Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2022 was +0.32 deg. C, up from the September, 2022 value of +0.24 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.06 -0.15 -0.28 -0.01 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.07 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.30 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.64 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
2021 09 0.25 0.19 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.28 0.33 0.84 0.64 0.06
2021 11 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.50 -0.42 -0.29
2021 12 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.04 1.63 0.01 -0.06
2022 01 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.23 -0.13 0.68 0.09
2022 02 -0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.24 -0.04 -0.30 -0.50
2022 03 0.15 0.27 0.02 -0.07 0.22 0.74 0.02
2022 04 0.26 0.35 0.18 -0.04 -0.26 0.45 0.60
2022 05 0.17 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.59 0.23 0.19
2022 06 0.06 0.08 0.04 -0.36 0.46 0.33 0.11
2022 07 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.13 0.84 0.55 0.65
2022 08 0.28 0.31 0.24 -0.04 0.60 0.50 -0.01
2022 09 0.24 0.43 0.06 0.03 0.88 0.69 -0.29
2022 10 0.32 0.43 0.21 0.04 0.16 0.93 0.04
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 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
Wow 0.32 above the 30/40 year average. Roy wonder what you reckon to chemtrails versus contrails? Much colder weather and 0 chemtrails and then warmer and the cloud cover is mainly from contrails/chemtrails. I am sure they are manipulating the weather across in the UK, to keep their fake agenda going.
Wow, are you for real? Maybe the heat is from the moon coming out more in the day. Chemtrails,LOL.
OMG a guy still a coward enough to talk about chemtrails – on a blog he perfectly knows he won’t be banned for that, unlike WUWT.
Just one reply for all the silly lefties (the left in the USA are just as stupid as the UK). who believe in CO2 warming and deny what is happening in our skies at the moment. I worked for a Carbon management company back in 2006 and walked out when I found out it was a fraud. I thought it strange the other nine staff were scared of CO2 warming, but heavy smokers.
Roy believes in CO2 warming, Tim. Jim Hansen and Kerry Emanuel are lifelong Republicans. Katharine Hayoe is an Evangelical.
Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory:
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
Harvard is not a liberal stronghold.
Roy believes in CO2 warming, Tim. Jim Hansen and Kerry Emanuel are lifelong Republicans. Katharine Hayoe is an Evangelical.
Chemtrails is a conspiracy theory:
https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
Harvard is not a liberal stronghold.
Hi Willard thanks for being more constructive. But I didn’t believe the Covid19 pandemic from day one and all the experts are now starting to agree with me. P.S. I didn’t think Roy believed that CO2 was warming the planet, other than noise on the edge of urban areas.
” all the experts are now starting to agree with me.”
Oh? Which ‘experts’ are those?
But Greta said that…
OUR fake agenda is the same as yours and everyone else’s. But we didn’t blow holes in two pipelines full of methane gas..which isn’t the climate horror you might think it is. Until it turns back into Co2. Biggest producer of oil in the world..The US of A. And then there’s their gas production. Now we hear from the UN europe’s temp has been increasing by 1.5 Degrees C MORE than anywhere else over the past three decades. Really..? Preach a lot though don’t they.
Meanwhile in blighty Mrs Thatcher upset the miners back in the day,one reason being British coal is loaded with carbon…something like 85% if I recall. So we stopped using it and switched to coal with far less carbon. So over the years we have put tonnes less Carbon into the air.
Have you?
The vast majority of GHGs Humans add back into the air, GHGs that should have stayed right where they are, comes from the big continents.
That would include the US and europe. Smaller countries like Britain, Australia etc contribute tiny amounts in comparison.
Plus in the US you plough large areas of land releasing huge amounts of Co2 from the soil. Soil captures Co2 and that Co2 should stay where it was as well. brussels wants the Ukraine so badly they start a war over it..Ukraine has large reserves of gas including shale. We can NOT stop using gas can we? Not for a long time yet.
Your problem isn’t the GHGs themselves, it’s the amount we put back where it should not be. The real problem is the numbers of you on this planet. More and more of you every year. India’s population will soon be larger than China’s.
And yes they will have been discussing that one.
In the meantime they have to be seen to be doing something but it’s the social engineering that comes with it you need to worry about.
Despite starting the 20s almost exclusively with La Nina, the 2020s average so far is more than 0.1 above the 2010s average.
So what? 0.1C isnt even measurable on a global scale.
Oh really? Feel like justifying that claim?
Wrong again.was hoping for a really big fall.Will try hibernating for a month to see if this induces winter.
The main reasons for this running high didn’t go away so there was no reason to expect a fall.
1) Low Antarctic sea ice
2) Tonga eruption increasing high altitude water vapor
The good news is that 1) is not much of an impact in the SH summer as the ice mostly melts every year. The next few months should drop.
Wrong again.
Was hoping for a really big fall.
Will try hibernating for a month to see if this induces winter.
You will get your fall … but only until the La Nina is over.
Yes, it’s notable that it remains so warm during a la Nia. It will be interesting to see how high the next step on the Elevator turns out to be.
La Ninia! La Ninia! Why won’t this blog do squiggly bits, for Dawkins’ sake?
La Niña
Simply use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Copy the text into the upper window, and paste the lower window back to this indeed very UTF8-inconvenient corner :- )
“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”
The August numbers weren’t posted until the 23rd of September and the September ones weren’t posted until the 28th of October (last Friday).
I understand that unexpected events happen, but is this trend towards longer delays in data (to 3 decimal paces) arriving on the NSSTC web pages likely to persist for the foreseeable future ?
I saw that data well before that. You probably need to empty your cache.
“I saw that data well before that.”
WHERE ???
Go to https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
LOOK AT THE CONTENTS OF THE “Last Modified” COLUMN !
Along the same lines the grid files are no longer accessible due to “You don’t have permission to access this resource.” Something has clearly changed in the last couple of months with the way the files are updated.
The 4th warmest October in the UAH data, though slightly cooler than the last two Octobers.
Looks increasingly likely that 2022 will be very close to 2010, meaning it will either be the 6th or 7th warmest year out of 44, with all 8 of the past 8 years being in the top 10.
For the record, my estimate for 2022 is 0.19 +/- 0.04C.
Monckton will be claiming the pause has grown by another month, to 8 years and 1 month, i.e. October 2014 is still the earliest month with non-positive trend.
In contrast the trend over the last 10 years is 0.2C / decade, and over the last 12 years it’s 0.32C / decade.
You may have already calculated this out already…the standard error on the trend (as reported by LINEST) is 0.067 C/decade at 2014/10. The 2 sigma envelop for the Monckton Pause is actually 87-108 months computing the SE of the trend at each month.
bdgwx
” the standard error on the trend (as reported by LINEST) is 0.067 C/decade at 2014/10. ”
Trusting LINEST can be an issue for very short periods, as this feature doesn’t seem to take things like e.g. autocorrelation into account.
Look for example at Prof. Cowtan’s trend computer
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
select UAH6.0 LT and enter there October 2014 in decimal form (2014.790)
You then obtain: -0.017 ± 0.572 °C/decade (2σ)
That’s the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 method. It’s a fine method, but then Monckton would not be able to claim any statistically significant pause. The trivial OLE SE at least allows Monckton to claim a statistically significant pause at 87 months.
“The trivial OLE SE at least allows Monckton to claim a statistically significant pause at 87 months.”
I don’t think he does, and he certainly shouldn’t.
I see a lot of people misuse the idea of statistical significance. Someone might claim there has been no statistically significant warming since year x, but that’s not the same as saying there has been a statistically significant pause. A statistically significant pause would, at the very least, require a trend that had changed significantly from the previous trend.
“A statistically significant pause would, at the very least, require a trend that had changed significantly from the previous trend.”
Yes, the notion of a ‘pause’ directly infers a previous trend.
With that in mind, there has never been a statistically significant ‘pause’ in any of the temperature records at any time.
However, the mid-20th century ‘pause’ in the shallow rise of global temperatures mid-20th century is accepted without the need for the previous or following trend to be statistically distinct. The trend from then til present is statistically distinct.
…. based on ARMA (1,1) autocorrelation model per Cowtan’s trend calculator mentioned above.
I’m not saying he does utilize the ordinary linear regression standard error or any type of uncertainty on his pause conclusion. I’m just saying that if he chooses to do so in the future the OLR SE is his best option since it at least allows a claim of 87 months at 2 sigma. Sure, the OLR SE is contaminated by autocorrelation but he only needs to convince the Gorman types that he considered uncertainty at all; not that he did so correctly. Remember, Pat Frank considered uncertainty too and that was all it took to convince the masses. It didn’t matter if the analysis was correct.
Re the link to Kevin Cowtan’s calculator, I think this has stopped being updated. I regularly check on the UAH ‘best estimate’ trend since Jan 1998 using Dr Spencer’s link here and currently make it +0.111 C/dec. According to the calculator it is still +0.108 C/dec. I think the updates stopped around June. Same with the Skeptical Science one.
As Bindidon says, you need to take account of Autocorrelation for a time series like this. I couldn’t say how to do this properly, the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator uses a factor of sqrt(15.05) for UAH. So the standard error of 0.067 would be 0.26 C / decade.
But Monckton et al, almost never consider the uncertainty of the trend, and when they do misunderstand it. My comments are just showing how misleading it is to make a strong claim about a trend starting at a specific date, when you can get a very different result just starting a year or so earlier.
If you want to see the effects of uncertainty on a trend over just 8 years, you can look at how much trends of this length changes over the whole UAH data.
Bellman
The Skeptical Science Trend Calculator is an earlier revision of Kevin Cowtan’s Trend Computer.
I thought they were the same. They both seem to give the same results for UAH at least.
I just tend to use the Skeptical Science one as I think it’s UI looks a little nicer.
They’re the same. SKS was online wth it first. Both versions are curated by Cowtan.
I think this calculator has stopped being updated with recent temperature data. I can’t get the best estimate trends to correspond with thoise produced by Excel, whereas I could until recently. Looks like it stopped updating around June 2022.
Seems to be so. Odd, as I thought that the data would be automatically accessed from source as with woodfortrees.
I’ve emailed Prof Cowtan about it.
Reply from Cowtan was that he has been very busy, and will try to get around to looking at it.
Bellman you calculated the same result as Moncton which proves there is a pause of that length .
Thank you for corroborating it from the same evidence.
I just quickly determined the variance from 0 distance from the mean for the tropic postings in the above chart, 22 months. It is .019 degrees celsius. The standard deviation would be less.
All these numbers are greater everywhere else and greater by a lot.
I know very little about climate and whether, but I know something about numbers and statistics. My sense is that the tropics are least effected by manmade issues such as heat island effect and and men’s instrumentation readings gone bad. In other words, probably closer to reality.
I’d like an explanation. Perhaps someone can drop these charts into a spread sheet and calculate variances and standard deviations as to location on the globe and ponder why the uneven distribution of variance.
Variance is measured in SQUARE units. That is Celsius squared, not Celsius.
The square root of a number between 0 and 1 is LARGER than the number being square rooted, so the standard deviation would be MORE.
It seems you also know little about statistics.
So, you’re correct about the mathematical definitions. I took the average difference from the mean and referred to that as variance, which is incorrect. (It’s been more than 50 years) Nevertheless, what I concluded is what matters. There is a much greater difference from the mean elsewhere than the tropics.
So, can we deal with that as to why there would be and if man’s readings might be at issue more so in areas other than the tropics.
And what you have noticed is precisely what is predicted by the theory.
Are you using UAH data? If so, no UHI or surface instruments.
So are you using surface instrumental data? Seems like the region least affected by UHI would be the Arctic. Not sure what you mean by “mens instrumentation readings gone bad”, but stations in the Arctic tend to be run by scientists, so accurate and mostly not adjusted. Of course the Arctic is the fastest warming region.
For explanation why the Arctic is the fastest warming region, you could check the explanation by Arrhenius in his 1896 paper where he predicted it.
I get a variance of 0.06 C^2 for the global zone and 0.11 C^2 for the tropical zone. The standard deviations are 0.25 C and 0.33 C respectively.
The primary reason for the differences in variance are the spatial extent of the zone and the proportion of the zone that is land vs ocean.
It is important to note that UAH TLT measures the average temperature in a deep layer of the atmosphere centered pretty high up at maybe around 700mb. This is mostly outside of the urban heat island canopy. But even if it wasn’t the UHI effect is a real. It should be included in global average temperature metrics. What should not be included is the UHI bias (different than the effect). Due to the way satellites orbit the planet there is no preferential treatment of urban areas thus no UHI bias.
I suppose that climate analphabets (climate change deniers and sceptics) are more and more worried about end of triple La Nina phase and first El Nino after many years since we have almost record-high temps despite strong La Nina going full two years now.
It is very obvious that first true El Nino in years 2023 or 2024 will propel the rise of temps to the whole new level.
It’s the Greenland ice sheet, Vakur. All that new ice is heating the planet, as explained by the cult since fluxes simply add. The only thing cooling us is Sun, which supplies about half the flux emitted by ice.
It’s all very complicated….
Not complex at all, Pup.
You are a sock puppet who enjoyed trolling with the same baits for years.
You recognized your cult’s nonsense as trolling, Pup. That’s good.
But your response time is still too slow. Since you troll here constantly, you need to respond within 3 minutes.
(Sorry, but I won’t be able to babysit you today.)
