintain a Planet Universal Law Equation one has to study all the planets’ behavior.
In that way only one may come to general conclusions. That is why I call our Earth as a Planet Earth. After all Earth is a Planet and as a Planet it behaves in accordance to the Universal Laws – as all Planets in the Universe do.
The Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation has the wonderful ability the calculated results closely matching to the measured by satellites planets’ mean temperatures. This New Universal Equation can be applied to all the without atmosphere planets and moons in a solar system.
The more we compare the planets’ surface temperatures, the more we understand the planets’ surface warming phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still flogging an idea that no-one else supports.
Thank you, RLH, for your respond.
“Still flogging an idea that no-one else supports.”
No, you are not well informed, there is a strong support to the idea!
Please visit
Links:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/#:~:text=The%20Planet%20Surface%20Rotational%20Warming%20Phenomenon.%20It%20is,planet%20rotates%20faster%20it%20is%20a%20warmer%20planet.
and
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/19/the-greenhouse-effect/
Thank you again, RHL, for your interest in my work.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No-one of significance in climate then.
Excluding anyone posting here, what list of people are significant in climate?
rlh…I support Christos, he makes good sense and those opposed are wrong.
C’mon, Gordo.
Most of your gurus disagree with Christos.
Good sense to you but nonsense to everybody else scientifically speaking.
Of the two links presented by Vournas above, none is free of a link to Vournas’ web site itself and hence does not represent independent information.
Moreover, the tambonthongchai blog gives, like many others, a wrong explanation concerning Earth’s solar irradiation surface.
This pi*R^2 has nothing to do with any ‘cross-sectional section’.
Commenter bart (a mathy Skeptic) has explained may times on this blog in the recent past that the solar irradiation is computed by integrating the square of the cosine of the incidence angle, what gives 0.5 and thus the real area of the irradiated hemisphere is halved.
Nothing mysterious about that, Bindidon. It’s just basic calculus. A sphere would be receiving 480 W/m^2, resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 303K. Move into the real world, with some reflection off the limbs, and you get to the 288K, which is demonstrated by Vournas.
The direct solar flux (after reflection) is about 960 W/m^2. “Basic calculus” gives 480 W/m^2 over the front hemisphere resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 303K over the front hemisphere. The back hemisphere receives 0 W/m^s from the sun, resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 2.7 K. Ie an average of 153 K! Or if the sunlight was averaged over the whole sphere we get 255 K.
There is no way to get above 255 K without some sort of effect *besides* sunlight or rotation.
Thank you, Tim, for your respond.
“There is no way to get above 255 K without some sort of effect *besides* sunlight or rotation.”
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We cannot compare the planet Te and planet Tmean.
They are different physic terms.
–
And here is why:
1). Planet doesnt reflect as a disk, but as a sphere.
the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is not
(1-a)S
but
Φ(1-a)S
2). Planet doesnt absorb the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
What planet does is to interact with the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
When interacting with matter, only a fraction of the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is accumulated in inner layers in form of HEAT.
3). Also, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim Folkerts,
You of all people should appreciate that we are not on a black body without a heat capacity. We have cooled from a molten mass since the creation. You should be helping Cristos explain why the planet remains so temperate.
” We have cooled from a molten mass since the creation. ”
Oh! The Flynnson guy will be glad someone took his eternal refrain so willingly.
tim…”The back hemisphere receives 0 W/m^s from the sun…”
***
What happens in summer in that back hemisphere, in the Northern Hemisphere? During the day it can be 25C yet at night, when there is no solar input, a temperature of 15C could be maintained through the night.
That points to one thing only, the atmosphere retains heat during the night. It also means radiation is not very effective at cooling the Earth with no solar input.
Even in winter, there is not an appreciable drop in temperature during the night. Here in Vancouver Canada, it can be +5C during the day and only drop to 1C or 0C during the night.
It’s obvious the anthropogenic theory is seriously missing basic facts.
GORDON SAYS: “It also means radiation is not very effective at cooling the Earth with no solar input.”
And why is the surface not effective at cooling? Because the atmosphere (clouds and dust and GHGs) blocks the thermal IR from escaping.
CHIC SAYS: “… black body … heat capacity …cooled from a molten mass …”
Yes. I appreciate all that. But I was responding to a post that was NOT dealing with any of that. Clint’s post was FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG about radiation and temperature, even BEFORE adding in further details like these.
Tim,
Clint was alluding to the further details starting with “Move into the real world….”
You wrote, “The back hemisphere receives 0 W/m^s from the sun, resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 2.7 K.”
It’s nonsense to use a black body starting at 2.7 K. Trying to rectify those AGW-style arguments with reality is what got me interested in climate change discussions in the first place.
“There is no way to get above 255 K without some sort of effect *besides* sunlight or rotation.”
You mean besides effects like atmosphere, gravity, albedo, etc.? 255 K is another hypothetical that assumes there is a surface somewhere emitting 240 W/m2. It’s totally meaningless except for those brainwashed by AGW dogma.
Folkerts does not understand the physics, so the calculus confuses him even further.
The 480 W/m^2 is the average over half the sphere. Both hemispheres are receiving 480 W/m^2. That is NOT at the same time. It is the average. There is no 2.7K involved.
Folkerts is clueless.
Chic asks “You mean besides effects like atmosphere, gravity, albedo, etc.?”
Albedo of course matters, but the calculation assumed 960 W/m^2 of absorbed sunlight. Change that and you change the “255 K result”.
Gravity does not matter per se, other than holding the atmosphere to the earth.
But specifically I meant without IR properties of the atmosphere. the IR properties allow the earth to radiate to space as if it were 255 K, yet have surface temperatures to be much higher.
Folkerts, 255K has no relation to Earth. That’s the calculated value for an imaginary sphere.
Several other cult idiots have been confused about the 255K also.
(Maybe write it down so you don’t forget — 255K has NOTHING to do with Earth.)
I hate to invoke an insulation analogy because of being accused of hypocrisy having previously objected to atmospheric blankets. But at a basic level, heat transfer without phase changes only occurs when there is a temperature difference. The atmosphere provides some resistance to heat transfer and, therefore, the surface must be warmer than the hypothetical 255K SB derived emission temperature. There is no GHE needed to appreciate that.
The only relevant question pertaining to IR absorbing gases is whether continual growth will increase global temperatures. Conclusive evidence for that is lacking. The physical processes occurring daily seem more than capable of shedding the incident daily solar energy.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your respond.
“Of the two links presented by Vournas above, none is free of a link to Vournas web site itself and hence does not represent independent information.”
But there is a strong support to the idea!
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Support from anyone who has significance in climate is sadly lacking.
RLH
“Support from anyone who has significance in climate is sadly lacking.”
Thank you!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
With soaring oil prices dominating recent headlines, it’s no surprise that profits and cash flows for the U.S. exploration-and-production (E&P) sector rebounded dramatically in 2021 from heavy, pandemic-induced losses in 2020.
The fact that E&Ps enjoyed a remarkable turnaround in 2021 isn’t a big surprise, really. U.S. producers faced a disastrous year in 2020, with unprecedented demand destruction, well shut-ins and even a first-ever moment of “negative” oil prices. What’s much more noteworthy is that E&Ps earned more money in 2021 than they did during the previous peak in 2014 when realized commodity prices were significantly higher.
The implementation of broad efficiencies indicate earnings will continue to climb substantially in 2022 as realizations reach 2014 levels. I expect higher cash flows in 2022 as higher oil and gas prices flow through to the bottom line.
With oil and gas prices 65% and 67% higher, respectively, in the first quarter of 2022 than the same period a year ago, I expect oil and gas producers to post spectacular first-quarter earnings over the next month. In fact, expect the entire year to be one of the best ever, despite increasing cost pressures, labor-supply challenges and other headwinds.
God blessed America, God bless The Marines, God help the rest!
Given your prediction that the oil companies are likely to report spectacular first-quarter earnings (and profits) as a result of the rebound from the pandemic, would you support the imposition of a Windfall Profits Tax on these essentially unearned profits? After all, the US government spent a huge amount of money combating the COVID pandemic, with some benefits to the petroleum companies as a result of the recovery. Maybe the returns from that tax could be used to pay direct rebates to individuals suffering from these distorted market conditions. Or, call it a war profiteering tax to fight the neo-Soviets under Putin. Whatever.
Do you think the imposition of a windfall profits tax is appropriate given that there was no compensation offered during the period of negative oil prices?
The leftists always look for any excuse to raise taxes. Those oil companies are owned by the stockholders, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. Those “windfall” profits are used to fund future exploration and investment. Why don’t we eliminate all the gas taxes at the pump to ease burdens on the consumer? Or why don’t we rejoice in the fact that our gas prices are still lower than most of the rest of the world?
stephen…I see myself as neither a leftist nor a rightist, leaving such definitions to those who need an identity or an image.
However, living in a defined leftist country in Canada there is a method to our taxation madness. We are heavily taxed, so much so, that we claim to work for the government for 6 months then for ourselves the rest of the year.
Can’t say I have ever noticed it, I am so used to it, hence I am not whining. The advantage we have is that the higher taxes go to pay for our social programs, especially medicare.
I can go to a doctor, or the hospital at any time, and don’t pay a cent. I don’t pay for operations or other procedures as long as I am sent by a doctor.
There is a misconception that we line up for health care, which is bs. If we need critical care, they make room on an as-needed basis. It’s a triage system, if you go to the ER with chest pain, you are taken right in.
I have never encountered a situation where I was concerned about waiting for a procedure. Our dental care is fully privatized and I am currently on a 6 week wait period for a dental crown. It’s just the way it is. If I was suffering pain, they’d see me right away, or I could go to the ER and have the pain attended to for free.
Many people these days are getting cataract surgery and there is a several month waiting period. However, unless you want a special lens, it is free. You can get it done at a private clinic but it will cost about $2500 for that service plus a special lens. I am sure the private clinics are compensated by our medical plan.
Under the current government, we pay no tolls on bridges or highways. We have government auto-insurance and the government recently changed the rules, lowering the rates.
Gordo,
Many Canadians want to tell how wonderful their healthcare system is and how awful private dental and eye care is. Then other Canadians I hear say their healthcare system is horrible and have horror stories. The problem is Americans can’t afford a healthcare system like Canada. We can’t take care of the World and defend the World too. If we stopped protecting the Canadians, the Brits, the Germans, the French, etc., would you be able to afford your fantastic healthcare system? Also, I think your healthcare system is still really good because of its proximity to us. The Brits and the Australians I’ve spoken to don’t talk so highly of their systems. Also, Gordo, how free are you? When a government takes 50 percent of your labor, you’re not very free.
La Nina effect
https://youtu.be/7otSDwRyU_8
Thanks god it’s April and it’s gone , sez Bididong
Bididong dong dong, Bididong dong dong, Bididong dong dong dong dong.
Here boy.
Tut, tut!
“Dong is a vulgar slang word for the penis. An example of a dong is what a vulgar person might call a penis.” – Internet.
Is shlong a synonym?
Looks like he is unable to construct another psychobabble word salad response any more, just a retarded growl
Didn’t the Dong have a luminous nose?
https://interestingliterature.com/2021/07/edward-lear-the-dong-with-a-luminous-nose-summary-analysis/#:
Earlier, Tim Folkerts tried to weasel his way out of his flux foolishness by inventing new physics .
He wrote –
“I fully understand this and know in what circumstance such fluxes could add (eg from two small hot filaments emitting 3150 W/m^2) and when they could not add (eg two domes of ice emitting 315 W/m^2).”
Tim now claims that fluxes from “hot” objects can add, but.fluxes from “cold” objects cannot.
Unfortunately, there is no physical basis for his nonsense. The laws of thermodynamics do not mention specific temperatures, nor types of materials involved. Hot things are treated no differently to no-so-hot things. Everything above absolute zero is hot. Temperature is just the degree of hotness.
To a physicist, light covers all frequencies and energies. It all travels at the same speed, regardless of any frame of reference you try to impose on it. It has no rest mass, but possesses momentum. It doesn’t accelerate to the speed of light, it just appears at that speed.
If you set up an experiment to show light is a wave, it acts like a wave. If you set up an experiment to show light is particulate, it acts like particles.
People like Tim think they can persuade Nature to perform as their fantasies dictate.
They can’t. Richard Feynman described Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. Experimental results support Feynman, not common sense.
There is no GHE.
“Hot things are treated no differently to no-so-hot things. ”
What! Heat only moves spontaneously from hot things to cold things! Threating hot things differently from cold things is at the very heart of thermodynamics!
That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Folkerts, you need to explain that to the other Folkerts. He’s such a braindead cult idiot.
“Thats why you cant boil water with ice cubes.”
Yep! Which is what I have always maintained. But thanks for supporting me when I said Swenson was wrong.
It’s also the reason two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can NOT heat it to 325K.
CHIC SAYS: “Its also the reason two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can NOT heat it to 325K.”
You seem to have the same mental block about “radiant exitance” (flux leaving a surface) vs “irradiance” (flux arriving at a surface). Both are “flux” but they are different from each other.
The “radiant exitance” from 273 K ice is always 315 W/m^2. The irradiance from 273 K ice is anything from 0 W/m^2 to 315 W/m^2, depending on geometry. No geometry allows a irradiance of more than 315 W/m^2 (eg 630 W/m^2 is not possible) so ice cannot warm anything to 325 K.
But for example, a surface at 273 * 2^0.25 = 325 K has a radiant exitance 630 W/m^2. The irradiance from a 325 K surface is anything from 0 W/m^2 to 630 W/m^2, depending on geometry. It would be easy to create a geometry that provides 315 W/m^2 of irradiance. If would be easy to double this and have an irradiance of 630 W/m^2 using two individual irradiances of 315 W/m^2. So the two irradiances of 315 W/m^2 — each arriving from surfaces at 325 K — COULD heat something to 325 K.
Exactly as I have always claimed.
You’re STILL wrong, Folkerts. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can NOT heat it to 325K. You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes. You can’t learn.
You can “claim” anything you want, but your imaginative claims ain’t science.
You’re providing definitions to distract from the fact that you have NO “textbook” verification that fluxes add. You just keep making things up, and distracting to cover your trail.
What’s next?
Sorry, that was Clint, not Chic.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts also wrote –
“The direct solar flux (after reflection) is about 960 W/m^2. Basic calculus gives 480 W/m^2 over the front hemisphere resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 303K over the front hemisphere. The back hemisphere receives 0 W/m^s from the sun, resulting in a theoretical BB temp of 2.7 K. Ie an average of 153 K! Or if the sunlight was averaged over the whole sphere we get 255 K.
There is no way to get above 255 K without some sort of effect *besides* sunlight or rotation.
– demonstrating, once again, complete detachment from reality.
The problem with the sort of nonsense that fools like Tim promote (along with Sagan, Hanson, Trenberth, and all the other cultists), is that the Earth happens to be more than 99% molten, and thus has a surface temperature even in the absence of external heat.
Measurements by geophysicists indicate that the current surface temperature in the absence of external influences to be in the order of 30 K to 40 K. Fairly obviously (or not, for some), if sufficient energy from a source of some 5500 K can raise a body from absolute zero to some temperature, then if that body is above absolute zero initially, that same energy input will result in a higher temperature.
An example might be that it takes less energy to boil water if one starts with water at 99 C, rather than 0 C. The energy required is that to raise the temperature by 1 C, so it makes a big difference what your initial water temperature is!
Heres a relevant definition –
“1.
the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules).
No mention of starting temperature. Just saying how much is required too raise the temperature by 1 C. Start at 1, raises it to 2 – and so on. Start with a surface at 33 K, provide enough energy to raise the temperature by 255 K, final temperature 288 K! No miracle.
No GHE needed. Just basic physical laws in operation.
swenson…”the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules)”.
***
Not trying to be argumentative or to argue against your point, I agree with you about internal heat sources. And, your reference to a joule is not wrong.
Please don’t take this personally, I am replying to a general audience.
The actual definition as given above is the calorie, not the joule. The joule is the equivalent mechanical energy to heat, which is always measured in calories. They have different parameters, however, hence are not equal, only equivalent.
I hate it when the politically-correct come along and redefine a perfectly good quantity like a calorie, as another unrelated unit. Then again, I’m Scottish with a Pictish heritage. The Romans built Hadrian’s wall to keep us out because we were always correcting them on science, when we weren’t beating the crap out of them and the Viking hordes.
If you look up the definition of calorie these days it is usually defined as an amount of energy. No one wants to use the word heat anymore. Here’s an explanation by Britannica.com that actually uses both word heat and energy, and explains how heat has come to be measured by the joule.
https://www.britannica.com/science/calorie
The joule is defined as follows…”The joule is a derived unit defined as the work done, or energy required, to exert a force of one newton for a distance of one meter…”
I don’t know how a force of one Newton applied over a distance of 1 metre can raise the temperature of a gram of water by 1C. But there you have it. They now want to re-define a kilometre based on space-time units, whatever they are, and redefine gravity, not as a force but as a space-time anomaly.
Is it any wonder no one can understand your simply argument about internal heat in the Earth?
A joule is a measure of work…mechanical energy and is more closely related to the horsepower than the calorie. The scientist, Simon Joule, discovered an equivalence between the joule and the calorie when he did an experiment in which he ran a small rotary paddle in water. He noted how much work was done by the paddle, in joules, and how much the temperature rose in the water. Hence the equivalence between heat and work.
Clausius also pointed out the ‘equivalence’ of work and heat, emphasizing that they both have different parameters therefore there is no equality.
I mention this only because alarmists depend on such obfuscations. Rather than talking about heat, they talk about energy, which allows them to bypass the 2nd law using an obfuscation called a ‘net balance of energy’.
They measure electromagnetic energy in w/m^2 when the watt is a measure of mechanical energy related to the joule and the horsepower. EM has no units, it has no mass and carries no heat or mechanical force. It has no effect until it is absorbed by mass. EM can do no work by its own means.
The confusion between EM and heat has led to the misguided notion that GHGs in the atmosphere can back-radiate ‘heat’, or trap heat, whereas what is back-radiated is EM from a cooler source, which cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface that supplied the GHGs energy in the first place.
Although this sounds like major nit-picking, if one does not focus on the basic of reality, re physics, one can become quickly led down the proverbial garden path. We are witnessing that misadventure today with the anthropogenic and greenhouse theories.
“Hence the equivalence between heat and work.”
So why are you fighting the idea of using the same units for equivalent things? That would be like using feet to measure north-south, but meters to measure east-west.
“They measure electromagnetic energy in w/m^2 when the watt is a measure of mechanical energy …” but again, you agree different sorts of energy can be equivalent. Why shouldn’t heat and light and work and KE and chemical energy be measured in the same units?
Is it even worth trying to explain that “basic physical laws” don’t work the way Swenson thinks they do? His post is a series of non-sequiturs.
“the Earth happens to be more than 99% molten” … but that has nothing to do with what I had written.
“the current surface temperature in the absence of external influences to be in the order of 30 K to 40 K” … which translates to about 0.1 W/m^2 of geothermal heat flow. That is a miniscule perturbation when other flows are 10x or 100x or 1000x larger!
“that same energy input will result in a higher temperature” … but not in the linear fashion he seems to think. 0.1 W/m^2 would raise a surface from …
* __0 K to _36 K
* 100 K to 100.5 K
* 200 K t0 200.1 K
* 300 K to 300.02 K
So no, you can’t start at 255 K and add ‘enough power to warm from 0 to 30 K’ and expect to get to 255 + 30 = 285 K. You would get to about 255.03
“Just saying how much is required too raise the temperature by 1 C …” which is different from the amount to HOLD a higher temperature when power is radiated continuously from a surface.
JOULES are required to RAISE a temperature.
WATTS are required to HOLD a temperature.
The problem with Swenson’s ‘sort of nonsense’ is that has just enough correct information to sound plausible.
Tim,
There is nothing implausible about the sun warming Earth from 33K until it emits the same amount of energy that it absorbs. More likely the planet cooled until the warming from the sun equaled the planet’s cooling. Your mission should you choose to accept it, Tim, is to find data showing an increase in CO2 causes global temperature to increase.
“There is nothing implausible about the sun warming Earth from 33K until it emits the same amount of energy that it absorbs. ”
Exactly. And that is to 255 K, not 288 K.
“Your mission should you choose to accept it, Tim, is to find data showing an increase in CO2 causes global temperature to increase.”
Read Dr Roy’s current post!
Tim,
Dr. Spencer’s recent post is about what causes the rise of CO2. No mention of the effect of CO2 on temperature.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Just saying how much is required too raise the temperature by 1 C ” which is different from the amount to HOLD a higher temperature when power is radiated continuously from a surface.
JOULES are required to RAISE a temperature.
WATTS are required to HOLD a temperature.”
Well, a watt is a joule per second, so putting JOULES and WATTS in caps to make yourself look more authoritative might instead indicate you are trying to disguise your lack of knowledge.
In any case, you don’t seem to like the widely held assumption that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and that “accumulating” four and a half billion years or so of sunshine has not prevented this cooling, rapid at first, and then more and more slowly.
No GHE. Even the most retarded GHE worshipper acknowledges that the Sun is incapable of maintaining the Earth at a temperature in excess of 255 K or so. Presently, the Earth’s surface is a little higher than this, which considering that at depths of only 20 km or so, the underlying rocky mantle is red hot and fluid, is not surprising.
Off you go now Tim, and convince everyone that you know more than I. Producing a useful statement of the Greenhouse Effect would help, because I have no knowledge of such a thing.
The strange Willard commenter claims to have a copy of the Greenhouse Theory, but will only show it to you if you accept his “offer” to do a “deal”! Are you a matched pair of delusional nitwits, or is it just coincidence?
“you dont seem to like the widely held assumption that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature”
You will have to be more specific here.
I (and everyone else in science) knows that 4.5 billion years ago the earth’s surface as much hotter, and that it cooled from there. On that time frame the earth ahs cooled to where its present temperature.
I (and everyone else in science) knows that over shorter time frames, the earth has warmed and cooled many times in varying amounts. Just look at Dr Roy’s graph.
In either case, you are wrong. (either about waht I believe over the long term, or what the earth has done over the short term).
.
“the Sun is incapable of maintaining the Earth at a temperature in excess of 255 K or so. ”
I agree there. The sun alone cannot maintain the surface above ~ 255 K.
“Presently, the Earths surface is a little higher than this”
Well about 33 K warmer than this on average. More than 10% warmer. That is hardly a ‘little bit’.
“considering that at depths of only 20 km or so, the underlying rocky mantle is red hot and fluid, is not surprising.”
Yes. It IS surprising. We know that the geothermal heat flow is well less than 1 W/m^2. This could not hold the temperature even 1 K hotter than the 255 K value that you said was the max the sun could do on its own. Certainly not 33 K hotter.
Tim Folkerts,
I’m glad you agree that the surface is hotter than could be accounted for by the Sun’s influence alone.
As it was when the average surface temperature was above 1500 K – no GHE needed.
And when the average temperature was above 373 K – before the first liquid water – no GHE needed.
And now the temperature has dropped to say, 288 K, you think that this is inexplicable?
The Sun by itself cannot maintain even this temperature, let alone 1500 K or 373 K!
As to the ongoing cooling of the Earth, you agree that less than 1 w/m2 is continuously lost by the Earth. This energy lost to outer space is called “cooling”. Otherwise, the loss could not be measured, and the Earth would be “heating” – which of course would be silly.
As Baron Fourier (Fourier analysis and all that) pointed out, during the night the Earth loses all the heat of the day (that’s why it cools), plus a little bit of its primordial heat. Deny all you wish, invent a GHE to account for the fact that dimwits like Sagan, Hansen and the rest, forgot that the Earth started out as a big molten blob, and believe in fairy tales if you like.
Accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to where it is now. Accept the reality that generating and using energy results in heat, and that thermometers are designed to measure changes in temperature associated with heat, and all will become clear.
Still no need for a GHE. You can’t even describe the GHE which you worship so passionately, can you? Maybe Willard will let you have a peek at his, if you are prepared to do a “deal” with him!
“And now the temperature has dropped to say, 288 K, you think that this is inexplicable?”
288 K is indeed “inexplicable” using only solar and geothermal energy. The surface temperature SHOULD have dropped to ~ 255 K long, long, long ago if sunlight and geothermal heat were the only factors. You make it sound like some simple “Newton’s Law of Cooling” problem, with the surface temperature exponentially dropping from 1500 K to 373 K to 288 K — on its way toward 255 K in some distant future. But that is not the case at all.
We need to explain why that last 33 K of cooling never happened. And that explanation comes easily and naturally from the green house effect.
Folkerts, the 255K is nonsense. That’s been debunked before. The 255K is the calulated temperature for an imaginary sphere. It has NO relation to Earth.
Sun can account for Earth’s temperatures, given the heat capacity of the oceans, land, and atmosphere. It’s the Sun, stupid. You don’t understand any of this.
> That’s been debunked before.
Where?
Tim wrote, “The surface temperature SHOULD have dropped to ~ 255 K long, long, long ago if sunlight and geothermal heat were the only factors.”
But they were not the only factors and never will be. Why do you and all Warmists begin there? For a start, no one knows what the albedo would be without IR absorbing gases or without an atmosphere for that matter. The 255 K meme is misinformation for the average person that cannot appreciate the details of all the physics involved.
> Why do you and all Warmists begin there?
Because that’s where Sky Dragon Cranks always bait them, Chic.
That’s not chic, but that’s how it is.
Chic says: “But they were not the only factors and never will be. “
Right. One other factor is the GHGs that are always there and always needed to get above the 255 K value. Ocean currents and evaporation and trade winds and rotation are all part of the current climate conditions. But none of these can warm the average temperature above 255 K.
“no one knows what the albedo would be without IR absorbing gases … “
True. But we do know the albedo now. We know that currently only 70% of sunlight gets absorbed. We know that with an atmosphere that is transparent to IR, then the HIGHEST average temp would be 255 K with 70% of sunlight. It could be much lower.
We could use the moon as an example. It absorbs MORE sunlight but is EVEN COLDER than the earth. Albedo is NOT going to solve the problems here.
“Sun can account for Earths temperatures, given the heat capacity of the oceans, land, and atmosphere. ”
Nope. Those simply can’t solve the problem at hand.
If you think they can, then show us how! Use 70% of 1370 W/m^2 = 960 W/m^2 of sunlight and show how you can get the surface of the earth to have an average temperature above 255 K. Use all the heat capacities you like. Heck, use all the ocean and air currents and real emissivities you like.
“Debunk” the 255 K limit if can. Heck, even point us to the calculations where the sun alone gets the earth above 255 K.
Folkerts, your efforts to distract are getting more and more desperate.
255K is far below freezing yet you don’t know where on Earth Sun heats to higher temperatures?
Maybe when you quit all the distractions, you can show us your source that the two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can raise a surface to 325K.
You don’t understand any of this.
FYI,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf
Different model same result
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-009-0633-5
“Maybe … you can show us your source that the two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can raise a surface to 325K.”
“A Heat Transfer Textbook” https://ahtt.mit.edu/
“Heat engineering; a text book of applied thermodynamics for engineers and students in technical schools. ” https://www.loc.gov/item/15006087/
I could google dozens more. So could you. The first one is even free. You should try reading it. Ch 10 in particular would be helpful.
Clint, when you are done with your distractions, you can show us how “Sun can account for Earths temperatures, given the heat capacity of the oceans, land, and atmosphere. ”
Show an average temperature above 255 K using 960 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight to a spherical earth, using any heat capacities you like. Or show a link
Nice try Folkerts, but I’m not going to download an entire book, and then spend hours searching for nonsense, just to prove you WRONG.. If you have a legitimate source, provide the exact quote, and page number for verification. Then I can prove you wrong much quicker.
And, per request: “Show an average temperature above 255 K using 960 W/m^2 of incoming sunlight to a spherical earth, using any heat capacities you like.” You can use the REAL observations from Earth — 288K.
Tim,
You wrote, “We know that currently only 70% of sunlight gets absorbed. We know that with an atmosphere that is transparent to IR, then the HIGHEST average temp would be 255 K with 70% of sunlight.”
An atmosphere transparent to IR has no water or ice, so 70% albedo is oxymoronic. You continue to promote a hypothetical that compares apples and oranges. The proper hypothetical is to start with a surface receiving 1370 on a planet with an inert atmosphere and consider the change in temperature as IR active gases are added.
Chic says: “An atmosphere transparent to IR has no water or ice … ”
Yes, I do get that. I think everyone (who has thought even a bit about the topic) gets that. All of the climate factors interact with all the other climate factors.
But that STILL doesn’t stop us from applying basic physics. We can still apply the theories and calculations to hypothetical objects with specific mass, albedo, atmosphere, thermal conductivity … .
And the result is STILL that no object 1 AU from the sun with albedo = 0.7 and emissivity = 1 can have an average temperature above 255 K. You just can’t get the surface to an average of ~ 288 without invoking IR properties of the atmosphere.
CLINT: “Im not going to download an entire book, and then spend hours …. ”
PARAPHRASE: “I have never — and will never! — read a textbook on the topic, but I still feel qualified to pontificate about what the correct answer is.”
CHIC: “The proper hypothetical is to start with a surface receiving 1370 ”
That is easy to follow up on.
* 1370 W/m^2 spread evenly over a surface with emissivity=1 and and IR inert atmosphere will give a uniform 278 K.
* Any variations (equator to poles, day to night) will result in a LOWER average.
* Using the true albedo will lower the average temp; using the true emissivity will raise the average temperature. The albedo effect is bigger for earth, so the net result of these will result in a LOWER temperature.
No matter how you approach the problem, you get to the inescapable conclusion that you will never get anywhere close to 288 K without the IR properties of an atmosphere.
Folkerts, you’re such an obvious phony.
Your “PARAPHRASE” amounts to a false accusation. I bet I have more books on heat transfer than you’ve ever seen, not counting your internet searches.
You have to resort to false accusations, and irresponsible support for you false believes, because you have NOTHING.
I’m keeping a list of all your failed efforts to pervert reality. Please continue.
“You have to resort to false accusations …”
Pot, meet kette.
PS. If you had REALLY read (and understood) so many heat transfer books, you could have simply skimmed the texts I linked to and found the answers.
More distractions and tricks from you, Folkerts. Thanks for proving what a phony you are.
You used the same tricks as Ball4 and Norman — “the proof is out there”.
Sorry, there is NO “proof” of your nonsense. You can’t provide any because what you’re claiming is IMPOSSIBLE. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can NOT heat a surface to 325K.
You don’t know anything about radiative physics. Like the other cult idiots, you’re willing to pervert reality to protect your false religions. If any of you idiots had any REAL verification of your beliefs, you would be touting it all over this blog. You’ve got NOTHING.
What Tim is writing HAS been touted “all over this blog” including experimental evidence supporting Tim’s writing. Clint R just prefers to provide entertaining evidence of Clint’s lack of understanding test results instead of Clint doing experiments and showing any textbook support for Clint’s assertions.
Fun to continue laughing at blog laughing stock Clint’s completely unsupported assertions known to be false.
“Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can NOT heat a surface to 325K.”
One last time.
Two “radiant exitances” of 315 W/m^2 (for example leaving from 0 C ice), cannot heat a surface to 325K
Two “irradiances” of 315 W/m^2 (for example coming from a lightbulb filament), CAN heat a surface to 325K.
“You dont know anything about radiative physics. Like the other cult idiots, youre willing to pervert reality to protect your false religions. ”
Riiiiight…. Tim Folkerts, PhD in Physics, doesnt know anything about radiative physics! He’s a ‘cult idiot’.
That’s your argument??
But we’re supposed to believe Clint DOES know things about radiative physics?
But for some reason he never seems willing or able to explain any of it… because us ‘idiots’ wouldnt understand?
And thus his ‘rebuttals’ consist of a regular spew of ad-homs like those above… and nothing else.
Folkerts is in over his head. So some of his tribe arrive to save him. (Where’s Norman?)
But, they don’t have any more than Folkerts, just false accusations and false claims.
If any of the idiots had any REAL verification of their beliefs, they would be touting it all over this blog. Theyve got NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(laughing) nothing needed past experimental evidence supporting basic theory that has already falsified Clint’s unsupported claims.
Got any new comedy material Clint?
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The CO2 Famine
https://youtu.be/AgdLNez2SFU
So you think the entirety of human history, development of agriculture and the modern world has been during a famine??
How did we make it?
We should have been toast a long while ago.
I was commenting earlier on a post by rlh (Richard) about the lapse rate. Have not read his response, if any, but it is usually something detrimental.
I find the lapse rate definition to be quite off. Here’s something from Britannica.com, which is usually good with scientific definitions.
“The lapse rate of nonrising aircommonly referred to as the normal, or environmental, lapse rateis highly variable, being affected by radiation, convection, and condensation; it averages about 6.5 C per kilometre (18.8 F per mile) in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). It differs from the adiabatic lapse rate, which involves temperature changes due to the rising or sinking of an air parcel. Adiabatic lapse rates are usually differentiated as dry or moist.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate for air depends only on the specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure and the acceleration due to gravity. The dry adiabatic lapse rate for the Earths atmosphere equals 9.8 C per kilometre (28.3 F per mile); thus, the temperature of an air parcel that ascends or descends 5 km (3 miles) would fall or rise 49 C (85 F), respectively”.
***
In the first place, if you are referring to non-rising air you are definition static air. You cannot include horizontal wind, it’s highly unlikely that wind would not have a vertical component. If the air is perfectly still, the Ideal Gas Law would better represent the conditions, but they fail to use it. Besides, air that appears to be perfectly still is comprised of molecules darting in every such direction.
They relate the lapse rate of normal, still air to radiation, convection, and condensation. However, convection implies motion. Condensation will produce heat as water vapour condenses to precipitation but how much heat can WV produce when there is hardly any of it compared to the 99% of air comprised of nitrogen and oxygen. Same thing for radiation, how much can a trace gas radiate?
Then they reference a very strange adiabatic lapse rate, which they claim is related to the specific heat capacity and gravitational force. Why would they even mention heat capacity, which is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of the air by a certain temperature.
When they mention gravitational force, they need to be equating pressure, temperature, and volume using the Ideal Gas Law. It seems they are applying the first law of thermodynamics under the condition that no heat is entering or leaving the system. That seems misguided to me as if whoever defined the lapse rate was confused as to the physics involved.
Why do they not relate both lapse rates to gravity? As I pointed out to Richard, air pressure varies to 1/3rd its level at sea level over 30,000 feet altitude, meaning there are 1/3rd the number of air molecules by 30,000 feet. Neither definition of the lapse rate covers that natural reduction in pressure which can only be attributed to a slight decrease in gravitational force over 30,000 feet.
Other definitions of the lapse rate, like the Wiki explanation, seem to base it on a decrease in temperature with altitude yet they seem oblivious to the relationship between pressure and temperature as covered by the Ideal Gas Law. They seem to think the decrease in temperature with altitude is related only to some undefined property of rising air.
In the Wiki definition, they talk about air rising till its density is equal to densities at higher altitudes. That is plain silly. Air density is ordered by gravity as a negative density gradient. So, they are claiming that somehow, magically, rising air starts out at sea level at maximum density then rises till it finds an equal density.
Not going to happen.
Seems to me, with so-called adiabatic processes, they are trying to base the lapse rate on the 1st law of thermodynamics with the constraint that no heat is flowing into or out of the system. That would leave the work parameter of the 1st law, explaining their claim that only work is occurring in an adiabatic air column.
So, where does the heat come from if it is not entering the bottom of the air column? And how do they prevent heat entering/leaving the column? And how does heat ever escape at the top? They seem to be using the old anthropogenic nonsense that GHGs making up trace quantities of air column will radiate it to space. Therefore, the air column has a heat in source and a heat out exit.
As I said to Richard, I think the lapse rate represents a lapse in intelligence. Not having a scientific response to scenarios like this, Richard often calls me an idiot.
I might add that heat can easily enter and leave a vertical air column via convection. A defined vertical adiabatic column of air is like the ideal blackbody, it doesn’t exist.
Called thermals
https://www.ssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Cross-Country-Soaring.jpg
It gets colder as you go up a mountain, even if there is no wind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
“The lapse rate is the rate at which an atmospheric variable, normally temperature in Earth’s atmosphere, falls with altitude. Lapse rate arises from the word lapse, in the sense of a gradual fall. In dry air, the adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 C/km (5.4 F per 1,000 ft).
It corresponds to the vertical component of the spatial gradient of temperature. Although this concept is most often applied to the Earth’s troposphere, it can be extended to any gravitationally supported parcel of gas”
Gravity from the surface does not fall as fast as to allow for 9.8 C/km.
“At what rate does gravity decrease with altitude? The force of gravity scales as 1/r2 (r = radius from an idealized point mass, which the Earth is not, but it’s close enough to use here in this example), which means that you lose 75% of the force as you move from 1r to 2r”
Gordon, smarter people than you or me have theoretically derived and rederived the adiabatic lapse rate. And have observed it in the actual atmosphere. Yes, it uses a few idealizations, but it really isn’t that hard to understand. The answers to all your questions are easily available from wikipedia and from numerous textbooks on atmospheric physics.
Thinking that you understand things better than scientists who actually study these topics represents a lapse of effort or imagination on your part, not a lapse of intelligence or ability on everyone else’s part!
Gordon,
I have bookmarked some good derivations and discussions about lapse rates. If interested, just say so and I’ll look them up.
It all started at least this long ago: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/
Co2 trapping heat ???
https://youtu.be/kAdiCbhBuUk
Click bait. Not a fan.
tim f…”one irradiance of 315W/m^2 plus a second independent irradiance of 315 W/m^2 onto a singles surface gives a net irradiance of 630 W/m^2, corresponding to a BB temp of 325 K”.
***
Then why would you freeze to death in a room full of ice? To maintain the ice you would need a room at a temperature below 0C. You could dress against the cold but through time the heat would escape from your body if you did not refuel it. Radiation from the ice will not heat you or sustain you no matter how much ice there is.
It’s a misinterpretation of the S-B equation that gives ice the property where it can radiate 315 w/m^2. For one, the relationship between EM emission intensity and the temperature of a body at temperatures of 550C+ does not translated to temperature in the sub-zero range. For another, as Christos pointed out recently, the equation cannot be reversed.
Thirdly, EM cannot be measured in w/m^2. That quantity refers to the effect it ‘CAN’ have ‘AFTER’ it is absorbed, ‘IF’ it is absorbed. EM from ice cannot be absorbed by a warmer body.
“EM from ice cannot be absorbed by a warmer body”
So why does the temperature of a body in outer space and in shadow fall faster than a body surrounded by ice?
RLH,
Oooooh! A gotcha!
Do you really not understand physics, or are you just trying to be clever?
Let me know what you don’t understand, and I will point you in the right direction. Some retarded GHE cultists believe that a reduction in the rate of cooling is really heating in disguise.
You are not that silly, are you?
I note you don’t dispute what I said.
RLH,
Why would I dispute a vague statement which is false on face value?
You do realise that the Earth is a body in outer space, don’t you? And at night, the surface is shadowed from the Sun.
I don’t believe that you are claiming that the surface at night would be warmer if covered by ice, so I assume that you can’t express your thoughts clearly – or you are giving your fantasies precedence over physical fact.
Either way, I can help you overcome your ignorance, if you wish.
Or just remain ignorant – if you choose.
Why does the temperature of a body, say a person, in outer space and in shadow fall faster than the same body surrounded by ice? (We can assume that the person has a spacesuit on in both cases).
Are you saying it doesn’t?
Earth is a body with an atmosphere and a large thermal mass which is also heated internally. None of which I mentioned in my claim.
E. Swanson 04/22 at 9:14 AM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1237927
“Given your prediction that the oil companies are likely to report spectacular first-quarter earnings (and profits) as a result of the rebound from the pandemic, would you support the imposition of a Windfall Profits Tax on these essentially unearned profits? After all, the US government spent a huge amount of money combating the COVID pandemic, with some benefits to the petroleum companies as a result of the recovery. Maybe the returns from that tax could be used to pay direct rebates to individuals suffering from these distorted market conditions. Or, call it a war profiteering tax to fight the neo-Soviets under Putin. Whatever.”
Answer: No.
“The trouble with Americans,” said Adlai Stevenson, a U.S. presidential candidate in 1956, “is that they haven’t read the minutes of the previous meeting.”
I’m old enough to remember the Windfall Profits Tax of 1980 and the detrimental effect it had on domestic supply; it weakened America by making us more dependent on foreign oil.
Now you want to compound that fiasco with: “Maybe the returns from that tax could be used to pay direct rebates to individuals…”
Not only will the result be less domestic oil and gas for Americans as fewer prospects will meet their IRR and ROCE thresholds, your “rebates” will encourage demand in an ever tightening market.
TM, From my faded memory, the oil companies made lots of money after 1980 as world oil prices stayed high until the Saudi’s flooded the market, beginning around 1985. Then too, another aspect of the market at the time was a law which forbade export of U.S. crude, which was recently revised in 2015 when Nat Gas condensate was ruled to be a product, allowing export.
The US oil market has experienced many decades of interference from the politicians, including the Texas Railroad Commission’s restrictions on production and the failure of the US Congress to increase the Gas Tax since Clinton’s $0.043 per gallon increase in 1992. Recent calls by politicians at Federal and State levels for gas tax holidays are just more intrusions into the market.
The oil industry enjoys many levels of support from government, efforts which have promoted the consumption of ever greater quantities of petroleum. The consumers since 2015 have experienced relatively low market prices for gasoline and Nat gas, so the sales of gas guzzling PU’s and SUV’s have resulted in a vehicle fleet with relatively poor fuel economy. For one example, FORD has stopped selling cars. Those vehicles will be on the road for the next decade and beyond, with the result being a continued strong demand for oil products. Utility companies and others have switched to Nat gas for electric power production and other uses, again, investing in infrastructure what will result in high demand.
So, now comes the crisis and it’s only beginning to take effect. I went to the low “high class” grocery store yesterday and bought a loaf of bread. It cost $4.44 and that price was marked “on sale”. I stopped at WalMart and bought another for “only” $3.48…
So, I take it that this non sequitur means you’re off the Windfall Profits Tax kick now.
TM, Who said I supported a Windfall Profit’s tax?
Actually, I think this is a fine time to do something about reducing our CO2 emissions. Keeping market prices high would be one approach, which is the reason some people want a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system (which would appear at the consumer level as a tax). Of course, both would hit the consumer directly in their pockets, which is why the conservative politicians have loudly opposed those approaches.
Actually, I would prefer a system similar to TEQ’s, aka, PCA’s), which would provide tradable rations to all adult individuals. Initially, the idea would not increase the cost to the average consumer, who might even receive a cash payment for their unused rations. The largest consumers would need to pay extra for their excess and thus be incentivized to make changes in their daily lives to reduce their emissions.
Nate, I said Putin is just another thug among many thugs in the Ukraine.
The CIA almost undoubtedly caused this problem. Post WW2 Nazis and their sympathizers were recruited to fk with the Soviets. There is no question about that. They were given carte blanche budgets and it was a violent era. Unfortunately when you release something like that its hard if not impossible to control. Its like herding cats.