Why do you speak of yourself in the third person, Pup?
I am glad you finally recognized your trolling.
After ten years or so on this blog, it might be time to stop.
"Why do you speak of yourself in the third person, Pup?"
He wasn’t, he was calling you Pup. He was responding to your abuse by mirroring it straight back at you. As so many of us do with those like you.
Graham does not even realize that I was the one mirroring.
Oh well.
You were not mirroring anything in any of your comments, Graham.
Oh well.
Graham probably realizes that he is projecting.
Oh noes.
Looks like Graham speaks of himself in the third person too!
How many Caesars do we have?
I wasn’t, I was calling you Graham. I was responding to your abuse by mirroring it straight back to you. As so many of us do with those like you.
So Graham was calling *me* Graham. Just like Pup was calling me Pup.
Our Sky Dragon cranks troll are not very subtle.
“Sky Dragon cranks troll”
So much immature name-calling. Shame.
Graham should recognize when we are at the description step of the exchange.
Oh well.
Anyone who questions the fundamental tenets of your religion is a “crank”. Anyone who doubts the impending doom is a “contrarian”.
Oh well.
A Sky Dragon crank denies the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon that has been established more than 150 years ago.
Roy got tired of them nine years ago:
https://tinyurl.com/Roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Graham has been trolling this website for 74 months at least.
At some point he should grow out of it.
…who questions the fundamental tenets of your religion is a “crank”. Anyone who doubts the impending doom is a “contrarian”.
Oh well.
And so Graham returns to his fixed point defense.
So strong. So superb.
…questions the fundamental tenets of your religion is a “crank”. Anyone who doubts the impending doom is a “contrarian”.
Oh well.
“It is very obvious that first true El Nino in years 2023 or 2024”
I think we have get into neutral phase, before one can get excited by of possibility of El Nino.
Meanwhile we got at least few more winter months, before that happens.
Anyone want to guess whether we get a nice ski season?
Using the 3-digit data with only 2 digits for 2022/10 I get a Monckton Pause of 97 months.
The trend line sits at +0.22 C. That puts 2022/10 about 0.10 C above the trend line with the 5 month lagged ONI at -1.00.
My simple linear model was predicting 2022/10 to be at +0.13 C. With the RMSE of this model at 0.128 C that makes the actual +0.32 C value at least 2-sigma excursion above the prediction. My model is predicting +0.17 C for 2022/11 so I’m expecting a drop next month. The model is T = -0.32 + [1.6*log2(CO2)] + [0.12*ONIlag5] + [0.14*AMOlag2] + [0.01*PDOlag2] + [-5.0*AODvolcanic]. The model is trained using recursive descent to optimize the parameters.
Dear dr. Spencer, could you for once – for the sake of perspective – show a temperature graph with absolute temperature scale (Celcius) instead of anomaly?
Unfortunately has Dr. Spencer (probably inadvertently) has restricted access to the UAH grids otherwise I could provide the exact values for each month. But if I recall correctly each month was around 263 K (-10 C).
Dr Spencer, can you check to see what is going on with the permissions of the grid files in https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/?
I don’t think lower troposphere adds much perspective.
Whereas average of China of about 8 C and Europe about 9 C and average ocean of 17 C says something.
I like to see average winter of China as compared to Europe.
Why? The differences from the mean will be the same.
Antonin, actually I do not know the exact definition of anomaly from the mean. The global surface average temperature changes by about 3,8 dgC over the course of the year. I’m wondering whether and to which extend this shows up in the troposphere and if ‘the mean’ is corrected for this.
Arjan Duiker
The mean is not a single value when you want to calculate anomalies wrt a given reference period, e.g. 1991-2020 or 1951-1980.
For monthly anomalies, you calculate, for each single observation point (a weather station, or a grid cell) and for each month, the mean of all monthly values; this is then the 12-month baseline of the reference period for the single point.
Then you may, to have an idea of how that looks like, build the mean of all these baselines.
The average of all local (over 10,000) GHCN daily station baselines for the period 1981-2010 is something like
1.85 (C)
2.88
6.67
10.89
15.08
18.78
21.03
20.40
17.21
12.12
7.04
2.95
In the lower troposphere, the span between January and July is far lower.
Arjan Duiker
I did that job of converting anomalies plus climatology back to the absolute values years ago, by downloading the data available in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Here is a chart with UAH 6.0 LT’s absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e6spe4iilIePxhss03x3F7_ThbNWz5J2/view
*
It goes only bis February of this year because (as noticed by bdgwx already) the LT grid data surprisingly is no longer available since a while:
” 403 Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access this resource. ”
But as their LT layer is since 2015 a 100% synthetic product generated out of a composition of the three layers above, according to the formula
LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
I’ll show the missing months later on.
Nice catch. The MT, TP, and LS grids are still accessible.
Many thanks! And nice to see the temperature swing of about 2 dgC over each year, apart from the 13 month average and overall trend. I wasn’t aware of that swing until I saw it mentioned lately on Climate etc. of Judith Curry. At surface it is claimed to be 3,8 dgC.
What it tells me is that over more than 60% of the time in the period 1979 – 2022 the average global temperature (troposphere) hasn’t changed.
Arjan Duiker
Nevertheless, the linear estimate for UAH LT’s absolute data within 1979-2022 is a bit higher than that for the anomalies:
0.14 +- 0.03 K / decade
What is one more time a clear proof that anomalies aren’t a dumb trick invented by alarmists to make temperatures higher.
Anomaly based series mostly show a higher trend when the winter month temperatures increase faster than in the summer.
Ooops!
bdgwx, there is a much simpler way: to use the monthly average of the climatology (if you managed to save it before, of course).
By adding these monthly averages to the anomalies you obtain the absolute values till Oct 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e6spe4iilIePxhss03x3F7_ThbNWz5J2/view
However, this is valid only for the Globe as a whole. Any grid subset has its own clim.
*
Surprise: this addendum places the absolute temperature for July 2022 immediately behind 1998, and above 2020 and 2016:
1998 7 265.797 (K)
2022 7 265.778
2020 7 265.723
2016 7 265.673
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.621
2021 7 265.618
2010 7 265.615
2018 7 265.587
2017 7 265.581
The differences look negligible, but we should not forget that they are magnified when looking at anomalies.
That’s the whole point I think. Differences don’t only look negligible, in our earthly world these tiny differences are negligible. Only when you magnify….they appear to be of some sort of significance. But it’s fake.
The point here is not to magnify, Arian Duiker. And there is no fake at all.
The two major points for anomaly construction are imho
– to remove the seasonality (the ‘annual cycle’) out of temperature time series
– to make them therefore comparable even if their absolute origins differ by a lot.
You see this best when comparing e.g. UAH’s lower troposphere and lower stratosphere data in absolute
https://i.postimg.cc/SxC23x9W/UAH6-0-LT-vs-LS-absol.png
resp. anomaly form:
https://i.postimg.cc/8kvbNNLz/UAH6-0-LT-vs-LS-anoms.png
I’ve should have said trivial instead of fake. It’s not fake, you’re right. But, to me, these tiny warming effects appear insignificant for phenomena that take place in nature. In nature everything changes everywhere and all the time. Thanks for sharing your data!
But where are you getting the absolute values? I thought those were only the baseline grid file? Without access to the TLT baseline grid you’d have to process the MT, TP, and LS grids and use the formula like you mentioned above right?
bdgwx
The UAH climatology is stable enough to use a version generated, for example, in March 2021 for the last time.
At that time, I obtained out of
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
the following 12-month averages for the reference period 1991-2020:
Jan 263.179 (K)
Feb 263.269
Mar 263.427
Apr 263.843
Mai 264.448
Jun 265.099
Jul 265.418
Aug 265.233
Sep 264.637
Oct 263.945
Nov 263.406
Dec 263.191
Oh gotcha. Yeah, the 1990-2020 baseline is stable from month to month. If you have a copy of the grid from a few months back it will be sufficient.
UAH continues to track well with surface temps, so the abnormal warming appears real. And, in light of the ongoing La Niña, also interesting.
I have read that the Hunga-Tonga eruption will have lingering effects for months. We’re now getting close to 10 months. Being as the eruption was so rare, yet dramatic, I doubt any models can come close to predicting when the effects might end.
It is real as long as the Antarctic sea ice remains low. All you have to do is look at what happened in 2021 when the ice suddenly took a dive. There was an immediate increase in the anomaly. It then fell back November – March during the summer months when the sea ice melts away.
I expect we will see the same thing over the next few months. The one caveat is how much the Tonga eruption is adding to the numbers. Last year it couldn’t have had much impact until the water vapor spread out. That probably took 3-6 months after the eruption.
Lack of any warming in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. All the warming has moved to the Arctic?
https://i.ibb.co/Nswh3J0/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
Global sea surface temperature is falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
La Nina is strengthening.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
A huge ozone hole over Antarctica.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
That’s interesting. The wingnut segment of the community are prone to pretend that the Ozone Hole quietly went away after CFCs were banned, thus creating a false implication that it was a lot of fuss over nothing. If it persists for long, what are the implications for warming?
Below is the report from June 2022.
When I saw this, June cool report, I knew it would treek the real people that filter, model and twist the Bias dials before Dr Roy receives it. Sure enough each month warmer than June.
3rd year La Nina, Tonga Volcano Eruption, had no effect whatsoever;OK then.
UAH Global Temperature Update for June 2022: +0.06 deg. C
Friday, July 1st, 2022
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2022 was +0.06 deg. C, down (again) from the May, 2022 value of +0.17 deg. C.
Tropical Coolness
The tropical (20N-20S) anomaly for June was -0.36 deg. C, which is the coolest monthly anomaly in over 10 years, the coolest June in 22 years, and the 9th coolest June in the 44 year satellite record.
Why would you expect the eruption to have an effect?
The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
Firstly, do you need “could” explained to you?
Secondly, if it works in a similar way to the cooling provided by aerosols injected into the stratosphere by strong land-based eruptions, the effects wouldn’t be noticed until about a year after the eruption.
That’s just an effort to be responsible, I guess. We don’t know for sure how the water vapor is affecting temperatures, or how long the effect will last.
coulda, woulda, shoulda
“whether” was the word you were looking for.
Explosive volcano eruptions with this amount of water vapor are rare, In August 2008 Kasatochi had significant vapor and reached 18 km. In April 2015 Calbuco reached 23 km. One sees a global temperature rise after the eruption
Antonin Qwerty
A big cooling anomaly (this time using the word’s original meaning) has been detected in the lower stratosphere between 30S and 60S.
It is visible in UAH’s LS grid:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cr2RYXTwO4nGOFCT-oWxecqU5JG8Opr-/view
Some suspect the cooling be due to the huge water blow up by Honga Tonga, similarly to the inverse situation in November 1991, 6 months after Pinatubo’s eruption:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
Some reason to ‘select’ June?
What are satellites showing in the Arctic? The ice is growing quite fast.
https://i.ibb.co/sVFC0S4/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
Your graph show no change in rate of ice growth between the 5 years shown. Sure they all start off at different coverage but the rate of growth is rather similar.
Ken
Your remark about ren’s chart is 100% correct.
But ren usually shows only a few days of data.
Here is the whole year for the Arctic sea ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
You see that 2022 (black) experiences a comeback to freezing similar to 2019 (purple) or 2020 (orange), but that the comeback starts at -2Mkm^2 below mean, whereas in 2019 and 2020 it starts from below -3.
You see also that 2022 kept nearly all over the year above 2021 (red).
In comparison, the Antarctic sea ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
As so often, Arctic and Antarctic can differ by a lot.
Very low temperatures in eastern Siberia and northern Canada. And this will not change.
https://i.ibb.co/qB7w4m5/gfs-nh-sat8-t2min-1-day.png
Ever?
I wouldn’t make any plans to buy beachfront property where I you.
” Very low temperatures in eastern Siberia… ”
https://i.postimg.cc/76BGDVXG/Screenshot-2022-11-02-at-23-32-39-Temperatures-North-East-Siberia-05-30-AM.png
-23 C in Yakutsk on Nov 3, 5:30 AM – a ‘very low’ temperature ???
RSM00024959 62.0167 129.7167 98.0 JAKUTSK
RSM00024959 60-123 1982 11 3 -40.1 (C)
RSM00024959 60-123 1950 11 3 -37.3
RSM00024959 60-123 1990 11 3 -37.3
RSM00024959 60-123 1971 11 3 -37.0
RSM00024959 60-123 1935 11 3 -36.4
RSM00024959 60-123 1937 11 3 -36.0
RSM00024959 60-123 1994 11 3 -35.7
RSM00024959 60-123 1906 11 3 -35.5
RSM00024959 60-123 1974 11 3 -34.9
RSM00024959 60-123 1968 11 3 -34.7
Are you kidding us, ren?
Doubling CO2 will add at most 1.5C. All of the other predictions are based off feedbacks that are assumed, not physically modeled.
Increasing CO2 by 50% has already added about 1.2C.
In fact it’s worse than that due to the lag of about 30 years due to the lag caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans. The 1.2C of warming is due to CO2 levels of about 30 years ago, which were less than 30% above the pre-industrial baseline.
Oops – double ‘lag’ due to editing and not checking.
You’re going to be so disappointed when the AMO flips to its negative phase.
” … when the AMO flips to its negative phase. ”
You tell that since years and years and years.
But I miss however your claim that UAH’s anomaly for this month perfectly matches your expectations. {/sarc}
When a cycle has a phase of ~30 years and last switched in 1995 it does take “years and years and years” before it changes back.
Don’t provoke him, Richard. He’s already using sarcasm. He might resort to irony if you push him.
Maybe you mean irony of that kind?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRA4G4xYROWVvatda61eGJ-htXePJkOB/view
Yep.
The range of estimates for sensitivity has remained remarkably stable since 1979 at about 1.5C to 4.5C, with the median close to 3C. So it will add AT MINIMUM 1.5C according to the consensus range of model outcomes. Which is not a prediction but is better than a because-I-say-so. Given that we are already at 1.2C with just a 40% increase in CO2 concentrations I’d hazard that the lower limit is a little unrealistic.
Your understanding of modelling seems poor. At the lowest resolutions, interactions are “parameterised”, meaning that directly measured responses, and interpolations between them, are programmed in as the outcome of the conditions in the individual cells. So feedbacks are not “assumed” but actually included as an implicit consequence embedded in measurements made in laboratories, satellites and the field. It would require a large and obvious hack to “assume” a feedback into a GCM. They emerge from the model runs or are built into the measurements.
There is most certainly uncertainty about feedbacks. There is nothing remotely comforting about that, however. To the contrary, the palaeo-climatic record indicates strongly that the climate switches rapidly between distinct, metastable states, indicating that feedbacks play a major role in amplifying subtle forcings like the orbital cycles.
There’s a lot of work out there trying to tease out the exact role of feedbacks in, for instance, glaciation cycles. I’ll leave it to the professionals to talk about that.
eliott bignell…”So feedbacks are not assumed but actually included as an implicit consequence embedded in measurements made in laboratories, satellites and the field”.
***
They are not only assumed, they are blatant propaganda, and the basis of models. There is no such thing in the atmosphere as positive feedback. By definition, the type of positive feedback that leads to amplification is represented by the equation…
G = A/(1 + AB)
G = overall gain with feedback
A = gain without feedback
B = feedback factor
A also equals amplification, and last time I looked, there were no heat amplifiers in the atmosphere.
Climate models are trash science.
Ah, the Argument from Mindless Assertion.
Just to name one, there is the Ice-Albedo feedback. Open sea, wet ice and dry land left by ice melt all have MEASURABLY lower albedos than undisturbed ice and snow. These albedos have been measured and are included in parameterisation. So the feedback emerges from modelling without anything having to be “assumed”.
You can derive gain from the models once they have run with albedo taken into account. Whether you like it or not.
If you don’t like the models, there’s nothing stopping you building your own, by the way. I modelled heat flows at University in the 1980s, so a modern laptop – or even a FitBit come to that – should easily have the computing power to run a one-dimensional climate model in a toy language like Python. Hells, I’ve modelled economic growth and similar things on an Excel spreadsheet, gods forgive me.
I recommend as a starting exercise that you model albedo based on proportion of ice-cover. You might find the exercise enlightening, as it would not take that much talent to derive a value for A from the outcome.
Unless you don’t WANT to know the outcome, of course.
captain…”Doubling CO2 will add at most 1.5C.”
***
There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that claim.
Quite.
If its La Nia generating the supposed pause in warming, why is it that the tropics show basically no deviation from the average?
No deviation from the average: would that not mean a zero dot zero trend?
UAH 6.0 LT: Globe vs.Tropics
https://tinyurl.com/448u4wdr
The trends you can see in UAH’s monthly data (link on top of thread as usual).
Being at the 30-year average means they are below the recent average. They have fallen by MORE than the global temperature.
–Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2 C and even 1.5 C. Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of 1850-1900; 1.1 C warming has already occurred.–
https://judithcurry.com/2022/11/02/the-climate-crisis-isnt-what-it-used-to-be/#more-29307
.5 to .9 C by 2100 AD
0.0625 C per decade to 0.1125 C per decade
And we are at +0.13 C/decade since Jan 1979
And this starting from a bit of cooler period, but was a bit
later than when NYT was selling idea that we entering an Ice Age.
Of course we in Ice Age, but issue was we had worry about getting more cold.
I don’t think we have worry about getting too cold- we are used to the cold.
Some think we going to get back to 1970s cold, which wouldn’t be
good news, but might fun, to have NYT worry about it.
Oscillating around 0.23C.
What jumps out at me is that ocean temps are rising almost as fast as air temps. It must take 1000 times more energy for that to happen.
Don’t forget, there are no actual ocean temps in the UAH data, only atmospheric temperatures averaging a few kilometres above the ocean. There is lateral mixing going on at those altitudes.
Also, the specific heat of water is only just over 4 times that of air, not 1000 times.
And unlike air temperatures, the warming of the oceans is cumulative, due to that ability of the oceans to that thermal inertia of the oceans (though it is not as black and white as that comment would suggest).
Gee – I’m not having a good day today. It should be:
“And unlike air temperatures, the warming of the oceans is cumulative, due to that thermal inertia of the oceans”
My mistake, I misread and thought it was the water temp they were measuring not the air above it. But I do know that it takes as much energy to warm a glass of water as it does to warm a large room of air.
No, that is entire volume of Ocean which has average temperature of
about 3.5 C
Average global surface temperature is about 17 C.
In daily timeframe the ocean surface temperature do not change much- the difference of day to night is about 1 C or less.
Whereas land surface have much larger range in temperature between day and nite.
Part of this is waves mixing the surface of ocean.
Another aspect is most sunlight warms the top 2 meter of ocean and water has high specific heat.
Destroyed Observatory Issues Final Asteroid Warning After Fatal Collapse
Space
31 October 2022
By Brandon Specktor, Live Science
https://www.sciencealert.com/destroyed-observatory-issues-final-asteroid-warning-after-fatal-collapse
One might ask what went wrong.
Government.
Governments screw up everything.
And they have never not screwed up everything.
I have said solar panels are not viable to make electrical
power. But it’s possible they will never work because of
the governmental involvement- they screw up everything.
All climate models don’t work.
You could say they are hard to do. Government makes simple
things, hard to do
I said that higher CO2 level raise level where radiation radiates from. I have questions, how much has it raise the level?
Global warming is cargo cult, they brainwash children and children grow up and glue hands to things and do many other cult like
activity. But trillions of our dollars have wasted on it, and billions dollars “studying it”.
One might think there should some results from all this time and money wasted on it. If you didn’t realize, that is crazy talk to expect anything from governments.
If governments makes food- everyone starves.
But I am curious, how high does raise the level?
And does raise higher when over ocean surface?
Is there a difference between ocean and land surfaces.
The basics is ocean surface temperature are fairly constant and land surface temperature changes a lot in 24 hour period.
And I think it’s a general rule, that ocean warms and land cools.
Which kind of makes seem if raise the level higher on Land, it might more effective. But then again, that level is already bouncing up and down a lot, whereas the ocean is most of Earth surface and has constant temperature, which easier to actually measure.
” Global warming is cargo cult, they brainwash children … ”
So? Cargo cult? Brainwashing?
How then should we name the attitude of the US Republicans, who cowardly follow Trump in his absolutely unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats?
” The basics is ocean surface temperature are fairly constant and land surface temperature changes a lot in 24 hour period. ”
This has a name: unscientific blah blah. Meaningless evidence.
Why don’t you look at data, instead of guessing?
Or is, for you, even UAH data corrupt?
binny…”…Trump in his absolutely unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats?”
***
There is plenty of proof for anyone willing to remove his/her head from the sand. People were caught on cameras across the US stuffing ballot boxes at 3 AM and acting bizzarely. Others were traced by their cell phones, doing the same thing.
That US election was quite a mess.
But I don’t blame the Dems- they have been stealing elections from the beginning time {and bragging about it from the beginning of time}. I do blame FBI and intel agencies- and Republicans, they are generally in theory, supposed to be less irresponsible.
We know FBI and intel interfered with US elections and we know Republican politicians can be lazy and stupid.
Typical conspiracy idiocy.
No wonder, coming from a Ignoramus who deliberately ignores the fact that courts have stopped Trump’s attempts to falsify the election results.
As an outsider, you don’t have much insight.
I think I with help you.
The situation has always been the same.
Right now we are in the mid term election.
Being the ex-US president, Trump is the leader of the Republican
Party {this is a long tradition}. And the sitting US president is the leader of the Dem Party {again, this a long tradition].
Most of the US public don’t belong to either party.
I am not really following politics. But:
Elon Musk owns Twitter.
Elon Musk has always been Dem, though he seems to be supportive
of the Reps, at the moment. Which isn’t too surprising, considering
what the Dems have been saying and doing.
A traditional Dem generally don’t favor wars, though most history the Dems start wars. Though the two Bushs were an exception. The first Bush had an expensive war, but it didn’t last long and you could say, he won that war. One might point to the slaughter of Iraqi army- as bit of problem- but it seemed to me the US president had some restraint in this “bad situation” in terms of this famous slaughter.
The other Bush had too much faith in the US State Department, I would say.
That Bush also thought creating the Homeland Security Department could be a good idea.
But in terms of present, Trump is leading the Rep party.
One should keep in mind, that Trump has been and still is a New York Dem. And a lot Republicans don’t trust this York York Dem and it’s not “completely unreasonable” for them to have this view. He wasn’t their pick, and he insulted their picks. But Reagan was Californian Dem and most Reps really like Reagan.
But as some say, such as Glenn Reynolds [not Dem or Rep] Trump is the Destructor. Some might call him an Energy monster. To say Trump is unsettling seem to be understatement.
The Destructor refers to summoning the Destructor in movie, Ghost Buster. Or The News Media summoned Him. Or the News media “picked him” for their own destruction. And destroyed them, he did.
And they have not learned anything from it, as Dem have funding Reps because they like Trump or are like Trump.
People are saying it’s a red wave. And might be called a Trump wave, we will see what happens, soon.
The refreshing arrogant Scott Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KwXQfWZZGU
“Episode 1918 Scott Adams: Delicious News Today, Let’s Take A Big Bite. The Midterms Are Upon Us”
I always listen a 2X speed. But I had to slow it down for the Musk recorded video, Musk talks so fast, it’s chipmunk on steroids.
Gordo, Are you really so stupid as to believe the Trumpian lies that the election was “stolen”?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/prominent-conservatives-election-lost-not-stolen
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-failed-to-produce-substantive-evidence-on-election-fraud-says-group-of-prominent-conservatives-11657821156
https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lost-Not-Stolen-The-Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential-Election-July-2022.pdf
Or, perhaps, Gordo is really a Russian Troll spreading FUD to de-stabilize the USA. That would fit his usual posting MO.
Crickets…
Climate science, like all earth sciences, is NOT based on models but on observations and those observations are telling us that atmosphere, oceans, glaciers and the poles are all warming.
Models are simply a tool and models are never perfect or even expected to be but they are useful and they constantly evolve and improve.
drewski…”…those observations are telling us that atmosphere, oceans, glaciers and the poles are all warming”.
***
They don’t tell us why it is warming. It is sheer speculation that the cause is anthropogenic gases.
For more than 150 years we have known about the physical properties of CO2 – it absorbs and re-radiates energy at certain wavelengths. We also know that the atmospheric chemistry has fundamentally changed because of a 40% increase of this stuff due to man.
And we also know there is not a single scientific organization anywhere in the world (which conducts original research) that disputes man-made global warming theory.
Contrary to what some have written here, La Nina is not strong, as evidenced by the weak return of the subsurface wave. There is no question of an El Nino anytime soon. By how much will the global temperature drop when La Nina lasts another year? Water vapor causes cooling in summer and raises the surface temperature in winter. The temperature in the absence of water vapor depends heavily on direct sunlight on the surface. Therefore, in winter, land temperatures can drop sharply in high and middle latitudes, and this has nothing to do with CO2, the amount of which increases strongly in winter in the northern hemisphere (because people have to heat their homes and the growing season ends).
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202211.gif
The effect of direct solar radiation is best seen above the 60th parallel. Therefore, with a strong lowering of the tropopause in winter in high latitudes ( and an increase in summer ) I am curious what heights the satellite measures in winter ? Does it cover the same heights in summer and winter ?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2022.png
Another strong stratospheric wave will hit the West Coast soon. Maximum power will be needed for heating.
https://i.ibb.co/7xhYrvs/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
We are getting ready for it…sub-zero C temperatures for a few days only…hopefully. This November is predicted to be below average temperature-wise. Last November we had extreme flooding.
Good old, schizophrenic La Nina. Mind you, it’s raining hard right now and you can never tell around here what is coming.
As they say in some parts of Canada, if you don’t like the weather, check back in an hour and it will have changed.
ps. everyone else in Canada laughs hilariously at us over the fuss we make about 0C temps. Most of Canada is at least -20C during winter.
Don’t know if there is much scientific proof, but it seems a heck of a lot more miserable when it’s 0C with high humidity and when its -20C in dry climates.
> Most of Canada is at least -20C during winter
C’mon, Gordo. -18C is the average temperature about the 55th parallel:
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?format=clim_stn&season=djf&type=temp
Besides:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/temperature-change.html
Focus Willard…I specified ‘in winter’ and I said the rest of Canada. I should, perhaps, have excluded the Maritimes, I imagine the Atlantic ocean has an effect near the coast.
However, Canada goes well beyond the Arctic Circle and I think -20C is a fair average for winter.