And no doubt the CIA and folks with political access inside take full advantage of it today to achieve personal or secret policy agendas.
So I asked you what exactly, post cold war, is the agenda of NATO? Obviously we have been propping up Putin as a punching bag for some other agenda. No way the insiders didn’t know how deficient the Russian military was.
Fact: Putin invaded Georgia.
Fact: Putin invaded Crimea.
Fact: Putin invaded Ukraine.
Fact: Putin has crushed all political opposition in Russia.
Which do you prefer, representative democracy and free speech or total authoritarian government control?
E. Swanson
Fact: US invaded Vietnam
Fact: US invaded Laos
Fact: US invaded Cambodia
Fact: US invaded Grenada
Fact: US invaded Panama
Fact: US invaded Afghanistan
Fact: US invaded Iraq
Do you think its possible that Putin got the idea from us?
And do you always believe what your daddy tells you?
As a participant in the Cold War against Soviet Imperialism in the late 1960’s, I make no excuses for U.S. actions. I recall that Vietman was the main reason that the U.S. went to war in WW II. After reading the Pentagon Papers when they were published, I also recall that Republican President Eisenhower was one of the reasons we later entered another war in support of the government of South Vietman, when he chose to ignore the 1954 Geneva agreement to unify Vietman with a government election.
I also remember that Afghanistan would not extradite Osama Bin Laden after his al-Qaeda terrorist organization destroyed the World Trade Center, so we and our allies decided to go get them. And I remember that we went into Iraq the second time on trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction from the Republican George Bush administration. This last decision was a seriously flawed one, which still haunts the U.S.
Then too, I remember General Smedley Butler of the US Marins, who wrote a book: “War is a Racket”.
And, I remember the refrain from an old Civil War song that sums it all up: “Rich man’s War, Poor man’s dying”…
so for you if its republican its bad, and if its democrat its uh good?
and btw there is absolutely nothing that haunts the US like Vietnam.
and likewise i am sure Putin makes no excuses either. its traditional for the US to pick the US friendly side whether authoritarianism or democracy is involved.
So, you agree with Butler that “War is a Racket”.
For many of those Americans who fought in Vietnam, it was the most defining part of their lives. But, the U.S. ground forces left Vietnam on March 29, 1973, leaving the South Vietnamese to fight for their country, having expended perhaps more than 4 times the tonnage of explosives as were used by all sides during WW II. It was a war against the environment, including spreading Agent Orange over large areas of the jungles, but it didn’t work. Saigon fell to communist forces on April 30, 1975, more than 2 years later.
Funny thing, now that it’s over, Vietnam, while having a communist government is now a major trading partner.
E. Swanson says:
Funny thing, now that its over, Vietnam, while having a communist government is now a major trading partner.
——————–
”Rich man’s War, Poor man’s dying”???
Yes colonialism was very bad. Yes the cold-war led to some bad things. Yes, the Iraq war was a terrible idea.
This is all Whataboutism, Bill.
Whatabout this historical thing that other countries did?
That means, going forward, anything goes? Any atrocity is ok? Forever?
Unprovoked invasion of sovereign nations is ok now?
Wholesale destruction of a neighboring country is ok?
Mass murder is ok?
Ethic cleansing is ok?
Because whatabout this other thing?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1239388
If only our opiniators could read from time to time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
Willard I know why NATO was created ‘with an armed attack by the Soviet Union against Western Europe in mind’.
Since there is no more Soviet Union and its obvious the Russian pose no conventional threat (and our intelligence and military agencies have no doubt known that for a long time) what is its current purpose (e.g. what does it have in mind and what is the end game look like?)
You skipped over the part that says “the mutual self-defense clause was never invoked during the Cold War,” Bill.
But since you insist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Please, do continue.
can you summarize the purpose? like fight wars on 3 continents? end game please. that is if you have clue one what it is.
Willard,
I suppose you think that cutting and pasting random pieces of Wikipedia makes you appear intellectual.
I suggest that you might care to read what you copy first, and maybe leave out the [citation needed] parts. These tend to indicate that even the Wikipedia editors admit that they are only speculating.
Who cares what a masturbator quoting a speculator thinks?
Time for a bit more “Oh! Oh! Oh!”, do you think?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I suppose”
Indeed, that’s all you do!
Do continue.
Cheers.
> can you summarize the purpose?
You should have read more before Just Asking Questions, Bill.
willard i have been in this rodeo long enough to learn that fighting wars on three continents isn’t exactly self defense.
ww2 may have started as self defense but once the fighting was on multiple continents nothing but unconditional surrender by the aggressors was going to be sufficient. so is that now nato’s end game?
This is not about Muricans, Bill.
You’re not special anymore. You never were. Sorry.
Welcome to the Internet!
as usual willard has nothing to offer.
“Since there is no more Soviet Union and its obvious the Russian pose no conventional threat”
Tell that to Ukraine.
Yes, tell it to the Ukrainian fascists who started all this trouble.
RLH,
Why? Can’t the Ukrainians read for themselves? Or maybe they were naive enough to believe the US and NATO would defend Ukraine against the Russian military action which Russia stated would ensue if Ukraine followed the directions given by the US in relation to the scheduled peace talks
Possibly the origins of the present situation are not quite as straight forward as presented by supporters of Ukraine.
Maybe the Ukrainians could cut the supply of funds to Russia by simply using some of the arms donated by supporters of democracy to destroy the pipelines supplying gas and oil to Europe (through Ukraine, of course). This might not go down too well with European customers who don’t want to freeze in the dark, or to the Ukrainian economy, which depends on revenue from pipelines passing through Ukrainian territory.
I suppose that China and India might welcome the cheaper energy supplies.
Maybe the Devil’s in the detail. No doubt time will tell.
Russia poses “no conventional threat”.
Recent history says otherwise.
“Yes, tell it to the Ukrainian fascists who started all this trouble.”
So if a country has neo-Nazis in it, it can be invaded? Bombed? Its cities turned into rubble? Its people killed wholesale?
Even if it has a Jewish President?
Well many European countries have neo-Nazis in them. The US has neo-Nazis in it.
Remember they all gathered in Charlottesville?
Should we have bombed Charlottesville? Maybe we didnt because Trump said some of them were very fine people.
bill hunter…good points, Bill. NATO has essentially caused the current problem by breaking a promise to Russia that they would to expand beyond Germany. They did, spreading into Poland and other EU nations.
See Professor John Mearsheimer on that. He is a US foreign policy analyst.
There is direct evidence the US and the European parliament intervened directly in the Ukraine in 2014 to oust a democratically-elected president simply because he had pro Russian interests. It did not need to be done covertly by the CIA it was done in plain sight by an Obama administration representative, Victoria Nuland.
Th Ukraine has been presented as an innocent nation, practicing democracy and minding its own business, who was invaded by Russians for no reason at all. Major bs. Since the Ukraine was set free in 1993 by the former USSR, it has been in debt and prone to in-fighting between Ukrainian speaking and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
Worst of all, there have been openly fascist factions operating in the Ukraine, like the Right Sektor and the Svoboda party, the latter run by Oleh Tyagnibok, who is on record in a speech, applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and ‘other scum’ in WW II. Since Jews were not doing the fighting, in particular, but were the victims of genocide, he is claiming Jews were behind the Allied forces, and the other scum would be Poles and Russians.
Tyagnibok, like the other fascists operating in the Ukraine, are seriously confused. It was their predecessors who fought with the Nazis, who definitely were not Jews, Poles, or Russians. The Ukrainians he is applauding were war criminals like Stepan Bandera and the SS Galatia, a Waffen SS Nazi division (1st Galacia) comprised of Ukrainians from western Ukraine.
After a coup in 2014, the new government installed with help from US Under Secretary, Victoria Nuland, passed a law declaring Ukrainian war criminals as Ukrainian heroes. That law was rejected by the European parliament and one of the neo-Nazi battalions operating in the Ukrainian army, the Azov battalion, were recognized by the US Congress as being neo-Nazi. As a result the US Congress withdrew support for them.
Where was the Ukrainian army during the 2014 coup, and where were the police? It is blatantly obvious they did not interfere because they were sympathetic to the fascists who started the coup. These fascists absolutely hate Russians, meaning they hate their own Ukrainian citizens who are pro-Russian. It has been verified that several Ukrainian police chief have fascist sympathies.
Since the Ukraine became free in 1992, there have been fascist groups roaming the streets, with the approval of the Ukrainian police, supposedly to keep order. Problem is, they are targeting Jews, Russians, Poles and other ethnic minorities. They infiltrated a peaceful protest in 2014, turning it violent, then rushed government building forcing a democratically-elected president to flee for his life.
Right after that coup, the president installed was the selection of Victoria Nuland, the US government representative. The EU parliament had their own choice (ex-boxer Klitschko) so both knew of the pending coup since those choices were presented beforehand. Nuland and the late Senator John McCain were in the Ukraine acting as cheerleaders for the coup.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see innocent Ukrainians die and forced to flee their own country. Let’s be clear about the cause, however. This all began as a civil war fomented by the 2014 coup. Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the eastern Ukraine, who fought with the Russians in WW II as our ally, objected strenuously to one of their own being ousted in a coup. They immediately sued for independence and that brought the Russians into it.
The Russians refrained from invading for 8 years, till finally they’d had enough of three Ukrainian presidents doing nothing about the civil war. During the war, there were atrocities committed by both sides according to Amnesty International but the Russian focus was on Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalions like the Azov battalion committing atrocities against Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
I suppose some will argue that Russia had no business invading Ukraine to sort out their issues. There are innocents in Africa, right now, being slaughtered by so-called rebel forces. I’d like to see the US or any democratic country interfere and shut down the SOBs causing the slaughter.
Where is the damned UN? They are too busy spreading propaganda about climate change.
The Russians are not losing this war as the Western media suggest, They have surrounded the Ukrainian states of interest along the Russian border. If they’d wanted to, they could have easily bombed Kiev into submission from long range.
indeed Gordon. we always seem to pay the price on these kinds of misadventures with the blood of our youth. greed drives this. none of the tools for the establishment in here can answer what the current purpose of nato is. they have been talking up russia’s unstoppable tank army now for 77 years and now the cat is out of the bag on that. its unimaginable that our intelligence is so bad. they just make it up to fit the current corrupt agenda.
funding nazis which we have done since ww2 does come back to bite us. 9/11 would never occurred if we hadn’t funded obl and set him up in a clandestine arms network along with suitcases full of cash.
and for the last 8 years ukraine has been suppressing the ethnic russians and russian speaking population in the east primarily responsible for the vote supporting the president they deposed and the morons in here keep waxing poetically about free elections and democracy. and that whole time the ukrainians have been complaining that the russians were providing both men and arms to the resistance there that arose after the coup.. its a mess, its a mess of ukrainians own making out of the ambitions of a minority to join the eu and nato. the reason for the coup was the president declined an invitation to cozy up to the eu. the majority supported staying neutral and not joining either russia or the eu.. mearsheimer has lots of polling data on that.
Bill Hunter,
I suppose now that the brave Ukrainians have ejected the beastly, sub-human Russian rapists and child murderers from their country, they can take all the weapons donated by their supporters, and use them to continue the 8 year war against the brave freedom fighters in Eastern Ukraine.
These democracy loving fools wish to secede from Ukraine, and elect governments of their own kind, rather than having rules imposed from afar by a different ethnic group who believe that might is right, and if you don’t like it – die, Russian speaking scum!
Oh well, maybe I won’t see world peace break out, after all.
At least when the US says it’s right behind you, you know that’s where it will stay – well behind, out of harm’s way. Particularly if your enemy has the slightest potential to fight back, it seems.
Only joking – I hope.
”To understand Russias claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATOs secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.”France24
a very large bloc of ukrainians identify as russian but the vast majority of them wish to remain independent of both russia and the eu. the 2014 pro-west coup resuulted in the seccession of the eastern provinces in the donbass region. zelensky was the more moderate of the candidates but was privately contributing to the war on the seceding oblasts. he won by a landslide against the west’s handpicked successor to yanukovytch on an anti-corruption platform in an election with huge voter suppression voter turnout down about 30% from 2010.
its not hard to see our negative role in this affair. greed and corruption with biden dead center in the middle. he knows his role here and now fears getting blamed for innumerable deaths. biden was incharge of ukrainian relations before the coup and had been advocating ukraine be brought into nato since the breakup of the soviet union as a us senator.
“Russia had no business invading Ukraine to sort out their issues”
Russia has issues inside Russia that are nothing to do with Ukraine.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not this crap again:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2018.1555996
Why would they need proto-Nazis when they have you?
Willard,
Alt-right? Proto-Nazis?
What are you babbling about? I suppose you prefer alt-left and proto-Communism (whatever that might be).
Dummy. How are you getting on hiding your Greenhouse Theory? It might have to remain hidden if you can’t find anyone sufficiently retarded to accept your “offer” to “do a deal” before you’ll show it to them.
You might be a moron, but at least your thought processes are exceptionally mysterious.
“Nate, I said Putin is just another thug among many thugs in the Ukraine.”
In Ukraine no one, except Putin, has directed mass murder and wholesale destruction of cities.
False equivalences.
nate you are somewhat confused. this has been going on in the donbass region for 8 years as ukraine has been trying to take back the areas seized by the ukrainian russian speaking rebels.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/30/war-weary-residents-lament-home-lost-in-eastern-ukraine-shelling
russia is responsible for spreading the bloodshed. this is not as simple as expelling the russians particularily now from in the regions they have huge rebel support. sufficient manpower support that has stood up to the ukrainian army for 8 years without the aid of the russian army.
did this need to happen? part of the solution if there is one without a whole lot more bloodshed is going to require some self reflection on what wrongs we have been exacting in enticing ukraine with promises of protection we weren’t prepared to give immediately.
russia realized that weakness (displayed glaringly in afghanistan) and determined now or never.
the russians now mostly within friendly territories probably can’t be dislodged by the ukrainians. this could go on for a long time. hard to say what russian resolve will be now.
Russell has a modest proposal:
https://washingtonspectator.org/letters/#seitz
And the last war of our species. Sucks to be u, Ukraine … so sorry …
Another false SC25 progression article
My reposted comment already there
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/04/experts-adrift-solar-cycle-25-already-twice-as-active-as-expected/#comment-2536879
OK , so after my input the article has been altered, it is much more reasonable now.
Bindidong now trying to pass his misaligned 10.7 flux chart on JoNova blog, – no takers.
But it’s warming I tell you.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/fires-lit-at-farms-in-france-during-historic-cold/1167404
“Arctic air poured over Western Europe during the first weekend of April, causing temperatures to plummet to record low levels as farmers scrambled to protect their fruit crops from a damaging frost”
Blinny will be along to say that Germany was not affected. Much.
“On Saturday night, a new record low temperature for April was set in northwestern Germany as an observation site at Bad Berleburg-Hemschlar dropped to 9.1 F (12.7 below zero C), according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Tyler Roys”
Mind you, other countries in Europe were also affected.
“Roys noted that in the Netherlands, a temperature of 20.7 F (6.3 below zero C) at Deelan set a new mark for the coldest night ever measured on April 3, with records dating back to 1909”
” Blinny will be along to say that Germany was not affected. ”
Once more, a typical lie coming from the elementary school teacher.
I NEVER said ‘Germany was not affected’.
I talked about Northeast Germany.
You are always distorting what you see to make it fitting to what you want to see.
Now we are into discussion detailed portions of a country, even though the article mentions several full countries across Europe.
‘Warmest’ station within 25 km around our house
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=05&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
‘Coldest’ station within 25 km around our house
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10376&gid=x0540&month=05&year=2022&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
‘Coldest’ temperature at the ‘coldest’ place in our garden during the same period: -3 C.
*
Here are, according to the “Deutscher Wetterdienst” – of course without 2022 – the coldest April month averages in Germany (over 600 stations):
1958 4.50
1970 4.57
1973 4.57
1977 5.08
1956 5.13
1954 5.27
1980 5.42
1945 5.54
1979 5.61
1997 5.63
1986 5.85
2021 5.85
1982 5.89
1978 5.90
1967 6.01
1975 6.08
1984 6.15
1941 6.17
1955 6.20
1965 6.27
I pretty good remember April 1986 in Berlin. Despite this oh so wonderful UHI, it was much colder at that time than these days.
*
And the elementary school teacher thinks he will impress me with daily temperatures in Germany colder than where I live…
Oh Noes. In Southern Germany, it still snows currently. Not a half bit of that was visible here.
And that snow in Southern Germany, elementary school teacher, has not anything to do with the ‘cooling’ you endlessly try to propagate.
It has to do with the conjunction of a series of low pressure areas coming from the Northwest Atlantic with a high pressure area coming from South West Europe.
Record lows are just that. Across most of Europe it seems.
“On Saturday night, a new record low temperature for April was set in northwestern Germany as an observation site at Bad Berleburg-Hemschlar dropped to 9.1 F (12.7 below zero C), according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Tyler Roys”
Repeating the same blah blah all the time does not impress anybody:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1238970
” Across most of Europe it seems. ”
Some data, elementary school teacher?
It just appeared that you had missed the ‘record low’ part of the post.
Not important apparently.
“Some data”
Check the article.
And FYI, here is the top30 for the March months:
1987 -0.86
1958 -0.84
1962 -0.03
1955 0.08
1971 0.25
2013 0.39
1996 0.44
1964 0.56
1970 0.61
1969 0.79
2006 0.95
1976 1.27
1984 1.47
1944 1.50
1963 1.73
1951 1.77
1949 1.80
2018 2.09
1965 2.15
1988 2.20
1947 2.29
1952 2.29
1985 2.32
1956 2.51
1986 2.59
1995 2.69
1966 2.79
1980 2.86
1942 2.94
2005 2.99
You have to extract the top50 to finally see March 2021:
2021 4.32
Oh I forgot to mention top60:
2020 4.85
… and top70:
2022 5.02
ren is right: we experience these days, together with much too warm winters, a cooling shift toward the springs.
Record lows are easily ignored. If they were hots they would be triumphed.
Record highs are celebrated by Warmistas and record lows by Coolistas.
Both categories are fixated on their own narrative.
I have no problem at all to mention highs let alone lows.
A record low is for me -40 C at Mount Carroll, IL, or -49 C in Cot~ton, MN, both in January 2019.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s.w-x.co/wu/us-60-below-map-v2_0.jpeg
No problem for me.
But when people tell me about so-called record lows in April being a few degrees below norm, I get a laugh.
I recall that in June 2019, the GHCN daily weather station in Morón de la Frontera near Sevilla in Andalucia, Spain, reported 20 C below norm.
No one else is known to me who would have noticed it at that time.
Record highs are celebrated by Warmistas and record lows are ignored by Warmistas. There, fixed it for you.
Is Mount Carroll, IL in Europe?
tst 1 2 3
tim f…”So why are you fighting the idea of using the same units for equivalent things? That would be like using feet to measure north-south, but meters to measure east-west”.
***
Not fighting anything just trying to uphold the science as it is written. The calorie is the basic uni of heat, by definition. If a bunch of scientists want to get together and redefine everything I think it’s dumb.
Clausius wrote papers back in the 19th century about the equivalence of heat and work. I have no problem with that but he also pointed out that heat and work have different units of measurement therefore equality cannot be claimed. Therefore, it is scientifically incorrect to use the joule as the basic unit of heat.
As I pointed out, the units of the joule are Newton-metres. Just like foot-pounds. What do either of those units have to do with heat?
I also pointed out that EM has no equivalence to heat, although it can be converted to heat via an intermediate process. Neither is EM related to work, yet it is measured in units watts/metre^2.
Makes no scientific sense until the EM is absorbed by electrons in a body. It can cause electrons to do work but the EM can do no work by itself.
This is not simple nitpicking, the idea that EM is heat, or has properties of heat or mass, leads to all sorts of misguided ideas like GHE and AGW theories.
“Not fighting anything just trying to uphold the science as it is written. The calorie is the basic unit of heat, by definition. ”
So .. are you still using 0 C = boiling and 100 C = freezing? After all, that is how it was rather surprisingly first written by Anders Celsius. And do you use 4 elements, since that is the way it was first written by the Greeks? Are you still using 1 m = exactly 1/10,000,000 of the way from the equator to the pole?
Frankly, “upholding science as written” is a terrible idea! That is ‘appeal to authority’. Science progressed; ideas get refined and improved!
The calorie is *a* unit of heat. There are others (like the BTU). Now in the SI system, the joule is the basic unit of energy of any sort. Heat. Work. Kinetic energy. Gravitational energy. All of them. If you are using the SI system “as written”, you should be using joules for heat!
tim f..”The calorie is *a* unit of heat. There are others (like the BTU)”.
***
Good point. However, the BTU is hardly a scientific term, it’s something you’d find used by the manufacturer of a furnace. The BTU is defined as the amount of heat required to raise a pound of water by 1F.
The calorie is the amount of heat to raise a gram (cc) of water by 1C. Although I have done problem during my engineering studies that used BTUs, most by far used the calorie. None used the joule with reference to heat.
Do you count BTUs when dieting, or kilocalories?
A BTU is *exactly as ‘scientific’ as a calorie.
The heat to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.
vs
The heat to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Most Americans use Fahrenheit not Celsius. Does that make it the ‘right’ scientific unit?
Most Americans use inches not cm. Does that make it the ‘right’ scientific unit?
Most Americans use pounds not Newtons. Does that make it the ‘right’ scientific unit?
Of course not. Just because *you* or Americans or Chinese used a particular unit does not make it ‘right’. The SI units for heat are joules. Period. Any other units are just for convenience.
tim…”The SI units for heat are joules…”
***
SI units are officially scientific units. The joule is a unit of mechanical measurement based originally on horsepower. It is defined on the Newton and the metre. Heat is not defined on either.
“Calorie (unit: cal). A calorie is a traditional unit of heat. It is part of the International System of Units (SI)”.
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/what-is-energy-physics/calorie-unit-cal-energy-unit/
According to the official publication, the joule is the SI unit for energy, work, and amount of heat.
“The unit of quantity of heat is the joule.
Note: It is requested that the results of calorimetric experiments be as far as possible expressed in joules. If the experiments are made by comparison with the rise of temperature of water (and that, for some reason, it is not possible to avoid using the calorie), the information necessary for conversion to joules must be provided. ”
https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/si_brochure_8.pdf
Gordo posts another delusional rant, but gives then it all away, writing:
A warm body A converts thermal energy to EM radiation, lowering it’s temperature. A body B which receives EM radiation converts that energy to thermal energy and it’s temperature increases. In the engineering world, that’s called “heat transfer”, a term which Gordo apparently finds distressing. What ever you want to call it, it’s still a transfer of energy from body A to body B.
But, Gordo’s delusional physics appears again, writing:
Gordo, how do those educational gadgets called RADIOMETERS work? Photons have momentum, right? They can do mechanical work.
swannie…”A warm body A converts thermal energy to EM radiation, lowering its temperature. A body B which receives EM radiation converts that energy to thermal energy and its temperature increases. In the engineering world, thats called heat transfer, a term which Gordo apparently finds distressing. What ever you want to call it, its still a transfer of energy from body A to body B”.
***
One small but important omission, Swannie. The heat transfer can take place, by its own means, only from hot to cold.
There is no physical transfer of heat from A to B. Heat loss and heat gain take place locally. And we must not overlook the process by which heat gets dissipated in A. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, but in this case the kinetic energy of electrons.
When an electron is moving in a higher orbital, it has greater kinetic energy. When it drops to a lower level, it must dissipate that higher energy and it is transferred to the emitted EM during transition. The reduction in KE in the electron is the dissipation of heat.
If the emitted EM reaches a body in which its electrons are already at a higher state of KE, the EM will not be absorbed. That body would be hotter than A.
***********************
“Gordo, how do those educational gadgets called RADIOMETERS work? Photons have momentum, right? They can do mechanical work”.
***
There are different types of radiometers but the handheld type converts EM frequencies to equivalent temperatures observed in a lab. Those equivalent values are programmed into the handheld for comparison. Photon momentum has nothing to do with it. The receivers have semiconductor junctions that are sensitive to frequencies in certain EM ranges, and when stimulated, they produce electrical currents by releasing electrons from their valence bands.
That raises the question as to the meaning of a photon. It was defined essentially to particalize EM to make it similar to sound waves. So, the photon was defined as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass.
That theory began with Einstein circa 1905 when he noted that EM of a certain frequency could force the ejection of electrons from a surface. The amount of force required he called the work function. The basic equation he came up with showed a reliance on ‘hf’, which later became the basis of the Bohr model.
It seems the photoemission of Einstein’s hypothesis was an extreme case of the Bohr model, which requires the electron to be excited by EM but nor ejected.
The problem is, no one knows how an electron works in an orbit around a nucleii, or if that is in fact the reality. If it is, when the electron receives sufficient impetus from the EM to jump to a higher orbital level it must increase its velocity during the jump so it will a higher KE in the upper orbital.
How does that take place? How does the electron change velocities by absorbing EM? The current photon theory suggests the photon has a certain frequency which resonates with the angular frequency of the electron in a lower orbit. But how dos a particle have a frequency?
Waves have frequencies defined by their wavelength as the distance between wavefronts. The number of wavefronts per second is the frequency. How can that frequency be explained by a photon, based on its definition?
We know that waves move through space as waves. How does one explain the relationship between the waves and photon theory?
” Clausius wrote papers back in the 19th century about the equivalence of heat and work. ”
Only people knowing only what Clausius wrote in 1854 write that.
But he wrote also other things in… 1887, didn’t he?
Did you know him personally?
Next thing Bindidong starts referring to Ptolemy cosmology
binny…”But he [Clausius] wrote also other things in 1887, didnt he?”
***
Of course, he refined his work as he went along like any good scientist would. However, he never veered from his work of 1854.
When he produced the 2nd law, he based it on an equivalence of heat and work. He was actually improving on the much earlier work of Carnot who used the concept of a heat engine, which is about heat and work. Clausius brilliantly expanded on heat engine theory to produce the 2nd law, something Carnot had gotten wrong.
As an aside, when he produced the original 2nd law in words, he introduced the concept of entropy, defining it as the sum of infinitesimal heat quantities over a process. If the process was reversible, entropy was 0 and if irreversible it was +ve.
He happened to suggest at the time that irreversible processes led to disorder, and many mistook his meaning, claiming entropy as a measure of disorder. He never said that. It’s not a measure of disorder, it’s a measure of heat transfer. Disorder is an outcome of an irreversible process.
In his later work, he expanded mathematically on the meaning of entropy and its relationship to processes. Gibbs admired his work on entropy and later produced a similar concept, enthalpy.
Today, many people refer to entropy when describing the 2nd law, which is an ambiguous way of viewing the meaning of the 2nd law. There is no reason to state it in term of entropy when the words give a far better meaning.
Words or entropy, the meaning is that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
I find Clausius to be one of the more brilliant scientists. He visualized atomic structure a half century before it was formally investigated. He is responsible for the U = internal energy in the 1st law. He described internal energy as being comprised of both heat and work, the work being related to the physical motion of atoms in a solid while heat was the motivating energy.
There are people today, even in this blog, who are thoroughly confused about internal energy, or kinetic energy, for that fact.
Clausius describing the 2nd law said that two bodies at different temperature radiate heat to each other, with the proviso that the warmer object never gains heat at the expense of the cooler object.
This does not conflict with the green plate thought experiment, nor with greenhouse warming. In both cases, the cooler object doesn’t become cooler while the warmer object warms. Both get warmer.
barry…”Clausius describing the 2nd law said that two bodies at different temperature radiate heat to each other, with the proviso that the warmer object never gains heat at the expense of the cooler object”.
***
That’s not his statement of the 2nd law. In the law, he stated that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler to a warmer body. Later in one of his manuscripts he claimed it applies to radiative transfer as well.
Clausius expanded on what he meant by ‘by its own means’. He explained it as compensation in the case where heat can be transferred ‘by other means’ cold to hot, as in a refrigerator or air conditioner. In order for heat to be removed from a colder space and transferred to a warmer space, external compensation was required. Your statement above is referring to such a compensation.
Actually its far more than external compensation. Both depend on the compression of a gas and the accompanying change of state, which allows heat to be absorbed at a low temperature and expelled at a higher temperature. That is not possible in the atmosphere or in any gas without compression.
To be fair to Clausius, no one knew the mechanics of radiative heat transfer at the time. Kircheoff, Stefan, Boltzmann, and even Planck referenced heat rays, as if heat was being transferred through the atmosphere. There are still idiots today who believe that crap.
You can imagine them trying to visualize radiative transfer, knowing full well that it can only work hot to cold…without compensation. It was not till 2013 that Bohr figured it out, based on electron transitions. He had Rutherford to thank for it since Rutherford had done most of the legwork.
It was brilliant, actually. Bohr had been reminded of a colleague how hydrogen could emit and absorb EM at only discrete frequencies. Bohr coupled that with Planck’s quanta and reasoned that electrons could only exist at discrete quantum levels.
Had Clausius known about electrons and Planck’s quanta, I’m sure he would have figured it out tout suite.
Gordon,
This is what Clausius said:
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot…”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog [p. 295]
“In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152 [Clausius’ 4th memoir]
In that last remark he is very clear that both bodies of different temperature receive heat from each other, but the warm body can never gain heat at the expense of the cold one, only the other way around.
Clausius confirms:
1. Two bodies of different temperature receive the radiant heat of the other.
2. The 2nd Law forbids the warmer body to gain heat at the expense of the colder one in this mutual exchange of heat.
I’ve quoted and linked the Clausius documents for you.
Do you accept the words of the father of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
If so, neither the green plate exercise nor the enhanced greenhouse effect violate these rules.
In both examples the cooler body never gets cooler, only warmer. The warmer body is not warming up at the expense of the cooler one. The change in the system means that heat is shed less efficiently, and with a continual input (from the sun) this means that the system must get hotter.
barry, you have NO understanding of thermodynamics. Like your other cult members, you just find stuff on the Internet that you BELIEVE supports your cult beliefs, so you go with it.
You don’t even know the thermdyanmic definition of “heat” — Heat is the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. That’s the short form. In more elaborate form, the transfer of energy is related to the temperature difference, as in conduction.
Your cult believes ice cubes can boil water. You may not admit that, but your efforts to pervert thermodynamics give you away.
The “stuff” I found is the writings of the person who invented the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. That’s who is being quoted.
Did you not know that Rudolf Clausius wrote the 2nd Law?
That’s was my point, barry. You don’t understand Clausius.
Quite true, Pup.
You did’t have any.
Clint,
I well remember that you don’t believe there is a “mutual double heat exchange” (Clausius’ words) between a hot and cold object.
Clausius: “…in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152 [Clausius’ 4th memoir]
So YOU disagree with Clausius, not me.
If I’ve got your POV wrong, could you state clearly that you understand hot and cold objects receive each others radiation, per Clausius’ words just above?
barry, you may be confusing “energy” with “heat”. Or, you may be such a cult idiot you don’t care anything about reality or science.
Let’s assume you’re only confused.
Objects that receive flux either absorb photons, or reflect them. (We’ll ignore “transmission”, since that has no effect on this discussion.)
Whether or not the photons get absorbed or reflected is based on the compatibility of wavelengths between the photons and the molecules affected. If there is no compatibility, the photon is reflected. If there is compatibility, the photon is absorbed. So a cold object emitting to a hot object would NOT involve heat. The hot object would have a higher internal energy, which means it would have a corresponding higher average molecular vibrational frequency. Energy may be moving to the hot object, but the incompatible photons would not be absorbed.
Now, we’ll find out if you’re only confused, or such a cult idiot you don’t care anything about reality or science….
Do you mean….
That an object that is warmer than another object is incapable of receiving the photons from the cooler object?
IOW, the warmer object would receive no heat from the cooler one?
That is in direct contradiction to Clausius, isn’t it?
Clausius: “In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Clausius, R. 4th Memnoir
He is clearly saying that the two bodies at different temperature exchange heat, via radiation, between each other. Here again:
Clausius: “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
‘The Mechanical Theory of Heat’ – Clausius, R.
It sure seems to me that you and Clausius disagree.
In both quotes he clearly says that objects of different temps exchange heat via radiation (providing that the cold object can never impart more heat to warm object than it receives from the hot object).
But you have just argued it’s not possible for this mutual exchange to occur with objects of different temperature. You argue that it is purely one-way.
How are you NOT contradicting Clausius here?
barry, a simple Google search will soon confirm for you that heat only flows, of its own accord, from hot to cold. Heat does not flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot. End of story. You are free to obsess over the way Clausius might have worded this or that phrase, but heat does not flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot, no matter what anyone says.
> heat only flows, of its own accord, from hot to cold. Heat does not flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot
Suppose your conflation of heat with energy were correct, DREMT. It would mean one of two things:
1) every object in the universe would need to predict where its photons would collide with other objects and what the other objects’ temperature will be at the time of collision.
2) every emitted photon would need to remember the temperature of the object which emitted it and refuse to be absorbed by any object cooler than that temperature.
Both options are of course absurd.
Instead, what actually happens in reality is that photons are emitted and absorbed by both the hot and cold object, but more photons are emitted by the hot object and absorbed by the cold one than the other way around.
The NET *energy* flux from hot to cold is what Clausius (and others) mean by *heat* transfer.
"Suppose your conflation of heat with energy were correct, DREMT"
Brandon, what I said was correct. Heat does not flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot. Notice that I didn’t say that energy cannot flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot. I said heat cannot flow, of its own accord, from cold to hot.
As others joined in, Clint opted out.
I was asking him to verify that he means warm objects cannot absorb photons from cooler ones.
This would be ion direct contradiction of Clausius, as quoted severally above.
Clint?
barry, please stop trolling.
barry says:
I was asking him to verify that he means warm objects cannot absorb photons from cooler ones.
This would be ion direct contradiction of Clausius, as quoted severally above.
============================
within photon theory warm objects can absorb photons from cooler objects, but its meaningless because the warmer object is losing photons at a more rapid rate so warming cannot occur.
A rather inconvenient consequence of fully understanding photon theory.
Yes, Hunter, the warmer body can absorb photons from the cooler one. The problem is that you miss is that the warmer body in question also receives energy from some other source, such as the Sun, thus it’s rate of emissions must increase due to the extra photons from the cooler body. As a result, the warm body’s temperature will increase.
Yes Swanson the surface gets photons from the sun. If it didn’t it wouldn’t have any photons to emit and it would be a lot colder.
That’s wrong, barry. For Earth to get warmer, more heat would be required. Remember, the satellite record started at the end of a cooling trend. At some point (possibly already) Earth will return to a cooling trend.
CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s temperatures. “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
“For Earth to get warmer, more heat would be required.”
When I close the window, the heater is still pumping out the same wattage but the room gets warmer. The other way for an object to get warmer is for it to lose heat less efficiently.
You say others don’t know thermodynamics, but you don’t seem to realize that turning up the heat, or slowing down the heat loss from the object being warmed by the heat produces the same result.
Donning sweaters, insulation, closing windows…. all these help a body get warmer by slowing down the loss of heat from the body.
And you don’t realize that thermodynamics can permit this?
You’re having a lend, mate. This is BASIC thermo.
CO2 is NOT a sweater, insulation, or a window you can close. All that is your imagination trying to support your cult beliefs. It ain’t science.
Non-radiative gases like O2 and N2 can be considered insulation, as they are poor emitters of thermal IR. CO2 is a good emitter of thermal IR. You’ve got it all turned around.
Clint R is right. Adding CO2 does not add insulation in the sense of closing a window. It’s more like closing the window makes the air conditioner go on.
Chic, added ppm CO2 does act like closing our atm. optical IR window releasing internal thermodynamic energy to deep space from the earthen surface just like closing your household window warms the house with a furnace (sun).
Instruments can see that happen but not Chic (in the IR bands) which is a reason Chic doesn’t understand & won’t understand until Chic groks the satellite measured earthen IR band experimental evidence.
“Non-radiative gases like O2 and N2 can be considered insulation, as they are poor emitters of thermal IR.”
They are also poor absorbers if IR, particularly in the spectrum that Earth radiates. CO2 is an effective absorber of IR in the bandwidth at which the Earth’s radiates (WV is too). Adding more CO2 is akin to closing the window on a heated room.
As the IR is absorbed and re-emitted more times in order to escape the Earth, it’s escape is slowed. Anything that slows that escape also causes warming of the surface.
In no way does this contravene the 2nd Law. The atmosphere does not lose its heat to the surface, which would break the 2nd Law.
With greenhouse warming both the surface and lower atmosphere warm, as the atmosphere is now slowing the escape of Earth’s heat to space.
To deny this is to deny that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR in the spectrum that Earth radiates.
The cult idiots do not understand ANY of the physics related to Earth’s climate. This has been shown numerous times. Yet barry provides us with even more proof of his ignorance and incompetence.
barry admits that CO2 both absorbs and emits CO2. But, in his head, that somehos means CO2 heats the planet. He has no understanding of the science. Because the CO2 photons do not instantaneously reach space, that does NOT mean they increase Earth’s temperature. A simple analogy will help, for those that aren’t braindead:
A leaf drops from a tree. It does not hit the ground instantaneously. As it falls, it flutters to the ground, affected by wind currents and its own aerodynamices. That does NOT mean it is not falling, or that it will return and re-attach to the tree.
But lets go a little further with barry’s false belief that CO2 is like “closing the window”. Suppose no CO2 photons are EVER allowed to exit to space. Suppose the atmosphere builds up with 15μ photons. A doubling of CO2 photons would STILL not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. Tripling, quadrupling, still no increase. Again, a simple analogy will help, for those that aren’t braindead:
A perfectly insulated box contains a brick at a temperature of 288K. The box and all the air inside is also at 288K. A second brick at 288K is added. The photons from the bricks have doubled, yet no increase in temperature. No photons can escape the box. Ten more bricks, all at 288K are then added. The number of photons emitted by the bricks had a tenfold increase, yet the temperature does not increase.
Clearly barry has NO understanding of radiative physics or thermodynamics: <i"As the IR is absorbed and re-emitted more times in order to escape the Earth, it's [sic] escape is slowed. Anything that slows that escape also causes warming of the surface.
That’s blatantly false. The cult idiots don’t understand any of the physics, and they can’t learn. They’re braindead. They actually believe things like “ice cubes can boil water”, and “passenger jets fly backwards”.
Ok Clint R, decent discussion that in the case of no sun added CO2 mass to Earth’s atm. cannot alone increase the avg. system T.
Now remember your: “It’s the sun, stupid.” Try again properly adding the SW photons from the sun, stupid.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1239332
Oh & remember also, the youtube I showed Clint proving passenger jets can fly backwards and experiments show how ice cubes can boil water debunking Clint’s repeated false claims.
Correct Ball4, Sun can heat the planet.
“It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Decent comment, Clint 9:34 am, the sun CAN be heating the Earth system at times & thanks for the laughs.
The difference between heat and temperature is something else Clint R can learn from adding the bricks to Clint’s perfectly insulated box. Clausius’ heat in the box goes up as Clint’s bricks are added but the temperature remains at 288K.
Maybe Clint R can properly explain that physics to Gordon R but, if not, then at least blog entertainment will increase.
Correct. As more 288K bricks are added to the 288K box, the box temperature remains 288K.
The bricks are NOT heating the box, no matter how many are added. It’s a good analogy of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The CO2 is NOT heating the planet.
“The bricks are NOT heating the box”
Yet Clausius heat inside the box does go up with each added brick so Clint’s bricks ARE heating the box. Must be a real puzzle to an entertainment specialist such as Clint that could physically happen while Clint’s box temperature remains at 288K.
Hint: look up Clausius’ defn. of heat and the standard defn. of temperature. Clint should not bother doing so as Clint hasn’t passed the pre-req.s to understand Clausius’ text.
Added ppm CO2 is not increasing the total planet system temperature, it’s the sun, stupid, increasing troposphere and stratosphere temperature to equilibrium with the sun.
Added ppm CO2 increases the lower troposphere region global temperature due to increasing atm. IR opacity thus optical depth while equally decreasing the global stratosphere region temperature. Clint doesn’t seem capable to keep this stuff in mind but then that is not expected of an entertainment specialist.
Correct Ball4, the 288K bricks are NOT heating the box, no matter how many are added. It’s a good analogy of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The CO2 is NOT heating the planet.
But you remain somewhat flummoxed about “heat”. The thermodynamic definition of “heat” is: the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”.
You appear to be confusing “heat” with “internal energy”. This source explains the difference:
While internal energy refers to the total energy of all the molecules within the object, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference. Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit. Heat is not a property of a system. However, the transfer of energy as heat occurs at the molecular level as a result of a temperature difference.
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-heat-in-physics-heat-definition/
grammie pup, from your reference:
Please tell Gordo.
Clint R 12:15 pm, it is your source that is confused, viz.:
“Heat is not a property of a system.”
vs.
“However, the transfer of energy as heat..”
Your source clip then tries to tell Clint et. al. something (heat) that is “not a property of a system” (thus heat doesn’t even exist in the system) can somehow mysteriously materialize paranormally at the border, transfer out of the system of which it was not a property to begin with, and start to become not a property of another system.
That ain’t science, Clint.
Find a better, more informed source – I usually suggest Clausius’ text.
—–
E. Swanson 2:23 pm – EMR is not heat & material objects do not possess heat. Thermodynamic internal energy possessed in a body can transfer and become possessed in another body by electromagnetic radiation, such as sunshine, with no need for matter to be present in the space between bodies.
There is never a need to invoke the word heat as a noun & avoiding the term’s such use will always clarify the avoider’s writing. Heat used as a noun is a top of the list obfuscation.
Don’t tell Gordo since he’ll throw yet another tantrum.
Again, Swanson…Clint R and I are two different people. Get that through your thick skull.
BALL4: “Your source clip then tries to tell Clint et. al. something (heat) that is ‘not a property of a system’ (thus heat doesnt even exist in the system) can somehow mysteriously materialize paranormally at the border, transfer out of the system of which it was not a property to begin with, and start to become not a property of another system.”
Sorry Ball4, but Clint and his source are exactly correct. Heat, Q, does NOT exist in a system!
Perhaps an analogy with work would help. There is a cylinder of compressed air. This cylinder does not ‘contain work’, W, yet the cylinder can expand, ‘doing work’ on some external object (and doing negative work on the gas in the cylinder). No ‘work’ disappeared from the system. Instead, internal energy, U, decreased by an amount equal to the work done. Nothing ‘paranormal’ here!
Heat, Q, is the same.
Q is a rate, Tim, not an amount & Q is not Clausius heat, just like W is a rate. You can have an amount of energy exchanged and a rate of thermodynamic heating Q just like a rate of working W. Q and W do not exist within an object only U exists in an object & thus U can transfer.
No need to ever write heat as a noun in thermodynamics, using the term is obfuscation at its best & usually shows confusion except when used by, say, R. Clausius.
dU/dt = Q + W
Bunny,
Are you trying to insinuate that because Clausius was wrong in 1854, that makes him right in 1887?