C’mon, Gordo:
The first link shows average temperatures in December, January, and February.
You *really* are having a reading problem.
best model fit since 1999 looks like a simple naive forecast based on the trailing 20-year linear trend
but still holding out some hope for models with an implied ECS around 1.2, given that CO2 is definitely rising and likely has some effect on global temperatures despite the lack of a clear DWLWIR signal the post-1999 CERES energy budget
How long does it take for CO2 to “mix well”?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular/loc=-85.160,41.120
It looks like we’ve reached another warming plateau; this at .32, rather than .22
You are a lunatick using this board as your soap box
The late Professor Tim Ball (whom I had met with a couple of times) called this in his books and TV interviews the biggest scam in history.
With many thousands elsewhere reading my papers, I am not concerned about what the relatively few commentators here believe or do not believe. I know what the correct science is because it gives correct quantification of observed temperatures not only on Earth but throughout the Solar System. Such data confirms my science such that the statistical probability of my being wrong is at least billions to one against.
But I recognise the fact that people like Roy and Judith Curry have influence. I also know plenty about the ramifications of laws and government policies based on this huge hoax with ruined economies, massive inflation, widespread poverty and even death. It was the stated policy of the late Maurice Strong that there was to be a shift of wealth from developed countries to others and capitalism was to be destroyed. Roy is contributing to the promulgation of this scam and scoring own goals saying their science is sort of right, just overstated.
I have a deep respect for Roy and John Christy for the work they do and for bring us a clearer message on global warming/climate change. However, I am beginning to wonder what these numbers mean.
I am not questioning the integrity of the work done at UAH or the validity of the numbers produced. I am simply beginning to wonder what the numbers mean.
We have seen both El Ninos and La Ninas produce transitory warming and the very strange effects produced by La Ninas in particular, from droughts to flooding. I think there is something we are missing.
Here in Vancouver, Canada, our summer was pushed into mid-October and that has nothing to do with anthropogenic gases. So, what caused the inordinate weather? La Ninas are supposed to produce colder weather yet here we have a La Nina producing warmer weather.
What caused the abrupt 0.2C warming in 1977 that many scientists were only to willing to erase? And why did it not go away? A warming of 0.2C globally in one year cannot be attributed to anthropogenic gases. It was finally deemed to be the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the 1990s.
Following the 2016 El Nino, the same kind of warming blip occurred, and it won’t go away. Same thing following the 1998 El Nino. I claim warming of about 0.4C to 0.5 C since 1970 has been of unknown origin.
What’s going on? Are we on a long term warming trend related to ocean oscillations that will one day reverse course?
“However, I am beginning to wonder what these numbers mean.
I am not questioning the integrity of the work done at UAH or the validity of the numbers produced. I am simply beginning to wonder what the numbers mean.”
What they mean to me, is attempting to measure global temperature.
As I said a lot, global temperature is the average temperature of the ocean- which about 3.5 C.
Ocean average temperature doesn’t require 30 years to determine global temperature, it is global temperature.
ant querty…”…there are no actual ocean temps in the UAH data, only atmospheric temperatures averaging a few kilometres above the ocean”.
***
Lets put this alarmist propaganda to rest once and for all. Temperature is measured by satellites in frequency bands. The main band, or channel, used for the surface is channel 5, which is centred at about 4 kilomtres. However, the bandwidth of the channel accepts frequencies from oxygen molecules from 4 km to down near the surface.
What do you think the telemetry does, measure only oxygen emissions at 4 km? The notion that surface temps are calculated from 4 km above the surface is alarmist bs.
Let’s put other alarmist propaganda to rest as well that nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate at frequencies in the IR band or near it. The satellites use radiation from oxygen in the 60Ghz range, which is just below the IR band. Actually, we can call it IR because it is below red in the EM spectrum.
Why doesn’t the sat telemetry use CO2 instead? There isn’t enough of the trace gas to register and it’s partially blocked by the water vapour spectrum.
CO2 in the atmosphere has never been proved to warm anything.
“CO2 in the atmosphere has never been proved to warm anything.”
And the CO2 of Venus has never been proved to warm anything.
The surface air of Venus is imagined to have a very uniform temperature.
Most of Venus surface is in complete darkness and stays in darkness for very long time.
On sunlit side of Venus, only a small portion of day side and enough light to read a book by.
And most of heating of the air is done, very high in the atmosphere where the sunlight is very strong.
And most of heating is due to the sunlight warming the acid clouds, and only small portion of sunlight is absorbed with large amount reflected back in space.
Earth absorbs on average about 240 watts per square meter of sunlight. Of course it isn’t uniformly heated by the sun, and sunlight warms the surface the most when the sun in near zenith.
More the 1/2 of sunlight reaching the entire Earth surface is heating
the tropical zone of Earth [which is about 40% of Earth surface].
Everywhere on Earth, gets most amount sunlight when sunlight is the closer to zenith- generally the 3 hours before and after noon.
This called “peak solar hours”. So if you have 12 hours of daylight [sun in the sky] 6 hours of it would be peak solar hours.
Or with Venus if somewhere near equator and it’s during peak solar hours, you have enough light to read a book, if on Venus surface- and that, is small area of Venus surface.
I would guess the atmosphere of Venus is heated by the 450C surface temperature. Directly, via conduction.
Venus rocky surface has not been explored, much.
It’s said. Earth ocean is not explored, much. But Earth’s ocean has explored a lot more than Venus rocky surface. But we have radar topographical maps of Venus rocky surface, indicating a fairly wide variation of elevation.
When you include Earth’s rocky ocean floor, Earth has much more variation, but if just looking at the dry land, Earth is some what flatter compared to Venus dry land.
It’s assumed and I would also guess that lower elevation of Venus rocky surface is warmer than higher elevations.
And I would guess that at the same elevation, different places on Venus, has about the same temperature.
So I would say Venus surface has fairly uniform temperature, when adjusted for elevation lapse rate of about 8 C per 1000 meter lower elevation.
Due to such uniformity of temperature, it seems one could say Venus has a huge “greenhouse effect”. Or it’s the global uniformity of temperature which indicate the “amount of greenhouse effect” whereas
some might imagine it’s about how warm Venus surface is.
Earth atmospheric surface temperature on Earth doesn’t have such uniformity of surface temperatures.
But one does find more uniformity of temperature in regards to Earth’s ocean surface temperature. And the volume of Earth ocean has quite a uniform temperature with average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Or one can say, it appears Earth’s ocean has as big or bigger “greenhouse effect” than Venus atmosphere.
And even though we in an Ice Age with our cold ocean, it holds more heat than the Venus atmosphere.
A fundamental nature of our ocean is it’s uniformity of temperature,
though topographical factors and other factors can effect this uniformity of temperature.
Or it seems a planet completely covered with ocean would have more uniformity of temperature or would have “more global warming”.
Earth’s ocean due to the surface being 70% of entire surface of Earth and because in tropics about 80% is ocean, absorbs more than 80% of energy from the sunlight.
The ocean is the cause of global atmosphere temperature.
The ocean warms and the land cools.
As said before if mixed the warm surface of ocean with the entire ocean, which would result in average and uniform surface ocean temperature of about 3.5 C, the global surface air temperature would lower colder than Earth has ever been.
But I did mention this would cause “global warming”.
But didn’t mention was that the ocean would still be warming the land. Or even with average ocean surface temperature of 3.5 C, the ocean warms the land.
Or you still have, the ocean warms and land cools.
> CO2 in the atmosphere has never been proved to warm anything.
Come on, Gordo.
You are making Roy and Eunice sad.
Last I recall, Roy claimed CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere. I have never seen him claim such warming would be an issue.
Still awaiting your scientific proof that CO2 can produce significant warming.
> Last I recall, Roy claimed CO2 should warm the atmosphere.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
This is from a permanent post.
You should *never* trust your memory.
I want to thank Dr. Roy for yet more evidence that climate change isn’t just a figment of our imagination.
Meanwhile, here is another of my climate videos for your viewing enjoyment:
Key Findings of the 2022 Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change
https://youtu.be/bPO1HIdD7JM
Cheers
doc…”I want to thank Dr. Roy for yet more evidence that climate change isnt just a figment of our imagination”.
***
Speak for yourself. You have failed to define ‘climate change’ and how a trace gas can affect it with an estimated 1C warming in well over a century.
As for your propaganda links, I don’t bother reading fiction.
> how a trace gas can affect it with an estimated 1C warming in well over a century.
Come on, Gordo.
Check the graph at the top of the page.
Just checking I can still post here.
Strange, that worked, but I haven’t been able to respond to barry above. Maybe I’m using a forbidden word.
Bellman:
I looked at what you tried to post, the spam filter sent it to the trash. There was nothing wrong with it. The filter acts flakey sometimes.
-Roy
Some hours ago, I couldn’t post as well. No forbidden words.
Sometimes the site cannot be reached from Firefox, for some reason.
I read once more some usual nonsense, worth an inspection.
Antonin Querty wrote
” There are no actual ocean temps in the UAH data, only atmospheric temperatures averaging a few kilometres above the ocean”.
This is absolutely correct: UAH is interested in measuring lower tropospheric temperatures with least possible contamination by the surface.
*
But now, the blog’s greatest genius evah replies:
” Lets put this alarmist propaganda to rest once and for all. Temperature is measured by satellites in frequency bands. The main band, or channel, used for the surface is channel 5, which is centred at about 4 kilomtres. However, the bandwidth of the channel accepts frequencies from oxygen molecules from 4 km to down near the surface. ”
It’s hard to believe that people lacking any real knowledge about UAH’s techniques can write nonsense that contradict what UAH itself does.
No channel is used for the surface!
And above all, no channel is even used for the lower troposphere, due to technical problems at grid cell level.
For this reason, and for the umpteenth time:
UAH’s LT data is since 2015 NO LONGER the result of O2’s microwave emissions in the 60 GHz band; it is a 100% artificial, synthetic product computed out of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS, where
MT is the ‘mid troposphere’
TP is the ‘tropopause’ (the layer separating the troposphere and the stratosphere)
LS is the ‘lower stratosphere’
To make things clear using a chart,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
there is no difference between UAH’s published data for LT and a time series generated according to the formula above.
*
The problem is that such a clarification won’t put ignorance to rest once and for all, because next week or next month or next year, the same poster will post the same insane nonsense.
binny…”Its hard to believe that people lacking any real knowledge about UAHs techniques can write nonsense that contradict what UAH itself does.
No channel is used for the surface!”
***
This is why I call you an idiot.
https://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/amsu/explanation.html
“Individual AMSU-A channels (i.e., frequencies) are carefully chosen based on principles of radiative transfer theory. Each channel (frequency) is radiatively selective in the sense that it detects microwave radiation from discrete layers within the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite meteorologists typically relate the radiation sensed in individual AMSU-A channels/frequencies to specific atmospheric layers (characterised by the abundance of molecular oxygen O2 and temperature) by use of a term called a weighting function:”
Looking at the weighting function curves below this statement, we see the channel 5 curve in turquoise peaks at 4 km but carries on toward the surface, being cutoff in this set of curves at 1 km.
This curve indicates the relative oxygen microwave radiation at each altitude. Note that channel 4 also intercepts O2 radiation below 4 km.
There is no reason to cutoff the curve at 1 km but as Roy pointed out in another article, direct radiation from the surface becomes a problem over the land surface. So, they cutoff the weighting curves at some altitude not explained in this article. I can’t imagine that direct radiation would be an issue at 1 km due to the inverse square law.
******************************
“UAHs LT data is since 2015 NO LONGER the result of O2s microwave emissions in the 60 GHz band; it is a 100% artificial, synthetic product computed out of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS”
***
You ignoramus. What is the point of flying satellites if they have such a formula? They need data, idiot!!! How does an equation work without data???
************************
From antonin querty as relayed by you….
” There are no actual ocean temps in the UAH data, only atmospheric temperatures averaging a few kilometres above the ocean”.
***
He’s as much of an idiot as you. The AMSUs measure air temperature over the oceans but they don’t have the same problem with surface radiation from the oceans.
It amazes me how idiotic alarmists can be.
To make things clear using a chart,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
there is no difference between UAHs published data for LT and a time series generated according to the formula above.
*
The problem is that such a clarification wont put ignorance to rest once and for all, because next week or next month or next year, the same poster will post the same insane nonsense.
binny…”…there is no difference between UAHs published data for LT and a time series generated according to the formula above”.
***
Where do you think they get the published data? Do you seriously think they make it up using a formula? As I pointed out before, a formula needs data…real data from satellite telemetry, not fabricated data like NOAA and NASA GISS use from a climate model.
The satellite data does not cover the entire Earth at the same time. It takes a few days to completely cover (most of) the atmosphere surrounding the Earth.
Global surface temps are based on at least daily temps averaged out over a month. Satellite temps have temporal gaps of a few days for many regions, and averages that out over a month.
All these estimates are in some way, ‘synthetic’, in that we take them as measuring average global temps for a whole month or year etc, when in fact they are all temporally spotty.
And none of them have complete coverage of the globe. Satellites don’t reach all the way to the poles, and surface temps are dotted about the surface.
Surface temps are direct measurements of temperature, using thermometers. Satellite temps are measured by proxy – radiance brightness. Which is more ‘synthetic’ here?
“LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS, where
MT is the mid troposphere
TP is the tropopause (the layer separating the troposphere and the stratosphere)
LS is the lower stratosphere”
***
Where exactly do you think the MT, TP and LS temperatures come from? Here’s the official explanation from Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf
LS usually comes from channel 9 on the AMSU telemetry. If you look at Figure 3 on this PDF, on page 4 of 16, you’ll see a set of weighting curves on the top left corner. Look closely at them, they all gather O2 radiation right to the surface, if required.
Channel 9 is centred around 6 km and channel 5 around 4 km. Note that the lower limbs of the curves extend to the surface, meaning the MT, TP, and LS all gather data from oxygen near the surface. Rather than use just the channel 5 curve for nadir, they have used a sum of the other curves by percent.
They use half of the TP curve, 1.5 of the MT curve and only 0.01 of the LS. How close the curves are allowed to extend near the surface I don’t know but it’s a heck of a lot lower than 4K.
Roy explains in the article that surface emission is 0.8 to 0.9, but ocean emission is only 0.5. Therefore surface radiation from the ocean is not nearly the problem it is with the surface. Still, that surface radiation would have to be in the 60 Ghz radiation band to be a concern to AMSU telemetry.
Gordon:
Those coefficients are derived by combining the overlapping weighting functions to minimize the influence of the stratosphere. Look at Fig. 7 on my blog post announcing V6 paper to see the result.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Whatever surface sensitivity is left over is just what happens. Look deconvolution and averaging kernels, it’s standard practice in satellite air temperature retrievals and I believe some geophysical underground sound applications.
-Roy
binny…this is what you said…
“There is since 2015 NO LONGER any remote sensing of O2s microwave emissions at LTs altitudes because of technical problems”.
Now you are trying to lie yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into.
Fraud!!!!
Roy…thanks for response and info. What I have been trying to point out to the thick-skulled Bindidon is that without data you cannot use an equation. Obviously, the AMSU units are receiving O2 microwave radiation that is being received on channel’s 3, 7 and 9 or whatever they are. To derive the three temperatures used surely the data came from real sats with real AMSU units.
I get it that the LT is now derived from the data from 3 other altitudes in a vertical range. What I cannot find is a hard definition of what is meant by LT. Supposing for argument’s sake we set it at 4 km. The weighting functions in your fig.2 show all of the curve lower limbs collecting radiation data well below 4 km.
The only way I can make sense of your equation is if each temperature value was averaged from those lower limbs.
*********
I am wondering if you omitted channel 5 because it was setup to receive O2 radiation at an angle rather than vertically?
Bindidon is insisting that you are synthesizing the data much the way NOAA uses climate models to interpolate and homogenize the data from real stations to create synthesized numbers for intermediate locations.
Gordo, While I can not speak for Bindidon, I think his comments refer to the fact that the old pre-v6 LT used a single channel and the correction algorithm produced a single data point for each scan position in space and time, whereas the new V6 must average the data into multi-layered grids before the computation of the monthly product for each channel. As a result, there is no daily data available, only the monthly results.
In addition, the curve fitting process combines the results at each grid location from a vertical slice thru all the grids where the data may not be from the same dates, since the off nadir positions will be binned into different grid boxes compared with the near nadir ones. The resulting MT, TP and LS data are then processed with the combination algorithm as given below Roy’s Figure 6.
And please note that the LT v6 uses channels 5, 7 and 9 from the AMSU. AMSU 3 is not used.
swannie…”And please note that the LT v6 uses channels 5, 7 and 9 from the AMSU. AMSU 3 is not used”.
***
Thanks for clarifying that. I thought 5 was still included but I was suffering from brain freeze the other night. The difference, as I understand it, is that Channel 5 is now taken vertically rather than at a scan angle. Also, it is now lumped with 7 and 9 in proportion.
I know what Binny meant but I was challenging his claim that the LT does not rely on O2 emissions therefore it is synthesized using the formula. That makes no sense since Roy states right in his article that the O2 emissions are used.
When you look at the formula, they are getting MT, TP, and LS from the weighting curves, and those curves represent the relationship between altitude (pressure) and O2 emissions. Whereas you claim this is a synthesis of the MT, TP, and LS, it’s done in real time using real data.
We have to keep in mind that certain processes in the evaluation are based on radiation theory and an established relationship between altitude, pressure, and temperature. So, it’s not like reading a thermometer and getting a direct temperature reading. However, the basis of it all are the O2 emissions from various altitude which are separated by channels 5,7 and 9 telemetry. Without the O2 emissions, it’s all a moot point.
Having said that, thermometers have their own issues. If you hang one on a wall, the reading is affected by the temperature of the wall and does not detect the temperature of the entire room. If your thermometers are 1200 miles apart, you have other issues. At least the sat telemetry scanners cover swaths of atmospheric oxygen in minute quantities.
The revelation for me in Roy’s article was that the weighting curves vary with conditions. With the old system, the weighting functions varied with the scan angle. That makes sense since the detection of oxygen emissions should vary with the angle.
If you look vertically, you are getting a true detection per altitude layer of O2 but if you look on an angle you are seeing through various layers of the atmosphere hence a difference in what is seen by the detectors.
Gordo, It’s been 5 1/2 years since the LT v6 was presented and you still don’t understand what’s done. For example:
No, the data from each scan position of an individual swath is binned into a separate grid, each grid representing a layer stacked above the appropriate surface Lat/Lon grid. At the end of each month, these data are processed by fitting a curve to the stack above each grid point, then a single brightness temperature is calculated for each grid position using a specified “view angle” of the data. The data for the MT, TP and LS are each processed with this method, except that the “view angle” for each channel is different.
It’s only after the MT, TP and LS are calculated that the gridded LT result can be calculated using the formula. The channel weights in the formula are not based on the data, but theoretical calculations of the emission profiles using some assumed atmospheric condition.
Some ask about the effect of the Honga Tonga eruption in January.
Here is the translation of a text I read on a German weather website:
*
” The eruption of the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano was the first observable evidence of a volcanic eruption injecting material through the troposphere and stratosphere into the mesosphere, with a 58-kilometer eruption column.
The mesosphere begins about 50 kilometers above Earth’s surface.
Researchers from the University of Oxford have now been able to confirm the initial findings using a specific measurement method.
The images taken by weather satellites every ten minutes, which documented the rapid changes in the development of cloud formation, now made this possible with the phenomenon of the so-called parallax effect.
The results showed that the cloud reached a height of 58 kilometers at its top. This is significantly higher than previous record holders.
The previously highest known eruption column, which was measured with satellites, was produced in 1991 by the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines. It reached up to 40 kilometers high.
The El Chichn cloud in Mexico rose about 31 kilometers in 1982. “
” Following the 2016 El Nino, the same kind of warming blip occurred, and it won’t go away. Same thing following the 1998 El Nino. ”
Here is the top10 of the absolute temperatures for UAH 6.0 LT:
1998 7 265.797 (K)
2022 7 265.778
2020 7 265.723
2016 7 265.673
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.621
2021 7 265.618
2010 7 265.615
2018 7 265.587
2017 7 265.581
I see lots of nice, little warming blips…
drewski…”For more than 150 years we have known about the physical properties of CO2 it absorbs and re-radiates energy at certain wavelengths. We also know that the atmospheric chemistry has fundamentally changed because of a 40% increase of this stuff due to man.
And we also know there is not a single scientific organization anywhere in the world (which conducts original research) that disputes man-made global warming theory”.
***
This is it??? This is your scientific evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere?
Do you understand that CO2 lab experiments dating back to Tyndall were performed inside a tube in a warm lab?
Do you understand how much scientific organizations are dependent on government grants, or grants from private organizations that control information? Do you really expect them to say anything else?
The IPCC has a mandate only to investigate anthropogenic warming. They don’t allow skeptics into their reviews and take steps to eliminate skeptical papers from their review.
Wake up, Drewski, and please don’t drink the Kool Aid.
“Do you really expect them to say anything else?”
If you can’t win on the facts then you have no choice but to decide that nearly all are lying.
And if you are as deeply into conspiratorial thinking as Gordon is, there really is no limit on the number of different people and organizations that must be in coordination on the lies.
Eventually it is everyone but himself…and Tucker Carlson.
“…there really is no limit on the number of different people and organizations that must be in coordination on the lies.”
Yup, it’s one big cult.
Humans have been doing cults for very long time- and it continues to today.
So sez a member of the teeny tiny cult of lunies.
Robertson
I wrote upthread, 100% correctly:
” UAHs LT data is since 2015 NO LONGER the result of [evaluating] O2’s microwave emissions in the 60 GHz band; it is a 100% artificial, synthetic product computed out of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS ”
*
Your reply:
” You ignoramus. What is the point of flying satellites if they have such a formula? They need data, idiot!!! How does an equation work without data??? ”
*
Instead of insulting knowledgeable persons who regularly and carefully read UAH’s information, try to learn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
” 2.1 LT Calculation
We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method. The main reason we changed methods for LT calculation is the old view angle method had unacceptably large errors at the gridpoint level.
…
The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS ”
*
There are a few idiots on this blog, Robertson.
But the dumbest idiot, the most arrogant and ignorant person: that’s you, and no one else.
Regardless what you write about: you don’t know anything.
binny…”We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method. The main reason we changed methods for LT calculation is the old view angle method had unacceptably large errors at the gridpoint level.
***
What do you think multi-channel refers to Mr Rocket Scientist? Channel is a reference to the receiving telemetry on the satellite’s telemetry. They are still measuring oxygen radiation but rather than using a multi-angle beam direction they are combining multiple channel DATA. Channel 5 is the principal LT channel but they are using other channels to augment it.
How you reasoned that O2 radiation is no longer used is beyond comprehension. Then again, so is your inability to understand that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on its local axis while keeping the same side pointed to Earth.
Robertson
” What do you think multi-channel refers to Mr Rocket Scientist? Channel is a reference to the receiving telemetry on the satellites telemetry. They are still measuring oxygen radiation but rather than using a multi-angle beam direction they are combining multiple channel DATA. Channel 5 is the principal LT channel but they are using other channels to augment it. ”
You aren’t only the most arrogant and ignorant person on this blog.
You are also the person who best manages to deny even ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE.
I repeat for you:
The UAH 6.0 LT product is, since 2015, NO LONGER the result of direct evaluation of O2’s 60 GHz emission sensing.
As opposed to all LT revisions, including 5.6, 6.0 IS A SYNTHETIC PRODUCT.
You are too stubborn to understand such things, including time dilation, lunar spin and many others.
posted this earlier and it did not show up, even though a repeated attempt indicated a duplicate post.
***
to Binny…
“”The UAH 6.0 LT product is, since 2015, NO LONGER the result of direct evaluation of O2s 60 GHz emission sensing.
As opposed to all LT revisions, including 5.6, 6.0 IS A SYNTHETIC PRODUCT”.
***
The only thing synthetic about it is your brain.
Once again, from Roy’s article…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf
“The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p.tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions”.
Where in there do you see the word ‘synthetic’?
Also…
“Also, while the traditional methodology for the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product (LT) has been sufficient for global and hemispheric average calculation, it is not well suited to gridpoint trend calculations in an era when regional — rather than just global — climate change is becoming of more interest. We have devised a new method for computing LT involving a multi-channel retrieval, rather than a multi-angle retrieval”.
The only difference between pre-2015 and post-2015 is the switch to multi-channel data sources from multi-angle data sources. The data source is still O2 molecule radiation in the 60 Ghz microwave band.
Where else do you think the data comes from to get MT, ST and TP temperatures?
You are seriously confusing UAH data retrieval with NOAA and GISS, where they unabashedly synthesize temperatures in climate models.
Robertson
There is since 2015 NO LONGER any remote sensing of O2’s microwave emissions at LT’s altitudes because of technical problems.
The results of direct remote sensing have been replaced by a synthetic simulation based on an ad hoc weighting of the three sensing layers above LT.
That’s all.
You can brainlessly rant against this like you brainlessly rant against proper comparison of temperature anomalies, time dilation, Einsteins modifications to Newton’s laws, the lunar spin, viruses etc etc etc.
That won’t change anything, Robertson.
binny…”There is since 2015 NO LONGER any remote sensing of O2s microwave emissions at LTs altitudes because of technical problems.
The results of direct remote sensing have been replaced by a synthetic simulation based on an ad hoc weighting of the three sensing layers above LT”.
***
You are not only an idiot, you are a liar. Typical alarmist.
Where’s your proof?
In fact you are inferring that Roy is lying in his paper describing the 6th edition of the UAH method. He states clearly that data is collected with satellite telemetry.
This is what an idiot you are. You think equations can be applied to the atmosphere without data.
Robertson
” You are not only an idiot, you are a liar. Typical alarmist.
Wheres your proof?
In fact you are inferring that Roy is lying in his paper describing the 6th edition of the UAH method. He states clearly that data is collected with satellite telemetry. ”
*
You still can’t grasp the thing, because you are opinionated and a gullible follower of your authority figures – to such an extent that you don’t understand the difference between
– multi-angle data sources (observation)
and
– multi-channel data sources (calculation).
*
No, you poor Ignoramus: I am NOT ‘inferring that Roy is lying’. Not at all!
I only say that you are too ignorant, too stubborn, too opinionated, too gullible to really understand what I wrote.