You do realise that being mysterious and cryptic just makes you look as though you can’t find facts to support whatever illusion you are trying to get away with.
You can’t describe the GHE, there is no Greenhouse Theory, and correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of radiation reaching it.
Only a true nutter would believe that reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface from 1366 w/m2 to say 1000 w/m2, results in increased temperatures. Keep on like that, and you will soon be believing that stopping all radiation reaching a thermometer will cause it to melt! And black will be white, cooling will be heating, world peace will break out, and the dimwits will inherit the Earth (this seems to be happening, anyway).
Good luck.
[laughs at dimwit]
Still here, Mike?
Australia at GMT+(8:10) still asleep, as it seems.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Joy for the Coolistas, sorrow for the Warmistas!
https://i.postimg.cc/3RYSzQsT/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-NH-anoms-1979-2022.png
Huhuhuhuhuuuuuh!
Which are you?
Think. It may be an experience manifestly unknown to you till now.
Thinking, other than via Excel, may be unknown to you.
March, men of Rutgers,
Down the field today,
March to another score,
Foward to the fray,
Fight! men of Rutgers
As in days gone by,
Fight! for the Scarlet flag
Over the rest must fly.
It is a solid proof of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
“Heres another question. Suppose Mars was at Earths orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?”
The answer to this question will illustrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon complete rightness!
The measured Mars’ mean surface temperature at the actual Mars’ distance from sun R.mars = 1,524AU is Tmean.1,524AU =210K
R = 1AU is the Earth’s orbit distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
Let’s apply the inverse square law
(1/R) = (1/1,524) = 1/2,32
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has Let’s calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law 4 power. When estimating the emission temperature the 4th root of the emission intensity should be applied.
–
Thus, by analogue, Mars at the earth’s orbit being irradiated 2,32 times higher, should have (2,32)∕ ⁴ times higher the mean surface temperature, than on its actual orbit of R.mars=1,524AU, but with the same rotational spin…
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot/day.
Thus:
(2,32)∕ ⁴= 1,23416
And:
Tmean.mars.1AU = 1,23416*Tmean.mars.1,524AU = = 1,23416*210K = 259,17K or rounded 259K
Conclusion:
Mars at earth’s orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.
When comparing with the measured moon’s, because Moon also orbits sun at earth’s distance, and Moon having a lower than Mars Albedo (a.moon =0,11; a.mars =0,250), thus Moon at earth’s orbit being more intensively irradiated Moon/Mars = (1-0,11)So /(1-0,250)So = 0,89/0,75 = 1,187 times Moon is more intensively irradiated, and the measured Tmean.moon =220K
It is a solid proof of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. The higher Mars’ average surface temperature at Earth’s orbit than Moon’s, the 259K vs 220K, and the huge and undisputable difference of 259K -220K =Δ39C can be explained only by the Mars’ rotational spin being 28,783 times faster than that of Moon’s.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Still flogging an idea that no-one else supports, scientifically speaking.
Thank you, RHL, for your respond.
“Still flogging an idea that no-one else supports, scientifically speaking.”
Please, put a scientifically correct explanation of what you are trying to say with the “scientifically speaking”. Please use scientifically correct language, instead of “floggings”; it is a mistake to use the “floggings” here.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
rlh…still appealing to authority, this time consensus?
Prove Christos is wrong. Go on, there’s a good lad, do your homework. Christos is not presenting math and physics on a level someone with a Master’s degree cannot understand.
Mean is an incorrect statistic to use on temperature because of its distribution. Median would be a better solution according to standard statistics.
Are you able to gin up a graph that shows how much difference it makes?
You able to find a statistics textbook that says otherwise
se?
Just in case you don’t know what the real data looks like see;
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
from
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
barry
Here is what the elementary school teacher is not at all able to reproduce, let alone to technically contradict, because he never generated
– anomalies wrt the mean of a reference period
– area weighting of anomalies to cope with station bulks
– latitude weighting of the areas
within the same software.
Here is the result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
The difference between
– median and average (of all 24 hours)
– mean (tmin+tmax)/2 and average
is incredibly small, and above all is influenced by both
– the paucity of data (see left part of the chart, 2002 till 2004)
– the stations’ latitude (!!!).
*
What the textbooks tell is of course correct, but has nothing to do with what you experience when generating the data out of the average of all stations.
That is the difference between
– theory and practice
– looking at single points in the data instead of the whole (see tide gauges, same problem).
You see that immediately when comparing and averaging stations in Alaska (Kenai) and Florida (Everglades).
*
All what the elementary school teacher was able to do using USCRN data until was
– the simplest job, namely to average all stations in all years to a 365 day array
and above all
– to discredit what I did by insinuating I would unduly use rounded hourly data instead of subhourly data, what he never was willing let alone able to prove.
Simply because when you average
– hourly data
or
– subhourly data
into whole months like I do, the difference between the two sources very probably won’t appear above the third digit after the decimal point!
Blinny, as usual, doesn’t know maths or statistics.
(min+max)/2 is not a mean, but the middle of a range which is not statistically a ‘mean’ of any sort. It is badly effected by outliers (which is what min and max are by definition). It is only used because that is what was recorded in earlier data but is mixed in with other later more accurate data without a thought.
Latitude weighting on a sphere applies to North/South cross sections too. Rectangular layouts, aka Mercator projections, are well acknowledged a being a very poor way of displaying areas. Others agree with me.
No statistics textbooks say that a mean is preferred over a median on skewed, bimodal data. Apparently the fact they they are correct in this is not of interest but instead ‘experience’ matters.
Making global figures requires taking note of of stations in both Alaska and Florida (and lots of other stations too). In fact USCRN only covers the USA (as the name says) thus it will not provide a global picture) but it is the most accurate measurement series we have for any portion of the globe. It helps to illustrate the points. All other stations exhibit will the same profiles too.
In fact it would appear that Blinny doesn’t like facts or science but prefers Excel and his own calculations over them and his ‘experience’.
So Blinny has no facts, purely personal opinions, which are delusional at that.
“I would unduly use rounded hourly data instead of subhourly data, what he never was willing let alone able to prove”
We went back and forth on this for many weeks with you being unable to accept the figures quoted that proved you wrong. You own words showed you a liar.
As you can see, barry: only blah blah.
The bad elementary school teacher RLH (I must apologize to all good elementary school teachers for using a too generic form) only answers with some superficial thoughts, instead of presenting facts, e.g. time series technically contradicting those I generated.
*
” (min+max)/2 is not a mean, but the middle of a range which is not statistically a ‘mean’ of any sort. It is badly effected by outliers (which is what min and max are by definition). It is only used because that is what was recorded in earlier data but is mixed in with other later more accurate data without a thought. ”
No proof to see anywhere. NO PROOF. only words, words, words.
And whether we name that ‘mean’, minmax or whatever does of course not change its semantics: halving the sum of the daily minimum and maximum.
And the three time series I generated, comparing mean (or minimax or …), median and average clearly contradict RLH’s superficial saying.
*
” Latitude weighting on a sphere applies to North/South cross sections too. Rectangular layouts, aka Mercator projections, are well acknowledged a being a very poor way of displaying areas. Others agree with me. ”
What the heck does that have to do with this discussion? Do I use any Mercator-like scheme when performing a latitude weighting of area weighted anomalies, when processing USCRN, GHCN, ACORN, DWD, METEOSTAT, HadISST1, PSMSL data etc etc?
Of course not.
*
” Making global figures requires taking note of of stations in both Alaska and Florida (and lots of other stations too). In fact USCRN only covers the USA (as the name says) thus it will not provide a global picture) but it is the most accurate measurement series we have for any portion of the globe. It helps to illustrate the points. All other stations exhibit will the same profiles too. ”
What is this? Again a trial to play the great teacher with general statements, instead of doing some valuable engineering work?
RLH never processed any data else than USCRN – and that in its simplest possible form.
Not even a time series out of absolute data, let alone of departures from a common reference period.
He should stop teaching the evidence, and start working instead.
*
” We went back and forth on this for many weeks with you being unable to accept the figures quoted that proved you wrong. You own words showed you a liar. ”
And that is really the very best!
He NEVER presented any figures relevant for a contradiction, and permanently stalked me with his bad boy insinuations.
Where did I lie, RLH? Show us that.
*
We all know the rule: ” put up or shut up”.
But… RLH never admits being wrong, never puts anything, and never shuts up.
“No proof to see anywhere”
Just that the facts are correct.
“And the three time series I generated, comparing mean (or minimax or ), median and average clearly contradict RLHs superficial saying”
Evidence on the ‘net support my observations (though they are using normal distributions).
https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*wHMvuwRa_YF9SFwY.png
https://www.calculators.org/graphics/mean-median-mode-positively-skewed-distribution.png
No statistics textbooks say that a mean is preferred over a median on skewed, bimodal data.
The rest is best described as blah, blah, blah…
“RLH never processed any data else than USCRN”
Liar. See my website.
No statistics textbooks say that (min+max)/2 is preferred over a either an arithmetic mean or median on skewed, bimodal data.
> Evidence on the net support
Cartoons do not evidence make, Richard.
And Barry asked you if the difference you keep harping about makes a difference.
Willard: Graphs are not cartoons.
“Barry asked you if the difference you keep harping about makes a difference”
See the words on the graphs I showed about real data.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
A degree here or there is not significant is it?
RLH,
> A degree here or there is not significant is it?
It might be for calculating absolute average temperature. For temperature anomaly any effect of an assumed normal distribution is greatly minimized, to the point of statistical insignificance. Once upon a time I tested it myself using a few hundred US hourly reporting stations and found that the (max-min)/2 method gave something < 0.01 C/decade warmer trend compared to using the hourly values.
“an assumed normal distribution”
But the whole point is that daily/annual T is not a normal distribution, but a skewed bimodal as seen in the actual data I presented.
A skewed bimodal is the expected outcome from half a sine wave mixed with a half a sawtooth which best describes how solar IR input during the day is matched with IR radiation at night. See the data I presented.
Brandon: It is worth reading
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml?tab_body=pdf
“A Comparison of Daily Temperature-Averaging Methods: Spatial Variability and Recent Change for the CONUS”
which covers this in more detail
Brandon R. Gates says: It might be for calculating absolute average temperature. For temperature anomaly any effect of an assumed normal distribution is greatly minimized, to the point of statistical insignificance.
RLH says: an assumed normal distribution
But the whole point is that daily/annual T is not a normal distribution, but a skewed bimodal as seen in the actual data I presented.
Brandon acknowledged that it’s not a normal distribution. His point is that the impact of a non-normal distribution largely disappears when using anomalies.
This was demonstrated to you with real station data when this came up previously (last summer). It would be straightforward to mathematically prove that anomalies are independent of the particular distribution if the shape of the distribution does not change except for a change in the mean.
RLH
1. ” No statistics textbooks say that a mean is preferred over a median on skewed, bimodal data. ”
No one – I repeat: NO ONE did ever say or write that – me the least.
The contrary is the case: YOU were last year the one who discredited the mean – here: (tmin+tmax)/2 – as a wrong approach for daily temperature averages.
You were even brazen enough to claim – as usual, without any proof – that using that daily temperature average would be responsible for unduly high temperature estimates since the beginning of temperature measurements.
I’m sure you will find back to your own comment.
I gave you many proofs of how wrong you are to ideologically put the median as the only correct method.
My first proof was using data from the German Weather Services: mean, median and average were nearly identical in shape and trend for Germany.
You never were able to contradict that, even not as you decided to switch to USCRN data.
*
2. I wrote:
“RLH never processed any data else than USCRN”
and you answered:
” Liar. See my website. ”
*
It took me a while to inspect your endless, tedious repetitions of the same stuff, month after month.
To be quite sure I wouldn’t have overlooked anything you might have made of your own, I went down to your very first post in the blog:
A Mathematical Tool for examining Temperature data
Feb 19, 2014
The conclusion is absolutely clear: apart from some little work on USCRN, not ONE chart shows any hint on own data processing.
All other charts – especially those showing UAH data (LT, MT, TP, LS layers), but also any other one showing AMO, PDO, ENSO or whatever – are based on existing data which you superposed with some simple low pass filter stuff coming from some spreadsheet calculator (Excel, Libre Office Calc or so).
Nothing is of your own.
You manifestly NEVER did process any data from any raw source.
What I understand with own processing you can see below.
– UAH 6.0 LT time series with absolute data, reconstructed out of UAH’s anomalies and climatology:
https://i.postimg.cc/PxZ71c5n/UAH-6-0-LT-reconstructed-absolute-data.png
– UAH time series constructed years ago out of a small subset of the entire grid, compared with the original data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij_jKmyrBJOMUdwtRP6NYqyGXibNPnRb/view
*
Me, a liar? Certainly not.
You, a liar? Certainly well.
*
I see that Brandon R. Gates also is – as opposed to you – a real professional person who knows what he is talking about.
You are only boasting all the time, and keep intentionally distorting what I do, see for example this incredibly dumb discussion about Mollweide projections versus my displaying of rectangular grids you discredit as Mercator projections.
And what a liar you really are became visible to me when going back upthread, till I saw your woeful answer to Tim Folkerts in a discussion:
*
RLH says:
April 7, 2022 at 3:34 PM
“The main goal in Bins work (the it) seem to be creating an accurate time series”
Blinny doesnt create anything. Those are Roys figures that he just plots on a rectangular grid.
You need to understand that the areas that each of his pixels covers is like comparing Greenland with Africa.
*
Apart form the fact that you last sentence couldn’t be more irrelevant, as everybody knows that Greenland is far smaller than Africa, your (bold emphasized) lie is evident: no one has access to the data Mr Spencer uses to display data (monthly anomalies, long-time trends) in Mollweide form.
What I do is the same as what the UAH team does:
– to compute the linear trend of each of the 9504 grid cells;
– to display them in a simple, easy-to-produce, easy-to-read rectangular form.
*
You, RLH, were until now absolutely unable to process UAH’s raw grid data, like did commenters like Mr Z., Mark B and I.
Let alone would you have been able to process for example
– GHCN daily worldwide station data
– Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent data out of HadISST1 ICE data
or to generate
– a global sea level time series out of PSMSL and SONEL data
etc etc etc etc.
*
It’s hard to imagine you as a former engineer. You rather behave like a mix of a bad teacher and an opinionated polemicist.
Blinny:
“YOU were last year the one who discredited the mean here: (tmin+tmax)/2 as a wrong approach for daily temperature averages.”
(tmin+tmax)/2 is long acknowledged as being an inaccurate way of determining an ‘average’ temperature, be that daily or yearly.
As I shown to Brandon above, other have observed this too.
“using that daily temperature average would be responsible for unduly high temperature estimates since the beginning of temperature measurements”
If you use (tmin+tmax)/2 you will produce an INACCURATE measure of either daily or yearly temperature. Fact. Where it is high or low is very dependent on Latitude as you may have noticed. In fact you even produced graphs that showed that as fact.
“some simple low pass filter stuff coming from some spreadsheet calculator”
You obviously didn’t read anything I wrote. Using a simple 12 month running average produces lots of distortions in the outputs. Using a gaussian filter (and an S-G one too) means that any distortions are reduced to a minimum. And no, those are not from some spreadsheet calculator. They are made using C# and code written by me to dop the data processing. I notice you don’t challenge their veracity. Only you use Excel (or similar) and think you have done something magical.
“UAH 6.0 LT time series with absolute data, reconstructed out of UAHs anomalies and climatology”
So you add together 2 tables that Roy produces and create a graph than minimizes what Ropy is trying to show using anomalies. Why?
If he though it was important he would not do the anomaly step. Why do you think he does that?
You, a liar? Certainly. You just define everything you don’t like as false. I wonder who else on this blog does that?
“no one has access to the data Mr Spencer uses to display data in Mollweide form”
Roy produces that for us for each month. e.g.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/February2022/202202_Map.png
why do you think he does that?
It’s hard to imagine you as a scientists given that you mainly do ‘ad hom’ attacks similar to the above.
Mark B;
“His point is that the impact of a non-normal distribution largely disappears when using anomalies”
All statistics textbooks say that the stats you are using are wrong. To claim that it doesn’t matter or that it doesn’t matter that much is as arrogant as it gets.
It is rather obvious that the differences in using mean rather than median are latitude related (see the graphs from Blinny and me previously). Why would that be?
Never mind, AGW will destroy us all soon (according to you) so who cares that much anyway.
Blinny: I would be interested in your thoughts on
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml?tab_body=pdf
> Brandon: It is worth reading
The funny thing is that Richard got that cite from Binny, BG.
One day he might even read it.
> Graphs are not cartoons.
It wasn’t exactly a graph, Richard.
But you’re right – I should have clarified that you’re the cartoon.
Richard,
You’re showing a single station using absolute values? That’s not what I’m asking.
Anomalisation, after all, is one of the methods used to remove bias. The law of large numbers should also assist.
I’ll have to be clearer!
Are you able to gin up a graph of global temps using anomalised data and your method (median)? I note from the discussion with Bindidon you see the need to take spatial weighting into account.
If you can’t gin up such a graph it’s fine to say so. I’m sure Bindidon or maybe Mark B would be able to.
> The funny thing is that Richard got that cite from Binny
Good one, W. Perhaps he could read just the one line which says it’s still getting warmer.
“The funny thing is that Richard got that cite from Binny, BG.”
I don’t think so,
“One day he might even read it”
I did, Did you?
“This study assesses the spatial variability of the differences in these two methods of daily temperature averaging [i.e., (Tmax1Tmin)/2; average of 24 hourly temperature values] for 215 first-order weather stations across the conterminous United States (CONUS) over the 30-yr period 19812010. A statistically significant difference is shown between the two methods, as well as consistent overestimation of temperature by the traditional method [(Tmax1Tmin)/2]“
“This study assesses the spatial variability of the differences in these two methods of daily temperature averaging [i.e., (Tmax + Tmin)/2; average of 24 hourly temperature values] for 215 first-order weather stations across the conterminous United States (CONUS) over the 30-yr period 19812010. A statistically significant difference is shown between the two methods, as well as consistent overestimation of temperature by the traditional method [(Tmax +Tmin)/2]”
Damn parser.
Brandon, Barry: I notice you don’t quote any statistical reference to support either mean or middle over median. Just a ‘feeling’ it wont make any difference.
barry says:
Richard,
Youre showing a single station using absolute values? Thats not what Im asking.
Anomalisation, after all, is one of the methods used to remove bias. The law of large numbers should also assist.
Ill have to be clearer!
Are you able to gin up a graph of global temps using anomalised data and your method (median)? I note from the discussion with Bindidon you see the need to take spatial weighting into account.
If you cant gin up such a graph its fine to say so. Im sure Bindidon or maybe Mark B would be able to.
I believe Bindidon did this calculation for all USCRN stations using anomalies based on hourly average, daily median, and (Tmax+Tmin)/2 statistics last year (~August thread?).
I presented graphics for a handful of stations that showed in detail the residuals and trends for a handful of stations and that the choice of of statistic made little difference when using anomolies. e.g.
uscrnYumaAnomalies.png
uscrnFallbrookAnomalies.png
uscrnUtqiagvikAnomaliesResiduals.png
I expect both of us did so because, like a lot of “climate skeptic” talking points, there are interesting questions about the data being raised. It is the case, unsurprisingly, that one gets different numbers using mean(Tmax,Tmean), median, and hourly average but the differences virtually disappear using anomalies.
I can, with high historical confidence, project that this sub-topic will wallow in straw men and rhetorical bullshit as long as any climate realist wants to play, but at some point one has to realize it’s just not worth wasting one’s time on bad faith actors.
Mark B: So you discard
“A statistically significant difference is shown between the two methods, as well as consistent overestimation of temperature by the traditional method [(Tmax +Tmin)/2]”
as being of any interest.
And also you consider, from your own graphs, +- 0.5C as an unimportant deviation.
Mark B: I notice you dont quote any statistical reference to support either mean or middle over median. Just a feeling it wont make any difference.
> Just a feeling it wont make any difference.
At least three of us on this thread have crunched the numbers from station data and not found a significant difference in *trend*, RLH. You don’t have to trust us (and shouldn’t since our results were not reviewed), you just have to read your own citation:
You may wish to ponder what that shift will do the trend in anomalies and reconsider your arguments.
“At least three of us on this thread have crunched the numbers from station data and not found a significant difference in *trend*”
You do not dispute that statistics textbook say that what I have said is correct.
You also do not dispute the observations in the paper I showed.
You just claim that the differences are not that significant.
Doing something wrong but still getting the ‘right’ answer is a very poor defense.
You should also note that the work I did (along with Blinny) that the differences between middle and median are Latitude related and that would not have been as obvious from contiguous only CONUS stations.
We did not address arithmetic mean in that work.
> It is the case, unsurprisingly, that one gets different numbers using mean(Tmax,Tmean), median, and hourly average but the differences virtually disappear using anomalies.
I notice that Richard has not contested that claim.
He’s wrong about his claim on statistical textbooks, but we’ve been over that more than ten times now.
“I notice that Richard has not contested that claim.”
Of course they are different. And statistically so to boot.
“He’s wrong about his claim on statistical textbooks”
If you believe so, show your proof. For skewed, bimodal data. There are few textbooks that cover that at all and all say median is the best solution, not middle or mean.
I notice Richard still does not dispute the last part of that claim, which addresses his own:
“the differences virtually disappear using anomalies”
“the differences virtually disappear using anomalies”
Virtually is not actually and that does not even take into account the Latitude differences that were previously noted.
I noticed that Richard is punting.
Here’s one earlier time when he did more or less the same:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-730038
Willard: You quote facts but fail to deal with the ones I made. No surprise there.
Wilard: Found a statistical reference that says either middle or mean is to be preferred over median on skewed, bimodal data yet? You claimed that you had done a long while ago.
> Found a statistical reference that says either middle or mean is to be preferred over median on skewed, bimodal data yet?
(min+max)/2 is used out of necessity, not preference or ignorance, RLH. Everyone wishes that hourly or better data were available over the entire instrumental record.
“(min+max)/2 is used out of necessity, not preference or ignorance”
So you agree that middle should not be mixed with mean in the statistics. If the start of a series uses middle, it should continue that way.
I note that you agree with my statistics observation.
> So you agree that middle should not be mixed with mean in the statistics.
I agree that median is preferred over mean for skewed distributions, RLH. Do you agree that you were not asking about mixing in your comment to which I was responding?
“I agree that median is preferred over mean for skewed distributions”
Do you agree that daily and yearly T data is a skewed, bimodal distribution?
Do you also agree that mixing data from 2 different types such as middle and mean could lead to statistical inaccuracies.
I notice that Richard is still punting.
> Do you agree that daily and yearly T data is a skewed, bimodal distribution?
Yes skewed. Not bimodal in the sense that there are two distinct *peaks*, but perhaps my conception is too simple.
> Do you also agree that mixing data from 2 different types such as middle and mean could lead to statistical inaccuracies.
Of course I do, RLH, hence the need for adjustments which are so popular with contrarians. Who is saying otherwise?
I notice that Willard is still an idiot.
Do you agree that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
is accurately described as skewed, bimodal data.
“hence the need for adjustments”
What adjustments do you believe are necessary between middle and mean?
Do you also agree that sinusoidal data will always produce bimodal outcomes and that quasi-sinusoidal data will likely produce skewed bimodal outcomes.
See also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
for other USCRN daily T profiles.
sorry the last one was meant to be
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
Our Hall Monitor is still punting:
“the differences virtually disappear using anomalies”
Does he agree, yes or no?
No.
That’s better.
Now, any comment on MarkB’s work:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnYumaAnomalies.png
You mean other than his graphs appearing to show the same latitude dependency that I have already mentioned?
And the variation being up to 0.6C in this case.
No, dummy.
I mean the graphs showing that the differences virtually disappear using anomalies.
And that Middle (called mean in his graph) is 0.68/decade trend.
Average (normally called mean) is 0.60/decade trend.
Median is 0.56/decade trend.
Statistics textbooks (and Mark) says that 0.56/decade is the most reliable estimate. The others being wrong by 0.04C and 0.12C/decade.
Now do Fallbrook:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnFallbrookAnomalies.png
Interesting paper, but it doesn’t really answer the question of whether the method makes a difference WRT to the evolution of mean US temperature over the record of interest.
A constant offset year to year for the whole US (0.16, according to the paper) would still produce the same trends. But this is what the paper concludes:
“Comparing spatially the differences between the two temperature-averaging methods for the most recent climate normals period (19812010) with the last 15 years of the most rapid temperature increase (200115) reveals a shift, on average, toward underestimation by the traditional method.”
So the past temps were overestimated and recent temps underestimated using the mean/max method?
Doesn’t that mean that any bias corrected by the hourly method would reveal greater warming for the US?
But they don’t analyse trends. They’re comparing absolute temps, so we don’t know from that paper if there is a significant difference with the hourly method regarding change over time for the US.
None of the reference papers do that either.
A profile/trend comparison with anomalised data would answer the question.
> Interesting paper
Interesting indeed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717315
“Now do Fallbrook:”
As I said before, the difference in trend is Latitude weighted.
Considering that the global trend on UAH is only
“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)”
don’t you consider the values shown of any interest?
“A profile/trend comparison with anomalised data would answer the question”
Have you approached any of the authors?
“Interesting indeed:”
Are you saying that the quote I gave from that paper is correct?
“A statistically significant difference is shown between the two methods, as well as consistent overestimation of temperature by the traditional method [(Tmax + Tmin)/2]”
“Doesnt that mean that any bias corrected by the hourly method would reveal greater warming for the US?”
As Blinny and I showed, the difference between middle and median are Latitude as well as Season weighted across USCRN, something that CONUS only would not have shown so clearly. (the captions need to be changed to Tmiddle rather than Tmean)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-winter.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-fall.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-summer.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-spring.jpg
What I understood from the paper is that in the US there are regional and seasonal differences in the skew to the bell curve of diurnal temperature variation that the simple mean min/max method can’t capture.
A single consistent metric like max/min average won’t capture the bell curve, but as it is consistent it should be able to capture any long term trend as an ensemble of data.
The paper also mentions that the skew of the bell curves may be changing over time in a warming world, that could potentially cause some difference in overall US temp trends between the hourly method and min/max.
But what direction is any divergence, and by how much?
265 stations with hourly data from 1981 to 2015. 58 million data points at least, and no worries about TOB. You’d think someone would have had a go by now.
Min/Max is simply wrong, statistically speaking, as people have acknowledged.
It is also Latitude weighted against median as I have shown.
Yes Richard. I can see that and more in the paper. But are you really not understanding the question?
I think you are, but don’t want to address it directly for some reason.
Oh well.
At least you’ve got latitudinal differences in the skew of diurnal temps to keep you interested. It’s not what I thought we were looking at the hourly method for.
> As I said before, the difference in trend is Latitude weighted.
Nice tapdance.
> Considering that the global trend on UAH is only
RLH forgets that satellite retrievals sample mins and maxes half a world apart.
“forgets that satellite retrievals sample mins and maxes”
You have an odd way of thinking that satellites work. Nothing to do with either min or max.
“Its not what I thought we were looking at the hourly method for”
You had already decided that the middle was statistically the correct way to go.
> Nothing to do with either min or max.
Not obtaining a true daily min/max could be seen as a weakness, RLH. The real commonality is two observations per day per instrument:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999JD901182
There are a myriad of other biases and inhomogeneities in the satellite record which make it dubious at best to prop up your favorite (read: the coolest) temperature series as the gold standard in accuracy.
“Not obtaining a true daily min/max could be seen as a weakness”
Why? Both min and max are by definition limits of the range and are totally subject to being distorted by being the outliers that they are. They have almost no statistical use as such.
The median, for sets that are of almost any distribution, is well acknowledged as being the best choice overall statistically.
The only reason to use the middle, (min+max)/2, statistically speaking, is only of use if it used for all of a dataset, not just a subset of that. Otherwise the mixture created is of limited statistical use.
Your paper observing bias that are introduced by single points misses out that the record is continuous, not singular and simulates a record compared to a model and presumes that the model is correct in the first place. It also predates the change that UAH undertook to get to v6.0 in 2015 which is less subject to the single point artifacts as Roy has acknowledged on here.
“There are a myriad of other biases and inhomogeneities in the satellite record which make it dubious at best to prop up your favorite (read: the coolest) temperature series as the gold standard in accuracy”
And the confirmation that UAH matches best both balloon and reanalysis best as shown by Fig 10 as mentioned earlier is what, inconvenient?
RLH,
> The median, for sets that are of almost any distribution, is well acknowledged as being the best choice overall statistically.
Calculate the median from two satellite observations. I’ll wait.
> simulates a record compared to a model and presumes that the model is correct in the first place
um …
Let’s see if I can sum the matter to date.
We have RLH pointing to statistical standards saying using the mean (or min/max) is inferior to using the median, and we have others asking if it makes any significant difference when dealing with large samples of anomalised data to measure change over time. In short – does using the hourly method make a significant difference to the global (or US national), long-term trend?
RLH shows little interest in this question, and rather than address it, repeats the point about best practise and shows that it matters for individual locations, and the paper he cites further demonstrates that this skew matters at different latitudes and seasons.
I see one instance of RLH quoting the paper to suggest the hourly method produces a shallower long-term trend. But another quote in the paper suggests the complete opposite. The answer is not to be found in the paper, which did not address the question of nation-wide long-term trends.
Bindidon’s graph suggests the difference in methods is minimal minimal.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
And apparently others have ‘crunched the numbers’ and come up with similar results.
RLH wants people to acknowledge the hourly method is best practise, which has been done very briefly by some. Others want RLH to crunch the numbers to check the difference in long-term trends for the US as a whole, but RLH is either unwilling or incapable.
From the intersection of theory and practise the quibble doesn’t seem to be moving forward.
Richard,
“You had already decided that the middle was statistically the correct way to go.”
You are a study in deflection.
This whole conversation started months and months ago based on the notion that using the hourly method could make a significant difference to global temperature trends.
You did not introduce the hourly method then to intrigue people with latitudinal differences in the skew of diurnal temperatures, interesting as that may be.
We are stuck months and months later with you still not having addressed the original point of interest in any meaningful way.
I asked way upthread – the question that started this sub-thread.
“Are you able to gin up a graph that shows how much difference it makes?”
Your reply?
“You able to find a statistics textbook that says otherwise?”
You deflected the query.
Next I said,
“I’ll have to be clearer!
Are you able to gin up a graph of global temps using anomalised data and your method (median)? I note from the discussion with Bindidon you see the need to take spatial weighting into account.”
Your reply?
“Brandon, Barry: I notice you dont quote any statistical reference to support either mean or middle over median. Just a ‘feeling’ it wont make any difference.”
Then I said,
“A profile/trend comparison with anomalised data would answer the question.”
Your reply?
“Have you approached any of the authors?”
When I remarked,
“At least youve got latitudinal differences in the skew of diurnal temps to keep you interested. Its not what I thought we were looking at the hourly method for.”
You replied,
“You had already decided that the middle was statistically the correct way to go.”
——————————————————-
Every step of the way you have deflected the question of whether using the hourly method makes a significant difference to the long-term national US temperature trends (as we don’t have useful data for global).
You won’t – or can’t – test it yourself.
You dismiss the efforts of others to do it.
And you won’t say why you won’t – or can’t – do it. You simply deflect, as above.
When you continually avoid the question – for months now – “bad faith actor” is a fit description of how you’re operating.
Citing statistical standards, latitudinal differences and graphs of individual locations does not address the object of interest, the point that began this whole shebang. Does the hourly method make any difference WRT long-term global/US temp trends.
Will you finally address the point?
I’m sure you will deflect yet again, but at least when I call it out I’ll have this post to link you to as a reminder that it’s your problem, not mine.
“Calculate the median from two satellite observations”
There are more than 2 observations per orbit. In fact there is a 2.5 degree grid of observations in both North-South and East-West directions. These are then averaged together to produce a monthly figure. You really don’t like satellites at all and come up with ridiculous arguments to disparage them don’t you?
“We have RLH pointing to statistical standards saying using the mean (or min/max) is inferior to using the median, and we have others asking if it makes any significant difference when dealing with large samples of anomalised data to measure change over time. In short does using the hourly method make a significant difference to the global (or US national), long-term trend?”
We have a paper that says just that but you want to ignore it. It shows statistical differences. We also have statistical textbooks that say median is preferred above mean (or middle) but you want to just ignore that also.
You want to claim, without real proof, that being wrong in the statistics doesn’t make that much of a difference in ‘real life’ even though it has been pointed out that that there is a Latitude difference between the figures, which can be as little as 0C all the way up to 1.5C or higher. Sure add them all together and the error ‘disappears’ but what causes those differences?
It is not important apparently.
“You wont or cant test it yourself”
I have produced graphs and examples that show what I claim already. See my website for them. The facts are that T, both daily and yearly, is a skewed, bimodal distribution unlike the normal one you seem to think is there (see above).
I will be producing more in the future but these things take time.
“Will you finally address the point?”
I have done many times.
You cannot claim that being wrong in the application of the statistics does not matter ‘that much’. It is like being pregnant, you either are or you are not. So which is it?
RLH wrote:
That’s not true for the MSU/AMSU instruments at tropical and sub-polar latitudes. There are roughly 14 orbits each day, while there are 360/2.5 = 144 grid locations in longitude. Because of the Earth’s rotation, the night time grid points are different than those on the day time side, so there can be only 28 nadir grid locations with data for each day, 14 during day time and 14 during night time.
If the orbits were perfectly aligned with the grid, it would take ~4 days for each grid location to receive one measurement. But, the orbits do not produce such a result, but begin repeating before the full 144 positions are filled. That’s the reason UAH has chosen their Version 6 scheme to fill the grids, producing only a monthly product.
> You are a study in deflection.
There’s no way contrarians can play Climateball without being kinda good at head fakes. But yeah, Richard takes the cake.
> There are more than 2 observations per orbit.
There are not 24 satellite observations per location per day, Richard. Your Gold Standard for calculating medians ought not fail for your favorite temperature series.
“We have a paper that says just that but you want to ignore it.”
On the contrary, I quoted the paper where it says recent temps are underestimated by the min/max average (and overestimated prior), suggesting that the median method is a higher trend. You had already provided a quotes that said the opposite. My conclusion upthread:
But they don’t analyse trends. Theyre comparing absolute temps, so we dont know from that paper if there is a significant difference with the hourly method regarding change over time for the US.
None of the reference papers do that either.
I am ignoring nothing. You are, though, when you ignore from the paper:
Comparing spatially the differences between the two temperature-averaging methods for the most recent climate normals period (1981 – 2010) with the last 15 years of the most rapid temperature increase (2001 – 2015) reveals a shift, on average, toward underestimation by the traditional method
Now, I can acknowledge that the quote you gave suggests an opposite trend difference, and therefore conclude on the ambiguity of the paper, but your eyes slide right by that quote above. One of us is ignoring inconvenient info and it isn’t me.
But what neither quote establishes – to the point of the query – is how different the nationwide trends are.
“It shows statistical differences.”
It doesn’t show that – there are no values for the difference in national trend, and no uncertainty estimate given.
“We also have statistical textbooks that say median is preferred above mean (or middle) but you want to just ignore that also.”
I’ve already accepted that, and this is implicit in what I’ve written. You are fabricating a dispute.
“You want to claim, without real proof, that being wrong in the statistics doesnt make that much of a difference in ‘real life’ even though it has been pointed out that that there is a Latitude difference between the figures”
Fabrication. I’ve already agreed and repeated the latitudinal differences, but doggedly pursued the question of whether the difference in diurnal skew in different places makes any significant difference to the long term US temp trend when comparing hourly median result to the traditional method.
Now, I’m not sure you get the point of interest, so I’ll repeat it.
makes any significant difference to the long term US temp trend
makes any significant difference to the long term US temp trend
makes any significant difference to the long term US temp trend
comparing the two methods.
I wrote what I gland from the paper above. I’m not ignoring a thing. Nor downplaying any results.
I’m asking a question. It’s not difficult to understand.
“there is a Latitude difference between the figures, which can be as little as 0C all the way up to 1.5C or higher. Sure add them all together and the error ‘disappears’ but what causes those differences?
It is not important apparently.”
No, not to me, though it is interesting.
But it’s not the reason you started promoting the hourly median method above min/max. That was based on global, and now US temperature trends, and you implied that the methods could produce very different global (and now US) trends.
You may have lost interest in getting to the bottom of what you started, but I’m still curious about it. You are most welcome to ponder latitudinal differences instead. My interest remains with the original dispute.
Richard,
“Have you approached any of the authors?”
What, since I first read the paper this morning?
I asked if you could gin up a graph of global temps (or even US temps) using the hourly method. That could be compared to the global (and US) temp record to see if there is a significant difference.
It really won’t cause you any damage to say “don’t know how to do that”. Deflecting doesn’t mask it.
I couldn’t gin up that graph without a few days and many hours of intense studying how to do it.
I read around for papers – starting with citation leads from the paper you quoted – to find an answer to this question that a number here are asking about the hourly method. No luck.
With the tools I have on hand, it wouldn’t be a big step to code something to get the warming trend differences using the different “central tendency” metrics for the USCRN stations. Perhaps I’ll take a cut at that in the next few days. Trend standard deviation for the station analysis I posted above is on the order of 0.11 C/decade (1 sigma) so in a statistical sense they’re the same.
The USCRN data isn’t sufficiently long to say much about how the offset between the different metrics might be changing over time. There are APIs (e.g. Meteostat) through which one can automate retrieval of hourly station data, but that’s a bigger project for the “someday” (maybe) list.
My recollection is that RLH and Bindidon were pulling down this sort of large ensemble data about a year ago, but I don’t think either addressed the specific questions of calculating differences in global temperature trend or changes in the relative offsets between central tendency metrics.
Moving from individual station analyses to some composite analysis (e.g. global or CONUS temperature anomaly trend) implies implementing some plausible area weighting scheme which is a non-trivial step.
“My recollection is that RLH and Bindidon were pulling down this sort of large ensemble data about a year ago, but I dont think either addressed the specific questions of calculating differences in global temperature trend or changes in the relative offsets between central tendency metrics”
We were and it showed that all metrics suffer from a Latitude weighting across the USCRN. A similar difference across global figures (which is likely) would be of interest, at least to me.
“What, since I first read the paper this morning?”
I did as soon as I read it.
“I couldnt gin up that graph without a few days and many hours of intense studying how to do it”
Me too.
Thanks Mark, RLH.
Yes, I seem to remember the hourly thing was brought up regarding long-term global temp trends (now US), and that the number-crunching was started but not finished. But I don’t read every post and could easily have missed where the work was done (as I missed Bindidon’s graph on this with the 2nd order polynomial upthread).
I did not mention trends, as they are a second order derivative, only the data which the trends are based on. Other people have extended it to trends but claim that errors in the original series are not that important.
“I missed Bindidons graph on this with the 2nd order polynomial upthread”
And all of my contributions that show quite clearly that T (daily and yearly) is actually a skewed, bimodal distribution and not a normal one as you have claimed previously.
Link to table showing temperature anomaly trend calculated for all USCRN stations. Trend was calculated using anomalies based on Mean (Tmax+Tmin)/2, Median, and Average computed from the station hourly data.
USCRN Trend Summary
The straight (no area weighting) average for all CONUS stations with at least 15 years of data is Avg: 0.38, Mean: 0.41, Median: 0.37 C/decade.
This, I believe, is consistent with the NOAA estimate since 2005 and supports the assertion that the difference in central tendency metric makes little difference in assessing temperature trends.
Mark B: Mean is middle and average is mean, at least in the statistical sense.
It is interesting that shorter records appear to show that their trends are mainly negative (see below), supporting the observation that T is decreasing more recently.
Linear trends, as you well know, are a poor choice for quasi-cyclical data. Very subject to start/end dates.
Mark B:
“Trend calculated from anomaly, using full record as baseline”
How did you calculate the anomaly? Was it using the mean or median of the hourly data for each station?
Some crude contour plot graphics showing CONUS temperature trend distribution:
USCRN Average Trend Contour
USCRN Comparative Trend Contours
> RLH says: How did you calculate the anomaly?
The anomaly baseline is the average over all years of the daily values of the particular metric for that particular month.
So (Tmax+Tmin)/2 is baselined against itself and so forth.
That the baseline is nominally biased with the same probability distribution as the individual daily measurements is why, to a first order approximation, the choice of central tendency metric cancels out.
“The anomaly baseline is the average over all years of the daily values of the particular metric for that particular month”
An average can still be a mean, middle or median. Are you saying that it is the median of the medians? Or a mean of the medians?
“the choice of central tendency metric cancels out”
I note you don’t say that mean or middle is statistically correct. Just that there is only a small difference (see below).
And that
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnTemperatureTrendsComparativeContours.png
shows a -0.2C to 1.2C uncertainty in the trend data.
Median is the correct statistical figure.
Mark B: Any particular reasons that come to mind for the distributions shown?
https://imgur.com/a/NoeKz3Z
MarkB – appreciate you taking the time to crunch the numbers.
Neither Mark B or Barry are prepared to admit the standard deviation and mean have no real meaning wrt to daily or yearly T. All they will say is that the numbers do not ‘make much of a difference’, not that they are statistically correct.
Mars has an atmosphere but the Moon does not. That alone will cause some difference in measured surface temperature.
Some seem torn between two extremes:
– On the one hand, they want to subscribe to the idea that there is no greenhouse effect;
– but on the other hand they have to pay for it by accepting that the moon rotates on an inner axis.
It almost makes you schizophrenic, doesn’t it?
Binny,
You are schizophrenic – not almost schizophrenic. You believe there is a Greenhouse Effect, but you can’t actually describe it.
You believe that the past predicts the future.
You believe that the statistics of weather controls its future.
You believe that there is a conspiracy of unnamed “deniers” suppressing the truth of “climate change”.
You believe that I am really some other anonymous commenter, using a pseudonym just to annoy you.
Just your average delusional, paranoid, climate crackpot.
Your trolling at Roy’s is far from being average, silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> I hate to invoke an insulation analogy because of being accused of hypocrisy having previously objected to atmospheric blankets. But
Got to love Sky Dragon Cranks!
Willard,
What in blue blazes are Sky Dragon Cranks?
Have your juvenile attempts to be considered wise and knowledgeable addled your brain, or are you witless by nature?
Maybe you could name one person who values your opinions, and give me the opportunity to laugh derisively at yet another delusional numbskull.
Carry on.
swenson…”What in blue blazes are Sky Dragon Cranks?”
***
Wonkie wee willie’s attempt to redirect attention from him as one of the Sky Dragon whom we skeptics are trying to overcome.
Actually, we have overcome them, they just won’t lay down and die.
Alarmist are seriously confused.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re no skeptic. You’re denying basic physics. That makes you a crank.
Moon Dragon. Sky Dragon.
Think.
Willard,
What in blue blazes are Sky Dragon Cranks?
Just a stupid meaningless attention-seeking word salad, it seems.
Keep trying to convince people you are not a moron.
So you say, Mike.
So you say.
Mike Flynn,
You keep asking the same silly question over and over again.
It’s as if you never get tired of playing dumb.
Cheers.
Willard Peabrain,
You keep claiming you possess a Greenhouse Theory.
Can you produce it? No.
Why? Because it exists only in your imagination, that’s why!
No wonder you don’t like being asked to produce something that doesn’t exist!
Nobody thinks you are just playing dumb, moron.
When are you going to produce the Greenhouse Theory, dummy?
[sniggers]
The question wasn’t about the greenhouse effect, Mike.
Try not to be drunk while you’re playing dumb.
Willard,
Another stupid attempt to weasel out of your silliness?
What are Sky Dragon Cranks? Cant or wont answer?
Talking in riddles makes you look stupid, not an intellectual giant.
You cant even describe the greenhouse effect, let alone answer questions about it, you idiot.
That makes your claim to have a Greenhouse Theory completely laughable, doesnt it?
Cmon Wee Willy Nitwit – try appealing to the authority of a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann. Prepare to be laughed at. Pretend that your rapidly dwindling band of delusional cultists represent science, rather than pseudo-science. More laughter.
Maybe you could name one person who values your wacky opinions, but I doubt it.
Try it anyway, if you think it will achieve more than calling me Mike Flynn. That achieves precisely nothing, like pretty well everything you do. Moron.
[chortles at demented cultist]
Still here, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie…”I recall that Vietman was the main reason that the U.S. went to war in WW II”.
***
Huh??? Is that a typo, do you mean Japan?
Roosevelt had a heck of a time keeping the US out of WW II while covertly getting critical supplies to the UK. Many brave US citizens crossed the border into Canada and joined Canadians forces and even the RAF.
It was not till Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, in a moment of delirium, not fully understanding what they were unleashing. They were warmed by a Japanese army leader who had lived in the States of US potential industrial and military might.
Gordo, The history leading up to Pearl Harbor is rather complex. Before WW II, when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, the U.S. imposed an embargo on oil and other products. Later, Japan joined with Germany and Italy in the Axis powers. After the fall of France to the Germans, Japan occupied Vietnam in 1940 to exercise control over the French territory. Recall that, at the time, rubber was mostly produced from trees, and there were large Michelin company plantations to produce it in Vietnam. The U.S. objected to Japan’s actions which eventually resulted in an ultimatum ordering Japan to leave Vietnam and return the control of Indochina to the Free French.
Japan’s reply was December 7, 1941. As a result, Germany declared war on the U.S., which gave Roosevelt the political cover for U.S. direct involvement in the European war.
WHAT IS A GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM?
https://youtu.be/rVJ-bDj6x5U
This time, Eben managed to pick something imho really useful.
Even if nobody knows whether the author’s threshold values are correct, above which no GS Min or below which no GS Max should be sought: at least someone gave guide values instead of just using general, meaningless formulations.
Thx.
I would say in aren’t in solar grand min, yet.
But depending on what happens in next two cycles {26 & 27} we could look back and say 24 and 25 were the beginning of solar grand min [or not].
Or the given definition does not allow you say what grand min is until you are in it.
What has been predicted is that both 26 and & 27 will be smaller than 24. And 25 “looks like” it is similar to 24.
If 25 is similar to 24, it’s bad news to Mars crewed exploration.
And if 26 and 27 are the same as 24 [or less than] it’s even worse news for Mars crewed exploration.
So, as said, we need to figure out how to get to Mars in 3 months or less. And 3 months or less in non hohmann transfer, which has not been done before. And I imagine it can done with chemical rockets if refueled in Earth orbit.
But it seems to me, one could more easily get from Venus to Mars in less than 3 months.
Anyhow, don’t think if get solar grand min, it should not have effect global climate much within 3 decades. But it could effect weather [which people [incorrectly] call global climate.
barry…”As the IR is absorbed and re-emitted more times in order to escape the Earth, its escape is slowed. Anything that slows that escape also causes warming of the surface”.
***
Only about 5% of surface radiation is absorbed by CO2. No one knows how the absorp-tion works. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out, to follow radiation through the atmosphere would require Feynman diagrams and even at that, it would be highly theoretical.
****************************
“In no way does this contravene the 2nd Law. The atmosphere does not lose its heat to the surface, which would break the 2nd Law”.
***
The surface does lose heat to the atmosphere via conduction. As R.W. Wood put it, nitrogen and oxygen absorb it mainly and since they cannot radiate the heat away at terrestrial temperatures, the heat is retained. That’s all you need to know about the cause of the so-called greenhouse effect.
******************************
“With greenhouse warming both the surface and lower atmosphere warm, as the atmosphere is now slowing the escape of Earths heat to space.
To deny this is to deny that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR in the spectrum that Earth radiates”.
***
You are presuming that a trace gas that can only absorb 5% of surface radiation can control the heat in the atmosphere. You also claim that it is the slowing of radiative emission that causes warming.
In actuality, the rate of heat dissipation of the surface is controlled by the major gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen. It is known that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is proportional to the temperature differential between the surface and the environment, the atmosphere in this case.
Since the atmosphere abuts the surface and is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, it controls the rate of heat dissipation. Since it is 99% N2/O2, the temperature of those two gases control the rate of heat dissipation.
Of course, at the surface/atmosphere interface, a condition of thermal equilibrium is required, and no heat would be transferred. However, air heated by the surface rises and cooler air from aloft replaces it, absorbing more heat from the surface.
“You are presuming that a trace gas that can only absorb 5% of surface radiation can control the heat in the atmosphere.”
Don’t know where you get the 5% figure from. CO2’s strongest absorp.tion band is precisely where earth’s emissions spectrum is at its peak intensity – 15um.
CO2 is responsible for between 9 and 27% of the total greenhouse effect. Water Vapour is responsible for almost all the rest.
“Since the atmosphere abuts the surface and is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, it controls the rate of heat dissipation. Since it is 99% N2/O2, the temperature of those two gases control the rate of heat dissipation.”
N2 and O2 are transparent to Earth’s IR. Which means 99% of the atmosphere absorbs none of the upwelling IR. It is the ‘greenhouse’ gases (WV, CO2, CH4, N2O…) that absorb upwelling IR in Earth’s emissions spectrum, and it is greenhouse gases, not N2 and O2 that determine how quickly upwelling IR passes through the atmosphere out to space.
N2 and O2 are part of the greenhouse effecting in that they collide with CO2 molecules and take the energy. In this way you are correct – the temperature of the atmosphere is spread between the different molecules.
But the greenhouse effect is set by that 1% of atmospheric molecules known as greenhouse gases. If you took that 1% of the atmosphere and stacked it all from the ground up at surface pressure, you’d end up with 53 meters depth, 50 meters of that being WV alone. If that makes the scale comprehensible, it only remains to understand the relevance of optical depth. This dense slab of GHGs is actually spread vertically through the atmosphere.
Most photons in the spectrum that can be absorbed are so on the way up through the atmosphere. And any slab of the atmosphere that is ‘saturated’ in the spectrum emitted by the ground, that layer also emits in both directions, so the IR lofted skyward has kilometers more unsaturated layers of GHG to absorb it.
WV is mostly absent form the atmosphere from the lower stratosphere upward, with a significant, but not total, termination point at the tropopause.
CO2 is well-mixed, but of course sparser with height, up to 100 kms altitude.
Wrong, barry. See:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1241469
Pup believes that there can be no Sun.
What a funny sock puppet!
Willard,
You really are an idiotic troll, aren’t you?
No, Mike.
That would be you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I think everyone would agree that adding components that are in thermal equilibrium with the closed system they are being added to would result in no temperature change anywhere in that system.
But what happened to the external energy source, Clint, in the open system that determines earth’s energy budget?
As usual, ‘skeptics’ need to remove the sun to make their ‘argument’ work!
Barry,
Is this the energy budget that has resulted in the Earth cooling since it was totally molten?
Or is it another deeply mysterious energy budget not known to mainstream physics?
Four and a half billion years of sunlight doesnt seem to have stopped the Earth cooling! Maybe Nature doesnt pay any attention to your nutty energy budgets.
Away you go now. Reject some more reality. Build a CO2 powered heater, and take the world by storm! Good luck.
No difference, barry. Add energy to the box, and allow energy to escape. Once the box has a steady temperature, add bricks that are that temperature. No change in temperature.
… and an increase in U.
You’re still using an equilibrium state when the real world example is a steady state (stable temp differentiation through the system).
Put a cloud in your box at the same temperature as the box and nothing will change because the system is in local equilibrium.
Put a cloud in the atmosphere at the same temperature as the atmosphere and you will find that the temperature changes at the surface.
Atmospheric gases filter radiation. This effects the temperature profile through the system.
Your analogy isn’t working.
barry, the simple analogy demonstrates that adding more photons does NOT cause a temperature increase. It is NOT supposed to be a perfect model of Earth. But, you cannot stand reality so you must pervert the simple analogy.
And if your first attempt doesn’t work, you just keep throwing your nonsense against the wall, hoping something will stick. You don’t understand ANY of the science, so your endless efforts are worthless.
That’a why this is so much fun
Clint R’s brick model is NOT supposed to be a model of Earth at all.
No, Clint, your analogy doesn’t work.
You would argue that adding a cloud to the box at the same temperature as the contents of the box makes no difference to temperature of the box. You would be correct.
But you would then have to argue that a cloud introduced to the atmosphere overhead would not change the temperature at the surface below.
That’s where the analogy fails.
You could make the same argument with O3 – the analogy fails again.
The atmosphere/earth relationship is a steady state, not an equilibrium system in thermodynamic terms, and atmospheric gases filter radiation.
BTW, if you start adding bricks to the atmosphere, the temperature of the surface beneath will change.
Your model is not in any way analogous to the matter.
barry, the simple analogy demonstrates that adding more photons does NOT cause a temperature increase. It is NOT supposed to be a perfect model of Earth. But, you cannot stand reality so you must pervert the simple analogy. The bricks-in-a-box example works perfectly for its purpose.
“It is NOT supposed to be a perfect model of Earth.”
Perfection is not required. It only has to be good enough to be an analogy. It isn’t, as demonstrated above (otherwise you’d argue the point rather than just repeat the assertion).
barry, please stop trolling.
“You are presuming that a trace gas that can only absorb 5% of surface radiation can control the heat in the atmosphere. ”
No, just presuming that CO2 can INFLUENCE the heat flows in a significant way.
“In actuality, the rate of heat dissipation of the surface … ”
The greenhouse is mainly concerned about heat dissipation at the TOP of the atmosphere. If heat didn’t continue to leave the top, then heat couldn’t continue to enter at the bottom.
And if heat leaves the atmosphere SLOWER from the top (due to more CO2) then heat will have to enter the atmosphere slower from teh bottom. Ie the temperature will have to rise.
“However, air heated by the surface rises and cooler air from aloft replaces it, absorbing more heat from the surface.”
Yep. But the way for there to be cooler air above is for heat to radiate away due to GHGs and cool the air above. Convection can’t continue without both a source and a sink!
Folkerts, all your blah-blah means nothing when you can’t support your bogus claims.
You don’t have a clue about radiative physics or thermodynamics.
“You dont have a clue about radiative physics or thermodynamics.”
… says the man who knows it would take him hours and hours to read one chapter of a textbook dealing with radiative physics.
Folkerts, if you have ANYTHING to support your nonsense, you would be quoting it verbatim, and providing page number, etc. Just linking to a book online means you don’t have ANY support.
Did I mention you have NOTHING?
Why don’t you quote one, Pup?
grammie pup, References? You want REFERENCES? We don’t need no stinking references, just take a look at a typical mid-western thunderstorm billowing up into the sky on a summer’s afternoon. It’s called CONVECTION for those (like you) who don’t know and convection can only operate if there’s cooling at the top of the loop. Above the tropopause, the temperature lapse rate is positive and thus the vertical convection is suppressed.
So, airhead, explain the physics of how that cooling occurs.
The cult’s meltdown gets better and better. Worthless Willard doesn’t realize there is NO support for Folkert’s nonsense. And Willard Jr. jumps in with NO understanding of the issue!
The issue is Folkerts’ bogus claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That nonsense would then mean that 4 ice cubes could boil water. (Which braindead Ball4 fully supports.)
Folkerts has gone over the cliff on this one, and the cult is in turmoil. Neither Willard, nor his son, can make a coherent, competent, cognizant comment.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“grammie pup…”
Swanson, Clint R and I are two different people. Get that through your thick skull.
Clint. Just out of curiosity, define what YOU mean by “flux”. I have already give two definitions: “irradiance” and “radiant exitance” (both with references!)
When I claim “Fluxes can add” I mean irradiances. What do YOU mean when you say fluxes can’t add?
DREMT, you’re not trying to distance yourself from me so I don’t get any royalties from the new hit song, are you?
😊
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
(I see you’re over 500 views now. Great job!)
Now here you go again, Folkerts — playing with definitions and semantics.
The radiative flux arrivng a surface, measured in W/m^2, you may call “irradiance” if you prefer. But two such “irradiances” do NOT simply add. You believe they do, but you can’t support your belief. That ain’t science.
Try learning some physics, and avoid the word games.
☺️
Just setting Swanson straight on yet another of the things he has wrong! He’ll get something right eventually.
“But two such irradiances do NOT simply add. You believe they do, but you cant support your belief.”
Yes, I can easily support that belief. It literally in every text about radiative heat transfer. You know — the books that you refuse to look at. It is literally visible when you turn on two lightbulbs and see that the light is brighter than one bulb.
And that’s EXACTLY why I know you have NO understanding of radiative physics, Folkerts.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R avoids experimental results. All. The. Time.
Thus, much of what Clint R writes is entertainingly wrong. Tim et. al. should accept that circumstance accordingly.
“Try learning some physics”
… says the man who won’t open a book.
“if you have ANYTHING to support your nonsense, you would be quoting it verbatim”
… says the man who never quotes anything and has never provided a single reference to support anything he claims.
“Swanson, Clint R and I are two different people.”
Great typo.
Folkerts, have you figured out why your “two lightbulbs” response was so stupid, yet?
No, because you don’t have a clue about radiative physics.
I’ll explain it to you if you agree to not comment here for 90 days.
Clint R actually believes that if we had 2 suns instead of one, and they both emitted at exactly the same wavelengths and intensity, side by side in the sky at the same distance to the Earth….
that we would not feel any warmer.
Or that if you shone 2 spotlights on the same circle on a black stage, it would be no brighter than with 1.
Hell, with this thinking you could arrange 50 spotlights of equal power in a circle pointing at the same circle of black stage and it would be no brighter than with 1.
Or 10 Sun-like stars pressed together in the sky and the earth would be the same old temperature.
Because you can’t add the fluxes!
barry, it’s fairly easy to understand, if someone is not braindead.
What Folkerts claims is that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. Now, an ice cube emits 315W/m^2. And 325K corresponds to 52C, 125F. So what Folkerts is claiming is impossible. But because he’s in the cult, he gets support from the other cult idiots. In fact, Ball4 has even claimed that 4 ice cubes can boil water!
Do you understand how stupid the cult idiots are, or are you already braindead also?
4 ice cubes! No. Entertainingly wrong Clint R just doesn’t understand the experiment proving Clint R is wrong. At. All.
Clint,
Do you really think two suns of equal intensity in our sky, side by side, would not make the surface warmer?
Forget ice cubes – this is nuts if this is the way you think!
Is your grasp of the physics so poor that you can’t reply to my points as I made them?
“Ill explain it to you if you agree to not comment here for 90 days.”
I would happily not comment if you could correctly explain about ice and 315 W/m^2 and irradiance and radiant exitance and 325 K. Go for it.
But before you try — I can explain your error. “What Folkerts claims is that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. Now, an ice cube emits 315W/m^2. And 325K corresponds to 52C, 125F.”
You again confuse “irradiance” and ‘radiant exitance’.
Your first “315 W/m^2” is clearly irradiance. Your second “315 W/m^2” is clearly radiant exitance. You treat them like they are interchangeable, when in fact they are not.
* A blackbody surface at 273K implies a flux of 315 W/m^2 leaving that surface.
* A flux of 315 W/m^2 arriving at a surface does NOT imply it came FROM a blackbody surface at 273 K.
HINT: you need to become comfortable with surface integrals and view factors before you will truly understand any of this.
barry, as I explained above, the issue is about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes heating the same surface. Maybe you missed my comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1242195
You are attemping to distract from the issue because you know how stupid your cult is, yet you won’t leave it. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes. You believe in a false religion. And you’re fanatic about your cult — so fanatic that you’re willing to pervert reality. That’s why you’re trying to distract with your “two suns”, just as Folkerts is trying to distract with his “two lightbulbs”. All you’re doing is showing how desperate you are, and how little you understand physics.
But, I’m here to help.
I’ll make you the same offer I made Folkerts. If you both agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, I will explain why your “two lightbulbs” and “two suns” dont help you. You’ve never been exposed to REAL physics, but I can make it easy and understandable. It’s no problem for me, I enjoy teaching physics.
So, do you agree? (Folkerts has to agree also.)
Looks like you’re on, Pup:
Go right ahead. Skool Tim.
Folkerts, are you wanting to accept my offer, or obfuscate out of it?
The offer was to explain to you how stupid your “two lightbulbs” analogy was in relation to your confusion about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes heating a surface to 325K. You were just getting tangled up in your own web.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1242117
I suspect you’re trying to run from your own nonsense.
Go for it Clint. But I will only stay away if you explain correctly. And I’ll give 2:1 odds that instead of explaining MY confusion about two 315 W/m^2 fluxes heating a surface to 325K, you will instead expose YOUR confusion instead.
> I’ll give 2:1 odds
Kinda unfair, Tim, but you need to clarify:
If Pup wins, you stop commenting for 90 days.
If you win, Pup stops commenting for 45 days.
Is that correct?
Okay Folkerts, you need a placement test to see where I need to start. I don’t want to start over your head.
Question 1: Can ice cubes cause water to boil. (That means ice cubes, BY THEMSELVES. No added energy, no heating elements, no ice comets, no radioactive materials. Ice cubes ONLY.)
A) No
B) Yes
Give it your best shot. You’ve got a 50-50 chance.
A) No. Of course ice @ 273 K cannot, by itself, bring water up to 373 K to make it boil. Not by radiation. Not by conduction. Simply impossible.
I suppose it is good that you start this basic, so that anyone will be able to see when one or the other of us goes off the rails.
(Ball4 just bit the dust.)
Continuing with the placement test:
Question 2: Can two ice cubes bring a surface to 325K?. (That means ice cubes, BY THEMSELVES. No added energy, no heating elements, no ice comets, no radioactive materials. Ice cubes ONLY.)
A) Yes
B) No
Already answered! “Of course ice @ 273 K cannot, by itself, bring water up to 373 K to make it boil.”
Ice. Period. Any amount. Any shape. Any size. 1 piece or 2 pieces or 1,000,000 pieces. That covers “two cubes”.
(Second and last chance, Folkerts. I can lead a mule to water, but I can’t make it drink.)
Question 2: Can two ice cubes bring a surface to 325K?. (That means ice cubes, BY THEMSELVES. No added energy, no heating elements, no ice comets, no radioactive materials. Ice cubes ONLY.)
A) Yes
B) No
“B) No”
Very good. Only a couple more questions to complete the placement test.
Question 3: Can ice cubes bring a surface to a higher temperature than the ice cubes?. (That means ice cubes, BY THEMSELVES. No added energy, no heating elements, no ice comets, no radioactive materials. Ice cubes ONLY.)
A) Yes
B) No
B) No. Nothing — including ice cubes — can bring a surface to a higher temperature than the original object.
(Folkerts, “B) No” is the correct answer to #3, but your added wording is confusing. We’ll skip that for now, as your answer is correct.)
Question 4: Ice at 0°F is emitting about 315 W/m^2. A flat surface, with emissivity = 1.0, at a temperature of 0°F is also emitting about 315 W/m^2. So could a 0°F perfectly flat ice wall, in very close proximity to the 0°F flat surface (1 micron separation) , raise the surface above 0°?
A) No
B) Yes
[I assume you mean 0C]
Still no. The ice can’t warm the other surface above 0 c
Can’t we skip ahead and stipulate that Object A (any size, shape, location, or emissivity) at temperature T cannot, by itself, raise the temperature of Object B (any size shape location or emissivity) to any temperature above T?
Yes of course, 0°C. Good catch.
273.15K, 32°F, 491.7° Rankine. There’s WAY too many temperature scales!
(Final question of the placement test coming in less than an hour.)
Final question of the placement test:
Question 5: We know that 315 W/m^2 from one source can not heat a surface above 0°C. But, can a second source of 315 W/m^2 raise the temperature of the surface above 0°C? (Both fluxes are as would be measured at the surface, and there is no other energy input.)
A) Yes
B) No
“Both fluxes are as would be measured at the surface”
You need to clarify. Do you mean as measured at either of the emitting surfaces? Or as measured at the one receiving surface?
Only ONE surface has been mentioned, Folkerts. It’s the 0°C surface. The surface that is already at 0°C, and is then being subjected to another 315 W/m^2.
Actually there have been THREE surfaces mentioned that are all 0 C. The surface of the first source (which I will call S1), the surface of the receiving source (which I will call R) and the surface of the new source you just (which I will call S2).
And this is why it matters: you say “We know that 315 W/m^2 from one source ” but this is ambiguous!
If you mean 315 W/m^2 as measured LEAVING S1, then we know that the surface must be 0 C.
But if you mean 315 W/m^2 as measured ARRIVING at R, then the flux no long needs to be 315 W/m^2 as measured LEAVING S1. S1 could be the sun and R could be somewhere beyond Mars where solar radiation happens to be 315 W/m^2 as measured at R.
So, do you mean “as measured AT S1 (and now S2) (ie leaving the ice surface)” or “as measured at R (ie arriving at the other surface)”? Or both?
oops … “R” should be the surface of the receiving “OBJECT” or “ITEM”. Not a receiving “SOURCE”.
Folkerts knows he’s trapped, so it’s time to start dodging, diverting, and distracting.
When you’re finished playing charades, Pup, you owe Tim an explanation.
No, Clint. You have presented a situation that is at best unclear, and at worst self-contradictory. I am merely asking you to clarify.
Remember what you wrote.
“Question 5: We know that 315 W/m^2 from one source can not heat a surface above 0C. But, can a second source of 315 W/m^2 raise the temperature of the surface above 0C? (Both fluxes are as would be measured at the surface, and there is no other energy input.)”
Based on your specific wording, the “one source” could be a flux of 315 W/m^2 of SUNLIGHT as measured arriving “at the surface” [your words]. Nothing in Question 5 precludes this! With 315 W/m^2 of sunlight, then yes, a second identical source of sunlight CAN indeed raise the surface above 0C.
Or perhaps you wanted to exclude sunlight and you really meant “as measured LEAVING the SOURCES”. In this case both sources must be 0C and then no, you CANNOT raise the surface above 0C.
This was all fairly predictable. Folkerts is way over his head, as this little “placement test” has shown. He has an intuitive grasp of the basics, but when it gets too deep he runs to his defenses — definitions and semantics. Anything to avoid facing reality. Folkerts didn’t have trouble with definitions and semantics until he came to Question 5. Then, he realized it was all over. Hence the distraction.
And then a worthless troll comes out of his hole to save Folkerts. It’s like throwing a concrete life jacket to a drowning man.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Anyway, the agreement was if I showed how silly Folkerts use of “two lightbulbs” was, he would not comment for 90 days. Are you still willing to honor that agreement, Folkerts?
So Pup won’t fulfill his promise.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
“Folkerts didnt have trouble with definitions and semantics until he came to Question 5”
… because until Question 5, you were being self-consistent (if not overly simplistic). Then you finally started getting to the guts of the matter, and you were over your head. You could not even clarify if you meant flux FROM a surface or flux TO a surface.
“Anyway, the agreement was if I showed how silly Folkerts use of “two lightbulbs” was, he would not comment for 90 days. ”
You have not establishes anything of the sort. What is “silly” about two light bulbs creating more heat and light than one lightbulb? Or even ice and one lightbulb?
Folkerts, I understand you’re under a lot of stress. Getting trapped in your own web of deceit does that. So, go slow and try to understand.
The agreement was, if I showed how silly your two lightbulbs was, you would not comment for 90 days. Are you still willing to honor that agreement?
I haven’t done that yet. I’ve only established that you don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. I just want to verify you are still willing to stay off this blog for 90 days once I do my part.
Do you agree?
I think we need to understand YOUR thinking, Clint. My turn to ask a question. Maybe answering this will help you find my ‘silliness’ faster.
A flux of 315 W/m^2 is emitted from an ice surface @ 273 K. That flux — as measured when it hits some other receiving surface — will be:
A) Still 315 W/m^2.
B) Any value between 0 W/m^2 315 W/m^2, depending on the geometry of the emitting and receiving surfaces.
C) Some value less than 315 W/m^2 depending on distance from source, according to the Inverse Square Law.
Does this continuing distraction mean you are no longer willing to comply with the agreement? I’ll agree to release you from it. All you have to do is ask. Anyone can make a mistake.
Since the central point is the physics of thermal radiation, and since this is a well-established field, we might as well agree to so basics so we don’t have to fumble around for weeks trying to rebuild the topic from the ground up.
This source seems like a good ‘starting point’ for definitions, equations, etc. http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
If you prefer a different source, you can propose one. Otherwise, lets use that source. Also, let’s continue to assume all surfaces are black bodies for simplification. (We can always relax that later).
Then we can more clearly restate your “Question 5”. This is what I THINK you meant, but feel free to correct me. [and again, assuming all surfaces are BBs for simplicity for now.]
Question 5: We know that A RADIOSITY OF 315 W/m^2 from one source can not heat a surface above 0C. But, can a second RADIOSITY of 315 W/m^2 FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE raise the temperature of the surface above 0C?
With your ambiguity removed, the answer is clearly and simply “NO”. The second radiosity cannot do that. The max temperature is 0C.
Folkerts, that’s a magnificant effort to dodge, divert, and distract. It’s one of your best. Your cult will be proud of you, since they thrive on such perversion of reality.
But you’ve got two major problems:
1) Question 5 clearly, concisely, and unequivocally defined the fluxes as arriving at the surface — “(Both fluxes are as would be measured at the surface, and there is no other energy input.)” There’s NO need to restate the question.
2) Your own bogus claim had both 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at the surface, which you claimed would add together (630 W/m^2), resulting in a temperature of 325K.
No “RADIOSITY” need be involved in either situation. You’re obviously trying to flee your own words, getting more tangled in your web as you struggle.
Now, spin your way out of that reality.
I think I’m just gonna put this here:
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/paradox/chapters/measure/measure.html
More proof you don’t understand any of his, worthless Willard.
Thanks.
No, Clint, you have major troubles. You simply can’t grasp the difference between flux FROM a surface (ie radiant exitance or radiosity) and flux TO a surface (ie irradiation or irradiance).
Your “1)” is clearly, concisely, and unequivocally is about IRRADIATION. About a flux of 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING at a “surface”.
Your “2)” is clearly about RADIOSITY. About a flux of 315 W/m^2 leaving from ‘ice at 0 C’.
And yet you jump from one to the other as if they were the same.
You talk as if I am claiming that two individual radiosities of 315 W/m^2 can add to produce an irradiation of 630 W/m^2.
In fact, I am claiming that two individual irradiations of 315 W/m^2 can add to produce an irradiation of 630 W/m^2.
But since you don’t distinguish between radiosity and irradiance, you keep making the same error.
Folkerts, all that blah-blah just to end up where you started. I wasn’t the one confused about where the flux was measured, you were. You kept trying to confuse the issue. But, you ended up where this all began!
Your own words: “In fact, I am claiming that two individual irradiations of 315 W/m^2 can add to produce an irradiation of 630 W/m^2.”
And that is WRONG. Your “Irradiations” do NOT add like that. That’s the nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water.
When I asked you to support that, you came up with the hilarious “two lightbulbs”. Then, I offered to explain why that was stupid, if you would agree to not comment here for 90 days. All your obfuscation, just to end up where we started days ago!
So do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?
A straight-forward “yes” or “no” is all that is needed. Your endless rambling accomplishes NOTHING except delay.
“all that blah-blah …” by which you mean ‘actual, standard radiative physics.’ You know, the topic you claim to be an expert at. Your inability to discuss things using the vocab of the field is yet another clue that you don’t have a clue.
“Your “Irradiations” do NOT add like that.”
Yeah, they absolutely do. Since we are discussing blackbodies, then every joule of incoming flux is absorbed. By definition. If one light bulb provides 315 Joules to a specific square meter every second, and another bulb provides another 315 J, then 630 Joules are absorbed by the surface. A flux of 630 W/m^2 absorbed.
Now if you want to try to refute that, you tells us specifically what you think happens to those 630 joules. You claim to be an expert. You calm to know answers. Bonus points for giving a text book that supports your answer.
“So do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?”
Yep that is where we were before you took the two-day detour of your silly yes/no questions.
So it seems the challenge is finally on! I claim “that two individual irradiations of 315 W/m^2 can add to produce an irradiation of 630 W/m^2.” As examples, I give two light bulbs or two sun beams. Two individual, independent fluxes from two individual, independent sources. [So for example, it would obviously not count to shine one flashlight on to the back of another flashlight, where the front source blocks the back source.]
Clint claims this is “silly” and you can’t simply add the two fluxes. So now we wait (finally) for Clint to explain why this is “silly” and how fluxes SHOULD be added.
So do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?
A straight-forward “yes” or “no” is all that is needed. Your endless rambling accomplishes NOTHING except delay.
You’re stalling, Clint.
That’s not what the record here indicates, Folkerts. But you never were much for reality.
You’re not able to support your bogus claims. You know you’re a fraud. That’s why you won’t commit to a hiatus here, when I prove you wrong.
> You’re not able to support your bogus claims.
That’s not the explanation you promised, Pup.
So, when do you intend to take your 45 days leave of absence?
Folkerts already agreed 3 days ago to not participate for 90 days if this condition was met:
I would happily not comment if you could correctly explain about ice and 315 W/m^2 and irradiance and radiant exitance and 325 K. Go for it.
Clint began to do so with his ‘placement test‘ to “see where I need to start.”
Folkerts reiterated the agreement recently.
Clint then said:
“So do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?”
Sure looks like stalling to me.
Not to mention that 3 days have passed and Clint still hasn’t “correctly explain[ed] about ice and 315 W/m^2 and irradiance and radiant exitance and 325 K.”
All it would take to resolve this is a clear post from Clint answering the challenge comprehensively and without further delay.
Odds are strong that’s not going to happen.
(This subthread is getting WAY too long. I’m starting a new thread down below.)
And in that thread you confuse A implies B with B implies A, Pup.
Are you sure you’re up to the task of explaining anything?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim,
You wrote the following nonsense –
“And if heat leaves the atmosphere SLOWER from the top (due to more CO2) then heat will have to enter the atmosphere slower from teh bottom. Ie the temperature will have to rise.”
You can deny reality all you like, but plants, insects, animals and rational people accept that the surface cools at night, in winter, when a cloud passes between the Sun and the ground, and so on.
No rise in temperature. You are suffering from delusional psychosis, or you are deliberately pretending to be deranged, for some reason which escapes me.
You can’t even state what the GHE supposedly is, nor describe where it might be observed, measured, or documented. Pretending you know what you are talking about, when you are obviously off with the fairies, puts you in the same paddock as the other climate donkeys.
You can set a forest on fire with 300 w/m2 from the sun. Try it with 300 w/m2 radiation from ice. Explain why it can’t be done. Now you see why fools and frauds use w/m2 instead of temperature.
Swenson, your reply is basically all nonsense.
I have no reason to deny that plants, insects, animals and rational people accept that the surface cools at night, in winter, when a cloud passes between the Sun and the ground, and so on.
That has nothing to do with my point. The temperature typically rises during the day — and rises more if some heat loss is limited. (Just like my home warms up with I turn on the furnace, and warms up more/faster if I shut a window to limit heat loss). And temperatures drop at night — but drop more slowly if heat loss is limited. (like my house cools down when the furnace is off, but cools slower if I shut a window).
As with the window analogy, the window does not “heat” the house. CO2 does not heat the earth. But at the end of the day, the house is warmer if the window is closed, and the earth are warmer if CO2 limits the amount of heat escaping.
“Now you see why fools and frauds use w/m2 instead of temperature.”
No. Now I see that many ‘skeptics’ are not comfortable with complex ideas.
Folkerts, your “window” analogy works for non-radiative gases, but not for radiative gases.
As Swenson has pointed out numerous times, you can’t make ONE statement of your GHE nonsense that holds up.
“Folkerts, your ‘window’ analogy works for non-radiative gases, but not for radiative gases.”
No, it works only for radiative gases since we are talking about radiative losses.
With no radiative gases, the ‘IR windows is open’ and thermal IR can ‘escape out the window’ from the surface directly to outer space.
With radiative gases, the ‘IR window is shut’ (or more aptly, ‘a few of the many IR windows are shut’) and thermal IR has to work its way through the atmosphere. This reduces the heat flow. This is turn means that a constant solar input results in a higher surface temperature.
Correct that radiative gases are an “open window”.
Wrong that more 15μ photons can raise Earth temperature. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
There’s a bet on the table, Pup.
Why are you trolling?
Tim,
You are an idiot.
The temperature of the surface does not rise faster or higher if less sunlight hits the surface.
I know that you dont want to believe it, but the airless Moons surface reaches 127 C after the same exposure time, compared with the earth. Thats because there is no atmosphere to attenuate incoming energy from the sun.
Your stupid and irrelevant analogies, scenarios, and GHE fantasies in general, dont change physical facts. Just as a matter of interest, a slow drop in temperature is cooling – not heating, you fathead! No global warming.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, and none of your nonsense had the slightest impact. Physical laws have not changed.
Try defining the illusory GHE. You cant! Belief in something that cannot be demonstrated by experiment is faith – not a product of the scientific method.
Carry on telling people to believe you. Some might. After all, more than half the population is below average intelligence by definition.
Swenson, you have various good ideas, but they are mixed with a variety of misconceptions as well. As long as you keep that aggressive attitude and a closed mind, you are going to stay stuck with your misconceptions.
Tim,
You still can’t define the GHE, can you?
Not only that, you can’t actually state the misconceptions you claim I suffer from!
If you believe that I have an aggressive attitude and a closed mind, you are obviously wasting your time telling me. Why do you imagine that I would take the slightest notice of your opinions?
Stick with facts, if you like.
Have you figured out how reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter? No wonder you can’t describe the GHE. It’s nonsense. You’ve been duped.
Physical facts don’t care about attitudes, consensus, or debating tactics. Things of that nature are best left to idiot climate crackpots who refuse to accept reality – like you, perhaps.
Still can’t define your Isolation Effect, Mike, can you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
“The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824.[8] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall was the first to measure the infrared absorp.tion and emission of various gases and vapors. From 1859 onwards, he showed that the effect was due to a very small proportion of the atmosphere, with the main gases having no effect, and was largely due to water vapor, though small percentages of hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide had a significant effect.[9] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[10] However, the term “greenhouse” was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[11][12]”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How about historic blizzard for a climate change
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/historic-april-blizzard-set-to-pummel-northern-tier-of-the-us/1170638
https://youtu.be/xbbAJwnJmiM
Im still not convinced co2 doesnt block as much or more solar radiation as it expresses/redirects. I think pollution plays a much larger role. In fact, I think this is proven with soot removed in Europe resulting in colder weather. Today jets took off from jber to intercept our neighbors daily intrusions. Sky was clear but now hazy from dispersed contrails. My roof even stopped dripping from snow melt. Not saying its intentional as much as just wasnt as much jet traffic in my youth causing obvious weather change. Theyre returning now but not leaving contrails cause they dont have afterburners engaged. Nonetheless, my yard is still a glacier w/a foot of corn snow. Shit will not melt. Tempted to spread wood ashes. At least over my garden area. Meanwhile, its snowing in Portland. Hillaryous.
“Im still not convinced co2 doesnt block as much or more solar radiation as it expresses/redirects. ”
Where would it block [which can only mean absorb- as there is only a very small amount of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
There is less CO2 molecule per square meter of earth surface as compared to Mars {per square by factor about 30}. Or Mars thin atmosphere and much smaller planet has about 25 trillion tonnes of CO2].
About 1/2 of earth atmosphere is below 5 km elevation, and roughly 1/2 of Earth CO2 is below 5 km. So if talking CO2 above 5 km, compared to Mars, about 1/60th of amount CO2 on Mars per square meter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Specifically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Indicates that our atmospheric CO2 absorbs a portion of Sunlight.
As does atmospheric O2, O3 and H20. H20 gas seems to absorb the most sunlight.
gb,
All gases absorb a portion of sunlight.
All that happens is that the absorber gets hotter. However, the surface which does not receive the energy absorbed by the gas, doesnt get as hot. No free lunches in Nature.
Of course, when something gets hotter than. its surroundings, it cools. Thats physical law for you!
An example of the cooling effect of an atmosphere can be seen by comparing the maximum temperatures achieved by the surface on Earth, and the Moon.
The sunlit Earth surface never rises above 100 C, whereas the surface temperature of the Moon can exceed 127 C, because there is no atmosphere to interfere with (or absorb) radiation from the Sun.
Reality has little impact on climate crackpots, who believe that temperatures can be measured in units of radiative intensity rather than degrees of hotness, ignoring the temperature of the emitting object totally. Tyndalls use of the Leslie Cube would leave them nonplussed!
Thats why they believe that fluxes from objects of different temperatures can be added, which is about as stupid as adding temperatures from say, ice, to that of sunlight. Obviously ridiculous, but that is why the climate nutters refuse to use temperatures. Their stupidity and ignorance would be exposed for all to see.
“The sunlit Earth surface never rises above 100 C, whereas the surface temperature of the Moon can exceed 127 C, because there is no atmosphere to interfere with (or absorb) radiation from the Sun.” … and the night side of the earth never drops below about -80 C, whereas the moon can drop to -230 C. Because there IS atmosphere to interfere with radiation from the surface. (Other processes like convection have rolls, too).
The point is that the atmosphere has multiple effects. And since we know the earth has a higher average temperature than the moon (despite the moon absorbing sunlight better!), we know the atmosphere does more warming than cooling!
Yes, “the atmosphere has multiple effects”. The atmosphere is part of Earth’s system for controlling its average temperature. Sun provides the energy, and Earth manages it. Moon is unable to do as well, as it has no oceans or atmosphere. And, it doesn’t rotate about its axis.
… when viewed from Earth as earthshine is incident on only one face of the moon.
Tim,
The Moon’s lack of atmosphere means that it both heats and cools faster.
The Earth’s atmosphere does no “warming”.
That’s why the surface has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, as it does every night.
Nobody has successfully measured the average temperature of either the Moon’s surface, or that of the Earth. Just more guesses and estimates to support the mad undefinable delusion called the GHE.
Try another tack, Tim. A useful description of the GHE might be a good start – quantifiable and testable by experiment, of course.
> The Earth’s atmosphere does no “warming”.
Why the scare quotes, Mike – afraid that we might realize this is you and your silly semantic game once again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
CO2 doesn’t block any solar radiation.
It absorbs light at 2.7 4.3 and 15 um; these are all IR frequencies and are radiated by the earth, not by the sun.
Ken,
Of course CO2 blocks solar radiation, as do all gases. Only a vacuum allows light to pass without hindrance.
Where did you learn the nonsense you are spouting?
Do you really believe that the Sun does not emit IR radiation? You must be off with fairies (or a dedicated climate crackpot), if you do.
It’s ignorant morons like you, promoting complete nonsense, who keep this GHE idiocy alive.
Learn some physics, if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to perceive reality.
Or don’t – your choice.
Solar radiation above and at the surface of Earth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/1280px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
RLH,
So I am right, then. Am I supposed to thank you for confirming facts I already knew?
No GHE.
Care to show what radiation the Earth provides through the atmosphere to space?
Such as
https://ugc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/short-long-wave-diagram.jpg
RLH,
No. Why would I bother with such an irrelevancy?
Are you one of the dimwits who refuses to accept the reality that the majority of the Sum’s radiation is in the IR wavelengths?
I suppose you have provided yet another irrelevant but brightly coloured picture which you think shows the existence of the GHE, or some similar nonsense.
You do realise that the Earth’s surface cools in the absence of sunlight? All the radiation from the surface eventually escapes to space. All. Nothing retained, accumulated, or trapped. That’s why the temperature falls when the Sun shines not.
I believe you really are as delusional as you seem.
Try serving up some more eminently pointless gotchas if you think it makes you look clever.
“Why would I bother with such an irrelevancy?”
So you don’t believe that the Earth’s radiance is in a different band to that received and thus is important?
RLH,
That’s not even a gotcha!
Define “important” in your context. You can’t can you? That is why I assess you as being a dimwit (amongst other things).
If you are being so silly as to believe in an undefinable GHE, you might have to learn some physics.
Here’s a starting exercise – explain why four and a half billion years or continuous sunlight has not prevented the surface from cooling from an initial molten stage to its present temperature.
Feel free to ask yourself as many witless gotchas as you like.
“Define ‘important’ in your context.”
Significant.
“explain why four and a half billion years or continuous sunlight has not prevented the surface from cooling from an initial molten stage to its present temperature”
At 0.00000..1C/decade or thereabouts.
RLH,
Cooling is cooling.
Not heating. No increase in temperature. No global warming due to GHGs trapping or accumulating energy.
You have avoided explaining why the surface has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight.
Thats because you can’t.
Belief is one thing, facts are another.
> No increase in temperature.
That’s where you’re wrong, Mike.
“Cooling is cooling”
Cooling at 0.00000..1C/decade or thereabouts is below that resolution we are capable of.
Willard,
You choose to deny reality when you claim the Earth has not cooled from the molten state.
Just saying “That’s where youre wrong, . . . ” shows your desperation.
You can’t say why, because you would have to admit your belief in the GHE is based on the premise that the Earth was formed below 255 K, and has heated since. Like other delusional true believers – Carl Sagan and James Hansen being just two!
Accept reality, Willard. Cooling is cooling. Molten surface then, not molten now – cooling.
No wonder you can’t produce a Greenhouse Theory. No wonder you keep calling me Mike Flynn.
Delusional psychosis writ large! It’s probably not politically correct to laugh at the shortcoming of the mentally afflicted, but political correctness is not my forte.
[laughing at pretentious and delusional Willard]
RLH,
Look between your feet. Molten or not molten? Has the surface cooled or not since it was molten?
Deny reality all you like. Kid yourself that the Earth’s present rate of cooling (around one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum, according to geophysicists), is really heating.
According to the sometimes correct Wikipedia, the loss of energy from the Earth’s surface is 47 plus or minus 2 terrawatts. Loss, nothing to do with incoming solar radiation (which is all lost at night, as Fourier pointed out). Cooling, very slowly.
Newton’s Law of Cooling applies, but without factoring in radiogenic heat production (amongst other things), you will no doubt come to the same mathematically correct but entirely erroneous conclusion as Lord Kelvin and others did.
The very fact that you have calculated the “average” (but pointless) rate of cooling shows that you accept the fact that the Earth has cooled.