The problem with people like you is that you write thousands of trashy lines about everything, but are not able to simply download data, to process it in a spreadsheet calculator, and to show the result, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
How can a person like you be so dumb, so incompetent to not understand what this chart means?
Why does the published LT series (in blue) look EXACTLY – from Dec 1978 till now – like the result (red, dashed) of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS ?
There is, since 2015, NO LONGER ANY OBSERVED DATA for the LT layer.
The published LT series is CALCULATED out of the observed layers above it.
Basta ya!
test
The question is how carbon dioxide is “well-mixed” in the atmosphere when it depends so strongly on the growing season. Looking at the distribution of CO2 in high latitudes, it seems that CO2 radiates more strongly into space than it does toward the Earth’s surface.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular/loc=-112.360,53.920
ren…the only source I have seen for CO2 being well-mixed came from uber-alarmist Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS. Since most CO2 in the atmosphere, by far, comes from the equatorial jungle regions, one would think the atmospheric content of CO2 would be more dense in those regions.
Of course, gases diffuse into each other but there’s no scientific proof that I have seen that such gases diffuse globally.
Gas samples extracted from Antarctic ice cores vary from a few ppmv to over 2000 ppmv. Either the samples are wrong or CO2 has a way of being more concentrated in some regions than others. If the samples are wrong, that ends the IPCC claim CO2 was 270 ppmv in the pre-Industrial era.
Since colder oceans absorb more CO2, one could surmise that such conditions vary the amount of CO2 in the local atmosphere. Therefore, in winter in the polar regions, there should be less CO2 in the air than at equatorial regions.
Gordo wrote:
You need to look a bit harder to find reality. The atmosphere is well mixed by what we call “weather”. You know, by vertical convection, jet streams, atmospheric rivers and the Brewer-Dobson circulation from the tropics to the poles.
Central and Eastern Pacific Upper-Ocean (0-300 m)
Weekly Average Temperature Anomalies
During February 2022 through mid-March, subsurface temperature anomalies decreased
and were negative. From mid-March to mid-June, subsurface temperature anomalies
increased from negative to positive. Anomalies rapidly decreased from mid-June through
July, and since then have generally persisted.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
Does a pause get lower as it gets longer?
Should it?
If there is a continuing drop or trend at the end then it will get both longer and lower!
A paws in what, Doc?
angech…if you are referring to a flat trend why would you call it a pause? That implies there is a positive trend in place that cannot flatten or turn negative.
The rest of your statement makes no sense unless you clarify your meaning.
The planet mean surface temperature (Tmean) is based on Stefan-Boltzmann emission law,
and on precise estimation by planet surface the total amount of emitted energy
πrΦ*S*(1-a) (W)
and on the different for each planet the energy emission distribution (the temperatures distribution) over surface area – resulting in the very POWERFUL
the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
You can have the same radiation from a surface with totally different average temperatures.
–
There is something very strange going on. The temperature is increasing, but the average emission of radiation has stayed exactly the same:
–
How can temperature increase without the radiation increasing?
Let’s introduce to the very POWERFUL the planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^1/16
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
Where
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
–
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
–
What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY. And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
…………
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the nighttime minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens:
When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Instead of the:
πrΦ*S*(1-a) (W)
Please read:
πr^2Φ*S*(1-a) (W)
christos…”How can temperature increase without the radiation increasing?”
***
It can’t. At least, the intensity must increase but not necessarily the quantity. Quantity should depend on mass and composition of the mass. Intensity should depend on temperature.
However, S-B does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. The constant of proportionality, sigma, is not a universal constant. It needs to be adjusted with temperature.
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon… ”
Oh My God!
Heresy again!
Un de ces jours, Vournas sera mis au pilori et lapidé mort par les Bourreaux de l’Inquisition Lunatique.
lapid à mort, bien sûr!
Grrrrrrr
Himmelherrgott
“[Christos] Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon
[Binny] Oh My God!
Heresy again!
***
Why do you have so much trouble with simple science?
One side of the Moon faces the Sun for two weeks then cold space for another two. It gets colder facing cold space for two weeks than it gets hotter facing the Sun for two weeks. If you look up the average temperature during the cold phase and compare it to the average temperature during the hot phase, you get a negative C temperature as average.
Earth’s average is +15C and it rotates once per day over 28 days, while the Moon does not rotate at all but changes orientation with the same Sun with a day lasting 28 Earth days.
It’s roughly the same solar intensity faced by both but the Earth, having a short period of rotation, retains more heat than the Moon during its orbit.
The earth, having an ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN, retains more heat than the moon.
And lunar surface covered with dust- which good insulation in a vacuum. Just walking on it, causes it to absorb more sunlight.
Someday, the Moon will covered with water, but first we got to make lakes on Mars.
Thank you, Gordon, for your respond.
–
“Its roughly the same solar intensity faced by both, but the Earth, having a short period of rotation, retains more heat than the Moon during its orbit.”
–
Exactly that is what happens! In the same time period during a single the Moon’s synodic period, Earth experiences 29,5 synodic periods.
And Earth retains more heat than Moon during these 29,5 days.
–
Also, it should be mentioned, because of Earth’s average surface Albedo (a=0,306) vs the lower Moon’s (a=0,11), the solar incident on surface EM energy is 28% stronger on Moon than on Earth.
–
Nevertheless, Earth’s average surface temperature 288K is higher than Moon’s average surface temperature by 68C.
–
It happens so, because Earth’s surface retains much more heat than Moon’s.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robertson
” Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon ”
Vournas perfectly knows that the Moons rotates, Robertson.
Bindidon, apart from what I know and what I don’t know:
A simple sentence says:
“A camel walks faster than a car.”
–
Bindidon perfectly knows the car walks.
Christos is an intelligent guy. He knows the Moon can ‘appear’ to rotate wrt to the Sun but not about its own axis.
The Moon does appear to rotate 360 degrees wrt the Sun but it is not a rotation about a local axis. It is a re-orientation involving a rigid body moving along an orbital path while keeping the same side pointed to the orbit centre. The proper description for the re-orientation is curvilinear translation without rotation.
When Christos claims the Moon rotates I think he is using the term rotate for convenience. It mimics rotation by having one face looking toward the Sun for 14 days then looking at cold space for 14 days. The effect of the curvilinear translation is to present an appearance that the Moon is rotating since all surfaces of the Moon alternately cycle through 14 day periods of facing the Sun then facing away.
That has nothing to do with local rotation, it is an aspect of orbital motion.
Have you figured out yet that a car can’t walk and that the camel walks faster?
Mercury /Europa Mean Surface Temperatures COMPARISON: (Tmercury /Teuropa)
********
Let’s apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon to the
(Mercury /Europa)
Mean Surface Temperatures COMPARISON issue:
(Tmercury /Teuropa) = 340K /102K
********
Tmean.mercury
N = 1/175,938 rotations/per day, planet Mercury solar day is 175,938 earth days.
Mercury’s average distance from the sun is R=0,387AU.
The solar irradiation on Mercury is
(1/R)^2 = (1AU/0,387AU)^2= 2,584^2= 6,6769 times stronger than that on Earth.
Mercurys albedo is:
mercury = 0,068
Cp.mercury = 0,20cal/gr oC,
Mercurys surface is considered as rock basalt
So = 1.362 W/m the Solar constant
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340K
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Surface temp. min mean max
0N, 0W -173 C 67 C 427 C
85N, 0W -193 C -73 C 106.85 C
Mercurys mean surface temperature 67 C in Kelvin is:
273 C + 67 C = 340 K.
===========
Tmean.europa
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Europas albedo: aeuropa = 0,63
Europa is an ice-crust planet (rocky) without atmosphere,
Europas surface consists of water ice crust
Cp.europa = 1cal/gr*oC
1/R^2 = 1/5,2044^2 = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Europa.
Europas orbital period is 3,5512 d
Europas sidereal rotation period is synchronous
N = 1/3,5512 rotation /day
Tsat.mean.europa = 102 K (- 171 oC)
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)
=======
Comparison Coefficient:
[ (1-a) So (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
******
Mercury:
[ (1-a) So (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
{ (1-0,068) 1.361 (6,6769) [(1/176)*0,20)]∕ ⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
[ (0,932) 1.361 (6,6769) (0,0011364)∕ ⁴]∕ ⁴ =
[ (0,932) 1.361 (6,6769) (0,18360) ]∕ ⁴ =
[ 1.555 ]∕ ⁴ = 6,2796 = 6,28
======
Europa:
[ (1-a) So (1/R^2) (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
{ (1-0,63) 1.361 (0,0369) [(1/3,5512)*1]∕ ⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
[ (0,37) 1.361 (0,0369) (0,28159)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
[ (0,37) 1.361 (0,0369) (0,72846) ]∕ ⁴ =
(13,5361) ∕ ⁴ = 1,918
*******
Tmercury /Teuropa =
340 K /102 K = 3,333
=======
Coeff Mercury /Coeff Europa =
6,28 /1,918 = 3,274
********
3,333 /3,274 = 1,018
or only 1,8% difference!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Spencer,
I would like you and John to consider the regression method proposed by Roman about a decade ago.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/thermal-hammer-part-deux/
It uses least squares fit to knit and does a fantastic job with monthly anomaly.
Jeff:
I took a quick look, and it appears to be the same thing we have been doing with the satellite record for over 30 years… time series from separate overlapping satellites of limited length are intercalibrated and combined into one long time series.
If I’m missing something, please explain what is different about his method.
-Roy
You are right. I had not thought of how you knitted satellites.
To my knowledge, and I’ve properly replicated some global temperatures, the ground records are not done the same way.
When you do it, I will be very happy.
I just walked hundreds of feet across my building to write this.
I believe the system Roman explained for knitting series is the thing ALL of climate science should be using. There are numerous examples
sea level
temperature
ph
etc…
on and on and on.
someone can clean this up pretty quickly if they have the right creds.
The problem for me is that I’ve read so many climate papers. They are so often obtuse references to NEW math that it hurts my brain. They are intentionally obtuse because the field is too simple.
The average of something used to work just fine.
Now we use SVD and take the first mode. It’s nuts. Literally makes zero sense.
” They are so often obtuse references to NEW math that it hurts my brain”.
***
You mean equations written with code in them? Don’t know which code is referenced but it seems to be an in-house communication between nerds who understand it. I think it’s ignorant for anyone to write such an equation and leaving it to the reader to figure it out. The least they could do is write the actual equation with it for those not into the code.
The code obviously mans something to an interpreter and if you look at the equation closely, sometimes you can read around the code.
Hockey stickering update
https://youtu.be/-Lxi05i0cd8
That’s a well made video. It’s easy to understand since it doesn’t contain the REAL science that debunks the AGW nonsense. Hopefully, it will raise some awareness of what’s going on.
Not sure why you’re speaking of REAL science, Pup. Eboy simply posted teh Goddard’s crap. Here’s SCIENCE:
https://youtu.be/V83JR2IoI8k
Pup, you were almost an hour late! Your incompetent, incoherent trash is what trolls do, but you need to respond quicker. As I told you, anything past 3 minutes is LATE.
dullard…”Eboy simply posted teh Goddards crap”
***
Yeah, right, Goddard has two degrees, one of them in electrical engineering and he worked at Intel developing the i7 processor. He was the go-to guy in quality control because he was very good at spotting problems and researching them. Saved Intel big bucks.
So, he turned his talents to climate and began spotting major errors in the records of NOAA and NASA GISS. Not just errors but intentional error, aka fraud.
You have it bass-ackwards, the frauds are the IPCC and all their wannabees who got caught in the Climategate email scandal peddling their fraud.
You are too stupid to know the difference.
Test.
https://tinyurl.com/Teh-Goddard-apologizes
What are you blubbering about with your fake tinyurl caption about apologies? You’re becoming more pathetic and more desperate with each post.
Come on, Gordo.
It is a link. A link to an old Climateball episode. One you should already know.
You should already know that teh Goddard is an imposteur.
Since 2008 you should know that.
Think.
That’s the only answer you have, an ad hom that Steve Goddard is an imposter????
The guy has proved himself to the likes of Intel that he is a top-class quality control expert. He has degrees in electrical engineering and another field to back him.
All your comment reveals is what an idiotic troll you are. Your intention here on Roy’s blog, as an alarmist, is to disrupt scientific thought. How about doing us a favour and going back to skepticalscience, or realclimate, or whatever hole you crawled out of?
Come on, Gordo.
I provided evidence that teh Goddard is an impostor. Have you ever seen his diplomas? How is mentioning his diplomas of any relevance?
You are a Sky Dragon Crank. Roy banished you lot from here in 2013.
Think.
I like it…Michael Mann’s reign of terror on science.
In three days, a bomb of Arctic air will fall on California.
https://i.ibb.co/0fBbJ6w/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f084.png
It’s not the real Arctic air we experience later in winter. The 7 day forecast for Vancouver, Canada calls for an average of 6C till November 12 during day and only 0C to -1C at night.
However, 0C will freak everyone out in LA and California in general.
Strange weather system. It did bring some snow to elevations above 500 feet in the Vancouver area but nothing here at sea level.
I recall it snowed in early November a few years ago, before the LN 3 year experience.
TEST
(Has anyone else had problems posting?)
Every so often, using Firefox, I can’t get a post through. Using the Tor browser often gets posts through when Firefox fails.