You just don’t like it, because you would have to admit you’ve been fooled.
Tough.
> You choose to deny reality when you claim the Earth has not cooled from the molten state.
Where did I claim that, Mike?
Nobody disputes that silly red herring of yours.
Willard, please stop trolling.
KEN: “CO2 doesnt block any solar radiation.”
Well, yes CO2 does block SOME. The sun DOES emit some small bit of its radiation (about 5%) above 2 um. And CO2 does absorb some radiation below 2 um. Spitballing it, I would suspect the net result is about 1% or less of sunlight would get absorbed by CO2 on the way in.
SWENSON” “Of course CO2 blocks solar radiation, as do all gases. .”
As noted above, this is, of course, correct but not of much *practical* use here. These wavelengths (below 4 um where sunlight is moderately strong) are more strongly absorbed by more common H20, so the actually effect of CO2 on incoming sunlight in the actual atmosphere is effectively nil. (As illustrated in the data RLH presented).
So chill and listen and learn, everyone.
* CO2 doesnt block any APPRECIABLE solar radiation.
* Of course CO2 blocks AT LEAST SOME TINY BIT OF solar radiation, as do all gases.
Tim,
Around 1366 w/m2 from the Sun is measured before reaching the atmosphere.
Solar radiation actually reaching the surface varies between 0 w/m2 and a maximum of maybe 1000 w/m2.
On average, the atmosphere blocks about 35% of incoming solar radiation.
And of course, that same atmosphere prevents precisely none of the radiation from the Earth’s surface fleeing to space, you ninny. That’s why the temperature drops in the absence of sunlight, and why, after four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, the surface is no longer molten.
You say CO2 blocks at least some tiny bit. How much, and what gases block the rest?
Accept reality, Tim. I know far more than you do.
No GHE.
“Around 1366 w/m2 … varies between 0 w/m2 and a maximum of maybe 1000 w/m2 … blocks about 35% of incoming solar radiation.”
Good … good … good. You know some basics.
“And of course, that same atmosphere prevents precisely none of the radiation from the Earths surface fleeing to space”
Why are you SURE that incoming visible light can get blocked, but also sure that lightly different wavelengths of IR cannot? You look a fool not knowing this simple, well-known, widely observed fact.
“Thats why the temperature drops in the absence of sunlight”
Illogical in the extreme! Even if the atmosphere blocked 99% of surface radiation from escaping straight to space, temperatures would still drop at night.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Why are you SURE that incoming visible light can get blocked, but also sure that lightly different wavelengths of IR cannot? You look a fool not knowing this simple, well-known, widely observed fact.
You idiot. I didnt specify any wavelengths, did I? I just pointed out the fact that of the maximum 1366 w/m2 of radiation impinging on the atmosphere, at most about 1000 w/m2 reaches the surface. Deny it if you wish. If you want to call the phenomenon something apart from blocking, feel free. I prefer attenuation myself, but some scientists use blocking.
As to outgoing radiation being blocked, you are just spouting nonsense, and playing with words.
You cannot specify a single wavelength which cannot be emitted by the surface – not one. And, of course, if the surface loses energy by radiation, it cools. Your attempts to call cooling heating are symptomatic of delusional climate cranks.
I believe the so-called crisis relates to global warming, not slower global cooling!,
You still cant describe the GHE in any useful way, can you? You believe in the GHE, some believe in God, and claims of evidence for both abound. Faith, not science.
Keep playing with words. The Earth has cooled. No GHE.
This is known as “moving the goal posts”:
1) “that same atmosphere prevents precisely none of the radiation from the Earths surface fleeing to space”
2) “You cannot specify a single wavelength which cannot be emitted by the surface not one.”
You conveniently left out the key point in your ‘rebuttal’.
* Yes, the surface radiates across the whole IR spectrum (mostly 4-100 um, but in principle out beyond that on either side).
* No those don’t all “flee to space”. Photons near 15 um don’t ‘flee’ more than a few m before they get absorbed.
“And, of course, if the surface loses energy by radiation, it cools. “
I think you need to be a bit more precise about language. Think about this in relation to your statements. Suppose I have two identical houses. Each has a furnace that runs half that time, and keeps the house at and average of, say, 10 C on a cold winter. Then I add insulation to one house, and now that house averages 20 C. The house still ‘loses energy by conduction’. In one sense se can say ‘the house still cools’ but in a different sense, we can say the house ‘warmed’. You could even say the house ‘cools by conduction’ even while the furnace is running and the house is getting warmer.
These are not contradictory. They just highlight the need to be careful about words (which is NOT the same as ‘playing’ with words). If you use one words (eg “cooling”) to mean two different things (eg “losing thermal energy” and “decreasing in temperature”) then fuzzy thinking / confusion by others is bound to result.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Others may have replied to your comment.
It is usual practice to consider all frequencies below 5 mu to be ‘near-IR’, i.e. of solar origin, and vice-versa.
2.7 mu is 100 % solar.
Binny you ninny – you may consider slow cooling to be heating if you wish.
You may consider that 2.7 mu radiation cannot be emitted by anything except the Sun.
You may consider yourself to be wise and powerful.
I consider you to be a deluded climate crackpot.
Consider that.
And you, Flynnson, are nothing more than an arrogant, aggressive and pretentious dumbass.
You write only irrelevant crackpottery, all the time based on one and the same rule: to discredit and denigrate instead of performing sound, intelligent and hence intelligible contradiction.
Bunny,
You havent confirmed your bizarre belief that 2.7 um radiation cannot be emitted by anything except the sun, have you?
I dont blame you. You would just be repeating fantasy, rather than fact.
Nature is contradicting you. I am just pointing out what you apparently refuse to accept.
No bizarre belief.
It’s a fact that Earth can’t be, for physical reasons you perfectly know about.
A fact that you obviously in appearance don’t accept – because you’re in this blog only to scatter, conceal, confuse, unsettle.
Though not doubting at all about many things, you are a subcutaneous supporter of all those who doubt about everything.
No one with a functioning brain would ever imagine you even remotely doubting facts like Moon’s rotation around its polar axis, time dilation, Einstein’s relativity or even black holes.
No one, Flynnson.
Bindidon, have you figured out how a bicycle pedal works yet?
The two simple analogies of the ball-on-a-string and a bicycle pedal debunk your centuries-old astrologers.
You’ll figure it out someday.
Or not….
Do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
Report.
Anybody taking notice of Wee Willy Peabrain?
He’s not even good at trolling. A moron trying to appear intelligent – fat chance.
You are, Mike.
Weepy Willard,
You have sunk so far into your fantasy that you have to claim imaginary characters – “Mike” – take notice of your opinions.
I suppose that to someone as deranged as you, being called a moron shows how clever you are at getting attention. Keep being clever.
At least it might divert attention away from the fact that you can’t produce the Greenhouse Theory you claim you have. The contents of your imagination don’t translate into reality too well, do they?
When you get tired of playing with yourself, you and Bindidon could always play with other, I guess. Tempting prospect, Willard?
Mike, Mike,
You say –
“You have sunk so far into your fantasy that you have to claim imaginary characters “Mike” take notice of your opinions.”
A couple of points, my silly sock puppets:
First, you are Mike, Mike Flynn to be precise.
Second, you respond to my comments.
Third, I could not care less what you think.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You seem to have convinced yourself that your fantasy is fact – as do all climate crackpots.
Thank God that you are quite powerless and impotent.
Otherwise, facts would become irrelevant, and opinions would carry the day.
Jonathan Swift had the same concerns when he wrote “Gulliver’s Travels”, when he described Laputa.
Nothing much has changed – some “scientists” still believe that consensus creates facts.
As to your “Mike, Mike” nonsense, maybe you are just annoyed because nobody is really interested in your opinion. You can claim that slow cooling is really heating, and people might laugh at you. You can claim that I am Mike Flynn, Napoleon, or Jesus. Don’t blame me if nobody values your opinion.
You say you don’t care what I think, and nor you should. You seem to care what Mike Flynn says, by quoting him frequently, but that is your affair.
Do as you wish, and do it frequently. The more “Oh! Oh! Oh!” moments it brings you, the better, I suppose.
Carry on.
Now Roy has updated this months full data.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-north-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Sorry
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-south-pole.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-residuals.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-residuals.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_tp.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/uah_ls.jpg
Seems it is still fluctuating around the 0.2C level. Been there since about 2017.
What is?
Not only were the four monthly ‘ncd-c’ files updated, the 2022 grid files were as well.
But the rectangular output of the lower stratosphere for March 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11YB3-nIoTN5YXAF1WfM275cLzqpI-Afa/view
still doesn’t reveal anything about Honga Tonga’s eruption at about 20S-175W, though the ash and SO2 column was over 30 km high.
Which, by the way, should be a clear indication that it hardly mattered that the eruption took place about 100 meters below the sea surface.
When will Pup take the side of his own bet with Tim?
Woolly Willard bleats plaintively again!
Nobody paying attention to you?
How sad, too bad.
Try harder.
Good morning, Mike.
Willard,
Got nothing useful to contribute, then?
Is nobody prepared to take up your offer to do a deal before you will let them look at your mythical Greenhouse Theory?
Gee. You still cant name even one person who values your opinion. Thats sad – even the nutters apparently arent paying you attention.
Oh well.
Honoring one’s bet matters to me, Mike.
What about you, silly sock puppet?
Weary Wee Willy,
Who gives a damn about what anything means to you?
Feel free to honour anything you like.
You may imagine that others will leap to do your bidding. I doubt it, because you are ineffectual and powerless, in case you hadn’t realised.
Who cares what a delusional troll thinks? Not me, but maybe you might like to nominate one of the seven plus billion people inhabiting the Earth. Provide their name, address, and email, if you are sure they won’t mind. I’ll let them know my opinion, and they can consider it if they wish.
Are you sure you are not suffering from delusions of grandeur, and imagine you are wise, powerful, and respected?
[chortle]
Still here, Mike?
Whenever you’re ready to tell us about your Isolation Effect Theory, please share.
Willard,
Still blabbering about a non-existent Isolation Effect Theory to avoid acknowledging you don’t have the Greenhouse Theory you claimed to have?
Or are you just being an idiot, and confusing an effect with a theory? You don’t know the difference, do you, not that it matters to anyone.
In any case, you have definitely placed yourself in the 50% of the population below average intelligence!
How are going, trying to avoid providing the Greenhouse Theory that doesn’t exist? It shouldn’t be too hard, should it.
C’mon Willard, dance around, madly avoiding reality. Powerless, impotent, delusional – but funny. Go for it, moron!
Too Much Play and No Work Makes Mike a Dull Sock Puppet:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
Vintage 2017.
Willard,
You are definitely in the sub-par group.
Quoting you quoting Mike Flynn (thanks for that) –
“As in, insulation reduces the rate of heat loss (in simple terms) the insulated object still cools.
You do realise that Mike Flynn wrote . . . the insulated object still cools.
No heating – cooling. Do you know the difference between the two?
In the meantime, keep quoting Mike Flynn. I dont know why you appeal to Mike Flynns authority, but keep doing it. He certainly supports me rather than you.
Carry on.
> Quoting you quoting Mike Flynn
You mean me quoting you, Mike Flynn.
No, dimwit. I mean what I mean, rather than what you want to think I mean.
But hey, who cares apart from you?
The fact is that you remain foolish enough to appeal to an authority who contradicts you. Still no GHE, is there? And you still can’t provide a Greenhouse Theory, because such a thing exists only in your twisted imagination.
So carry on with your denial of reality. Call me anything you like – it’s completely pointless isn’t it, achieving precisely nothing. Do you really think you can avoid acknowledging that your supposed Greenhouse Theory is a figment of your imagination?
Fat chance.
> I mean what I mean
Humpty Dumpty wouldn’t have said it better, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
La Nina effect
The Australia Bureau of Meteorology is projecting an intense negative phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole (-IOD) to evolve during early winter and peak in intensity during quarter 3 of 2022. The -IOD pattern will sustain the La Nina-inspired persistent upper-level low-pressure trough pattern over Southeast Australia which has caused many excessive rainfall events.
https://i.postimg.cc/KYJKffyR/14apr22-iod.png
From a Nature paper
Causes and Predictability of the Negative Indian Ocean Dipole and Its Impact on La Niña During 2016
Eun-Pa Lim, Harry H. Hendon (BoM) – 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12674-z
Abstract
” In the latter half of 2016 Indonesia and Australia experienced extreme wet conditions and East Africa suffered devastating drought, which have largely been attributed to the occurrence of strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and weak La Niña.
Here we examine the causes and predictability of the strong negative IOD and its impact on the development of La Niña in 2016.
Analysis on atmosphere and ocean reanalyses and forecast sensitivity experiments using the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s dynamical seasonal forecast system reveals that this strong negative IOD, which peaked in July-September, developed primarily by the Indian Ocean surface and subsurface conditions.
The long-term trend over the last 55 years in sea surface and subsurface temperatures, which is characterised by warming of the tropical Indian and western Pacific and cooling in the equatorial eastern Pacific, contributed positively to the extraordinary strength of this IOD.
We further show that the strong negative IOD was a key promoter of the weak La Niña of 2016. Without the remote forcing from the IOD, this weak La Niña may have been substantially weaker because of the extraordinarily long-lasting warm surface condition over the dateline from the tail end of strong El Niño of 2015–16. “
Hey look , Bidetdong is predicting La Nina in the year 2016
Hey look, Eben’s brain still unable to escape from below the belt
https://imgur.com/a/iY4YDaZ
I’m patient:
https://i.postimg.cc/0Qnv8kJD/nino34-Mon150322.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/3rj4vm2F/nino34-Mon150422.gif
Regardless how long they last: all ENSO signals have an end, and the rule will keep valid for this La Nina too.
With 22 months below the Nina treshold in MEI V2, the current Nina reaches the 2010-2012 event in size (but not at all in the monthly average, however).
*
Though all Pseudoskeptics identify positive ENSO signals with warming and vice-versa, and moreover La Nina dominates in the satellite era (especially since 1999)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12F2SO09XyelVRnCSeHF5bUKuDdd1IoNV/view
the ENSO time series does not correlate with LT let alone surface temperature measurements.
So you forecast La Nina will not last forever now, how brilliant
I don’t forecast anything, you simple-minded ignoramus.
I just express an opinion.
YOU are the one who endlessly posts NOAA forecasts as if YOU were their mental and technical origin, and not the NOAA people.
How brilliant indeed.
Binny,
You say “I just express an opinion.”
Good for you. Why do you think your opinion is superior to that of anybody else?
All the opinions in the world won’t even get you a cup of coffee, unless you add a little bit of actual money.
Some people seem to think that the past is the past, something useless, and that the best what could happen to it is to be forgotten as soon as possible.
Some think that not only the past is best when we discard it.
They even think that only the very present matters, what leads them to claim that
– if a year like 2021 shows, in UAH 6.0 LT, for 11 consecutive months temperature values less or equal than those of the year before,
– the fact that the same happened for 6 years since 1981 (followed by 1982, 1989, 1992, 1999 and 2011) doesn’t matter.
*
I have nothing in common with such an attitude.
Below we can see how the MEI index behaved since 1871 (in its V1 revision, showing a 95 % match with the current V2):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OHWgzgJgpPucSyVxd9ttbMDOD-aBziI6/view
MEI V1 stopped in Nov/Dec 2018.
Such a picture helps to put satellite-age MEI behavior into perspective: over the long term, neither La Nina let alone El Nino were dominant.
*
Nota bene
1. Who wonders about El Nino 1982/83 because nothing of it is visible within the UAH time series, must understand that this ENSO signal was completely superseded by the cooling due to the El Chichon eruption in 1982.
2. Who wonders about El Nino 1982/83 and 1997/98 having each a higher MEI value than the so-called ‘Super El Nino’ in 2015/16, but not in the smoothed NINO3+4 SST data, must also understand that MEI is much more than these SSTs:
” Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific.
These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).
These observations have been collected and published in ICOADS for many years. The MEI is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,…, Nov/Dec).
After spatially filtering the individual fields into clusters (Wolter, 1987), the MEI is calculated as the first unrotated Principal Component (PC) of all six observed fields combined.
This is accomplished by normalizing the total variance of each field first, and then performing the extraction of the first PC on the co-variance matrix of the combined fields (Wolter and Timlin, 1993).
In order to keep the MEI comparable, all seasonal values are standardized with respect to each season and to the 1950-93 reference period. “
So why is it that with all your endless babbling about the past you could not see neither of the last two La Ninas coming , What good is it for ?
I could do it and get it right without writing pages of psycho-babbling about it
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747571
More accurate ENSO 3.4
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/enso-3.4.jpeg
More accurate than what?
More accurate than your predictions
See who is the real fuckwit now
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
Could you remind of any ENSO prediction I made?
Thought not.
Who wonders about your psycho-babbling about past when all your predictions are exactly backwards and opposite to reality
We all know what the weather was yesterday
Your science is only as good as your ability to predict future results, which in your case that is zero.
Your endless dissecting of past temperatures is as useless as last week weather forecast.
Don’t try to dissimulate your own lack of science and technical skill, that is completely useless and irrelevant.
You are a first class ignoramus (exception confirming the rule: your correct understanding about Moon’s spin).
All you are able to do is
– discrediting polemics
– insults below the belt
and
– endlessly repeating NOAA’s La Nina forecast (of course as long as La Nina persists).
You can write all you want about and against me.
That does not impress me at all: you dumbie wouldn’t be able to produce by your own more than 0.01 % of what I show here.
If you are so smart why is your forecast always so wrong ?
and if I am so completely useless and irrelevant why is my forecast always right ?
For the last time: stop lying and boasting with ‘your’ forecasts.
You Eben never did forecast ANYTHING. You never would be able to do that.
You simply gullibly paste what NOAA tells you – but only when you have the impression that it fits your primitive Coolista blah blah.
When NOAA tells about temperatures increasing anywhere, you immediately discredit and denigrate what they write.
And as soon NOAA starts talking about El Nino, you suddenly will keep quite silent and wait for the next La Nina comeback.
If it is so easy , why could you not do it and keep getting it all backwards instead ?
Could it be you are just an alarmist crank stuck on warming stupid
Binny,
If you claim you are not trying to predict anything, why are you so infatuated with endlessly analysing history?
History shows what has happened, not what will happen. Might it happen again? Sure – no-one can predict the future. Some people (like climate crackpots) take refuge in weasel-words like “scenarios” or “projections” to push their forecasts of doom!
You’re a sucker. Even the IPCC admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states. You’re part of an ever decreasing group of true believers, and good luck to you!
As Thomas Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” As long as your beliefs don’t affect me physically or financially, think as you wish.
” Youre a sucker. Even the IPCC admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Youre part of an ever decreasing group of true believers, and good luck to you! ”
Completely dumb and arrogant stuff which hasn’t anything to do with this discussion, Flynnson.
Give it up, and manage to disturb other people with your endless, egomaniac blah blah.
Binny,
I’ll ask again – if you claim you are not trying to predict anything, why are you so infatuated with endlessly analysing history?
One characteristic of climate crackpots who can’t even describe their Greenhouse Effect, is to whine that anybody who doesn’t believe in the myth is dumb, arrogant, useless, irrelevant etc.
So why do you bother endlessly analysing past weather if you know the past doesn’t predict the future? Just another obsessive masochist, with a bit of sadist tossed in for good measure?
Maybe you could demand the extermination of the “untermensch”, again, if you believe that history repeats.
” Maybe you could demand the extermination of the untermensch, again, if you believe that history repeats. ”
Yeah.
Flynnson manifestly thiks he can’t write enough on this blog to give us a proof of his endless, brazen stupidity.
One more of these guys who lack a mouth to speak and hence have to use the other end.
Binny,
If you claim you are not trying to predict anything, why are you endlessly regurgitating historical weather observations?
Apart from mindlessly going on about endless brazen stupidity of anyone who has the temerity to ask you what you think you are achieving, of course.
So what are you trying to achieve? Seriously.
What I’m trying to achieve?
The impossible: getting you to stop your endless, dumb blathering.
But no chance!
All people who never have anything relevant to say urge in permanently saying something irrelevant, and of that you are the very best example.
He is desperately trying to paint over his failed predictions
Try harder Bidenito try harder
In case you missed this up-thread:
Chic: You brought me back from a mental eclipse. Thanks.
Nate: Physics proves that you are wrong. By your reasoning it would not matter whether T ramped up in half the time and stayed constant to the end or ramped up steadily from start to end. Not good. You would be ignoring feedback of/from being warmer.
That equation that you (and a lot of others) are calling CC is an approximation. Correct CC applies only at saturation and is the exact relation between volume change and enthalpy change during phase change.
Nope didnt miss it.
That CC is an approximation is true, doesnt change the fact that you are trying to testing THAT model.
(Responding to barry here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1247012)
barry, your research into this issue has a few holes in it.
* My offer was conditional on Folkerts agreeing to not comment for 90 days.
* Folkerts only agreed to not comment. He could then interpret that to mean just one comment.
* Then, he basically agreed that I had asked him to agree.
So far, he has avoided agreeing to the specific terms, TWICE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1246849
And now, he’s trying to alter his initial claims by using an imaginary object, a black body, so he can violate the laws of physics. He’s sneaky, tricky, and conniving, like all cult idiots. It’s the same as your, and Willard’s, effort here to alter the written record. Reality is not your friend.
All it would take to resolve this is a clear “yes” or “no” answer to:
Folkerts, do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?
A straight-forward “yes” or “no” is all that is needed. Your endless rambling accomplishes NOTHING except delay.
Odds are strong thats not going to happen.
> My offer was conditional on Folkerts agreeing to not comment for 90 days.
Not exactly, Pup, and by “not exactly” I mean the exact converse.
If you succeed in demonstrating.
Not if Tim stops commenting.
Yes worthless Willard, you have NOTHING.
Thanks for confirming your worthlessness again.
That’s not worthlessness, Pup.
Here’s worthlessness:
[PUP] I’ll explain it to you if you agree to not comment here for 90 days.
[TIM] I would happily not comment if you could correctly explain about ice and 315 W/m^2 and irradiance and radiant exitance and 325 K. Go for it.
[PUP] My offer was conditional on Tim agreeing to not comment for 90 days. Tim, do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, if I explain why you’re so wrong?
4 minutes response time, that’s great worthless Willard.
You’re a great stalker. You’ve got NOTHING of value, but you troll here anyway.
Thanks for confirming your worthlessness, again.
Hey, Pup.
The explanation you promised.
Where is it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“And now, hes trying to alter his initial claims by using an imaginary object, a blackbody”
The ONLY way to get 315 W/m^2 from a surface at 273 K is to assume it is a blackbody! The emissivity must be = 1 (ie a blackbody) to get that value. So we have both been assuming a black body this whole discussion!
The fact that he don’t recognize this speaks volumes! He thinks that his own calculations are a ‘sneaky trick’.
******************************
So, as near as I can tell, this is what Clint is going to explain. “The issue is Folkerts bogus claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. That nonsense would then mean that 4 ice cubes could boil water.”
So he needs to show what actually claimed, that my claims are indeed “bogus”, and that my claims would would lead to ice cubes boiling water.
If he can correctly do this, then, yes I will stop posting for 90 days.
Folkerts, if you ever make a comment without a misrepresentation or false accusation, I’ll be amazed.
When I use an emissivity of 1.0, for an example, that does NOT violate any law of physics. When you claim that a “black body” MUST absorb every photon, THAT violates physics.
Your cult perverts physics. Quit trying to include me in your cult.
“When I use an emissivity of 1.0, for an example, that does NOT violate any law of physics. When you claim that a black body MUST absorb every photon, THAT violates physics.”
The definition of emissivity = 1.0 is that it perfectly absorbs and emits light. The definition of emissivity = 1.0 is a black body!
Tim,
You do realise that an ideal black body is an imaginary object? You might like to consider that an imaginary body absorbing say 1 megawatt/m2, may also be emitting an imaginary 1 W/m2, if you wish.
Seriously.
The object is imaginary. It has imaginary properties, and impossible specifications.
Maybe you could demonstrate the ability of CO2 to raise a thermometer’s temperature, if you truly believe the nonsense you spout.
Mike Flynn,
You do realize that it is Pup who said “When I use an emissivity of 1.0”?
In fairness, sock puppets are quite imaginary!
You don’t seem to understand the difference between “imaginary” and “idealized”.
Willard, Tim, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkertd,
Good attempt at diversion.
Try ice emitting 300 W/m2. Or whatever you measure ice emitting.
Now convince anybody that you can use more square meters of ice to make something hotter than the hottest ice in your collection.
If you do manage to convince someone that this is possible, they are either extremely stupid, highly susceptible to persuasion, or climate crackpots like yourself.
If you are stupid enough to believe that fluxes in general are additive, then you might also be silly enough to believe NASA’s “energy balance” malarkey, where some idiots believe that the same radiative intensity from ice (say 300 W/m2) has the same properties as that same flux intensity composed of sunlight, emitted by a surface of 5500 K or so.
Just complete and utter delusional nonsense. For example, at this moment, according to the Australian BOM, areas receiving less solar insolation in W/m2 than that emitted by ice (obviously below freezing) are experiencing daytime temperatures up to 27 C, with minima of 8 C.
This demonstrates the illusional nature of pretending that flux intensities are meaningful in relation to temperatures.
Feel free to check my mental calculations of the relevant ice emission – 12 hours, against average measured insolation. It doesn’t matter. You can start a fire with sunlight and a magnifying glass in below freezing conditions. You can even do it with a lens made of ice, if you have a mind to try it!
Try doing it at night using 340 W/m2 of “back radiation” (according to some nitwit at NASA)! That’s even more than you get from ice! Accept reality.
“Now convince anybody that you can use more square meters of ice to make something hotter than the hottest ice in your collection.”
Why should I try to convince people of something I know to be impossible? Nothing I have said (and nothing in radiative physics) should lead anyone to this conclusion!
Fluxes arriving at a surface are additive. If one sun beam provides 500 W/m^2 to a surface and a second sun beam independently provides another 500 W/m^2, the surface receives 1000 W/m^2. If one ice cube provides 50 W/m^2 to a surface and a second ice cube independently provides another 50 W/m^2, the surface receives 100 W/m^2.
Easy peasy.
Tim,
A “sun beam”? A second “sun beam”? Add a couple of “ice beams”.
What is the temperature of a thermometer exposed to such a combination? Don’t know?
You see why I poke fun at your fantasies from time to time.
I assume you are trying to justify some GHE which you cannot even describe!
Rather like the non-existent instrument you would use to measure your “sun beam” energy – and “ice beam” energy (together, of course), seeing as how light is light, regardless of frequency.
If you have anything more than the contents of your imagination to back up your claims of some effect you cannot actually quantify – for example, how big is a “sun beam”? What is its temperature?
Accept reality, Tim. Semantic games cannot make thermometers hotter. Neither can increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“What is the temperature of a thermometer exposed to such a combination? Dont know?”
The temperature depends on any number of factors! Ambient air (if present). The color of the thermometer. the emissivity. Do you need a lesson?
“A sun beam?
Any 5 year old knows what a sunbeam is. They can be any size. And their temperature is the temperature of the sun. So about 5800 K.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Folkerts has agreed to it multiple times.
And you have clearly proceeded on that basis.
You’ve stalled with questions and quibbling about the agreement for 4 days now. I think you’re trying to find a way out of the dispute.
It would be hugely in your favour if you right now explained Folkert’s point of disagreement with you (*the difference regarding flux at source and receiving surface), and then explained why the view is wrong, in clear terms, no rhetoric. Even more impressive if you corroborate with credible links.
Here’s a deal for you. If you successfully do that – post no rhetoric, but instead a cogent reply to what Folkert’s is actually saying (and not some straw man) regarding fluxes from source/receiving surface, and provide a link that supports your contention on that specific point….
I will stop commenting here for 60 days, even if I think your argument is flawed.
All you have to do is avoid snark, answer the *point directly, and furnish a link from a physics textbook or other reputable source (I’ll accept thermopedia, for example) that actually supports your rebuttal.
Stay tuned, barry, barry, quite contrary.
barry, notice that you favor your beliefs over reality. Folkerts hasn’t “agreed to it multiple times”. He’s only finally agreed once. Before that, he was waffling, as I’ve pointed out. It’s just as you waffle now.
You say you will not comment for 60 days, but you make a requirement that can not be met. You want a link “that supports” my contention that ice cubes can NOT boil water. But, no such link would exist. No one needs to state that nonsense is nonsense. You would have to understand the science, which you don’t.
So you and Folkerts plan to weasel out of any agreement, regardless of how well I present the proofs. I know that. Your beliefs are more important to you than reality. I just want as much evidence of how your cult works, as I can get. It might make a good book, someday. What I will provide is enough evidence and proof that a responsible adult can figure it out.
Don’t know when I will have time to put something together, but hopefully by next weekend. As I stated, stay tuned….
> So you and Folkerts plan to weasel out of any agreement
Look who’s projecting his own stalling.
Well, it’s actually Folkert’s plan.
I just predict the future….
Tim’s plan isn’t to make you stall, Pup. It’s to call your bluff. Everyone who read Roy’s should know by now that you’re bluffing, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-375071
Vintage 2019-07.
Oh, and notice the handle, silly sock puppet you.
Interesting find. bobdroege is still around and is still trying to protect the cult. Just recently he claimed that a bicycle pedal does NOT rotate!
Anything to protect the cult. Reality matters not.
Here’s you stalling once again, Pup:
Vintage 2019-03.
You were offering that to Tim, BTW. His response? The same as now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346012
Silly sock puppet.
The “plates” discussion was before my time, but I see Folkerts was using his tricks even then. One commenter straightened him out:
That’s tricky, but tricks and deception do not change reality. For REAL plates, in the scenario here, the energy flows do not work out because the equation used is BOGUS.
Learn some physics, and clean up your act. Clowns use tricks.
I would probably have used “cult idiots”, instead of “clowns”, but close enough.
Keep dodging, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/the-snow-hits-the-fan-on-saturday-global-warming-alarmism-to-follow/#comment-1151314
Vintage 2022-01.
Something tells me that the sock puppet hath no clothes.
Yes, Norman uses several different aliases.
But you left out the rest of my quote: “But your desire to troll exceeds your interest in learning.”
Tsk, tsk.
Norman, Norma, Lori, Nomran, never took me up on my offer. Like all cult idiots, he’s adverse to learning.
No, Pup. Norma sometimes forgets to change his name. Happens to Richard too.
You, OTOH, just denied being JDH.
That’s, like, lame.
You’re 4 hours late, Worthless. You can’t even stalk competently.
We need some better stalkers.
Hey, Pup.
Where’s the explanation you promised to Tim?
You’re still 3 hours late, worthless. That’s pathetic for a full-time stalker.
Work on it.
Almost a week and still no explanation, Pup.
As expected.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint,
This is the deal you offered:
“Folkerts, have you figured out why your ‘two lightbulbs’ response was so stupid, yet?
No, because you dont have a clue about radiative physics.
I’ll explain it to you if you agree to not comment here for 90 days.”
You don’t need a reference about ice cubes to do that.
What you need is a reference supporting the notion that radiation arriving at a blackbody surface from two independent sources can’t ever be summed in any way to account for the total flux arriving at the surface.
THAT is the nub of your contention, and that is what Tim is trying to get you to explain while you stall for days, and now, it seems, weeks.
barry, you’re NOT going to accept anything that is contrary to your cult beliefs.
Why kid yourself?
Our little sock puppet is getting high on copium.
“Stay tuned, barry”
I have a picture of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
Willard, barry, please stop trolling.
“barry, youre NOT going to accept anything that is contrary to your cult beliefs.”
Just waiting to see you make an honest attempt.
As I said, if you answer what’s actually under contention (and no BS deflection), and supply a link from a reputable source to corroborate it, then off I go for 60 days. Even if I think your argument is flawed.
If you simply repeat “two ice cubes cannot boil water,” that will simply be repetition and not remotely answering the challenge.
You ridiculed Tim for saying that a surface WILL receive extra, added flux from another lightbulb. And you promised to explain why that’s bogus.
That’s the heart of the contention. That’s all you have to explain – with a link.
At the end of the weekend we’ll find out if you’re honest or full of it.
Correct barry, you’re not going to accept anything contrary to your cult beliefs.
Still no explanation, Pup.
Sad.
As I said,
“…if you answer whats actually under contention (and no BS deflection), and supply a link from a reputable source to corroborate it, then off I go for 60 days. Even if I think your argument is flawed.”
You’re clearly trying to wriggle out of it, but for the record all I’m looking for is an honest attempt from you to respond to Tim, that actually answers his challenge and your own promise to explain why 2 light bulbs don’t add more flux to a receiving surface than one lightbulb. That would surprise me enough to go quiet for 2 months.
Regardless of whether I think your argument stacks up.
This would be easy for a straight shooter.
barry, Willard, please stop trolling.
So there you have it , it’s official , La Nina rain is caused by CO2
https://youtu.be/PE7BwFdECf4
I LOVE these photos showing big, bigger, biggest cooling towers in power plants! Above all, of course, those of the nuclear power plants.
You can be 101% sure: maximum 0% water vapour, minimum 100% CO2, believe me!
Binny,
Not sure what you are claiming, but you do realise that burning hydrocarbon fossil fuels results in H2O and CO2 at a minimum?
I’m also not sure why you think cooling towers for nuclear plants have anything to do with CO2.
Also, 100% is a maximum. It is short for parts per hundred – all the parts involved cannot exceed 100, unless you are American or a climate crank, or both.
Carry on being delusional.
Flynnson is stoopid to such an extent that he doesn’t even manage to understand half a bit of irony.
But his urge in replying deepest nonsense is phenomenal, too.
Swenson,
I agree 110%!
It seems that you too didn’t understand what I wrote, did you?
What is there to understand in your word salad babblings you keep typing in here , it doesn’t make any sense to anybody
You should let Chic Bowdrie answer if he feels the need to do.
What you little polemist do mean about me is absolutely uninteresting.
Binny,
It seems more likely that you didn’t understand what you wrote.
Can you provide any evidence to the contrary, or are you just going to whine that you don’t care whether anyone understands you or not, because nobody is as clever as you?
Or are you really not very clever at all?
Only you know, of course, and you don’t have to tell anyone, do you?
No wonder you think people don’t understand you!
Bindidon,
I took advantage of the opportunity to use a double entendre. While agreeing with Swenson that I didn’t know what you were claiming, I sarcastically embellished your 101% surety.
Bindidong’s “La Nina gone by April” forecast fail update
Southern Oscillation Index has been cranking up, La Nina is about to drop to the lowest level since it started
https://i.postimg.cc/c1wxcqb7/Clipboard01.jpg
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2022-la-ni%C3%B1a-update-measuring
https://www.climate.gov/media/14393
Tim Folkerts made the following responses to a couple of questions I asked –
What is the temperature of a thermometer exposed to such a combination? Dont know?
Tim – “The temperature depends on any number of factors! Ambient air (if present). The color of the thermometer. the emissivity. Do you need a lesson?”
Tim avoids the question about what temperature would result from adding fluxes from a sunbeam and an icebeam. He babbles about the colour of the thermometer, its emissivity. Unfortunately, the specifications for the old mercury in glass thermometers contained no such specifications – but people like Tim happily accepted the temperature shown for their mad GHE purposes!
In other words, Tim avoids having to justify his stupidity about adding fluxes where the emitters are different in temperature.
A sun beam?
Tim – “Any 5 year old knows what a sunbeam is. They can be any size. And their temperature is the temperature of the sun. So about 5800 K.”
As to sun beams –
Now Tim didnt tell me that a 5 year old knows what an ice beam is. This is because Tim hopes that nobody will notice that his delusion that fluxes from objects of different temperatures can somehow be meaningfully added, is quite nonsensical.
In any case, Tim seems quite nonplussed about the fluxes from two sun beams (which he said can be any size!), but does seem to acknowledge that regardless of size, and therefore total energy, the maximum temperature of any number of sunbeams cannot exceed the temperature of the objecting emitting the flux, no matter how much there is, nor how many gigawatts per square millimetre there are!
Tim is ignorant, but cannot bring himself to admit it. If he did, he would have to admit that the basis of his religious belief, the existence of a GHE, is a nonsense.
“Tim avoids the question about what temperature would result from adding fluxes from a sunbeam and an icebeam.”
Its not my job to answer every stray question. But with a few simple assumptions, even you should be able to answer this one. (Of course, now you will object to the assumptions!)
Assume no conductive or convective loses. Assume an albedo of “a” for 500 W/m^2 irradiance of sunlight and an emissivity of “e” for 50 W/m^2 irradiance of thermal IR. Then it is trivial to show the temperature (in Kelvin) will be
T = { [(1-a)(500) + 50e]/(sigma*e)]^0.25
Why didn’t you just post that result? It took someone ‘ignorant’ like me to explain it to someone as ‘brilliant’ as you, apparently.
“Tim seems quite nonplussed about … the maximum temperature of any number of sunbeams cannot exceed the temperature of the objecting emitting the flux”
Nope — not nonplussed at all. I have said that very specifically several times in this thread. It was even in the very post you quoted! “And their temperature is the temperature of the sun.”
It seems you need to work on both reading and science skills.
Tim,
You have “explained” nothing. As you suggest, your assumptions have nothing to do with reality. Presumably, you are trying to convince somebody that you can add icebeams to sunbeams to make water hotter than sunbeams alone can!
Nope. No amount of flux from icebeams can raise the temperature of sunbeam heated water.
No amount of flux from CO2 beams below the temperature of the water can raise the temperature of sunbeam heated water.
No amount of flux from CO2 which is below the temperature of the surface can raise the temperature of the surface heated by sunlight.
You remain ignorant – and delusional. You can’t even describe the GHE in which you believe.
Give it a try. My reading skills seem fine. My knowledge of physics, and science in general! Is obviously superior to yours. I don’t need analogies, or imaginary scenarios involving impossible assumptions to support anything. Facts and known physical laws are sufficient for me.
“Presumably, you are trying to convince somebody that you can add icebeams to sunbeams to make water hotter than sunbeams alone can!”
Where do YOU think the energy goes when photons from ice hit a surface that is warmer than 0 C? Do they just bounce off? Do they disappear? Do we just erase the “+50e” from the equation above?
Folkerts, you continue to display your ignorance of radiative physics. Where do the reflected photons go? Your question is sooooo revealing. You don’t understand any of this.
Where do the reflected photons go when you turn the light off in a sealed dark room?
You know nothing about this subject, you can’t learn, and you can’t think for yourself. You’re braindead.
Tim Folkerts,
Admit you don’t know the answers to the questions you pose, and that you are not just asking gotchas, and I will give you the answers.
In the meantime, don’t blame me for your ignorance.
I love these Flynnsonian dodgings like
” … and I will give you the answers. ”
As if he would ever be able to give an answer to any scientific question!
*
And, concerning:
” My knowledge of physics, and science in general! Is obviously superior to yours. ”
I’m 100% sure everybody understands that Flynnson is an arrogant boaster who hasn’t any real knowledge about whatever.
All he is able to is to blather, blather and blather, like in:
” Do you think that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? ”
or, even better, finest single malt thought:
” Earth is cooling from the molten state since 4.5 billion years. ”
Flynnson’s knowledge at its best…
Bindidon,
Im 100% sure that NOT everybody thinks that Swenson is an arrogant boaster who hasnt any real knowledge about whatever.
Why don’t you admit that you don’t know the answers to Tim’s questions and ask for the answers?
Bowdrie
1. ” Im 100% sure that NOT everybody thinks that Swenson is an arrogant boaster who hasnt any real knowledge about whatever. ”
If you had – like I did – followed, in this blog, all the nonsense written by Swenson since years (including his earlier appearances under nicknames ‘Amazed’ and especially ‘Mike Flynn’ he is brazen enough to deny), then maybe I would consider your answer.
I don’t.
*
2. ” Why dont you admit that you dont know the answers to Tims questions and ask for the answers? ”
That, Bowdrie, isn’t the point here.
The point that you naively try to dissimulate is that Tim Folkerts asked for meaningful things that neither Swenson – let alone Clint R – would ever be able to correctly, accurately answer, and therefore keep in dumb, nonsensical polemic.
Maybe that is exactly what you appreciate.
I don’t.
*
The fact that I personally don’t contribute to a discussion permanently, intentionally and deliberately distorted by people like Swenson, Clint R, Robertson and a few others (maybe you as well) is here completely irrelevant.
Bindidon absolutely refuses to accept that I can answer Tim Folkerts’ supposed “questions”.
He even quotes facts that I have stated in the past, desperately hoping that others will join him in denying what is experimentally demonstrable in the case of CO2, and supported by current knowledge in the case of the Earth having cooled from a much hotter state (and continuing to do so, with even mantle temperatures above red heat.
Whether Tim Folkerts has posed his questions in good faith or not, I do not know. I assume he is really looking for argument rather than knowledge, which is why I asked him to admit his ignorance. Maybe he will, and maybe he won’t.
All the same to me.
In the meantime, let Tim and Binny fondly imagine they can make a bowl of water, sitting in the Sun, even hotter by adding the radiation emitted by ice. They might also like to imagine they can usefully describe their GHE. Imagination is a marvellous thing. Experiment shows whether imagination translates to reality.
In the case of quantum electrodynamics, it is supported by reproducible experiments which defy common sense, and make a mockery of classical physics in many instances. Wave particle duality, non-locality, and virtual particles are just three examples of the weird, but very real aspects of the universe at its roots.
Climate crackpots can reject reality. Reality doesn’t care.
Bindidon, you’re sure quick with the false accusations. That’s because you don’t understand any of the science.
We’ll see what other false accusations you come up with when I debunk the Folkerts nonsense.
Again and again, Swenson’s blah blah made out of the typical phraseology:
” In the case of quantum electrodynamics, it is supported by reproducible experiments which defy common sense, and make a mockery of classical physics in many instances. Wave particle duality, non-locality, and virtual particles are just three examples of the weird, but very real aspects of the universe at its roots. ”
All that is intended to impress but merely shows the trial to divert, confuse with small text pieces looking very knowledgeable at a first glance, but in fact showing an amazing degree of generality.
In my native tongue this is named ‘jeter de la poudre aux yeux’.
No scientific contradiction anywhere: only pseudoscientific denigration, like in
” In the meantime, let Tim and Binny fondly imagine they can make a bowl of water, sitting in the Sun, even hotter by adding the radiation emitted by ice. ”
Sometimes spiced with a bit of Tyndall here, another bit of Lindzen there, and that’s all.
Try to impress others, Flynnson.
You are, for example, best when trying to do as if you would deny scientific evidence like the lunar spin, or the need to cope with relativistic matters when engineering GPS.
Oh, are you good in that! Much appreciated.
Binny,
And yet, neither you nor Tim can explain where the photons from ice go. Or those from any cold object surrounded by a warmer environment. I offered to answer Tim’s questions – all he has to do is admit he is clueless, and graciously accept my answer as authoritative.
He has obviously looked at information available on the internet, but either cannot find an answer there, or can’t understand it.
If you want to reject the apparent reality of quantum electrodynamics, go ahead.
I don’t believe I have ever quoted Lindzen (whoever he is), nor disputed the need to take relativistic effects into account to synchronise time between satellite clocks and those in a stronger gravitational field (simplified).
You just make stuff up – or less politely, lie through your teeth.
As to scientific contradiction, what are you babbling about? You climate nitwits can’t even describe the GHE in any remotely scientific way – nothing to contradict, is there?
Your endless reanalysis of past weather records seems quite pointless, but could be done by a reasonably competent 12 year old in any case. Science? Really?
[laughs]
Where does the energy go when photons from ice hit a surface that is warmer than 0 C, Mike?
Willard,
You asked –
“Where does the energy go when photons from ice hit a surface that is warmer than 0 C, Mike?”
Admit that you don’t know the answer, can’t find a useful explanation on the internet, and that you will accept my explanation without reservation (because you have, admitted that you are abysmally ignorant of the reality), and I will give you the answer.
Obviously, because you are not actually interested in reality, the last thing you will admit is your ignorance.
Maybe somebody will be stupid enough to think you know the answer to your gotcha, but of course you don’t, and you can’t admit that you are ignorant.
Anybody with experience of reality will realise that putting ice in your hot beverage won’t make it hotter. You can’t even explain that, can you, moron?
Mike Flynn,
Here goes –
I admit I have no idea where you think the energy goes when photons from ice hit a surface that is warmer than 0C.
Cheers.
Willard,
Keep trolling with your gotchas. At least some of the morons will believe that water can be boiled using ice, and that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!
No wonder the tribe of GHE cultists is dwindling.
How is your search for the Greenhouse Theory going? Not well?
You idiot!
Mike, Mike
Let’s clarify something –
You’re the troll here.
In fact you’re a sock puppet troll.
Not the kind that teh ZZs are spawning on the interwebs.
But not far from it.
For starters, they are being paid.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here is a simple ‘quiz’ in the style of Clint, except I won’t drag it out one question at a time. Any one who wants can play, but if you don’t play, you don’t get to comment. Also, if you can, please be civil — no name-calling or off-topic rants.
[Oh, and Clint may only answer “a” or “b”, since that is how he thinks these things should go.]
Suppose I have a set of identical small electric heating pads with a constant electrical input (for the sake of argument let’s say 100 W, and a total surface area of 0.2 m^2). I put each in a different container. (Assume the heating pads are suspended and there is no air in the containers so we can eliminate conduction and convection from our considerations).
Container 1: Walls @ -78 C (cooled by dry ice).
Container 2: Walls @ 0 C (cooled by normal ice).
Container 3: Walls @ 20 C (room temperature).
Container 4: Walls @ 50 C (warmed with hot water).
Q1. If the power is turned OFF to the heating pads and we wait a bit and then measure their temperatures:
a) all will be the same temperature as each other
b) the temperatures will be ranked 1 2 3 4 (lowest to highest)
Q2: If the power is turned ON to the heating pads and we wait a bit and then measure their temperatures:
a) all will be the same temperature as each other (but warmer than Q1)
b) the temperatures will be ranked 1 2 3 4 (the same values as in Q1)
c) the temperatures will be ranked 1 2 3 4 (but all warmer than in Q1)
Q3: If the electrical power is turned off, but 200 W of power is instead absorbed from lasers aimed through small holes in the walls, how do your answers change?
a) the same answer as in Q2.
b) a different answer than in Q2.
Q3 should be “100 W” — the same as the electrical heater.
Tim,
Off with the fairies again? More imaginary scenarios?
Presumably, you are trying to support the GHE which you can’t even describe.
You are a moron. Wait long enough, and everything in your system will be at precisely the same temperature, you fool! Even climate crackpots are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
Imaginary lasers, unspecified temperature imaginary heat sources – you can’t help yourself, can you?
How are you going with making water warmer by adding the flux from ice to flux from the Sun?
You are an idiot, but at least a harmless one. I would be very surprised if you could name even one person who would listen to someone like you – who demands answers, and then refuses to listen to them!
You have no clue. Take it from me, you can’t heat water with the radiation from ice, and you can’t heat the Earth’s surface with a colder atmosphere. Even the Sun, at a temperature of some 5800 K, cannot add sufficient heat to the surface to raise it to even 373 K.
It’s called reality.
Tim,
In a fit of delusional grandeur, you wrote –
“Any one who wants can play, but if you dont play, you dont get to comment.”
Really? And how does that work?
Maybe you have forgotten that you are impotent and powerless in determining who gets to comment.
Pretentious moron.
Still here, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Folkerts, as Swenson has already pointed out, your scenario is poorly described. Maybe you have some “gotcha” planned. I’ll answer based on reasonable and responsible assumptions, for example, I assume your “wait a bit” means when each container is “stable” that is, temperatures are not changing.
I have no problem giving a direct answer. I don’t have any need to twist, spin, distort. You should try it.
Q1. b
Q2. c
Q3. a
This appears to be another of your distractions, since it has nothing to do with your bogus idea that ice cubes can boil water.
Clint R just doesn’t understand the blog experiments that show ice cubes can boil water. Clint R simply has Clint’s own made up belief system unsupported by any experiment at all which Clint demonstrates repeatedly. Time to head into the lab Clint.
B4,
You wrote –
“Clint R just doesnt understand the blog experiments that show ice cubes can boil water.”
Not surprising. Any experiments which show water being boiled by ice exist only in someone’s fantasy. You just don’t accept reality because you suffer from a mental defect.
Go, boy! Boil me up some bacons and some beans! Heat up the cabin while you’re at it!
Plenty of snow outside, and the lake’s frozen over – plenty of ice too.
How come the ice isn’t boiling the water underneath it? Not enough climatological magic to go round, I guess.
Moron.
Nope, no fantasy or magic Swenson, the experiments were done with photos and data loggers right here on this blog & are thus replicable. Swenson can’t even find the defn. of the GHE let alone understand the experimental evidence.
B4,
You can’t actually find any experiments done with photos and dataloggers showing that ice cubes can boil water, because your fantasy is not reality.
The reason I can’t find a useful definition of the GHE, is because it doesnt exist.
The reason you can’t provide a useful definition of the GHE is because it doesn’t exist.
You are not just a moron, you are delusional as well.
Carry on.
The useful GHE definitions do exist as well the blog experimental results showing added thermodynamic internal energy from ice cubes can raise the temperature of water so Swenson is just not accomplished in physics or search engines well enough to find them.
Pity but understandable.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Now that DREMT has started trolling again, please stop trolling DREMT and add substance in comments or, if no substance in comments, thanks for completely agreeing with my 4/20/2022 5:28 pm comment.
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
So … 500 W/n^2 of electrical heating (or radiative heating) is NOT sufficient to determine the temperature. We have to ADD THE FLUX from the cooler surroundings in order to determine the temperature.
A tiny flux from dry ice has a tiny affect. Adding more flux from ice increases the temperature more. In the case of ice, we would have 500 W/m^2 of flux (from lasers, but sunlight would work too) + 315 W/m2 from ice-cold walls, giving 815 W/m^2, putting the heating pad at 346 K. And only 306 K without any flux from the walls.
Flux from cold ice helps raise the temperature higher than flux from a laser or from sunlight alone.
Another good one, Folkerts — pure nonsense.
But, I borrowed another quote for my upcoming debunking: “Flux from cold ice helps raise the temperature higher than flux from a laser or from sunlight alone.”
And, if it’s not hot enough, add more ice!
You have NO idea what you’re talking about.
Clint R is all assertion and no experiment. Experimental results on this blog show Clint’s assertions are simply wrong.
B4,
A pity you cannot convert the contents of your seething malodorous imagination into reality the, isn’t it?
Dimwit.
Their “converted into reality” has already been reliably accomplished Swenson, you just need to learn how to find & understand reality using something called a “search engine”.
Pity Swenson seems so lost avoiding the facts.
B4,
No point obeying your commands. If adding ice to water made it hotter, I’m sure someone would be trying to sell me an ice powered heater by now.
Alas, no such thing exists.
Carry on with expounding your nonsense.
Someone even more detached from reality might believe you.
Adding ice water to tap water decreases the water’s thermodynamic internal energy Swenson, so of course the tap water cools – that’s the 1LOT.
But there exists added atm. ice that can INCREASE thermodynamic internal energy of surface water as proven by thermometer readings reported right on this very blog! Swenson is just behind in learning. Pity.
Tim,
You are certifiable. You seem to be claiming that surrounding a bowl of water in the Sun with a quantity of ice will increase its temperature. Quite mad.
You have previously stated that even giant, humongous, multitudinous sunbeams at the same temperature of 5800 K cannot raise the temperature of a bowl of water in the Sun to even boiling temperature! And you expect that adding ice in any way, shape, or form will increase the temperature of water heated by the Sun? Or anything else for that matter.
You asked me some questions relating to where the photons from ice go. Just admit your total abysmal ignorance, and that you cannot find an answer anywhere else, and I will provide answers to your questions.
You think you know, don’t you?
Moron.
“You seem to be claiming that surrounding a bowl of water in the Sun with a quantity of ice will increase its temperature. Quite mad.”
It’s not a claim Swenson, there are experiments showing such & it’s even been done at night! Reported right on this blog!
Now Ball4 has Sun shining at night!
It’s amazing what this idiot will try to get away with.
And Norman idolizes him….
B4,
No, a bowl of water is not warmed by the sun at night.
So anybody claiming that ice will warm water heated by the sun at night is off with the fairies.
You are a delusional moron.
Nope, Swenson the sun is “on” continuously, the sun does not turn off at night. Even the atm. icy clouds can increase the temperature of surface water at night as proven by the experiments reported on this blog that Swenson always simply ignores.
Another defeat for ill-informed Swenson who has no experimental evidence supporting comment assertions.
Tim,
You are an idiot.
You wrote –
“In the case of ice, we would have 500 W/m^2 of flux (from lasers, but sunlight would work too) + 315 W/m2 from ice-cold walls, giving 815 W/m^2, putting the heating pad at 346 K. And only 306 K without any flux from the walls.”
Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it?
Give it a try. As to your sunlight, I might previously have provided some radiation measurements of sunlight fluxes less than 500 W/m2, resulting in air temperatures of 25 C.
You believe throwing ice around will result in higher temperatures?
Dimwit.
It’s not a belief when there are experimental results showing throwing ice around will result in higher temperatures. It’s only a belief by Swenson to the contrary. Swenson has no experimental results, just bluster & belief. Pity.
B4,
Aaaah!
These would be the non-existent experimental results that you can’t actually produce, would they? Maybe they are hiding behind the GHE description which you also can’t produce, do you think?
How are you going with trying to patent your ice powered heater? Got laughed out of the Patent Office, did you?
Try a perpetual motion machine using the magical powers of CO2, instead.
[snigger]
I’ve repeatedly produced the experiments Swenson apparently you can’t pay attention & if you knew what a “search engine” was (and even elementary school students know how to use a search engine) then you could find them too right on this blog!
Sorry to burst your bubble Swenson, but there is no perpetual motion or actual magical powers needed, just plain old fashioned, real, & replicable experimental evidence.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“I’ve repeatedly produced the experiments Swenson apparently you can’t pay attention & if you knew what a “search engine” was (and even elementary school students know how to use a . . . ”
No, you have repeatedly wasted time trying to convince people that experiments exist showing that water can be boiled using the radiated energy from ice.
You haven’t produced “the experiments” at all. That’s because they don’t exist, you donkey!
Carry on braying. Maybe someone will think a tune is coming out of your cake hole, but only if they are suffering from severe mental retardation.
Figuring out a simple search engine to find the relevant blog experimental results is demonstrated way, way beyond Swenson’s meager abilities. Swenson has a lot to learn about atm. thermodynamics from those experiments.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
Figuring out a simple search engine to find the relevant blog experimental results is demonstrated way, way beyond Swensons meager abilities. Swenson has a lot to learn about atm. thermodynamics from those experiments.
——————-
Ball4 claiming he is unable to figure out a simple search engine responds to Swenson’s challenge to produce evidence with an ad hominem.
Did somebody say La Nina gone by April ???
People are starting to notice La Nina didn’t disappear
https://youtu.be/kIAZWUvej-o
https://youtu.be/tPfZBkyE8Tg?t=226
Where were you when Slavatore, Scott R, Samurai and others here made predictions that went wrong. Oh, those were the days, Salvatore perennially wrong about cooling just around the corner. He did that from 2010 to only last year. I don’t remember you banging on about that.
Did Bindi hurt your feelings or something?
I yea, it was Binbidong, now I remember, He will be giving us a report how he did the best work on forecasting any day now
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1098140
Guess I’ll have to show Clint how it’s done.
Evidence from reputable sources that energy is exchanged between two objects at different temperatures, starting with the originator of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, Rudolf Clausius:
<b>THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT</b>
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
"…Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course <b>well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot</b>; nevertheless, the general result of this <b>simultaneous double heat exchange</b> always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter."
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317/mode/2up
P. 295
But Clausius doesn’t only say that in this chapter of his opus. Here again in his 4th memoir:
"In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that <i><b>in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by</b> conduction and <b>radiation</b>, the <b>warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it</b></i>."
Rudolf Clausius: 4th Memoir
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152
There is zero doubt Clausius is talking about radiation being exchanged between two bodies of different temperature.
You can say that Clausius is wrong, if you care to do that, but his meaning is not opaque in the least. Mutual double heat exchange…. interchange of heat between two bodies by radiation (and conduction).
Now, can you find a reputable source in the modern era alluding to this? Certainly.
Here are some equations from MIT regarding radiative transfer between two planar sources:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
And on the next page, direct mention of two planar surfaces of different temperatures exchanging energy:
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures.”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
You can check the equations there. As an added bonus you will find that the NET transfer is deduced by, among other things, summing the fluxes!
“The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 [a]. The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is [b]. The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is [c]”
You can see the actual equations at the link – this website will trash them here, of course.
MIT agrees with Clausius that energy from each body at different temperatures as absorbed by each body.
A few here insist that the warmer body CANNOT absorb energy from the cooler body.
Don’t bother contending with me about it. I refer you to Clausius and MIT.
Are they wrong?
If anyone disagrees with Clausius and MIT, let them explain why.
barry, first you have to overcome your false beliefs. You are convinced that ice cubes can boil water. You won’t admit that, because inside you know it’s stupid. But, you really want it to be true so it will support your false beliefs. That’s why you search the Internet for things you can twist to fit your beliefs.
Notice you didn’t find any links to support ice cubes can boil water….
You can’t learn if you avoid reality. That’s why I know you won’t abide by your agreement.
barry,
Clausius was wrong, if you think he said that ice can be used to boil water.
Why am I right? Because until somebody performs a reproducible experiment demonstrating that water can be boiled with ice, it obviously hasnt been done. Speculation is one thing, but reality may be quite another.
You are a delusional dimwit if you think either Clausius or MIT have managed to boil water using ice.
Or, indeed, managed to raise the temperature of anything with the radiation of something cooler. And no, using hidden heat sources doesnt count! Anybody who tries that – Tim Folkerts, for example, is just stupid.
Off you go now, try and claim that Clausius or MIT or anybody else has demonstrated (not just asserted like mad GHE cultists), that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer causes the temperature to become hotter.
You idiot, even NASA knows that only about 70% of solar radiation actually reaches the surface. Nutters insist that this creates global warming! What a pack of fools.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Accept reality – or keep looking like a delusional climate nutter. Your choice.
Clint,
There is Clausius and MIT, as quoted. You can check the links.
This is the evidence. This is what you won’t face.
Same goes for you, Swenson.
You can either deal with what Clausius and MIT have said. Or you can avoid it.
You’ll avoid it of course. You’ll talk about ice cubes. Anything to avoid confronting what the inventor of the second law has said right there in quotes, corroborated by MIT, that negates what you espouse.
Warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects. It’s quoted there in black and white. Why do you think Clausius and MIT are wrong about that?
“Warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects…”
…which does not cause warming of the warmer object.
…which comment violates 1LOT 6:45 am thus DREMT has lost again since 1LOT is a law. NB: DREMT has no experiment agreeing with his comment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1241779
“Warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects…”
‘…which does not cause warming of the warmer object.’
Almost exactly right, DREMT!
“in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
R. Clausius
Translation: there is a mutual double exchange of ‘heat’ [radiation] between the 2 bodies, but the NET flow of heat energy is always hot to cold.
Recalling past conversation of ours (and cf Clint’s comments nearby), photons do not bounce off the warmer body, as you’ve suggested many times. Thy are absorbed. According to Clausius and MIT.
Do correct my memory if wrong – you HAVE said previously that warmer objects cannot receive radiative energy (photons) from cooler ones, yes?
Warmer objects can receive radiative energy from cooler objects. However, heat does not flow from cold objects to warmer objects. As I said to you before, a quick Google search will confirm that fact for you. No matter what Clausius said, heat (not energy, but heat) does not flow from cold to hot.
barry, nobody can observe photons. So what photons from cooler objects do when they interact with a warmer body is always going to be a hypothetical matter. However, if they were to be absorbed by the warmer body, what we can observe is, that they do not raise the temperature of the warmer body. If instead they are reflected from the warmer body, what we can observe is, they do not raise the temperature of the warmer body. My point is, we cannot know for certain what happens when photons from a cooler body arrive at a warmer body. All we do know is, the warmer body does not get warmer still.
Personally, I think Clint R has it right in the comment of his that I linked to. That is what makes sense in the world I observe around me. Otherwise, cold objects would be warming up warmer objects, which would in turn be warming up the cooler objects even more, and so on.
“Warmer objects can receive radiative energy from cooler objects. However, heat does not flow from cold objects to warmer objects.”
Clausius’ heat cannot flow at all. Thermodynamic internal energy can flow between objects. Warmer objects can receive radiative & kinetic energy from cooler objects thus increasing the warmer object’s thermodynamic internal energy & thus temperature.
Colder objects CAN increase the temperature of warmer objects or ice cubes could not boil water. The theory and experiments showing such are right here on this blog!
Can I speak to somebody sane, please?
The thermodynamic internal energy exchange experiments and theory speak for themselves, DREMT. Found right here on this blog!
Anyone?
It appears there is nobody who can make a supportable argument with proper sources. Not surprising at all.
“Barry, nobody can observe photons. So what photons from cooler objects do when they interact with a warmer body is always going to be a hypothetical matter.”
More made up physics from the moron team!
Anything that show DREMT is wrong is deemed hypothetical, just an illusion, just appears to be the case, but is not real.
The guy who got the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect objected to photon theory Nate. . . . Einstein!
You mean the guy that discovered the photon?
No.
And again, my IR thermometer is able to detect the photons emitted by the sky and determine its temperature is -40 C, much colder than the sensor!
TO detect photons they need to be abs*orbed!
No Nate Einstein did not discover photons. He discovered the photo-electric effect. He did not like the photon theory that arose from his discovery nor the name photon.
barry, there is nothing wrong with Clausius. He was a genius. Others have added to his work. He had no idea why “cold” could not warm “hot”, he just figured out it couldn’t. Now, we understand more of the science of absorp.tion and consequent molecular interactions.
The molecules in a surface will have an average kinetic energy. That KE will correspond to what we call “temperature”. An “average” means that some molecules may have more KE, and some may have less. Photon absorp.tion is determined by the vibrational frequency of a molecule and the frequency of the photon. If the frequencies are not compatible, the photon will not be absorbed. It will be reflected. So, a flux with photons that have an average frequency above the average vibrational frequency of the surface molecules will be largely absorbed, warming the surface. If a flux has photons with an average frequency lower than the average vibrational frequency of the surface molecule, it will not be able to warm the surface.
In simple-to-understand terms, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
For you to keep trying to pervert science and reality proves you are just another cult idiot. For you to also reject learning means that you are braindead cult idiot. That’s NOT an insult, it’s reality. Either stay away from things you don’t understand, or try to learn.
grammie pups, If the surface on a body emits IR radiation at any particular wavelength, it will also absorb those with the same wavelength. There’s masses of data from measurements of the spectral characteristics of surfaces which support this. Any photon within the spectra for absorp_tion will be absorbed, no matter the temperature of the source. “Average frequency” has nothing to do with absorp_tion, only wavelength.
E. Swanson 8:50 am is correct.
Clint R simply ignores contrary experimental evidence reported on this blog that proves ice cubes can boil water & provides no experimental evidence supporting the 7:45 am comment. So where is Clint’s theory wrong?
Clint R is correct that temperature is avg. KE of a material object’s constituent molecules (and/or atoms). Clint leaves out that total KE of a material object’s constituent molecules (and/or atoms) is the thermodynamic internal energy of the object.
Clint R also leaves out that incident light sums to measured 1.0 = reflectivity + absorp_tivity + transmissivity of that light (absent diffraction as per Planck’s law requirements). Since black bodies do not exist in nature, absorp_tivity is always less than 1.0 for an opaque real object. Thus, reflectivity is always nonzero for real objects.
Note this is measured true whether the light comes from a source warmer or cooler than the object. Clint R (or a “search engine”) cannot produce a reliable, replicable experiment that shows otherwise or blackbodies WOULD exist.
Also note when the total constituent KE (thermodynamic internal energy) rises so does the avg. constituent KE (temperature) which was proven experimentally with thermometer data logged right on this blog!
Willard Jr and Braindead4 jump in to pervert reality, as expected.
Junior’s problem is that the “absorp.tion spectrum” changes with temperature. That’s why I like to keep it simple, for stupid: “In simple-to-understand terms, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.”
… which is only Clint’s wrong belief without evidence since blog experimental data logged shows in reality added ice cubes CAN boil water. Pity Clint R is a victim of Clint R’s belief system
Oh and it is also Clint’s wrong belief without any experimental evidence “”absorp.tion spectrum” changes with temperature” since a real material object absorbs incident light of all frequencies and at all real temperatures.
Well E. Swanson is correct except for “Any photon within the spectra for absorp_tion will be absorbed, no matter the temperature of the source.”
Correctly: Any incident photon may be absorbed, no matter the temperature of the source. That photon could be reflected it is a mystery afaik why some identical photons are absorbed and some reflected by an opaque real object fitting Planck’s law assumptions.
Ball4,
Additionally, an object may be completely or partly transparent to photons of a particular frequency.
To sum up, there is no way of knowing what will happen to “individual” photons which impinge upon matter.
The phenomenon of partial reflection (for example, where between 0% and 16% of light is reflected normal to the surface of a “transparent” medium like glass, was known to Newton, who couldn’t explain it. Nor can I, in any commonsense way. However, rigorous experiments support the non-commonsense explanation.
Photons are not little pong-pong balls, nor anything else. They are photons. That’s it. Reality.
No one has even managed to warm their soup by adding ice cubes to it. If some fool at MIT claims it can be done, I will be happy to attempt to replicate the experimental results. Your nonsensical vague appeals to authority are not experimental results. You can’t even say how much ice was supposedly needed to boil a certain quantity of water!
You idiot. You might get to appreciate reality, but I have my doubts.
Braindead4 has no clue about the relevant physics.
He stated, “…since a real material object absorbs incident light of all frequencies and at all real temperatures.”
Now, he believes the universe is a black body! In his empty head, all light is absorbed and none reflected. If that were true, we would not be able to see ANYTHING, since what we see is the reflected light off objects. I’ll add this to his other nonsense.
He’s a braindead cult idiot. But, at least he’s got Norman fooled.
Clint R 6:38 pm – yet another comment failure of Clint’s: note I didn’t say anything about “all” incident light is absorbed just all frequencies of light and at all object temperatures. Natural materials reflect about 5% of incident light so the light we see from natural opaque objects is around 95% emitted light which is why stuff appears in different colors.
And I see 5:57 pm that Swenson still cannot figure out something as simple as a search engine to find the blog experiments proving added ice cubes can boil water. Swenson writes in amazement that adding ice cubes to warm soup actually cools! it which even elementary school students already know iced tea is another example. Ill-informed Swenson has a lot to learn about atm. thermodynamics.
Braindead4, it’s always fun to watch you try to back away from your own words.
Here are some more of your nonsense you can back away from: “Natural materials reflect about 5% of incident light so the light we see from natural opaque objects is around 95% emitted light which is why stuff appears in different colors.”
My desk is made of wood, which is a natural material. It does NOT emit visible light! It REFLECTS visible light.
As Swenson might say, “You’re an idiot, carry on”.
Ok assertion only entertainment specialist Clint R, then show us your proper instrumental results proving your naturally illuminated desk “does not emit visible light” even though you can see your desk i.e. back up yur assertion.
Hint: your instrument should have necessary bandwidth since at room temperature your desk is emitting LW while absorbing SW from sunbeams or an incandescent light bulb.
What color is your desk and how does that apparent color come about Clint R? You could pony up its emitted spectrum to show us.
Furniture does NOT emit visible light, Braindead4. The visible light is being reflected.
Seal the room so that no light enters from outside, then turn off lights in the room. You will NOT be able to see the furniture.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
And, you can’t learn.
Sure, Clint R will NOT be able to see the color of the furniture when it’s not illuminated by sunbeams or incandescent bulbs in the sealed room!
Now point a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm at your room temperature desk in the sealed off room and actually do an experiment Clint.
Find your desk is emitting (and absorbing) visible band light per the ideal Planck function. You could understand some of this and maybe learn from such an experiment but dont do that Clint because your incorrect radiative physics comedy is much better entertainment for more astute blog readers.
Correct Braindead4, if there is no visible light in the room, you won’t be able to see the desk.
If you believe the desk is emitting visible light, either you’re —
1) a braindead cult idiot, or
2) you don’t know how to conduct an experiment, or
3) the desk is on fire.
Possibly all three….
There is visible band light emitted by the desk in your dark room Clint. The desk is being illuminated by black body radiation so it emits & reflects photons in the visible band. Had Clint actually done the physics experiment properly, Clint would have learned some actual physics. Don’t ever do so Clint, as plenty of laughable entertainment from Clint is more entertaining.
The funny part of this is that many cult idiots will believe the nonsense Ball4 spews. Just ask Norman….
Ball4 (idiot at large) wrote –
“Now point a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm at your room temperature desk in the sealed off room . . . ”
Done. Room still dark, can see nothing. Cannot even see the device in my hand.
Of course, Ball4 doesn’t even have access to the instrument he describes, and thinks he will appear clever by quoting bits of advertising off the internet.
Idiots like Ball4 say that ice can be used to both boil water and cool water. A miracle! Boil up some water to make your soup, using ice! Soup too hot? Use some left-over ice to cool it down!
No need for fossil fuel or insulation – just ice!
What an idiot Ball4 is.
“can see nothing.”
Of course not, the roonm is too dark, but the Model PR-650 SpectraScan can see something. So get one and do the experiment or search engine someone that has done so. No? I thought so since the land of Swenson is an experiment free zone with no understanding of ideal Planck function.
Added ice can be used in certain ways to both raise the temperature of water and cool the water. Swenson can’t even muster up the ability to use a search engine to find the blog experimental reports demonstrating such let alone understand atm. thermodynamics & the earthen GHE defn. Pity.
Ball4 (idiot child),
You don’t have a SpectraScan 650, do you? You have never actually seen a real one, either.
It’s a colorimeter, you fool.
If you had ever seen one, you would realise that talking about its response to total darkness is to indicate that you haven’t the slightest clue.
Pull some other imaginary instruments out of your fantasy (or your ass).
Boil some water with your ice, and cool it with the same ice?
Moron.
Experiments right here on this blog show you how to boil water with ice and you can put some ice cubes in your tea for iced tea – an experiment even Swenson can do without knowing what a search engine is all about. A PR-650 colorimeter can be used to tell Swenson and Clint the tea’s color spectrum in the visible bands, too. Very cool.
Will Ball4 ever show us how he boils tea by adding ice? Or will he just continue imagining ways to avoid proving the point?
The suspense is so thick one could cut it with a knife.
I’ve repeatedly written for Bill and others the experiments to show how to boil water with added ice cubes were reported multiple times in original posts detailing those experiments with data & the theory right on this blog!
The blog has a search engine. Figure it out Bill.
Ball4 you are always asking others to search for something reliable that doesn’t exist. If it were so easy you could win the argument outright instantaneously simply by providing a link to what you claim to exist.
But you don’t! Seems obvious that you are just a blowhard.
Bill: “you could win the argument outright instantaneously simply by providing a link”
I’ve already done so & that was not the result. Because that presumes Bill (and others) could understand the given complicated experimental link(s). That is a too big a presumption for me as Bill cannot even demonstrate how to understand & use something simple like the blog search engine.
Dropping ice cubes in room temperature tea lowers the system thermodynamic internal energy and the result is iced tea. The blog experiments will show Bill how added thermodynamic internal energy in surface water from added atm. ice can cause a thermometer measured higher temperature.
Ball4 says:
Bill: you could win the argument outright instantaneously simply by providing a link
Ive already done so & that was not the result. Because that presumes Bill (and others) could understand the given complicated experimental link(s).
————————–
Then why continue? If indeed you provided a reliable source supporting your point of view, how would I know? Search engines dig up sorts of garbage.
“how would I know?”
Bill would know when Bill has accomplished the pre-req.s in basic general, and atm., physics to be admitted to take the more advanced lecture & lab courses past the making of iced tea.
Ok, Bill has thoroughly shown isn’t astute enough or accomplished enough to use the blog search engine on his own, so, since Bill has shown some interest, I’ll give Bill a hint to learn if Bill can understand the blog lab courses – just enter one word into the blog search engine: experiment
Ball4 says:
Ok, Bill has thoroughly shown isnt astute enough or accomplished enough to use the blog search engine on his own, so, since Bill has shown some interest, Ill give Bill a hint to learn if Bill can understand the blog lab courses just enter one word into the blog search engine: experiment
—————————
LOL! Ball4 just obfuscates rather than choosing to try to win the argument by providing a link. Game over you lose!
Bill loses by refusing to learn in the lab.
Lectures are easy; lab work takes some accomplished learning. I observe that when I provide the links even Bill proves the results are not as Bill predicted 9:46am.
I can see why DREMT ignores you. All you are is an epigonic obfuscator.
Astute readers can see that when Bill & DREMT ignore the lab work, and differ with experiments, then Bill & DREMT’s comments are falsified.
Astute readers can see that Ball4 is a troll.
… not. Since comments are backed by lab work and experiment.
Begone, troll.
Clint,
Photon absorp.tion is determined by the vibrational frequency of a molecule and the frequency of the photon. If the frequencies are not compatible, the photon will not be absorbed. It will be reflected. So, a flux with photons that have an average frequency above the average vibrational frequency of the surface molecules will be largely absorbed, warming the surface. If a flux has photons with an average frequency lower than the average vibrational frequency of the surface molecule, it will not be able to warm the surface.
You moved from the language of absorp.tion to the language of warming there.
Let’s be clear, please.
Are you saying that warmer objects (average frequency above the average frequency of the cooler object) cannot absorb the photons from the cooler object?
I’d like to clarify that bit, please.
(I see you’ve posted your thesis below. I’ll read it through with due attention shortly).
barry, since a “flux” usually refers to multiple photon frequencies it is always possible that a lower frequency photon could be absorbed by a surface with higher average frequencies. But that photon would not be able to raise the average, since the incoming higher frequency photons are also being absorbed.
In simple-to-understand terms, you can NOT boil water with ice cubes.
Also barry, if you were able to stick with agreements, I would offer to explain what is wrong with the MIT links you provided. But, we know how that would go….
Yes, we know how that would go, Clint R would be wrong and MIT correct since MIT agrees with experiment.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
It is taking a long time this month to get the March global map posted.
Hoping – hoping –
Yeah, this time it takes quite long a time.
I’m afraid you won’t be satisfied with my simple rectangular output, but… though lacking an area saving projection scheme like Mollweide, as used by UAH, it nonetheless is based on their public same grid data:
https://i.postimg.cc/nhbZRv9h/UAH-2-5-degree-LT-grid-cell-anoms-Mar-2022.png
*
Source:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2022_6.0
Thanks for your postimg map – I can figure where the downunder wide brown land is
Folkerts has agreed to not comment here for 90 days if I show him how ridiculous his concept of adding fluxes is. He has stated that the flux from an ice cube will add to the same flux to heat a surface to 325K. That’s nonsense (And easily disproved in a home experiment!), but the cult believes in a lot of nonsense.
To support the AGW nonsense, the cult NEEDS fluxes to add. That’s how they support back-radiation from the atmosphere heating the surface. Their beliefs are built on bogus science.
First, some history:
It all started with the claim that radiative fluxes simply add. Then Folkerts came up with his “example” that two fluxes, 315 W/m^2 each, striking a surface would add to 630 W/m^2. That would mean the surface would then be at a temperature of 325K, once the emitted flux equaled the incoming flux.
[Some science: An ice cube at freezing temperature emits about 315 W/m^2.]
Folkerts’ flawed “thinking” would then mean that a third such flux would result in a total of 945 W/m^2. And, a fourth 315 W/m^2 would result in 1260 W/m^2. A flux of 1260 W/m^2 would result in a steady-state temperature of 386K (113C, 235F), well above the boiling point of water. So Folkerts is essentially saying that 4 ice cubes can boil water!
Since that sounds so stupid, he won’t admit to it. But he obviously believes it. Ball4 has no problem claiming that ice cubes can boil water. Several other braindead cult idiots (mostly anonymous like Ball4) have also agreed that ice cubes will boil water. The rest of the tribe won’t criticize the nonsense, because they can’t, without debunking their cult beliefs.
When asked to support their nonsense, several of the idiots stated that the support was “out there”. It was in “all textbooks”. But, they could not identify even one source for such nonsense. Instead, Folkerts went to his “two lightbulbs”. He claimed that turning on a second lightbulb was “proof”. Since a second lightbulb provided more light, that “proved” that fluxes added.
That was when I offered to show how stupid that was, if he would agree to not comment for 90 days. After much delay and waffling, he finally agreed. So, let’s get started with the debunking of such nonsense.
Do fluxes add?
A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux arriving the surface has a value of F. The flux will warm the surface to a maximum temperature for the flux, the surface, and the ambient conditions. That temperature is T.
So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.
With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add. The easy example is adding a quantity of water at temperature T to an equal quantity of water also at temperature T. The resulting water has a temperature of T. Temperatures do NOT add. Radiative fluxes do NOT add.
Well then, what happens to the flux from the second source, if it is not absorbed? If the photons havent enough energy to get absorbed, they get reflected. An example is the box with a brick in it. The box and brick are at the same temperature. A second identical brick is added, having the same temperature. The box remains at its original temperature. Since the second brick is at the same temperature, it is emitting the same number of photons. The photons from bricks have doubled, but no increase in temperature. Adding 10 such bricks would greatly increase the number of photons, but still no increase in temperature.
Responsible adults likely have already realized how silly Folkerts scheme of “two lightbulbs” is. The second lightbulb makes the room brighter because…more photons are being REFLECTED. The photons are NOT heating the surface because they are NOT being absorbed.
There is a lot more to the science of radiative physics, but this is a good place to stop. Even with very little science background, responsible adults should be able to understand. If fluxes added, freezers could be used as ovens!
As predicted, Folkerts and barry will not suspend their commenting, as they agreed. Instead they will find infinite ways to squirm out of their agreements. They will be aided by the cult. They will look for any way to distort, pervert, or discredit reality. But, they will have NO science to support their nonsense. They have NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
(I may choose to ignore irresponsible comments.)
“They have NOTHING.”
Nope. Theory AND experimental evidence from the actual atm. proving Clint R is wrong has been reported on this very blog! So that’s one source & thus not nothing Clint.
Being an extensive property, energy fluxes do add (& subtract depending on sign convention) each second and per each m^2 of a control volume & since that 1LOT is in every text book on the subject there are even more sources for poorly informed Clint R who avoids them all.
Show us your proper experimental results supporting your belief system is all you need to do Clint. Otherwise, Clint R’s beliefs are nothing more than improper assertions.
All wrong, Braindead4.
And radiative flux is NOT “extensive”.
You clearly don’t understand any of this.
That master thesis from the 70s is overclocking, Pup:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Electricity_and_Magnetism_(Tatum)/01%3A_Electric_Fields/1.08%3A_Flux
Worthless Willard presents yet another example of his being a braindead cult idiot. He finds something on the Internet he doesn’t understand, but hopes it will help in his effort to pervert reality. They all do this.
Here, worthless Willard doesn’t understand the difference between radiative flux and electric field density thru an area (an electric field). The two don’t even have the same SI units. It’s WAY over his head.
That’s why he’s so worthless.
No experimental evidence supporting your assertions Clint? I thought so since yur assertions are mostly unsupportable. Keep up the great entertainment flailing around as blog comedian Clint R usually does.
A flux is flux is a flux, Pup. It has units and dimensions. That you can’t add power to your trolling does not mean power can’t add.
There are different kinds of “fluxes”, worthless Willard. Units matter. Soldering flux is sold by weight, for example.
Did you forget to “mind your units”?
You don’t understand any of this. You’re just a worthless troll.
Of course there are different kinds of fluxes, Pup.
One that does not add must be very special.
Perhaps you ought to clarify the one you’re talking about, with units, dimensions, and all?
Please stop trolling and mind your units.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254424
Willard says:
Of course there are different kinds of fluxes, Pup.
One that does not add must be very special.
——————
Depends upon whether you understand what you are adding. If you start throwing ice into super cold tea the tea will warm until it gets to the temperature of the added ice. After that you just end up with one heckuva lot of ice.
> Depends upon whether you understand what you are adding.
Imagine if ice cubes needed to care about how long Pup can troll without minding his units, Bill.
Willard, Please stop trolling.
“As predicted, Folkerts and barry will not suspend their commenting, as they agreed. “
The agreement hinged on a *correct* explanation! As expected, almost nothing was correct — starting with the very first sentence!
“It all started with the claim that radiative fluxes simply add. “
No, the claim has always been that irradiances add (ie radiative fluxes arriving AT a surface). Not that radiosities add (ie radiative fluxes leaving FROM a surface.
[Some science: An ice cube at freezing temperature emits a RADIOSITY of about 315 W/m^2. But:
1) an IRRADIATION of 315 W/m^2 does not have to come from ice.
2) ice can provide an irradiation of less than 315 W/m^2.]
Clint simply can’t or won’t understand this is simple and critical science! He really needs to read a chapter on radiative heat transfer and master the concept of ‘view factors’.
Thanks for proving me right again, Folkerts.
Your attempts to distract with definitons are as pathetic as is your knowledge of physics. My examples clearly are talking about the flux arriving at the surface. So your “view factors” have NOTHING to do with this issue. Which tells me you know NOTHING about any of this.
Try to bake a pizza in your freezer. If it’s not hot enough, just add more ice….
CLINT: “My examples clearly are talking about the flux arriving at the surface.”
ALSO CLINT: “An ice cube at freezing temperature emits about 315 W/m^2.”
So you are clearly talking about both at different points. You clearly don’t even know what you are saying, let alone what I am saying.
HINT: A flux of 315 W/m^2 emitted by ice does NOT imply a flux of 315 W/m^2 absorbed BY some other surface. That seems to be your fundamental stumbling block.
Correct Folkerts, a surface can both emit flux and absorb flux. Very good. Ice emits about 315 W/m^2, so if a surface is absorbing 315W/m^2, it is absorbing the same as an ice cube would be emitting.
Your problem is trying to add fluxes that arrive at the same surface. You’re trying to add the same flux that is emitted by an ice cube (315 W/m^2) to an equal flux from another source and believing the surface will reach 325K. That’s where your ignorance of radiative physics shows up. That nonsense would mean that you can boil water with ice cubes — just add more ice cubes.
HINT: You can’t pervert physics, no matter how hard you try.
You are getting there, Clint!
“Youre trying to add the same flux that is emitted by …”
Remember, you JUST said you are “clearly are talking about the flux arriving at the surface”, so fluxes being emitted are immaterial for what you and I are talking about.
I am doing like you claim to do, and only deal with the flux ARRIVING at a surface. If a flux of 315 W/^2 is ARRIVING at surface AND a second flux is ALSO arriving, then they add. Period. 630 W/m^2.
[Now, you ARE right that those two fluxes could not both come from ice. The flux arriving FROM ice cannot be more than 315 W/m^2, the flux emitted BY ice. That is the maximum, which happens when ice is all around.
So if I had said I was adding 315 W/m^2 FROM ICE to 315 W/m^2 FROM ICE, to I would have been wrong. Good thing I never said that!]
Tim,
If you concentrate the flux from one square meter of ice into one square centimetre, you might get 315 x 100 x 100 W/m2, some millions of watts per square meter. This enormous figure will not warm even a pinheads worth of water!
Yes, light can be concentrated in this fashion – visible, IR – all light!
You still cannot blindly add “fluxes” at will. Concentrating an infinite number of giant sunbeams onto the same point, resulting in infinite flux still cannot produce a temperature greater than the temperature of the sun. The exact same temperature can be achieved from 315 W/m2 of sunlight! You appear to believe that adding flux from ice can raise the temperature of an object heated by sunlight, but adding the same flux from sunlight makes no difference!
That’s about as deranged as some other moron claiming he can boil water with ice, and cool water with the same ice! Apparently, some idiots ascribe the same properties to CO2!
It both reduces the amount of insolation reaching a thermometer, lowering its temperature, and makes the thermometer hotter at the same time!
Carry on trying to disguise your stupidity by playing with words. You might as well, as the scientific method involving reproducible experiment seems to be a foreign concept to you.
Still no GHE, is there? You can’t even describe the GHE, you ninny!
“If you concentrate the flux from one square meter of ice into one square centimetre, you might get 315 x 100 x 100 W/m2”
Nope, that’s silly Swenson. Do the experiment & Clint too.
1 ice cube 315 W/m^2
2 ice cubes 630 W/2m^2 = 315 W/m^2
The earthen GHE has a defn. that Swenson doesn’t even have the ability to find & then understand. Pity.
Ball4 (reality denying idiot),
You fool, when you concentrate 315 W/m2 sunlight from a 5800 K source such as the sun, you can start fires, turn water into steam, even melt steel!
Maybe you have seen photos of solar power plants like Ivanpah, and noticed that the receptor at the top is blindingly incandescent. No experiment needed, is there?
What do you think the flux from the sunlight is when the receptor starts glowing a perceptible red? How about when it’s white hot?
If you concentrate the radiation from a square meter of ice into a square centimeter, you have increased the flux density by a factor of 10,000 – but it means nothing in terms of temperature. You can choose to reject reality as silly, but don’t blame me if others agree that this makes you an idiot.
Sunlight is naturally collimated, Swenson – look that “collimated” word up and find out what it means for focusing sunlight. Now apply Swenson’s new learning to uncollimated light from ice cubes.
Swenson can actually do that experiment properly as described “concentrate the radiation from a square meter of ice into a square centimeter” of something opaque and data log the relevant thermometer results of the opaque object let us know the results. Paint the object black and white too.
I predict limited ability Swenson won’t do so as Swenson doesn’t do experiments to learn about nature botched science assertions by Swenson are much easier.