I use Firefox and I sometimes have problems posting.
binny…”You still cant grasp the thing, because you are opinionated and a gullible follower of your authority figures to such an extent that you dont understand the difference between
multi-angle data sources (observation)
and
multi-channel data sources (calculation).”
***
Maybe it’s your comprehension of English. In the article at his link, Roy explains that they changed away from multi-angle measurements to vertical measurements.
Note ****measurements****!!!!!
They still measure O2 emissions but rather than do it using multiple angle scans, they scan straight down the way using ***DATA*** from channels 5, 7 and 9.
Those channels represent real, physical measuring devices. Nothing can be synthesized using such telemetry. A synthesizer would have no input from the atmosphere, like a model, it would generate pseudo-data internally. What good would that do?
That data is applied to get an average for the MT, PT, and LS in an equation to get the LT. It’s the same as before except they are adding two more channels in a vertical arrangement.
You fail to grasp that the satellite AMSU units are real radiometers that gather emissions from O2 using many channels centred at specific frequencies. The frequencies correspond to temperature (brightness temperature) and those can be correlated to different altitudes in the atmosphere.
The trick is in the brilliant, hard work done at UAH to decipher it all. In the end, the equation uses real data to get LT.
I have worked with complicated circuits that decipher EM waves in communications circuits like the circuits used in the AMSU units. I don’t pretend to understand exactly how they work but it helps immensely having already worked with similar circuits to grasp what they are doing.
There is no synthesis going on. NOAA and GISS do synthesis when they take thermometers 1200 miles apart and interpolate and homogenize the data from these stations to create (synthesize) data for phantom stations in-between.
UAH uses weighting functions to correlate altitude to O2 emissions. The weighting functions, as far as I can see, indicated the response of the AMSU radiometers to O2 emissions from various altitudes. I don’t regard them as direct correlations, however, since the radiometers know nothing about the altitude from which the O2 emissions originated. All they know is the relative strength of the emissions compared to central frequencies for each channel.
The data has to be calculated using known temperatures from O2 radiating and each altitude.
I would love to know more about the correlation.
Robertson
The problem with people like you is that you write thousands of trashy lines about everything, but are not able to simply download data, to process it in a spreadsheet calculator, and to show the result, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
How can a person like you be so dumb, so incompetent to not understand what this chart means?
Why does the published LT series (in blue) look EXACTLY from Dec 1978 till now like the result (red, dashed) of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS ?
There is, since 2015, NO LONGER ANY OBSERVED DATA for the LT layer.
The published LT series is CALCULATED out of the observed layers above it.
Basta ya!
binny…”Why does the published LT series (in blue) look EXACTLY from Dec 1978 till now like the result (red, dashed) of the formula
LT = 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS ?”
***
I don’t know how to get around your dementia. UAH announced the formula for Version 6 circa 2015. The formula does not apply before that time.
Of course, a fake artist like you can arrange an Excel graphic to mimic any formula you want.
Stop your eternal, egomaniac nonsense, Robertson, and ASK Roy Spencer whether or not
– direct remote sensing of the LT layer had to be given up in 2015 due to technical problems;
– since then, LT time series are constructed as linear combinations of those of the three layers according to the well-known formula.
” direct remote sensing of the LT layer had to be given up in 2015 due to technical problems;”
***
They upgraded their method of deriving the LT in 2015. An upgrade has nothing to do with your alleged technical problems.
I have been listening to you alarmists whining about alleged technical problems with the sat telemetry since 2000. You whined on an on about an orbital error which was fixed in 2005 in cooperation with RSS. That’s before RSS sold out to NOAA and joined the fudge-it crowd.
That so-called orbital error applied only to the Tropics and was well within the margin of error predicted by UAH. There was never a technical problem yet alarmists howled about one to denigrate the UAH data record.
Now you are starting more fake allegations about technical problems in 2015.
I think alarmists are idiots with mental problems.
“Stop your eternal, egomaniac nonsense…”
***
Some folks say I’m egotistical,
Heck I don’t even know what that means.
Must be somethin’ to do with the way,
That I fill out my skin-tight blue jeans.
Mac Davis…sort of…
I think what Bindidon is trying to say is that UAHv5.6 and earlier used MSAU Channel 2, which has its peak measuring in the lower troposphere (LT), while v.6 uses channels that measure at peak higher up in the atmosphere, from the mid and upper troposphere, and the lower stratosphere.
You can see that pretty clearly here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/ace954cc-a07d-49e0-9f42-599cefd8a7da/qj2960-fig-0001-m.jpg
barry…the curves you want are listed as channels 3 – 5. Channels 3 was never used, it basically measures cloud data. Channel 4 was never implemented either as far as I know. Maybe Roy will enlighten us on that one day in an article.
The difference according to Roy’s paper on version 6 is that, pre-version 6, channel 5 was used as a scanner to sweep across a multi-angle view. To do that, different weighting curves had to be employed. Also, the channel was affected by radiation from the solid surface, which has an albedo in the range 0.8 to 0.9. The oceans were not as affected, with an albedo of 0.5.
With version 6, channel 5 was used with channels 7 and 9 in a vertical arrangement.
My point to Binny is that nothing is being synthesized. Channels 5,7 and 9 collect real O2 data in real time. If they were synthesized, the synthesis would have to take place within the units and there would be no need to fly satellites. They don’t put climate models into orbit, although that might be a good idea.
Naturally, the collected data has to be processed to extract the O2 emission data and give it meaning. If you look at Roy’s explanation at the following link, in Fig.2, it shows in the upper left corner, a set of weighting curves centred at various altitudes with the lower curve limbs extending down into the lower atmosphere. I don’t know how far down they measure.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
From my understanding of weighting curves, those lower limbs indicate how much O2 emission data is collected per altitude with respect to the peaks. I liken them to frequency responses in a communication receiver. The bandpass of the a filter or amplifier has a similar curve with peak transmission at the apex of the curve and lesser amounts as you progress down each limb.
Of course, that is not a direct correlation to temperature but the amount of O2 emission should be extractable per unit of altitude based on known relationships between temperature and altitude.
For example, if channel 5 receives a peak amount of emission at 4 km. you should be able to interpolate points further down the lower limb to lower altitudes. If you look at a similar bandpass curve on an oscilloscope, with the y-axis showing voltage while the x-axis shows frequency, you can actually inject a small blip on the curve from a separate generator as a reference frequency. Then you can associate the amount of voltage passed per frequency through the bandpass apparatus.
BTW, there are instruments in electronics that sweep through a band of frequencies. When applied to a bandpass filter, the filter responds to each frequency based on its bandpass and the resulting output can be seen on an oscilloscope as a bell-shaped curve.
I am guessing that each AMSU channel does something similar. Channel 5 responds to 4 km with a peak on the weighting curve, and reveals, according to the position on the lower limb, the amount of O2 radiation at lower altitudes along that lower limb.
Of course, there will be much more O2 radiation nearer the surface but it should be known how that works with altitude with regard to temperature. There is also the problem of radiation loss per altitude when received at the satellite altitude. If O2 emission frequency did not change with temperature, I don’t see how any information could be deciphered.
If you look at the weighting curves, they all have different centre frequencies in Ghz. To me, that means they receive with the highest amplitude at that frequency but still gather frequencies to either side of those frequencies. I am not confusing the weighting curves with the bandpass of the AMSU channel receivers but there has to be a relationship.
If the AMU unit picks up an O2 signal halfway down the lower limb in channel 5, it should be automatically known what altitude it came from, hence the temperature.
If the altitude to temperature is linear, as claimed, up to a certain altitude, it should be easy to project it down to the surface. That’s my guess. Binny seems to be claiming that as a synthesis but I don’t buy that explanation. Any projection to the surface is based on real data, not synthesized data, as in a synthesizer or climate model.
Gordo, Have you ever considered doing comedy? Your repeated flights into the unknown of your brain are laughable. Most of what you wrote is wrong, which makes it clear that you still have no clue about the MSU/AMSU instruments and what Roy wrote about 7 1/2 years back. For example, confusing surface emissivity with planetary albedo.
You wrote:
You guessed wrong.
Roy’s Figure 2 shows a sketch of the cross track scanning of the MSU and gives the old and new calculations for the LT. Each scan produces a single measured value for the intensity at each scan angle as the antenna sweeps across the swath, repeating the process at the next swath as the satellite moves along it’s orbital path. The weighting functions are the result of a theoretical calculation of the O2 emissions sensed at each scan position are not used except to create the LT equations.
Getting the old duplicate post message with no post showing up. Trying again down here.
swannie…someone like you who cannot understand the simplicity of the 2nd law is hardly someone to be criticizing the understanding of someone like me who has expertise with AMSU-type electronics.
In your reply, you did not address the electronics in the AMSU units and how they detect O2 emissions. In Roy’s article, he states…
“The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p.tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions.
That corroborates my descrip.tion re weighting functions. I specifically stated they are not meant to be taken as a direct measurement of altitude to O2 emission.
What you miss in your infinite smugness is that O2 emissions are actually measured by real instruments. The AMSU channel receivers are tuned to different microwave frequencies in the bands where O2 emits based on its temperature. I was trying to describe how that might work with real instruments but you butted in with your ad homs and insults without trying to understand what was written.
That process only tells you O2 emissions are there in discrete frequencies. The real work comes inter.p.reting the channel receiver output to meaningful data related to altitude and temperature. I am guessing the AMSU channel outputs are relative voltages that can be related to altitude and temperature.
If you would try to stop being such a blowhard, we might be able to discuss this scientifically and learn from it.
Gordo, You take offense at my attempts to correct your errors even as you continue to display your ignorance. I’ve tried to read and understand the technical literature going back more than 30 years, an effort which you appear to have failed to peruse. Perhaps you could find the time to read the actual technical report from Roy and John which describes the V6 processing, which presents more details beyond Roy’s post you quote.
Yes, the MSU/AMSU instruments measure microwave intensity at a specific frequency for each channel, the result of the net emission and absorp_tion over a wide range in pressure height. The frequencies are chosen from the physics of the radiation from O2 molecules using the same physics as that for CO2 wrt the Greenhouse Effect, which you repeatedly deny. There have been several descriptions of the electronics in early reports which you might benefit by reading.
You wrote:
The plots of the theoretical weighting functions display the contribution of various levels to the whole of the integrated measurement, which does not represent “temperature” at a specific level. Other groups do use the MSU/AMSU data for this purpose to improve weather forecasting by inverting the data from several channels, but that’s a different animal. The UAH products as such are not useful for determining temperature vs. altitude.
Gordon, v6 uses AMSU channels 5,7 and 9 (MSU 2, 3 and 4 prior to 1998), as you know, and channels 7 and 9 are weighted in the tropopause and lower stratosphere respectively.
Channel 5 is weighted at 3km altitude
Channel 7 is weighted at 9km
Channel 9 is weighted at 16km
Roy explained in his primer in 2015 that using the lower channel exclusively picked up thermal emissions from elevated land*, and the new method picks up less of these emissions (as the weighting is higher up in the atmosphere).
“The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS)…
As seen in Fig. 7, the new multi-channel LT weighting function is located somewhat higher in altitude than the old LT weighting function.”
While the combined weighting is slightly higher than the old one, it is from measuring O2 radiance in the troposphere and lower stratosphere as well as the mid troposphere. I think that’s what Bindidon means when he says the LT product is no longer measured just from the lower troposphere (although it is combined with the other channels).
* Ironically, you’ve stated previously that UAH measures land temperatures, while Roy’s v6 actually has even less thermal emission from land than previous. Land thermal emissions contaminate the UAH LT record, according to Roy.
“The 0.026 C/decade reduction in the global LT trend is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT to land surface skin temperature…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Why will the stratospheric polar vortex in the north always be weaker than the polar vortex in the south?
This is due to the distribution of the geomagnetic field over the Arctic and Antarctic.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_f.jpg
That’s interesting.
I hadn’t seen the use of “nanotesla” for Earth’s magnetic field. I suspect it’s just another instance of making things complicated for no reason. The old familiar “Gauss” works just fine. 65000 nT = 0.65 G — Which is easier?
And the two maps weren’t of the same magnification, so that makes the magnetic contour lines appear different. Again, why complicate the issue?
We can watch this winter as the North Polar Vortex strengthens and the South PV weakens. Will the mag fields change also?
You write without checking. You heard something, but it’s not true. The polar vortex in the north will be weak and the US will soon find out.
https://i.ibb.co/Jdyzz2b/gfs-z100-nh-f120-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/fxffg26/gfs-z70-nh-f240.png
https://i.ibb.co/PN4pCfX/gfs-z100-nh-f384.png
Oh, you were talking near-term. I was confused by “always be weaker”.
Glad you explained what you meant.