Folkerts, you’re making up nonsense, again. A surface can’t tell where arriving fluxes came from. To a surface, 300 W/m^2 from ice is the same as 300 W/m^2 from a cold plate.
You don’t understand any of this.
SWENSON CLAIMS “If you concentrate the flux from one square meter of ice into one square centimetre, you might get 315 x 100 x 100 W/m2, some millions of watts per square meter. This enormous figure will not warm even a pinheads worth of water!
Yes, light can be concentrated in this fashion visible, IR all light!”
No, light can NOT be concentrated in this fashion. The flux cannot be concentrated/focused/reflected to be any larger than the flux leaving the source. If the source is ice providing a flux (radiosity) of 315 W/m^2m, the flux from that ice arriving at any surface (irradiance) cannot be any greater than 315 W/m^2.
“Concentrating an infinite number of giant sunbeams onto the same point, resulting in infinite flux …”
No. The flux leaving the sun is about 64,000,000 W/m^2. Concentrating sunbeams can result in a flux of no more than 64,000,000 W/m^2. Certainly a large flux, but definitely not ‘infinite’. And that flux could theoretically warm a surface up to the temperature of the sun, but no higher.
“You appear to believe that adding flux from ice can raise the temperature of an object heated by sunlight, but adding the same flux from sunlight makes no difference!”
You clearly have not been following along!
1) I ‘believe’ your first phrase. If ice provides a flux (irradiance) Fi and the sun provides a flux Fs, then the net flux is Fi + Fs. [But Clint is adamantly opposed to this idea.]
2) I disagree with the second phrase. Adding Fs1 and Fs2 gives Fs1 + Fs2.
What I do NOT believe is that a 315 W/m^2 flux from ice can be concentrated any higher than 315 W/m^2.
* Clint seems to THINK I believe that flux from ice can be concentrated higher than 315 W/m^2
* You seem to ACTUALLY flux from ice can an be concentrated higher than 315 W/m^2
You and Clint need to have a long talk!
CLINT says “A surface cant tell where arriving fluxes came from. To a surface, 300 W/m^2 from ice is the same as 300 W/m^2 from a cold plate.”
At one level, yes, 300 W/m^2 of irradiance is 300 W/m^2 or irradiance. That amount of absorbed energy will result in the same warming effect, whether the power comes from ice or “a cold plate” or an IR heating panel or a light bulb or the sun.
At another level, there IS a fundamental difference between an irradiance of 300 W/m^2 of ‘ice light’ and an irradiance of 300 W/m^2 of ‘sun light’. “Ice light” consists of low energy photons that must be coming from ALMOST EVERY DIRECTION to achieve 300 W/m^2. Sun light consists of high energy photons that must be coming from ONE SMALL DIRECTION to be limited to 300 W/m^2.
Since ice light is coming from all around, it CANNOT be further concentrated. Since sun light is coming from one direction, it CAN be further concentrated. You and Swenson seem to misunderstand this concept in two radically different ways.
Folkerts, 300 W/m^2 arriving at a surface is the same as another 300 W/m^2 arriving at the same surface. Fluxes of equal value are equal. Quit trying to pervert physics with nonsense like “At another level…”
“Folkerts, 300 W/m^2 arriving at a surface is the same as another 300 W/m^2 arriving at the same surface. ”
While the two fluxes are the same in ONE way, their are definitely NOT the same in OTHER ways! I bet you if you shine 300 W/m^2 from ice on surface and 300 W/m^2 from a light bulb on a different surface, I could tell you which was which with nothing more than my bare eyes!
And the differences are important!
You would lose the bet.
But, you wouldn’t pay up.
Tail you win Head you troll isn’t a bet, Pup.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint,
As predicted, Folkerts and barry will not suspend their commenting, as they agreed.
Let’s remind ourselves of the agreement.
“Here’s a deal for you. If you successfully do that post no rhetoric, but instead a cogent reply to what Folkerts is actually saying (and not some straw man) regarding fluxes from source/receiving surface, and provide a link that supports your contention on that specific point…
I will stop commenting here for 60 days, even if I think your argument is flawed.”
(emphasis same as original)
I looked and looked through your post.
No link.
Now, I made that emphasis in the original offer because I didn’t want you to overlook the conditions and try to argue you’d met them if you hadn’t.
Moreover, I made sure to repeat that condition in each subsequent comment reiterating the conditions. I did that not only to emphasise the conditions further, but also because I’ve never seen you do that in this particular discussion. I was trying to force your hand to finally corroborate your view:
“and provide a link that supports your contention on that specific point”
“and furnish a link from a physics textbook or other reputable source (I’ll accept thermopedia, for example) that actually supports your rebuttal.”
“and supply a link from a reputable source to corroborate it”
“What you need is a reference supporting the notion that radiation arriving at a blackbody surface from two independent sources can’t ever be summed in any way to account for the total flux arriving at the surface.”
(emphasis as original)
I don’t know how I could make this any clearer.
Original offer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1247963
and the repeats…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1249121
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1251053
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1252482
But I’m a reasonable guy.
If you, after having failed the conditions, reply to this comment with a link from a reputable source corroborating that 2 fluxes from independent sources arriving at a surface can never be added…..
I’ll still go quiet for 60 days.
No silly blogs, now – a link to a physics textbook is best, but I’ll accept lecture notes from MIT or other scince university, or even thermopedia.
How easy is that? Just post a genuine link that actually does the job. If your view is backed by standard science, this should be no problem.
Yes barry, I predicted correctly you would not suspend your commenting. My effort was intended for “responsible adults” — people that can think for themselves, appreciate reality, and want to learn.
…. unlike Clint R. Even Clint R can learn from experiments; Clint should try some. Get thee to a lab Clint!
> I predicted correctly you would not suspend your commenting.
Me too, Pup.
You wouldn’t be able to produce a valid scientific explanation even if your life depended on it.
Responsible adults make good on their agreements, Clint.
And now you’ve twice failed to meet the agreement I am giving you a third chance.
It’s just a link. No commentary necessary.
A link to a reputable source – not a blog – that corroborates that you cannot sum fluxes from two independent sources arriving at a surface.
This IS the point of your contention, after all, the one thing you NEED to corroborate with a reputable reference. As people have asked you for a couple of years now, and you’ve never furnished, while we say that your view is not supported by any physics.
2 years!
And all you have to do to shut m up for 60 days is fulfil the agreement by copy and pasting one single link.
How easy is that?
But there is no such link, is there? Because no physics text supports your view.
That’s why you never have, and never will, give us a reputable source for what you claim is standard physics.
———————————————–
One link. 60 days.
Are you going to waffle or just do it?
Sorry barry, I missed your comment earlier. I just don’t have time to always search the entire thread.
My response to your comment below fits:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1256088
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1256120
“Responsible adults likely have already realized how silly Folkerts scheme of “two lightbulbs” is. The second lightbulb makes the room brighter because…more photons are being REFLECTED. The photons are NOT heating the surface because they are NOT being absorbed.”
This was the key moment where both Tim and barry should be honoring their agreement not to comment. You explained here, perfectly clearly, exactly what they wanted you to explain, e.g:
“You’re clearly trying to wriggle out of it, but for the record all I’m looking for is an honest attempt from you to respond to Tim, that actually answers his challenge and your own promise to explain why 2 light bulbs don’t add more flux to a receiving surface than one lightbulb. That would surprise me enough to go quiet for 2 months.”
DREMT, you are smarter than this.
Two bulbs result in 2x the flux. This results in 2x as much reflected AND 2x AS MUCH ABSORBED. Leading to 2x as much radiant power to warm the surface where those bulbs are shining.
Or are you really thinking that one light bulb focused a dark surface can warm the surface, but turning the bulb brighter will not warm the surface more?
What I think is that Clint R offered an explanation, and that’s all he needed to do, in order for you both to stop commenting. I thought that was the agreement. Nobody expected either of you to agree with Clint R, and that wasn’t part of the arrangement, as far as I’m aware. So I’m wondering when you’re going to stop commenting for the 90 days?
> that’s all he needed to do
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Pup needed to produce a scientific explanation.
He did. Photons being reflected is a scientific explanation. You don’t have to agree with it, but it’s a scientific explanation.
Except that Pup did not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254672
Yes, we can all read the discussions that have already taken place, Willard. We can read Tim’s comments, and Clint R’s responses to those comments. I think Tim keeps attacking a straw man that Clint R doesn’t understand the difference between flux emitted and flux absorbed. He’s been doing that for a while now.
“What I think is that Clint R offered an explanation, and thats all he needed to do.”
No. He needed to offer a CORRECT explanation. That was always a condition on my part. An “explanation” that does not “explain” is not an explanation.
Barry had a slightly different condition.
“Here’s a deal for you. If you successfully do that post no rhetoric, but instead a cogent reply to what Folkerts is actually saying (and not some straw man) regarding fluxes from source/receiving surface, and provide a link that supports your contention on that specific point”
But Clint didn’t meet this either. There was never ANY other source that supported Clint. And there was no ‘cogent’ response here. Basically nothing more than “no photons from lightbulbs get absorbed” which is patently false.
Folkerts, you have to be able to UNDERSTAND the explanation. There is no evidence you understand any of this.
Ice cubes can not boil water. I can’t make it any easier than that. Yet you can’t understand it.
“Ice cubes can not boil water. I cant make it any easier than that.”
I agree. Ice cubes can’t boil water. Glad we have that covered so we don’t need to keep bringing it up.
But what you are trying to explain was why it is ‘silly’ to think that the flux from *light bulbs* can’t add. Not ice. Stay on topic.
So tell us why two light bulbs are not brighter than one, and why two sunbeams don’t make a surface hotter than one.
I already covered the “two lightbulbs”.
But if you REALLY want to stay “on topic”, you will provide the valid source that verifies two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can warm a surface to 325K. That’s YOUR nonsense that started this, and you can’t substantiate it.
STAY on topic.
“He needed to offer a CORRECT explanation.”
That just means “an explanation you agree with”, Tim. As I said, it was obvious you were not going to agree. You should really stop commenting for 90 days.
“So tell us why two light bulbs are not brighter than one”
You see, this is where the dishonesty kicks in. Clint R is not arguing that two light bulbs are not brighter than one. In fact, this is what he said:
“The second lightbulb makes the room brighter because…more photons are being REFLECTED. The photons are NOT heating the surface because they are NOT being absorbed”
> That just means “an explanation you agree with”
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
A correct explanation should be, wait for it, correct:
http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf
Oh, God, here we go.
B-/
The cult idiots are so confused, maybe they need a catchy tune to soothe them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-aQIX9ois
I prefer this version, Pup:
https://youtu.be/V-_O7nl0Ii0
No, DREMT, my conditions were easier than Folkerts.
The original was:
1) Post a cogent reply that responds to the specific point Tim is making
2) Provide a reference from a physics textbook or other reputable source that corroborates the rebuttal
3) Do this without snark
I dropped 3) as I thought it was an impossible task for Clint and an easy ‘win’ for me.
I think Clint met 1) ok. Although I think his rebuttal flawed, it did meet my criterion.
He failed on 2), and 2) was a significant contingency, which was why I emphasised it the first time, and repeated it every time I reiterated the deal.
A link to a corroborating source has been missing from Clint’s argumentation for about 2 years now. I wasn’t content to allow the waffle to continue without some supporting reference for his view that radiative fluxes arriving at a surface from two independent sources cannot sum.
I also have given him a second and now third chance to provide that link after failing to do so in his explanation.
He has only this contingency to meet and I will go quiet for 60 days.
Unfortunately, he will not be able to do something so simple as post that one link, because no physics textbook supports his view.
And that is the point I want him to understand. It’s why I insisted on it.
Hi barry,
My “snark” can’t compete with your endless rambling. So, I’ll just stick with the facts.
You’re asking for a link to prove your nonsense is nonsense. How ludricrous is that? Is there a link to prove water does not flow uphill? Is there a link to prove that a oxygen does not combine with hydrogen?
You’re asking for “proof” of things that are self-evident. No respectable science textbook is going to state “ice cubes can not boil water”.
You have to have a knowledge of science, and an appreciation for reality. Then, if your brain works, you can figure things out.
If you live or die by “links”, where’s your link that “proves” two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 can warm a surface to 325K? Your cult believes in such nonsense. Where’s your “link” to support it? There isn’t one. Your cult exists on false beliefs.
[PUP] I’ll just stick with the facts.
[ALSO PUP] You’re asking for a link to prove your nonsense is nonsense. […] You’re asking for “proof” of things that are self-evident.
Worthless Willard’s incompetent flak verifies I’m on target.
Verification not needed, but appreciated.
“If you live or die by “links”, where’s your link that “proves” two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 can warm a surface to 325K? Your cult believes in such nonsense. Where’s your “link” to support it? There isn’t one. Your cult exists on false beliefs.”
This seems like a reasonable request, barry. If you can’t support your side of the argument why were you expecting Clint R to support his?
The sammich request would be reasonable if Pup, upon being served, accepts to stop commenting, under his current sock puppet or any other, for say 90 days.
If Clint R could have been “served” what he requested, that would have happened by now. In fact, it would have happened months, if not years, ago. Clearly no such evidence exists.
Pup has already been served many times, Kiddo.
He just needs to feel what it is to have skin in the game.
No skin, no real bet.
Only trolling.
Just like your silly counterfactual.
Clearly no such evidence exists.
Wanna bet, Kiddo?
You should if your belief is worth anything.
#2
Clearly no such evidence exists.
That’s what you say, Kiddo.
Your lack of commitment shows otherwise.
#3
Clearly no such evidence exists.
So you say, Kiddo.
But then we now know how much you value what you say.
#4
Clearly no such evidence exists.
DREMT,
“This seems like a reasonable request, barry. If you can’t support your side of the argument why were you expecting Clint R to support his?”
No, this is deflection (tu coque fallacy). If the request is reasonable, why hasn’t Clint met it? The agreement was about his argument, not mine.
And he is asking me to find a link about a specific radiative flux from ice cubes boiling water??!! That’s a false premise to begin with, and nothing I ever contended. At last my request is actually reasonable – produce a link supporting the idea that fluxes from two independent sources arriving at a surface can’t be summed in any way. This is the point of his contention with Tim.
For the point I have been arguing (warmer surface can absorb radiation from cooler surface), I’ve already provided links upthread, so it’s definitely time for Clint to put up.
barry couldn’t find anything either, obviously.
Why would I look for a link to something I never contended and think is wrong?
You ‘skeptics’ live in a strange universe that seems to have no logic at all.
It’s Clint’s argument. The onus is on him. I’ve found plenty of links to support that warm objects receive radiation from cooler objects (Rudolf Clausius’ thesis on thermodynamics, for example, posted upthread). Never seen a physics reference from anyone contending that this can’t happen to support their view.
Clint’s specific argument is that radiative flux from independent sources arriving at a surface can’t be summed.
A reputable reference is asked for to corroborate his view. He won’t provide.
He never has. Playing “No you,” doesn’t cut it. It’s schoolyard level argument.
“Why would I look for a link to something I never contended and think is wrong?”
Lol, barry…so you agree with Clint R that it is wrong that two fluxes will arrive at a surface and add? That is all he is asking you to support, after all.
Experiments show it is correct that an EMR flux will arrive at a surface and add to thermodynamic internal energy of the object on which it is incident, Clint R wrongly asserts the opposite.
Note that Clint R has never come up with an experiment supporting those Clint R asserted comments.
“A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux arriving the surface has a value of F. The flux will warm the surface to a maximum temperature for the flux, the surface, and the ambient conditions. That temperature is T.
So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.”
– Clint R.
“A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux will warm the surface..”
DREMT shows Clint R now agrees with blog experiments added ice can boil water since extensive properties do add as I have already pointed out.
The misrepresentation continues…
No misrepresentation from me, those are verbatim quotes actually written by Clint R.
You disgust me.
“so you agree with Clint R that it is wrong that two fluxes will arrive at a surface and add?”
Clint asked me to provide a link showing that flux from 2 ice cubes will boil water. Why would I look for a link when I never contended this dumb idea and don’t agree with it?
315 W/m2 is the total amount of flux arriving at a surface if the entire view was a hemisphere of ice cube. One ice cube will not impart 315 W/m2 to a surface. Clint doesn’t understand incidence and view factors. That’s why Tim is talking about the difference between radiating from and radiating to. Clint’s thinking would argue the sun’s full power at its surface strikes the Earth at the same intensity.
But that’s their argument to have. I made an offer while it was happening.
Clint’s contention is that fluxes from two independent sources arriving at a surface can’t be summed.
I agreed to go quiet for 60 days if he furnishes a link from a reputable source corroborating that.
My offer still stands.
No, barry, Clint R asked you to support the idea that “two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 can warm a surface to 325K”. Since 325K corresponds to a flux of approx. 630 W/m^2, Clint R is simply asking you to support the idea that two fluxes will arrive at a surface and add, as I said. You do think that two fluxes arriving at a surface will add, yes? It’s going to be easier for you to prove a positive than it is for Clint R to prove a negative, right? Off you go, then.
Kiddo tries to flip the scrip on Barry.
In a subthread where he was expressing disgust, no less.
I’m being generous. Strictly speaking, barry should not be commenting for 60 days, and Tim not commenting for 90.
Wrong DREMT 8:53 pm. Clint R explanations were not correct & won’t be correct until any Clint explanation is supported by experiment which Clint does not provide.
Begone, troll.
> I was being generous.
Sure, Jan.
Troll, begone.
Good idea, Kiddo.
When are you going?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I take it from Clint’s answers and DRMT’s support that he will not be providing a link to support his contention.
As I said.
Condition not met, I’m not going quiet for 60 days, then.
Radiative fluxes arriving at a surface can be summed.
Clint’s gormless error is to forget that a surface that absorbs also emits. In his imagining the entire 315 W/m2 absorbed is retained at the surface, and the radiative emission of the surface remains unchanged. That is non-physical. If the surface heats, it emits more radiation.
315 W/m2 + 315 W/m2 =/= 325K
Clint just failed physics. This is fun.
“The radiative energy balance on surface k indicates that the net heat flux at the surface (the energy added to surface k) is the difference between the outgoing and incident radiation…
the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
Note: “that is incident on surface k”
The W/m2 leaving each a surface is not the same as the W/m2 received by the surface is emitting to.
I said I would accept this source from Cint, but if he doesn’t like it, here is the same explanation from a physics text at Auburn University of Engineering:
“The net average radiative flux from the surface, denoted q, will simply be the difference between the flux leaving the surface and the flux arriving at the surface…
… radiosity will consist of emission from the surface plus the reflected part of the irradiance. On the other hand, irradiance will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation
fields from all the other surface which can ‘view’ surface 1…”
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
Incidence and view factors are important. The emission leaving from each surface is not equal to the irradiance arriving at the surface.
It’s why an ice cube doesn’t impart 315 W/m2 to a surface any distance from it. Unless the ice cube fills the entire field of view of the receiving surface.
There. 2 links confirming Tim’s POV. One even includes the word “sum” for incident radiation arriving at a surface from different sources.
I wasn’t going to do this. AGW ‘skeptics’ don’t play honest.
I won’t get a link from Clint in return. He just won’t do it.
My offer still stands. I’m pretty busy, so 60 days away is no biggie.
“Clint’s gormless error is to forget that a surface that absorbs also emits. In his imagining the entire 315 W/m2 absorbed is retained at the surface, and the radiative emission of the surface remains unchanged.”
No, barry, I have not seen any evidence that Clint R has made any such error.
If a surface receives an irradiance of 315 W/m^2 that originated from one source, and an irradiance of 315 W/m^2 that originated from another source, presumably you think those fluxes will add to 630 W/m^2. If a surface receives 630 W/m^2, and warms until it emits what it receives, then the temperature of the surface will indeed be 325 K (assuming emissivity = 1). Which is considerably below boiling point, btw. I will ask you again:
“You do think that two fluxes arriving at a surface will add, yes? It’s going to be easier for you to prove a positive than it is for Clint R to prove a negative, right?”
“If a surface receives 630 W/m^2, and warms until it emits what it receives, then the temperature of the surface will indeed be 325 K”
Indeed it will, but this is still unphysical. With 2 independent sources – such as ice cubes – the surface will not equilibrate just with their flux. It will equilibrate with the entire radiative environment.
Let’s be clear – ice cubes is what Clint (and you) is talking about with radiative flux at source of 315 W/m2 (although that’s actually the flux of a blackbody at 0C – actual ice produces less radiative flux). Let’s call a spade a spade.
I refer you to the physics references I provided explaining that irradiance received at the surface is summed, and the temperature (NET flux) is derived from the difference between the sum of incoming radiation (irradiance) and outgoing radiation) radiosity.
Could you help Clint out with a link or are you going to keep making excuses for him?
We need references from you guys now.
Quit stalling.
I mean for crying out loud…..
https://www.bunnings.com.au/euromatic-2400w-3-bar-radiant-heater_p0232241
Your skin gets instantly warmer with each new element that you turn on.
They all radiate at the same power. Of course those fluxes sum at the receiving surface.
It’s the same reason a bigger gas ring on a stove heats better. Those extra flames ADD more radiant heat.
A child can understand this.
barry, you have found a reference stating irradiance fluxes arriving at a surface are summed. I will assume then that your answers to both my questions are “yes”. I am not sure why you are disputing that if a source is receiving two irradiance fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each that it will thus be receiving 630 W/m^2. That’s what your own source would suggest. You seem to be arguing with me about multiple points that I am not making.
“…if a source is receiving…”
should be
“…if a surface is receiving…”
DREMT,
For clarity:
What you said earlier:
“If a surface receives an irradiance of 315 W/m^2 that originated from one source, and an irradiance of 315 W/m^2 that originated from another source, presumably you think those fluxes will add to 630 W/m^2. If a surface receives 630 W/m^2, and warms until it emits what it receives, then the temperature of the surface will indeed be 325 K (assuming emissivity = 1).”
I replied that this won’t work with ice cubes, as the surface receiving the flux emits to a wider view angle than the 2 ice cubes, and will equilibrate with the rest of the environment.
Now you have said:
“I am not sure why you are disputing that if a source is receiving two irradiance fluxes of 315 W/m^2 each that it will thus be receiving 630 W/m^2.”
I’m not disputing that. See above.
Would you dispute that a bar hater warms by radiation, and that turning on each element (of equal power/emissivity) instantly makes your skin warmer?
This is effectively what Clint’s view disputes.
I think it’s nuts. How about you?
Still waiting for a link contradicting what the physics texts I supplied have said.
This wasn’t even my argument. I’ve gone the extra mile. Still waiting to be banished for 60 days…
I don’t care about ice cubes, barry. It’s nice that you’re finally beginning to recognize the importance of view factors, however. In the case of the blue/green plates, their relevance was ignored completely by those on your side of that debate (a debate which has of course been conclusively settled in our favor, both theoretically years ago, and more recently through Hughes’ experiments and others).
I got involved because Clint R provided the explanation requested, and as a result certainly Tim should not be commenting for 90 days. Clint R also made a reasonable request that you or Tim support your side of the argument. He asked that someone provided "a link that “proves” two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 can warm a surface to 325K". I also got involved to ensure that nobody was misrepresenting Clint R, as happens frequently.
Now, you have finally provided a reference that states that irradiance fluxes sum at the receiving surface. Prior to this point neither side of the debate had actually provided any evidence in support of their positions, so it was basically just two groups asserting their case over and over again.
So I’m happy that my involvement has been fruitful. Now the ball is really in Clint R’s court if he wishes to dispute your reference. However, you will probably need to comment right at the bottom of the thread, as he will most likely not even be reading any of this.
Folkerts STILL claims fluxes add. That means ice cubes could boil water. He doesn’t understand ANY of this.
Here he clearly claims fluxes add: “Two bulbs result in 2x the flux. This results in 2x as much reflected AND 2x AS MUCH ABSORBED.”
If that nonsense works for bulbs, it works for ice cubes also. Poor Folkerts is confused by his own efforts to pervert physics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“If that nonsense works for bulbs, it works for ice cubes also. ”
Nope! Because it is possible for two bulbs to independently provide fluxes (irradiances) of 315 W/m^2. It is NOT possible for two sheets of ice to independently provide fluxes (irradiances) of 315 W/m^2.
You REALLY need to work through a chapter on radiative heat transfer that includes the topic of “view factors”. There is a fundamental difference between the way ice provides an irradiation of 315 and the way a lightbulb or the sun provides an irradiation of 315.
If this ‘nonsense’ DOESN’T work for lightbulbs or sunlight, then you could not focus sunlight to burn things!
OMG, now Folkerts is so desperate he’s brought in his magnifying glass!
He must do things like that to distract from his nonsense. He must distract from his claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes will add to bring a surface to 325K.
That claim basically amounts to ice cubes boiling water.
Let the distractions continue….
Do you agree that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes FROM LIGHT BULBS or FROM THE SUN add? That two sun beams can and do warm better than a single sun beam?
[We can come back to ice, but we need to agree on at least a few things first.]
Folkerts, fluxes do NOT add. You can’t get away from your cult. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
One of your fellow cult idiots doesn’t know the difference between an electric field and electromagnetic waves. One of your fellow cult idiots claims that Earth has a “real 255K surface”, and that furniture glows in the dark!
You’re in a cult, and you can’t get out. You must love perverting physics.
> fluxes do NOT add
I already proved you wrong, Pup.
Perhaps some fluxes don’t. Which ones are you talking about?
Please stop trolling, and mind your units.
No worthless Willard, what you proved is that you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
“Folkerts, fluxes do NOT add. ”
Well, here is one definition of flux. You can find your own, but they will all be the essentially same.
But this is how the word is used in radiative physics. If that is NOT what YOU mean, then you are denying standard, textbook physics and setting off on your own unique path.
So choose a ‘given area’ — I give you the surface of a 1m x 1m patch of dark carpet on a floor.
Turn on a light bulb. Photons with go through the surface and many of them will be absorbed; energy passes from the room, through the surface, and into the rug. This constitutes a flux – power through the surface of the rug.
Turn on a second light bulb. Photons with go through the surface and many of them will be absorbed; energy passes from the room, through the surface, and into the rug. This constitutes a second flux – power through the surface of the rug.
The inescapable conclusion is that the total power through the surface is the sum of the two powers. The fluxes add.
Unless you are ready to present a different definition [and provide a source!] there is no other possible conclusion here.
Folkerts, what kick do you get out of perverting physics? You can’t win. Do you enjoy being a loser?
Where’s your credible link that verifies two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K?
HINT: It doesn’t exist.
“Wheres your credible link that verifies two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can heat it to 325K?”
To answer this, the first step is to know what “flux” means, and then to know how they add.
Do you agree with the ‘textbook definition’ given above?
If “no” then what do you propose?
If “yes” then do you agree that the two fluxes in my example do indeed add?
Folkerts, look at your pathetic effort to entrap me.
Your cult is more important to you than reality.
Why is that?
Tim Folkerts has an infinite supply of pointless gotchas, and even more pointless and irrelevant imaginary scenarios. Poorly thought out, based n the contents of Tim’s strange imagination, and almost invariably involving hidden heat sources of infinite capacity and temperature.
Tim can’t even describe the GHE (unsurprising, neither can anybody else), but persists with this bizarre fiction that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer increases the temperature of the thermometer.
Strange lad is Tim, keeps issuing idiocies like “let’s agree . . . “, or asking people to agree with some piece of imaginary nonsense which Tim blithely presents as fact!
Facts are facts. Schmidt agreeing with Mann agreeing with Trenberth . . . . Meaningless, unless their speculations have experimental support – and they can’t even describe this GHE that they promote so assiduously.
Tim’s latest diversion is “adding fluxes”. Sure, anything numerical can be added. The result can be completely meaningless – Tim can’t even tell you what temperature is required to produce a flux of say, 300 W/m2! A Leslie’s cube, filled with boiling water may produce this flux on one face, and completely different numbers from the other faces.
Tim is so ignorant he would add or subtract or average the fluxes, and confidently tell you that in some imaginary scenario, ice can be used to warm water!
He’s delusional.
Still here, Mike?
Scientists can add watts per meter.
Sky Dragon Cranks like you can’t add anything to that!
Flux is Watts/m^2, worthless Willard, not Watts/m. Mind your units.
You don’t understand any of this.
Now you are getting somewhere, Pup.
Gotcha. Go on.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Scientists can add watts per meter.”
So can a five year old child.
Just as pointless.
You don’t want to accept that watts per meter or even watts per square meter or watts per unit time do not measure temperature.
That’s because you are ignorant and retarded.
Carry on being a delusional fool.
Happy that you’re in violent agreement with Tim and disagree with Pup, Mike!
Willard, Willard, Willard.
You need to upgrade your trolling.
Do you really, really think that any rational person values your opinion?
Facts don’t care if idiots like you agree with them or not.
You don’t have a Greenhouse Theory, you can’t describe the GHE, and you live in a strange fantasy world. Feel free to deny reality all you like. Reality doesn’t care, and neither do I.
Carry on, peabrain. Have you found anybody to play your games with you, are are you still reduced to playing with yourself? Don’t worry, if you have a good hand, you don’t need a partner, do you? I expect “Oh! Oh! Oh!” from you soon.
“Folkerts, look at your pathetic effort to entrap me …”
Yeah — ‘entrap’ you with definitions. ‘Entrap’ you with standard textbook physics. If you can’t even agree what “flux” means, how can you expect to resolve anything?
Folkerts, I just get tired of wasting time with all your distractions. This last effort just proved again that you have NOTHING. You can’t support your own nonsense claims.
You keep talking about “defintions” and “textbooks”, but that’s all distracting from the fact you can’t support your claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface can heat it to 325K. If that nonsense were true, you could boil water with ice cubes. You are never able to face reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
The distraction is all yours, Pupperino.
You pretend having provided an explanation yet you cannot produce the definition of flux for which it portends to hold.
Silly troll.
Worthless Willard, Folkerts got caught trying to pervert reality, again. So your incompetent attempt to cover for him just makes his credibility even worse. It’s the guilt-by-association thingy.
Even Norman knows what a waste you are.
It is Clint R that adds only entertainment value and little to nothing to add to the science not Tim. Clint R can’t even comprehend that raising thermodynamic internal energy in water can cause it to boil!
Clint R is fun for laughs not science.
Ball4,
And of course, it is physically impossible to raise the internal thermodynamic energy in water with ice. That’s why your eminently witless comment “Clint R cant even comprehend that raising thermodynamic internal energy in water can cause it to boil!” is an indication of the total ignorance upon which your fantasy rests.
To warm something, believe it or not, you need to use something warmer!
All the idiotic imaginary scenarios involving liquid nitrogen, dry ice, and all the other nonsensical ideas, involve the use of something warmer than something else.
No matter how much you believe that ice can be used to boil water (to make hot soup, say), and subsequently also used to cool soup which is too hot, you can’t actually do it, can you?
Even Tim Folkerts has now accepted that W/m2 means nothing, unless further information is provided – for example, the temperature of the object causing the flux. Gee, who’d have thought – sunlight is qualitatively different from icelight!
Carry on with your crackpottery. How is your ice-powered water boiling device going? I’ll be your first customer – subject to testing, of course.
It is amazing how piss poor the warmistas are on this forum. Here they are effectively arguing that if the sun shines and average of 300watts through a greenhouse window that the radiating glass will double the radiation inside the greenhouse. Really really stupid! Totally undisciplined! One would think they never read a single book on this topic and instead just are a bunch of monkey’s aping the propaganda they hear.
Where are your experiments Bill, Clint R, and Swenson?
Nowhere? Obviously.
Swenson 7:15 pm, and of course, it has been proven physically possible to raise the internal thermodynamic energy in water with added ice as demonstrated by atm. experiment.
That proves Swenson eminently witless.
Ball4 I am talking about established experiments. RW Woods over a 100 years ago was the first I know of. But the fact is this technology was better understood by the Egyptians over 2,000 years ago than it is by the typical scientist today who thinks he understands it.
Prof. R.W. Wood did indeed experimentally demonstrate it is physically possible to raise the internal thermodynamic energy in ~1bar surface air exposed to added radiation from the cooler atm. as occurs in a farmer’s greenhouse.
Good find Bill, experiments on this blog I’ve pointed you to also used a similar RWW setup to add to the thermodynamic internal energy in nighttime surface water exposed to added radiation from atm. ice.
Ball4 rambles incoherently again.
He claims that ice cubes can boil water. He fools other cult idiots like Norman. But, he can never support his claims. It’s the same with Folkerts.
It’s just part of the ongoing cult meltdown.
Clint R erroneously writes: “(Ball4) can never support his claims”
That’s wrong but provide great entertainment Clint R, the supporting experiments for my claim are reported right on this blog!
Ball4 says:
Prof. R.W. Wood did indeed experimentally demonstrate it is physically possible to raise the internal thermodynamic energy in ~1bar surface air by blocking convection as the radiation transparent greenhouse failed to warm as quickly and didn’t warm more than the greenhouse with a covering of rocksalt which is transparent to radiation.
Accurately, RWW experiments supported the earthen GHE since the LW radiation ~transparent covered box failed to warm as quickly. When the IR blocking glass pane was placed over the rock salt pane, the air inside the same box warmed more than formerly with only a covering of rocksalt which is ~transparent to radiation.
Ball4 says:
Accurately, RWW experiments supported the earthen GHE since the LW radiation ~transparent covered box failed to warm as quickly.
——————-
You got it wrong right off the bat Ball4. It was the IR opaque covered box that failed to warm as quickly.
————-
————-
————-
Ball4 says:
When the IR blocking glass pane was placed over the rock salt pane, the air inside the same box warmed more than formerly with only a covering of rocksalt which is ~transparent to radiation.
———–
———–
———–
Here the confusion continues. Putting the IR opaque panel over the IR transparent covered the box caused the IR transparent covered box now with IR blocking to slow its warming rate to match that of the IR opaque covered box.
Ball4 you are ever the obfuscator lying your butt off as an argument form.
“It was the IR opaque covered box that failed to warm as quickly.”
Bill’s pretending continues. Bill is as per RWW: “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter.”
RWW: “In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate”
Increasing IR opacity by adding the glass plate over the salt plate, the box then warmed faster proving a farmer’s greenhouse effect and proving the earthen GHE.
RWW also did not control for how dry was his salt plate – RWW might have found even more box GHE had he done so.
Since you didn’t address the error you made at all that I pointed out, I will just assume you have conceded the point and are too embarrassed to admit it.
There was no error Bill, it remains physically possible to raise the internal thermodynamic energy in ~1bar surface air exposed to added radiation from the cooler atm. as occurs in a farmer’s greenhouse.
Energy is well known from experiment to be an extensive property.
In the end, RWW sunlit experiment, despite all the shortcomings, supported the earthen GHE so it was a good find by Bill though as RWW stated “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter.” Others have done so & with much more controlled proper experiments in the lab, and in the wild, thereby supporting the earthen GHE.
Ball4 says:
There was no error Bill
—————————
You said: ”Accurately, RWW experiments supported the earthen GHE since the LW radiation ~transparent covered box failed to warm as quickly.”
The transparent covered box warmed more quickly Ball4.
that is the error I pointed out.
There was no error; Bill makes the error when Bill doesn’t quote my whole 1:34 pm comment entirely: Accurately, RWW experiments supported the earthen GHE since the LW radiation ~transparent covered box failed to warm as quickly. When the IR blocking glass pane was placed over the rock salt pane, the air inside the same box warmed more than formerly with only a covering of rocksalt which is ~transparent to radiation.
As competent RWW explained if Bill’s incompetent reading comprehension was actually up to the task: “the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun” supporting the earthen GHE as the glass plate only covered box blocked much of that LW energy from irradiating the inside air & the box.
Energy is well known from experiment to be an extensive property thus some earthen surface incident energy adds to internal energy per second per m^2.
Deal with it Bill, the cooler atm. adds radiative energy to the surface more so than the added radiative energy of space thus adding thermodynamic internal energy to the surface from the cooler atm. is a warming effect.
It’s good Bill found at least one half decent experiment supporting the earthen GHE as there are many more well controlled experiments online. Bill might even be able to find them but I doubt it until demonstrated.
The actual words of Dr. R.W. Woods
”the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass.”
Boohoo!! Ball4 got conned again by his daddy!
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
“When the IR blocking glass pane was placed over the rock salt pane, the air inside the same box warmed more than formerly with only a covering of rocksalt which is ~transparent to radiation.”
Too bad for Bill, I wrote the same thing about increased IR opacity of glass. RWW’s experiment supports a farmer’s greenhouse effect as well as the earthen GHE. It’s a good find by Bill. However, there are more controlled experiments that support the earthen GHE to which Bill should refer.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
LOL!
I actually have professional experience designing and building greenhouses. Do you?
First, IR blocking can only change average temperatures by slowing cooling and does so at some cost of slowing warming as shown in the RW Woods experiment. Obviously if some of the light doesn’t reach the ground the ground isn’t going to get as warm.
But mean temperature changes are pretty insignificant as climate mostly changes by raising the coldest temperatures, most likely a good thing. Shall we say climate change by the greenhouse effect is a condition of more moderate climate.
However, since there is some evidence that increases in high temperatures (as a global average) have occurred that suggests a different cause. One effect that could do that are fewer clouds allowing a more sunlight to reach the surface.
That would raise the highest temperature of the day, something radiant blocking cannot do.
And of course nobody has a clue if that has happened much less how it would happen because our monitoring systems are not up to snuff to obtain the necessary accuracy of measurement.
Those are just simple facts that arise from experience in these matters. But its a free country and if you want to be an epigonic moron spewing BS all over the place, I am not going advocate blocking your Twitter account.
And oh yes! The farmer’s greenhouse. I actually started building greenhouses for farmers. They told me exactly what I just told you. They use greenhouses to moderate the climate, both limiting damage to the crops from high temperatures and sunburn on delicate plants along with limiting cold temperature damage. They manage to do the former by using adjustable venting of the greenhouses to allow convection to continue to operate when desired.
“And of course nobody has a clue if that has happened much less how it would happen because our monitoring systems are not up to snuff to obtain the necessary accuracy of measurement.”
The relevant specialists do have reasonably enough satellite era data now, Bill, and nature’s actual “happened” in that time period is known with 95% confidence.
The alarmists were stupid enough to build their greenhouse effect based on radiation from cooler things adding energy to warmer things by back radiation, breaking the laws of fizzix, flat earth model included as a bonus,
now they will never admit you cannot add radiations from cooler objects to a warmer one, their whole theory would collapse.
https://i.postimg.cc/dV3Ts1Gc/1639534974316.jpg
Do U even geometry, Eboy:
https://i.imgflip.com/58jyyj.jpg
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Do U even geometry, Eboy:”
Have you heard of a language called English, dimwit?
Good morning, Mike.
U mad?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Still delusional as well as illiterate, are you?
You can’t do much about your delusional psychosis, as there is no treatment. However, I believe you could learn English if you put some effort in.
If it is all hard for you, you could always waste as much time as you like, looking for the Greenhouse Theory you claim to have, but can’t actually lay your hands on.
Carry on.
Mike, Mike –
Where’s your Insulation Effect theory again?
Wearisome Wee Willy,
You insist there is an Insulation Effect Theory – because you are retarded and reject reality.
Your attempts at getting me banned on the basis of your baseless delusion that I am “Mike, Mike” is another example of you retardation and delusional thinking.
If that’s the best you can offer as an inducement to strangers to regard you as wise and powerful, I feel sorry for you.
No Insulation Effect Theory, no Greenhouse Theory either.
Off you go now, and play your “silly semantic games”. You definitely could do with improvement in that area. Or just play with yourself – that may bring more immediate satisfaction.
Wanker.
Good morning, Mike.
There’s nothing delusional about you being Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/houston-area-flooding-seen-from-space/#comment-261164
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Not everyone boasts about being a delusional moron, like you do.
Your witless attempts at running away like the coward you are, whenever someone asks you to provide some verifiable science, means you are just even worse than that pretend climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt.
So carry on, grubby troll. Keep blathering about non-existent imaginings like the Insulation Effect Theory and the Greenhouse Theory – neither of which either you or anybody else can produce!
Keep quoting Mike Flynn – he makes sense, unlike you. I even copy his words on occasion. Better than copying the the nonsense you come up with. You obviously admire him enough to quote him frequently. Keep it up. The more the better, moron.
[chortle]
Mike, Mike,
For a guy who keeps pretending not being Mike Flynn, the very least you could have done is to change your “voice.”
Just a bit.
A tiny bit.
So sad, too bad!
Weepy Wee Willy,
You just keep trying to avoid anything resembling science, don’t you?
That’s because you haven’t got any, have you?
If your fantasy makes you reject reality, do you imagine anybody is going to accept your assertion that you have a Greenhouse Theory, but you are not going to let anybody see it, unless they “do a deal” with you?
Fat chance, moron. Your obsessive and delusional attempts to avoid addressing the mythical GHE, and the even sillier notion that the statistics of weather (climate) somehow controls weather, just shows that you are a grubby gutless troll – possibly even more of a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat than the execrable Michael Mann.
C’mon, dummy – show me and Mike Flynn your Greenhouse Theory.
What’s the matter – sudden attack of cowardice?
[snigger]
Still here, Mike?
There’s no fantasy about you being Mike Flynn.
Everyone who reads Roy’s knows it.
Willard please stop trolling!
Willard the Dim,
You wrote –
“Theres no fantasy about you being Mike Flynn.
Everyone who reads Roys knows it.”
Nobody seems to care what your fantasy is telling you, do they?
Have you considered trying to gain fame by actually producing the Greenhouse Theory you claim to possess?
Or is that just another part of your fantasy?
Witless trolling fool.
Indeed I did consider it, Mike.
But you’re too lousy.
No, you’re not just lousy.
You’re kind of a douche.
Ask again.
Willard,
OK, I’ll rub it in.
You haven’t really got a Greenhouse Theory, have you?
Try another excuse, you gutless fantasist.
Wait, Mike.
You think you are rubbing in the request you kept making here and elsewhere for more than ten years now?
You fool.
Cmon Willard,
Just admit that you cant really produce a Greenhouse Theory (or an Insulation Effect Theory) because you plucked them out of your fantasy.
Your squirming and wriggling makes you look just like the fat slimy grub that you are, desperately trying to avoid getting stepped on.
Stick to pathetic attempts at trolling.
Why would I admit I can’t produce what I will as soon as you produce your insulation theory, Mike?
Whacko Wee Willy,
Oh, I see.
You invent an “Insulation Effect Theory”, decide that’s really, really, silly, rename it to “Insulation Theory” (doesn’t sound quite so silly, but still non existent), and then claim you won’t show anybody your non-existent “Greenhouse Theory”, until they produce one of your other non-existent “theories”!
Do you really wonder why you can’t name anybody who takes you seriously?
Gee. I guess you haven’t really got a “Greenhouse Theory” after all. Just more lies from a powerless, inept dimwit.
Carry on.
I did not invent the insulation effect theory, Mike.
You did:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-248938
Teach Roy’s Denizens!
Willard one must define carefully what they mean by an insulation effect.
Here it is not clear. We know for example that the LT temperature is warmer than that which some experts apparently expect in the absence of an LT atmosphere. But can something even be projected to have a temperature when it is assumed to not exist?
Popular climate theory equates a lot of stuff to proxies such as the radiating temperature of the surface that we don’t even measure nor did we ever measure in the absence of GHG.
Obviously clear days are warmer than unclear days. But that has nothing to do with a GHE. It has to do with clouds and fog disallowing sunlight to reach the surface.
Put together a system where the components are actually measured then you have the makings for an experiment. As it is greenhouse theory is just that a theory.
Worse according to many diligent scientists measuring temperature increases assuming all warming is due to increases in CO2 emissions sensitivity is measured to be only 1.7 plus or minus a much smaller number than the span of the 1979 original Hanson number still clung to today rabidly by climate modelers as if their careers depended upon not rocking the ship.
Do greenhouse gases have an insulating effect? It would seem to rest upon first answering the question of what does it have an insulating effect upon.
I don’t geometry , but I can tell flat earth model with 24 hours sun lite when I see one
https://i.postimg.cc/WzS7B2c2/flatearth.jpg
That’s not a model, Eboy.
Here’s a model:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8
Willard,
That’s not a model.
Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, it’s an irrelevant link to something quite silly.
Not worth wasting time on, is it?
Mike, Mike,
It actually *is* a model!
Here’s a discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/3Blue1Brown/comments/a2gqo0/but_why_is_a_spheres_surface_area_four_times_its/
You won’t get a food fight.
Sorry.
Willard,
You posted a link – its a URL, not a model.
You posted another link, claiming it was a discussion. Its not – Its just another URL.
Pathetic attempts at trolling.
It is with 100% confidence that I can state that any links you post are completely worthless. How do I know?
You are incapable of accepting reality, so anything you link to is a waste of time.
Next you are going to say that I have not posted a model, but a comment.
You silly Mike Flynn!
Cmon Willard,
Posting an irrelevant link to an alleged discussion about more irrelevancy is your idea of trolling, obviously.
Pretty pathetic. Do you think people willingly waste their time following your links?
Unless for potential amusement purposes, of course.
C’mon, Mike.
You don’t click on links.
Hard to tell if it’s irrelevant if you don’t!
Swoon.
Willard,
Of course it’s irrelevant, you Wanker.
Why else would you post it? Your previously stated purpose is to make people “waste space”.
Moron.
I posted the link so you can learn something about geometry, Mike.
You might argue that your ignorance is irrelevant, in which case I would have to disabuse of this notion.
I believe in you, silly sock puppet!
All the climate retards do the same thing, type up some psychobabble and paste some unrelated links while acting as if they refute something
You are fighting basic geometry, Eboy.
Even the second best army in the world will not win against it.
Except nobody disputes that a sphere’s surface area is four times that of its shadow. So nobody is fighting basic geometry.
Willard,
You do realise that “climate scientists” didn’t invent geometry – or physics, or statistics, or meteorology, or . . .
As a matter of fact, they have invented nothing at all, and discovered precisely nothing new..
Are you a climate crackpot living in a fantasy world, perhaps?
Still here, Mike?
Willard,
Still suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder?
What did Mike Flynn do to you? Have you discovered some repressed memories that tell you Mike Flynn fiddled with you inappropriately when you were small?
And now he comments here infrequently, so you have transferred you fixation to me!
Presumably, this would explain your past protestations of admiration and love, ardent swooning, and playing with yourself while addressing comments to Mike Flynn.
Its a free world, Willard, and you have my sympathy.
Carry on.
You’re into illeism once more, Mike.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
Why are you fixated with Mike Flynn?
Unrequited love? How do you know he is not a homophobe?
Here’s an idea. Waste your money suing me for something or other. I won’t lie in court documents like Michael Mann, so you will learn my legal name.
However, I might take a leaf out of Mike’s “scofflaw” book, and refuse to comply with any court order. You could lose spectacularly all round!
I’m on safe ground. A gutless slimy incompetent troll like you just tries to annoy people. Impotent and powerless, but an endless source of diversion in both senses of the word.
Carry on.
[laughing at diversionary idiot]
Mike, Mike,
Don’t you know what “illeism” means?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s not soo lonng time ago that Coolistas predicted a new solar cycle way below the last one, what inevitably would lead to a new Grrrand Ssssloar Minnnimum!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x9jsQs8XkGkj4wT9FtrWaiy-LzIPbT3s/view
(including data till Apr 22)
Apparently our Sun isn’t on the payroll of Heartland and GWPF :- )
Who predicted new solar cycle way below the last one, I never saw it, I thing I would remember that
It’s not my job to remind you about what you yourself wrote over one year ago, Eben.
Look back at ALL comments you posted here since SC25’s begin.
And then go to WUWT, and start searching there for similar comments posted by people thinking like you do about
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243?scroll=top&needAccess=true
You can’t show it because I never made such a prediction you lying piece of Scheie
Feel free to insult me below the belt with your disgusting fecal expressions, that is all what you are able to do.
Binny,
So the “cojones” (testicles) you used as terms of insult, don’t normally reside below your belt?
You should pull your pants up. It’s disgusting if you walk around exposing your nether regions!
Bindidon says:
Its not soo lonng time ago that Coolistas predicted a new solar cycle way below the last one, what inevitably would lead to a new Grrrand Ssssloar Minnnimum!
Apparently our Sun isnt on the payroll of Heartland and GWPF :- )
—————————
the predictions for a new grand solar minimum arose out of the very select group of solar scientists back in 2012 https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
This prediction was based upon a decreasing solar magnetic effect that had never been observed before. ”Extrapolating the behavior from the past 13 years into the next 13 years suggests the Sun
may enter a new Grand Minimum.”
Svalgaard is anything but a ‘coolista’ and he nor Penn nor Livingston on Heartlands or GWPF payroll.
Jesus.
I don’t mean here people like Svalgard.
I mean those who propagate such ideas e.g. at WUWT, without having a bit of knowledge about it.
Bindidon says:
Jesus.
I dont mean here people like Svalgard.
I mean those who propagate such ideas e.g. at WUWT, without having a bit of knowledge about it.
===========================
Well when it comes to predicting future solar cycles, Svalgaard so far has not demonstrated quantitative skill at that. But clearly he knows a lot about the sun.
My thoughts are now and then that its was too soon for a solar grand minimum. I found the drama rather intriguing for the year or so it went on. But I am an observations guy and had felt there was more evidence for a grand cycle of about a thousand years. The Roman period, MWP, and the modern warming unfolded over 2 thousand years.
Ice core data has an unexplained so-called ‘noise pattern’ of approximately 2 to 4c. It may be that this proxy simply has too poor of resolution to show it popping in shorter time spans but that goes into theorizing without observational evidence.
Theory is fun stuff and folks love to adopt them and play with them and make careers on them. As an auditor my job is to keep to the actual evidence and when one cannot decide quantitatively or experimentally on a theory, observation is what rules. Thats just in my DNA. Its how people expect auditors to perform when the pressure is on as they don’t want new theories to bankrupt them or cause failures in the presence of observed warning signs. I don’t see the popularity of a theory being of value. The world has a long history of such mass hysterias hitting the public. The earliest educational example I learned was falling off the edge of the world if one sailed too far west.
Why does anyone argue with these idiots? The Global warming movement died when temperatures failed to match co2. As in no significant warming. Its as over as covid. Next fake hobgoblin please.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote (hat tip to Willard) –
.While the two fluxes are the same in ONE way, their are definitely NOT the same in OTHER ways! I bet you if you shine 300 W/m^2 from ice on surface and 300 W/m^2 from a light bulb on a different surface, I could tell you which was which with nothing more than my bare eyes!
And the differences are important!”
Tim has finally accepted that 300 W/m2 (units so beloved of climate crackpots) is completely meaningless without also knowing the temperature of the object emitting the radiation.
Yes Tim, temperature does exist, and it makes a difference. Adding fluxes without knowing the temperature of the emitter is as silly as adding temperatures.
As to Tim’s mad assertion, if the light bulb filament was heated to below red heat, Tim’s bare eyes would be unable to to tell which was which – unless he was poked in one eye with a piece of ice, and in the other eye with a light bulb hot enough to melt lead, but emitting no visible radiation.
Not a deep thinker, Tim Folkerts. Just like most climate crackpots.
“Tim has finally accepted that 300 W/m2 (units so beloved of climate crackpots) is completely meaningless without also knowing the temperature of the object emitting the radiation.”
No. Not *completely* meaningless. Just incomplete.
But the person you REALLY need to explain this to is Clint, who insists that 315 W/m^2 tells us EVERYTHING we need to know. The emitter MUST be 273 K.
Folkerts, are you purposely trying to make me use the “L” word? I NEVER “insisted” any such thing. You’re making things up, again.
And that’s because you have NOTHING.
Tim,
Completely meaningless. As you have finally admitted, no matter what form of weasel words you use.
As to explaining anything to anyone at your behest, why should I?
Why should I accept direction from a delusional and ignorant nitwit?
I comment as I wish. No doubt you do the same. Would you leap to obey my directions to comment in this or that fashion, addressed to this or that person?
I doubt it.
Tim Folkerts says:April 25, 2022 at 8:57 AM
No. Not *completely* meaningless. Just incomplete.
But the person you REALLY need to explain this to is Clint, who insists that 315 W/m^2 tells us EVERYTHING we need to know. The emitter MUST be 273 K.
————————–
No it does not Tim!!!! It only has to be 273K if it is a blackbody!
It’s Monday again
Early indicators are in for a third La Nina winter , but we will not know for sure until Bindiclown starts arguing against it.
Well one can say now that NOAA projects La Nina being likely through the November-December-January season.
The analysis at Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com falsifies the Climate Science Model that CO2 causes climate change.
Climate change due to added ppm CO2 in our atm. as observed in the satellite era falsifies Section 7.
Ball4, you need to somehow realize your false beliefs ain’t science.
But, we both know that’s not going to happen.
Note the word “observed” Clint which falsifies your funny claim. Thanks for the laugh.
Braindead4, believing that UAH results somehow proves your cult beliefs just means that you’re another braindead cult idiot.
In case I wasn’t clear — Anonymous troll Ball4 is just another braindead cult idiot.
Not your “UAH results” believing Clint, actual bona fide experiments reported on this blog & their logged data back my claims.
Where are your experiments Clint? Nowhere? Obviously.
Troll Ball4, you have NOTHING. If you had something, you could state it and support it. You can’t.
That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Again, where are your experiments, Clint? Nowhere? Obviously.
I have stated in line with experimental lab work reported right on this blog! Clint should report lab work also but thanks for the laughs when Clint doesn’t do so.
Troll Ball4, you have NOTHING. If you had something, you could state it and support it. But you can’t.
That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Ball4 (delusional nitwit),
Climate is the statistics of past weather.
What weather elements were affected by CO2, how much, when, where and why?
Your stupidity and ignorance know no bounds.
Even when you are caught out lying about the abilities of colorimeters (which you have never actually even seen, in reality), you blithely press on.
What’s next – going to claim you can predict the future?
Moron.
I can reliably predict the future to the extent Swenson will live up to my expectations and continue commenting with assertions not backed by any experiment or observation.
Prove me wrong Swenson by actually doing or pointing out a proper experiment to back your comments – you know, results from using a colorimeter in the visible bands would be fine.
Ball4 – you idiot.
Climate is the statistics of past weather.
Your stupidity and ignorance know no bounds.
Even when you are caught out lying about the abilities of colorimeters (which you have never actually even seen, in reality), you blithely press on.
No experiments needed. Just statements of fact – unless you can demonstrate the contrary by reproducible experiment.
As Einstein (you may have heard of him) said – “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Saying stupid things about proving I am right just show that you have no clue about science.
Maybe you should get together with Witless Wee Willy. You could play with each other.
“No experiments needed” when a commenter such as Swenson can just make unreliable assertions for no credibility at all. Pity.
Einstein had reliable experimental support for his various original theories as do I, Swenson does not have experimental support for assertions. Obviously.
Ball4 – you moron,
Maybe you didnt comprehend No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. – Einstein.
Ill use baby steps (although I am not sure what steps should be used for a baby moron) –
“Climate is the statistics of past weather.”
Demand all the experiments you want. Definitions are not subject to experimentation. Just like your degree of mental aberration – it is what it is, no more, no less.
Off you go, look up some experiments which prove you are sane. If you cant, you might be reduced to making an unsupported assertion that you are not stupid, ignorant, and retarded. And who is likely to believe an unsupported assertion from someone who appears to be stupid, ignorant, and retarded?
Probably another climate crackpot, thats who – but no rational person.
Assert away. Go off and boil up some bacon and some beans with your ice powered heater. Apparently, you can find the details on a blog somewhere.
[laughs at moron].
I comprehend. I also predicted the future correctly in that Swenson lived up to all my expectations.
It is Swenson doesn’t comprehend that Einstein had experimental support for his theories when Swenson does not have experimental support for assertions. Pity.
I have no “ice powered heater” another unsupported assertion of Swenson’s – Swenson just made those words up obviously without support as is typical for Swenson.
Found the GHE definition yet Swenson? Many have done so. Why can’t Swenson find it?
Ball4,
Your silly evasion continues, I see.
Have you stopped claiming that you can use ice to boil water, and then cool the hot water with that same ice?
Or are you just claiming that some other fool said they did it?
You really are a gullible little sausage, aren’t you?
As to the GHE definition, you seem to be in the same boat as your ice heating claims – someone else has a definition, but you cant produce it yourself. Maybe whacky Willard has it, but he refuses to let anybody see it!
Have you tried copying and pasting it from the internet perhaps? If you don’t know how, you could always ask the “college librarian” you babble on about.
Moron.
Hey, Mike.
Where’s your insulation effect theory?
Willard,
There is no “insulation effect theory”. You just make up nonsense like the “greenhouse theory” and “insulation effect theory” hoping that nobody will realise that you are just a slimy, little grub.
Oh, and an incompetent troll as well.
Time for you to quote Mike Flynn again, do you think?
Mike,
On the one hand, the one with the sock puppet, you say:
[MIKE’S SOCK PUPPET] There is no “insulation effect theory”.
On the other, without the sock puppet, you say:
[MIKE FLYNN] Insulation reduces the rate of heat loss (in simple terms) the insulated object still cools.
I duly submit that you need to tame your sock puppet.
On cue Willard weakens his case!
Bill,
Yeah, he’s about as bright as a 25 watt light bulb in a power outage.
He’s about the only idiot I know who consistently appeals to the authority of people who demolish his assumptions.
You have probably noticed that he admits that he has no reason for insisting that I am Mike Flynn (or vice versa), nor does he expect to achieve anything at all by wasting his time on a completely pointless exercise.
This does not seem entirely rational to me, but others may have a different view.
> You have probably noticed that he admits that he has no reason for insisting that I am Mike Flynn
Did, Mike?
I mean, really?
A quote might be nice.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
A quote might be nice.
If you say so, moron. Provide one, then.
Dont bother asking me to dance to your discordant jangling!
Measured water vapor has been increasing from 34% to 178% more than possible from just planet warming (i.e. the result of all forcings and feedbacks). Where did the ‘extra’ WV come from? My work, which at Section 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com determined that about 90% comes from irrigation. This corroborates what Shiklomanov 1997 determined as mentioned by Doll in 2002 at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001WR000355
NASA/RSS has decided to stop monthly reporting of average global WV (their last report is for Dec, 2021). I suspect that the Deep State has discovered that WV increase cannot have been caused by CO2 increase and therefore humanity’s contribution to warming cannot be from CO2 increase. Rather than admit that attempt by some politicians to control the rest of us by curtailing the use of fossil fuels is a colossal mistake they are simply censoring the evidence.
This has to be the most whacked out bunch of people on a climate blog I have found. I love the endless trolling, personal attacks with the occasional but mostly rare discussions of actual science. So good to see a site that hasn’t been moderated to death. Keep it up. And remember if you don’t have something nice to say, put the boot in.
It’s a cult, and the false science they spread is their mission. They have no respect for science or reality. They’re willing to make up things to support their cult beliefs. They have even claimed that ice cubes can boil water, and passenger jets fly backwards. If you don’t accept their beliefs, they even attack you personally, and rage at you with false accusations and insults.
My 3 years here has been a real learning experience. I never realized such fanaticism extended to science blogs.
Hey folks,
Still no GTR available for March on UAH website?
Regards!
Ivan Toman
Please read this text:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/March2022/GTR_202203Mar_1.docx
In between, you might have a look at my UAH LT chart for March 2022:
https://i.postimg.cc/nhbZRv9h/UAH-2-5-degree-LT-grid-cell-anoms-Mar-2022.png
Sorry, no spherical area saving projection: I have no interest in doing that.
But the information in the rectangular representation of UAH’s grid will be the same as that visible in their Mollweide view.
Thank you very much! There is a map in the linked GTR, everything that I need. Thx again!
India
The country has just endured its hottest March since records began, according to the India Meteorological Department, and the heat wave is dragging well into harvest time.
The heat wave is hitting Indias main wheat-growing regions particularly hard, with temperatures this week set to hit 112 F in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; 120 F in Chandigarh, Punjab; and 109 F in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Devendra Singh Chauhan, a farmer from Uttar Pradeshs Etawah district, told NBC News that his wheat crop was down 60 percent compared to normal harvests.
In March, when the ideal temperature should rise gradually, we saw it jump suddenly from 32 C to 40 C [90 F to 104 F], he said in a text message. If such unreasonable weather patterns continue year after year, farmers will suffer badly.
This La Niña is creating havoc in India. They are just coming out of a worse-than-average monsoon season and winter. And, with the La Niña holding on, India will likely face a repeat.
Yes, I saw that hard rise in temperature two days ago:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/6e70410f-7b27-4290-99e6-a9260b6767d4/30ca7927e6bd0d429b64ba51cc8c8754/ff5fa313-548e-46e4-bf94-e101743aed16.png
Did you see the hard global temperature drop in April ???
In a few days, April will go to end, and one week later I will download and process the data of over 40,000 weather stations worldwide.
We will then see how that looks like.
You, Eben, would at best be able to tell us what WUWT and TricksZone will tell you. Because you lack technical skill to build an own opinion.
*
But before processing that data, I’ll tell you that in Northeast Germany, March and April 2022 were one more time cooler than usual.
Since 2020: winters too warm, springs too cool, summers too short.
Grrrand Coooling aheaddd!
Too bad you wouldn’t even dare to take a guess which way is that temperature going to go
I like your technical skillz you put them to good use to get all you predictions exactly backwards.
Your permanent z-ending blah blah reminds me German Neo-Nazis, like in ‘Bhse Onkelz’.
All pretty good Fascists.
“You, Eben, would at best be able to tell us what WUWT and TricksZone will tell you. Because you lack technical skill to build an own opinion.”
I posted my predictions 3 month before they started appearing on sites like notrickszone and WUWT
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-750377
You on the other hand are a piece lying scheisse who cannot predict absolutely anything
Yee Haaah the March Lower troposphere map is out – thanks to those people.
I’d like to have a similar chart for the other layers too – at least for the lower stratosphere.
For the UAH team, it’s exactly the same job out of data with the same structure as for LT, using the same software.
Here’s the 4 layers on one figure:
UAH TLT, TMT, TTP, TLS grid plots for March 2022
Not a lot of unique code to generate this:
Script to generate plot
Thank you very much, Mark B, for your helpful publication.
I’m currently busy with a lot of other things like sea levels, surface temperatures etc, while at the same time regularly posting charts showing current data for sea ice, solar flux and the like.
It’s nice for me to see that commenters like you manage to publish such relevant matters, instead of endlessly posting month after month redundant information.
Your python code is of amazing quality.
I just found barry’s attempt to pervert reality. I missed the fun.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1262435
barry is trying to use an infrared heater, with three elements, so support his nonsense. He doesn’t realize that’s the same basic nonsense as Folkerts’ “two lightbulbs”. This has already been explained, but here it is again, since the idiots have continued to confuse the issue.
The issue is NOT about anything but “fluxes do not simply add”. That’s it. That’s the issue.
Folkerts gave the erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 to then raise a surface to 325K. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not simply add. That’s the issue. Everything else is distraction, obfuscation, disruption, confusion, or rabbit trails.
barry knows nothing about the issue. The infrared heater he found would have element temperatures of about 4000K (3727C, 6740F). It would need to have temperatures close to that to be producing red light. He claims he could feel the difference from turning on one element compared to turning on two. That’s NOT the issue. Here’s a simple test barry could do, if he were able to learn:
Turn on one heater element in a room with a set temperature of 70F. Place a thermometer at a distance in front of the heater so that the thermometer reads a little above 70F, say 75F. Let the thermometer stabilize so the temperature is not changing. Now, turn on a second element.
Assuming the elements are equal, and the flux from the thermometer equals the flux to the thermometer, then the flux would be about 440 W/m^2 with a high emissivity. So Folkerts and barry claim the thermometer would have 880 W/m^2, with two elements on. That corresponds to 175F. So the idiots are claiming turning on the second element will increase temperature about 100F!
See why they’re idiots.
(I’ve wasted enough time with these braindead cult idiots. So I will only respond to meaningful questions from responsible adults.)
Awww, Clint R, you will spoil the fun!
Mind you, rather than getting sucked into the cultists’ attempts to follow them down a bizarre rabbit hole of their choosing, my response is often a non-written one.
A good rollicking belly. laugh is often my response to some of the more idiotic comments – Ball4s magic ice, which boils cold water, and cools boiling water. Willards list of non-existent Theories – Greenhouse Theory, Greenhouse Effect Theory, Insulation Effect Theory, and so on.
Another source of laughter is the repeated plaintive demand to tell some moron where photons go! A weird sort of gotcha – the idiots pretend ignorance, but if you even look like you are going to provide an answer, they burst into a perfect plethora of irrelevant and stupid analogies, trying to imply they admit they know nothing, but you must be wrong anyway!
And now for a bit of a test – punctuation marks which WordPress doesnt seem to like –
‘
barry did find this, however:
“…the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
In that statement, they are confusing “energy” with “flux”. Energy arriving a surface doesn’t mean it will be absorbed.
The easy example is two ice cubes can not make a surface hotter than one ice cube. And, 100 ice cubes cannot make a surface hotter than one ice cube. Fluxes don’t simply add.
“Energy arriving a surface doesn’t mean it will be absorbed.”
Very true.
As we’ve seen with the Moon discussion, they can find anything they want on the Internet. That doesn’t mean it is right. Or that they can understand it, even if it’s right.
Radiative physics is actually a very obscure science, when absorp.tion is considered. The problem arises because 2LoT MUST be taken into account. barry, and his cult, quickly get over their heads. They get even more confused by the concept of a black body. There is NOTHING in reality that “accepts all wavelengths all the time”.
“There is NOTHING in reality that “accepts all wavelengths all the time”.”
Accepts? No. Actually it is the law that every material object absorbs/emits all wavelengths at all temperatures all the time per Planck’s Law but no blackbodies absorp_tivity = 1.0 exist that thus absorb all the incident light energy as all real objects have less than 1 absorp_tivity/emissivity. Even though, manifestly, blackbody radiation exists!
Correct, there is NOTHING in reality that “accepts all wavelengths all the time”.
No that’s wrong physics Clint R, every real object in reality absorbs then emits all wavelengths all the time at all temperatures consistent with Planck’s Law with emissivity less than 1.
That’s correct, NOTHING in reality “accepts all wavelengths all the time”.
Ball4,
I believe that transparent materials like glass allow visible light to travel through without attenuation under the right circumstances. Partial reflection varies between 0 and 16%, and if the partial reflection can be reduced to zero, the glass surface appears to vanish.
This does not support your contention that the glass absorbs all wavelengths – otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see through it. Nor could your imaginary colorimeter read colors from reflected surfaces, through glass, and so on.
And, of course, GHE cultists believe that some IR travels through glass without hindrance, but other IR cannot travel through that same glass in the opposite direction, resulting in some sort of ridiculous “greenhouse effect”, which makes the world hotter even when the initial source of IR (the sun) is not shining!
You are either stupid, ignorant, or delusional. Ask a college librarian for assistance if you can’t figure which it is. Or look it up in a textbook, if you prefer.
“I believe that transparent materials like glass allow visible light to travel through without attenuation under the right circumstances.”
There are no such circumstances. The glass absorbs all light frequencies at all glass temperatures just not all of the energy(f) at that f since its emissivity(f) is less than 1.
“Partial reflection varies between 0 and 16%, and if the partial reflection can be reduced to zero, the glass surface appears to vanish.”
If the reflection can be reduced to zero, then Swenson will have found the currently unknown perfect reflector that can improve the JWST results, if so NASA would then like to talk to Swenson.
“This does not support your contention that the glass absorbs all wavelengths – otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see through it.”
That is not MY contention, it is Max Planck’s contention backed by numerous proper experiments so go argue with Max’s writings. The glass absorbs all frequencies at all glass temperatures just not all of the light energy(f) at that f.
The colorimeter does not read 100% reflected color, it reads from a natural surface about 95% emitted color from the opaque object and 5% the color of the illumination.
I observe Swenson has finally found the GHE. Good for Swenson. A memorable event.
Ball4,
Glass allows light through, whether you or Planck agree.
Reflection can be reduced to very close to zero for visible light. It’s called “invisible glass”, because it looks, well, invisible.
NASA doesn’t need to talk to me – they know about anti-reflective coatings. Ask your college librarian for details.
If Max Planck didn’t believe glass was transparent, it’s news to me. Maybe you are referring to an imaginary person named Mix Plonck, who believed that ice could be used to boil cold water and cool boiling water – like you.
You have never used a colorimeter, have you?
There is no GHE, dimwit. It’s a figment of your imagination. You can always blame your imaginary Mix Plonck for misleading you.
Moron.
“If Max Planck didnt believe glass was transparent, its news to me.”
Sure it would be news to Swenson. Swenson admits not having read Max Planck’s work.
Then Swenson claims there is no GHE right after Swenson explained the earthen GHE. Clearly Swenson then admits not knowing what Swenson is writing about.
Ball4 says:
Then Swenson claims there is no GHE right after Swenson explained the earthen GHE. Clearly Swenson then admits not knowing what Swenson is writing about.
————————
Well in my mind there clearly is a GHE.
But one must carefully analyze it with where it exists and stop extrapolating a GHE to other places with out complete heat transfer models where all the forms of heat transfer are properly represented. Claiming they are properly represented and failing to reproduce natural variation should be sufficient to show they are not properly represented.
“So Folkerts and barry claim the thermometer would have 880 W/m^2”
Speaking for myself, that is entirely incorrect, and for the same reason your silly strawman about 2 ice cubes boiling water.
Tim and I maintain that radiative fluxes arriving at a surface from two independent sources are summed.
Neither of us said that the resulting temperature at the surface was then derived purely from the sum of the two fluxes.
That is YOUR straw man.
This is what YOU said:
“Folkerts, fluxes do NOT add.”
They most certainly do in the computations of radiative transfer.
But this sum does not give you the resulting temperature of the surface receiving the fluxes.
The resulting temperature of the surface is determined from its equilibrium radiative flux WRT the total environment that can ‘view’ it. Summing the fluxes is only part of the solution. You were denying that this happens – that a second lightbulb adds zero radiative flux to a surface.
I provided references upthread. I’ll requote here:
“The radiative energy balance on surface k indicates that the net heat flux at the surface (the energy added to surface k) is the difference between the outgoing and incident radiation…
…the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
Here’s another source describing this, text from a university of engineering p. 13:
“…irradiance will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation fields from all the other surface which can ‘view’ surface 1.”
https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
I believe you have shifted your position, Clint. You are now accepting that a second lightbulb or sun will in fact increase the radiative flux received by the surface viewing it and the other source, but you are now arguing that the sum of the two fluxes dos not determine the temperature of the surface.
I agree. So does Tim. We already understood view factors, and the difference between flux at source and flux received. Tim was trying to explain that upthread.
I call this progress.
Now, having agreed that radiative fluxes arriving at a surface from independent sources do indeed combine to increase the radiative flux being absorbed… what was the previous point under contention that took us down this stupid rabbit hole?
barry, the issue is Folkerts’ erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 and then raise a surface to 325K. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not simply add.
So in all your rambling blah-blah above, if you’re now backing away from Folkerts’ nonsense, that’s good.
Keep backing away from your cult beliefs. I call that progress.
That’s wrong arithmetic Clint who can’t even add 1+1 correctly, two 315 W/m^2 energy fluxes add to 630W/2m^2 so energy flux does add every second and every m^2 because energy is an extensive property.
Clint R will never understand this science so Clint R makes for great entertainment. Thanks for yet another laugh Clint.
“barry, the issue is Folkerts erroneous example that two 315W/m^2 fluxes would add to 630 W/m^2 and then raise a surface to 325K.”
Folkerts. Never. Said. That.
He said the fluxes would add to 630 W/m2. He NEVER said what the surface temperature would be in that case.
YOU and You ALONE gave the temperature. And then said that this is what Tim thinks, when he never agreed with it.
In fact he expressly said way upthread that he didn’t agree with it.
Don’t bother looking upthread to quote Tim saying what the TEMPRATURE would be in this case. You’ll only find YOURSELF saying this.
You have always tried to foist this straw man on other people.
Now.
You have ‘clarified’ that two fluxes arriving at a blackbody surface do indeed combine to increase the radiative flux received at the surface.
That is what you said was false.
“Folkerts, fluxes do NOT add.”
You were wrong.
Of course, the incoming flux at the surface alone DOES NOT tell you what the surface temperature is. Anyone can peruse the links just above to see the factors that determine this.
Now that we agree that incoming flux is additive at a blackbody surface…. WHAT was the prior point that brought on this contention?
That’s ALL wrong, barry. You have no clue about the issue, or the physics involved. You just make things up to fit your cult beliefs. You’re falsely accusing me and misrepresenting me. You’re a phony, just like the rest.
I see you had to slither out of your own words: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1265759
Keep slithering.
I don’t make things up, Clint.
Here is proper physics:
“The radiative energy balance on surface k indicates that the net heat flux at the surface (the energy added to surface k) is the difference between the outgoing and incident radiation…
…the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
This is exactly what Tim claimed. He asked you to understand the difference between exitance and irradiance – you completely ignored that distinction in your discussion and went on about ice cubes.
Let’s if we can nail down the point of difference.
A (blackbody) ice cube 2 inches high radiates to a 2 inch square surface 2 inches away in a vacuum.
Is the radiation received by the surface:
1. 315 W/m^2
or
2. Less than 315 W/m^2
Now I have to correct myself.
Folkerts has said that two independent fluxes of 315 W/m2 arriving at a surface could result in a BB temp of 325K. But the conversation never developed enough to explain this.
It IS theoretically possible, if the two independent sources of energy comprise the total field of view that the receiving surface sees. The enclosed shape would be a dome with two hemispheres providing the energy to the surface they mutually encompass.
Two ice cubes don’t do that.
Neither do 2 hemispheres of ice, as 315 W/m2 is the flux at the surface of the ice, not at the surface being irradiated.
All this is assuming we are speaking of blackbodies, and that there is no transfer of energy except between the objects listed (ie, no energy goes out of the enclosure).
Keep slithering, barry.
Folkerts didn’t say “could”. He implied “would”, even giving the math to support his nonsense. That’s the math that leads to 4 ice cubes being able to boil water. That’s more nonsense that is fervently supported by Ball4.
Changing Folkerts’ “ice dome” to an “ice cube” is my effort to make you cult idiots understand how stupid your beliefs are. But, as usual, you’re too braindead to understand simple analogies.
Ice can’t raise anything above the temperature of the ice. Absorp.tion is affected by temperature. All of your Internet searching hasn’t taught you the simple basics. Maybe you just can’t learn?
No, Folkerts explained correctly that 315 W/m2 is the flux LEAVING the ice (actually, it’s 306 W/m2 – ice has an emissivity of 0.97 – a blackbody, emissivity 1, at 0C emits 315 W/m2).
This is NOT the value ARRIVING at the surface. You do not consider incidence, Clint, you do not consider view factors.
And because you don’t understand these things, you keep making the same mistake with ice cubes.
2 ice cubes that you get out of a tray couldn’t possibly supply 315 W/m2 to any surface. Th surface would have to have a unity view factor with the ice. 2 infinitely large plates clos together, for example – one plate would be the ‘ice’ (or blackbody at 0C). The other would be a plat where no energy is transferred anywhere but to the 0C wall.
Othrwise th surface will eq
You’ve still got too many things wrong, barry. So I’ll just let you argue with yourself.
That’s why this is so much fun.
barry,
You wrote –
“2 ice cubes that you get out of a tray couldnt possibly supply 315 W/m2 to any surface.”
You are confused, and don’t realise you are not talking about total energy, but rather a rate of energy transfer.
For example, a bowl of water in bright sunlight will not boil. The energy density at a maximum of say 1000 W/m2 is insufficient for the task. A simple convex lens can concentrate the sunlight to say 10000 W/m2, and not only boil water, but melt lead!
However, concentrating 300 W/m2 from ice to 1000 W/m2 will not warm any water at all. Nor will concentrating it to 10000 W/m2!
Now whether you use 2 ice cubes each emitting a flux of say 300 W/m2, or two glaciers of 10000 km2, emitting 300 W/m2, you still cannot warm even a teaspoon of water, no matter how much energy radiated from ice you have, nor how much you concentrate it.
Maybe you have been believing the dimwitted Ball4, rather than the evidence of your own lying eyes!
Do you know you can start a fire using sunlight and a lens made from ice? According to Ball4, that is impossible. He claims Max Planck told him so, but I surmise that he was drinking the product made by Mix Plonck, and became detached from reality.
Go on, tell me that an ice lens emitting 300 W/m2 cannot be used to start a fire by concentrating sunlight measured at 300 W/m2. Don’t think about it – your brain might spontaneously combust.
Swenson,
The maximum theoretical temperature you could reach by focussing the sun’s beams is the temperature of the surface of the sun (you would need a VERY large lens – celestial in size).
The maximum theoretical temperature you could reach by focussing an ice cube’s beams is the temperature at the surface of the ice cube.
You guys are REALLY having a problem distinguishing between thermal emission at source and irradiance at receiving surface!
[Not to mention the issue of collimated (sun) and non-collimated (ice cube) radiation]
barry, you FINALLY got something right! Yes, an ice cube can NOT raise a surface to a higher temperature than the ice. (Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.)
But, you’re STILL avoiding the issue. The issue is Folkert’s bogus claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K. The fluxes are as measured AT the surface, so all your dodging and distractions about “source” versus “surface” is of NO value.
Where’s your valid science that Folkert’s nonsense can happen?
It’s NOT there….
“Do you know you can start a fire using sunlight and a lens made from ice?”
Sure, the illuminated ice is transparent enough since sunlight is naturally collimated & because +energy per sec per m^2 is additive since energy is conserved in that time and area. Too, energy is well known* to be an extensive property of a material object when the object changes in extent.
*Except of course to Swenson and Clint R.
Ball4, as usual, you have no understanding of any of this.
Energy is conserved. Energy is also an extensive property.
Flux is NOT conserved. Flux is an intensive property. (For a deeper understanding, look back at my “cone example”. Then get an adult to explain it to you.)
Your inability to understand is why you have to resort to false accusations. (Did you learn that failing from Norman, or did he learn it from you?)
Flux is not a property of a material object at all Clint R. Clint R’s cone example was simply another laugh, thanks for that entertainment Clint.
Obviously Ball4 was unable to find an adult to help him.
So he just makes a fool of himself, again.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“But, youre STILL avoiding the issue. The issue is Folkert’s bogus claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes can heat a surface to 325K.”
Not avoiding it at all.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1265759
Two hemispheres in an adibiatic enclosure in vacuum supply, independently, 315 W/m^2 to a surface. The temperature of the hemispheres will of course be higher than 0C, because if they emit 315 W/m*2 at their surfaces, the surface beneath will receive less than that from each – you understand about incidence and view factors, right?
I’ve provided references from reputable sources that:
1) Warm objects do indeed receive radiation from cooler objects (Clausius, MIT)
2) Irradiances from independent sources are additive (Auburn Uni of Engineering, Thermopedia)
Clint, high time for you to provide a reference for whatever it is you are arguing to the contrary. Please make it clear what that is, as it is becoming less clear.
(We are both agreed ice cubes cannot boil water. No need to lean on that straw man any more)
“We are both agreed ice cubes cannot boil water.”
barry, with 2 ice cubes but not generally. Clint R writes that ice cubes cannot boil water to erroneously defend Clint R’s view that there can be no earthen GHE. To defeat views such as Clint’s, Dr. Spencer some years ago performed experiments on the atm. showing Clint R really is wrong along with many others.
“barry, with 2 ice cubes but not generally.”
Ice cubes can’t boil water. Period.
Not period, barry. There’s a way.
Dr. Spencer showed that added atm. ice can increase the temperature of nighttime surface water in Alabama. Added high clouds are well known (except by a few) to warm the surface temperature. All that is needed is to set up the experiment so that temperature increase takes the water over 212F at 1bar.
“1) Warm objects do indeed receive radiation from cooler objects (Clausius, MIT)”
Flux arriving at a surface does NOT mean it will be absorbed.
“2) Irradiances from independent sources are additive (Auburn Uni of Engineering, Thermopedia)”
That’s YOUR interpretation, barry. Where’s your verification of Folkerts’ math — F + F = 2F?
barry, high time for you to provide a reference for your nonsense.
Earlier, the incredibly delusional Willard wrote –
“I did not invent the insulation effect theory, Mike.
You did:”
And then quotes somebody unnamed, who wrote –
“As in, insulation reduces the rate of heat loss (in simple terms) the insulated object still cools.”
Willard is confused, not to mention stupid. There is no “insulation effect theory”, so I doubt that Mike claimed to have invented something non-existent! Willard’s anonymous quote seems to contradict his assertion, as it doesn’t mention any “insulation effect theory”.
Not everybody is as stupid as Willard.
angech |
On a lighter note the last day of April and soon a new global temperature for April.
Currently the year is running about 6th warmest.
We have had two of the weakest La Ninas I have ever seen after a strong El Nino with carried on warmth between the two La Ninas which hardly budged the BOM chart.
Now we have a series of interesting factors in play.
Cold waters coming up the South American Coast.
Cool Eastern Pacific waters.
A SOI of 21.8 when it looked like going negative.
A mild rise in UAH only in March.
Antarctic ice still under but rising slightly.
Arctic Ice in the 10th lowest and has been 12th lowest recently.
The ducks are all lined up in a row for a drop in April Global Temperatures.
I hate writing this because Roy Spencer reads it and it causes the UAH to go the other way.
Nonetheless a big drop in temperatures for April.
If Only.
On day 120 (Apr 29 for leap years, 30 for the others), a descending sort of the Global sea ice extent levels for recent years looks like this:
2015: 23.50 (Mkm^2)
2021: 22.18
2016: 21.69
2020: 21.40
2022: 21.19
2018: 20.50
2017: 20.43
2019: 20.00
2012: 22.74
Gathering information for all other relevant factors would very probably show that for UAH’s April anomaly, there is few difference between a prediction and rolling the dice.
Bindidon,
For once I am in full agreement with you.
Einstein famously did not believe God played at dice. I believe Einstein was wrong – maybe not about God, but about uncertainty in the sense of chaos theory.
Edward Lorenz summed it up neatly when he said “Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”
Now, 7 billion people producing and using as much energy as they can, no doubt has some effect on future weather here and there, and hence future climate here and there.
How much, better or worse, when? Roll some dice. You might even be right.
“Nonetheless a big drop in temperatures for April”
Looks like it’s just you and me, nobody else dares to predict anything
Eben,
I’m here. What would you like me to predict?
Sorry – couldnt resist.
Eben, fingers and toes xed
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
“… For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, Earth’s effective temperature Te the numerical value cannot be equal to Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.”
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/449683314
christos…”Earths effective temperature Te the numerical value cannot be equal to Earths without-atmosphere mean surface temperature not even close”
***
Obviously as you have said earlier, those calculating the surface temperature based on Stefan-Boltzmann, do not consider the speed of Earth’s rotation.
Also, they don’t consider that Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply at terrestrial temperatures.
April post counts for posters averaging greater than one post per day:
AprilPostsA.png
Total Posts: 2549
RLH : 402
Willard : 241
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 227
Clint R : 183
Nate : 154
Swenson : 147
Bill Hunter : 129
barry : 121
Bindidon : 115
Tim Folkerts : 109
Ball4 : 108
Gordon Robertson : 97
E. Swanson : 80
Chic Bowdrie : 64
Eben : 48
Entropic man : 36
stephen p anderson : 32
gbaikie : 30
SLOT PG Demo version enables you to practice playing slots games and improve your abilities before entering the real world. Make all of your investments worthwhile. Today, dreams can come true. Now is the time to apply for pg slot
I wanted to express my gratitude for this fantastic read!! I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. I’ve bookmarked you so I can come back and see what you’ve been up to. Check this Scholarships in Texas to brighten your day
Its not my first time to visit this web page, i am browsing this website daily and get fastidious information from here daily.
ถ้าคุณเป็นนักพนันที่กำลังมองหาโบนัสที่คุ้มกับการฝากของคุณเราขอเสนอ pg slot เครดิตฟรี เว็บไซต์ที่ให้บริการเกมสล็อตรูปแบบใหม่นี้ เว็บไซต์เรายินดีแจกเครดิตให้ลูกค้าทุกท่าน!! โดยฝากคราวแรกของวันก็รับโบนัสไปเลย ที่ pg-slot.game
clint…”He [Tim Folkerts] has stated that the flux from an ice cube will add to the same flux to heat a surface to 325K”.
***
It’s obvious that Tim, and his accomplice ,Barry, in the thread from earlier, do not understand the 2nd law, or even the meaning of flux.
If fluxes from separate radiative sources strike a surface, the flux density will increase at the surface. The fluxes don’t add at the surface, there are simply more flux lines per unit area.
If part of the fluxes are from a source hotter than the surface and the other part from a source cooler than the surface, like ice, only the fluxes from the hotter body will be absorbed. The rest will be completely ignored.
The meaning is clear. Energy from the Sun at an average of about 5500C will always be absorbed by the Earth’s surface but energy from the atmosphere that is in thermal equilibrium or cooler, can never be absorbed by the surface.
Barry raised the issue of a second Sun being introduced, using a red-herring argument, comparing the radiation from a second Sun to a block of ice being added to the equation.
Barry’s red-herring is similar to the red-herring issued by Eli Rabbett (Josh Halpern) against the point made by Gerlich & Tscheuschner that heat can only be transferred cold to hot, by its own means. Eli et al, with the aforementioned Arthur Smith in the ‘al’ peanut gallery, argued that would mean, with two bodies of different temperatures radiating close to each other, one of the bodies would not be radiating.
This egregious misunderstanding of the 2nd law has to stop. Clausius stated it in such a manner that even a child could understand it. Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. Later, he declared that applies equally to radiation.
He should not have had to point that out. No energy…anywhere…can be transferred from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy by its own means. That is a serious no-brainer.
speak for you.
comprare patente di Guida