The magnetic field is currently weakening over Canada and strengthening over Siberia. The center over Canada is weakening, and the magnetic pole is moving quite rapidly toward Siberia. The field over Antarctica is quite uniform and strong. Ozone as a diamagnetic is repelled by the magnetic field. The distribution of ozone, which is directed toward the pole in winter, depends on the strength of the magnetic field. That’s why we have a large ozone hole over Antarctica and a strong polar vortex. The distribution of ozone, which has a different density from the surrounding air, affects the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/dLZJm5q/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/Swt2qYc/gfs-t30-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/hDh81jw/gfs-z30-nh-f00-1.png
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Abstract
In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earths climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earths atmosphere.
http://journals.uran.ua/geofizicheskiy/article/view/111146
Abstract
The idea about synchronized variations of geomagnetic field and climate appears in the middle of the twentieth century. Among others, one of the main reasons for its unpopularity is the missing mechanism of coupling between magnetic and non-magnetic media. This chapter offers such a mechanism, consisting of a chain of relations transmitting the geomagnetic spatial-temporal variations down to the planetary surface. The first element of this chain is energetic particles propagating in Earths atmosphere, whose density and depth of penetration are modulated by geomagnetic field. Thus, the non-dipolar geomagnetic irregularities are projected on the ionization layer in the lower atmosphere (known as Regener-Pfotzer maximum). This unevenly distributed ionization, in certain conditions (i.e. dry atmosphere), acts as a secondary source of ozone near the tropopause. Ozone at this level is of special importance due to its influence on the tropopause temperature and humidity, and consequently on the planetary radiation balance. Hence, the geomagnetic spatial and temporal variations are imprinted down to the surface, impacting the climate system and its regional structures. The chapter provides synthesized information about geomagnetic field variability, particles propagation in Earths atmosphere, ion-molecular reactions initiating ozone formation in the lower stratosphere, as well as evidence for its covariance with some atmospheric variables.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81193
In the first approximation, the magnetic field is interpolated as the field of a magnetic dipole. However, the empirical models (incorporating all available measurements of field intensity), as well as satellite measurements, reveal the existence of a non-dipolar component in the real geomagnetic field. The irregularities in the spatial distribution of geomagnetic field intensity are well visible in Figure 1, based on the 13th generation of the International Geomagnetic References Field model (IGRF) [8]. The two-wave distribution of field intensity in the Northern Hemisphere and a single-wave in the Southern Hemisphere are well visible in Figure 1.
https://www.intechopen.com/media/chapter/81193/media/F1.png
Yes IP, you’ve found another good example of how this stuff gets so confused — layer upon layer of nonsense.
The first two sentences: “The magnetic field is currently weakening over Canada and strengthening over Siberia. The center over Canada is weakening, and the magnetic pole is moving quite rapidly toward Siberia.”
To know if the magnetic field is weakening or strengthening, we would have to have comparative measurements. The “maps” with contour lines you’ve found are from a MODEL:
“Total intensity (F) in region of North Pole at 2020.0 from the World Magnetic Model (WNN2020).”
And weakening/strengthening is NOT related to poles moving. Poles moving would be due to movement of Earth’s dipole.
There’s too much for me to straighten out, but now you have a place to start, since you have an interest.
clint…”I hadnt seen the use of nanotesla for Earths magnetic field. I suspect its just another instance of making things complicated for no reason”.
***
It gets even worse. The gauss is a unit of magnetic flux density in the CGS system. The tesla is a unit of magnetic flux density in the SI system.
At one time we called them lines of force which tells you exactly what is going on visually. When you see all those lines around a magnet, forming a field, and you run the lines through an area, the number of lines per unit area is the magnetic density.
However, the lines are obviously fictional. The terminology was developed by Faraday and refined by Maxwell to represent magnetic strength in different areas of space or on surfaces.
So 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss, which mean 10,000 lines of force (or flux) per unit area.
But, 1 gauss = 1 maxwell per square centimetre.
To complicate matter, the maxwell was introduced. From what I can see, the maxwell represents single 1ines of force whereas the gauss represents the number of lines per square centimetre.
This article breaks it down decently.
https://byjus.com/physics/relation-between-gauss-and-tesla/
It appears at one time that mathematicians disagreed with Faraday. They presumed objects like magnets operated through some kind of action at a distance whereas Faraday claimed their had to be some kind of field (flux) acting.
Maxwell came along and noted they were talking about the same thing, so he used the principles developed by Faraday and put them in mathematical terms the mathematicians could understand.
As it stands today, we still have no idea what goes on between a magnetic and a piece of steel or the Earth and the Moon. We can explain it mathematically but cannot explain the physical nature of the problem.
Apparently that is true right across science. I just finished reading a book based on psychiatry, looking at schizophrenia and bipolar in general, and two top researchers admitted they are no closer to understanding the human mind than at any time. The chemicals (drugs) used to control schizophrenia produce horrendous side effects which raises the question as to whether they are used to aid the patient or the caregivers. They turn people into manageable zombies.
The problem is the idiots running drug companies are making huge profits with these drugs even though they know about the side effects and cannot explain how the drugs are supposed to work. One anti-psychotic drug was found to reduce dopamine in the brain but doing that seriously affects the brain and the body in other very detrimental ways.
The drug companies continue to lie. Pfizer has been fined 5 billion dollars total for lying about their products while Johnson and Johnson are close behind at 3 billion plus.
The centennial changes in ozone mixing ratio at 70 hPa, between the first decades of twenty-first and twentieth centuries, is presented in Figure 7. Note that ozone changes deduced from the correlation map in Figure 6 fairly well corresponds to the observed changes of ozone at 70 hPa.
https://api.intechopen.com/media/chapter/81193/media/F7.png
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81193
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_toz_NA_f000.png
Here you can watch in real time.
Heavy rainfall in California. Very heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada soon.
ren…when we experience Arctic air in Vancouver, is that actually air from the stratosphere?
More generally, how much of the cold air in the Arctic in winter is due to lack of solar input and how much is due to the stratosphere descending with its intrusions?
Ozone that falls from the stratosphere to the upper troposphere creates a wave that pulls air from the north. This wave displaces water vapor from the upper troposphere. The height of the troposphere drops a lot, so it radiates heat from the surface very quickly.
https://i.ibb.co/SDgrYV3/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f000.png
Such dry air from the north is so cold that even full sun during the day won’t help, because the temperature drops rapidly at night.
The temperature of ozone that mixes with the air of the troposphere is that of the tropopause, i.e., about -55 degrees C.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2022.png
ren…”Such dry air from the north is so cold that even full sun during the day wont help….”
***
The Sun helps quite a bit during the day. I remember a day in Regina when it was -50C. The Sun was shining in a clear sky and ice crystals were falling like a very fine mist. I was able to walk several blocks to a restaurant and I would not have tried that at night with no sun.
I had to take the battery from my car into the house at night to keep it warm. Otherwise my engine would not even turn over in the morning. Being from the Coast I had no block heater and I was too stupid to get one installed.
End of a really short melting season in the Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Sea ice extent comparison on day 314, in Mkm^2
81-10: 11.55
2013: 10.82
2014: 10.67
2022: 10.58
2015: 10.45
2021: 10.40
2011: 10.35
2017: 10.30
2012: 10.30
2018: 10.22
17-21: 10.21
2016: 10.12
2020: 10.06
2019: 10.05
Superdeveloping La Nina called Can you see me now ???
https://i.postimg.cc/T30KG7XB/mei-lifecycle-currentc.png
The negative trend of the Humboldt Current temperature continues.
https://i.ibb.co/kxNQGDF/nino1-weekly.png
Who will be the first to call 4th year La Nina ???
https://i.postimg.cc/k5XYXMBq/nino5.png
You can be the first.
Global temps seem to be saying ‘meh’
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2022.pdf
I would not expect anyone from Bindiclown’s forecasting Gurkentruppe to be the one
Are you calling a 4th la Nina year, Eben? I keep a record of these things.
Did you keep a record of this thing ???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
No need, you help clarify my position by continually posting it.
Are you calling a 4th la Nina year, Eben? You say you have great skillz in this area, so I’m going to save your prediction and test it in time.
Just a quick look at the annual anomaly average of the years since the super el Nino of 2016.
2017 : 0.265
2018 : 0.088
2019 : 0.304
2020 : 0.356
2021 : 0.135
2022 : 0.172 (so far)
I was primarily interested in the effect of the extended la Nina on global temps compared to other recent years.
2018 began with la Nina conditions and ended with el Nino conditions, but is cooler than any of the trip-dip la Nina years.
As 2022 is the 3rd year of the trip-dip, I wondered if it would thus be the coldest year of the three.
^ UAH LT
The Democrats are at it again in the Detroit during midterm elections. Voters are showing up at polling stations being told they have already voted.
The polling people are calling it a ‘harmless data error’ but computers don’t make data errors, humans do. Sounds intentional.
At it again? There was no “it” last time. And, as usual, no evidence anyone was barred from voting – people who said they hadn’t already voted were checked against a paper back up of the roll and issued ballots.
Trump doesn’t need twitter when people like you spread his BS to other platforms.
barry…your the type of person who would ignore blatant evidence if it was placed before you. Like the time I pointed to the IPCC claim there had been a 15 year flat trend from 1998 – 2012. Or the time I pointed you to the NOAA admission they use less than 1500 surface stations to determine the global average.
I posted an extensive video based on cell phone interceptions that showed people stuffing ballot boxes at 3 AM while moving ballot box to ballot box repeating the same.
Here we are in the wee hours and the Republicans are leading the Democrats by 199 – 172 for Congress. What do you want to bet that when we get up tomorrow, those figures will be reversed?
In normal elections when a party has a lead like that at this stage of the counting, they win. Not in the US with the Democrats in control. They are a lot like you climate alarmists who have an ideology that justifies cheating in climate science to achieve an end. Alarmists don’t care a hoot about science, you lot are on a mission to save the planet even if you have to pervert science completely.
There is major cheating going on at the polls and it’s based on a deep paranoia with Democrats that cheating is justified to save the world from the evil Republicans.
barry…”people who said they hadnt already voted were checked against a paper back up of the roll and issued ballots”.
**
The question is, why did that happen in the first place? If someone did not vote ahead of time, how could their names possibly be on a list claiming they had voted already? Computers don’t suddenly decide to print lists that lack authenticity, humans do that.
Then again, I am wasting my breath on someone from Australia where democracy went out the windows long before the US. I have been following the BOM and the hysteria it spreads about climate catastrophe, and how politicians lap it up and spread the bs like manure.
We were talking about that over 10 years ago on Ozzie blogs.
“The question is, why did that happen in the first place? If someone did not vote ahead of time, how could their names possibly be on a list claiming they had voted already?”
The answer to that is in the news explained by the people running the elections. I see you haven’t bothered looking for much evidence before committing to an opinion.
And no, writing that information off without even looking at it won’t persuade, so you can forego your usual lazy ‘reasoning’ style on that.
60 Republican election lawsuits were dismissed in 2020. 2 passed. 1 brought a retaining fence closer to the ballot tables. The other was a win on the amount of time Pennsylvanians could provide proper identity as first-time voters to have their vote counted.
Zero cases provided any hard evidence of election fraud, and none has emerged to this day.
The Big Lie is indeed a big lie. But for true believers it doesn’t matter how many times the ‘evidence’ fails to pass muster.
” Zero cases provided any hard evidence of election fraud, and none has emerged to this day.
The Big Lie is indeed a big lie. But for true believers it doesn’t matter how many times the ‘evidence’ fails to pass muster. ”
Exactly, barry.
And let me add that it becomes more and more evident over the years that Robertson no longer is a ‘reasoning’ person.
What he is doing can best be called “robertsoning”, i.e. denying evidence and only looking for singular contrarian information sources, which he always places above all others.
The very best is this absolute ignorance of even simplest facts like the necessity to align departure-based time series which were built out of different reference periods:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
What the heck could we expect from such a boasting Ignoramus?
binny…”Robertson no longer is a reasoning person.
What he is doing can best be called robertsoning, i.e. denying evidence…”
***
I am one of the only posters who bothers to supply evidence or reason out an issue. You and your fellow alarmists run off to authority figures.
If I use Clausius as an authority figure, or R. W. Wood, I demonstrate that I understand what they are saying. Sometimes I offer my own proof on top of theirs.
You created an argument that the Moon rotates on a local axis based purely on claims by Cassini, Mayer, et al, without demonstrating that you understood what they were saying. Now you are defending the claims of election officials, without a shred of evidence, that the vote count is honest.
There has been enough evidence presented by enough people of vote tampering in 2020 that an honest court would have listened to the arguments. All cases were dismissed by Democrat judges offering snide remarks.
In a real democracy, if the opposition complained about vote tampering it would be taken seriously.
Robertson
” You created an argument that the Moon rotates on a local axis based purely on claims by Cassini, Mayer, et al, without demonstrating that you understood what they were saying. ”
Your are not only a persistent denier of real science: you are a persistent liar as well.
Unlike you boasting Ignoramus, I went years ago into Tobias Mayer’s genial work, understood most of it and have shown that often enough on this blog.
Your only responses to my repeated summaries of his work were based on the stupidest possible claim that ‘the Moon doesn’t rotate because it shows us the same face all the time’.
The difference between idiots like you and Isaac Newton is that like many before him and many more after him, he perfectly understood the inverse of what you are stupid enough to claim.
Why do you idiot think that while sharing the “no GHE” idea with you, many commenters on this blog are convinced of the existence of Moon’s rotation?
binny…”Unlike you boasting Ignoramus, I went years ago into Tobias Mayers genial work, understood most of it and have shown that often enough on this blog”.
***
If you understand his work, let’s hear it. Explain his method for proving the Moon rotates on a local axis.
Better still, let’s hear your proof that the Moo rotates on its local axis.
Bindidon is obsessed with this Moon issue. Moon rotation has been thoroughly debunked, yet Bin won’t let it go. Since NASA has not formally debunked it, Bin must cling to his cult’s mantra.
barry…”The answer to that is in the news explained by the people running the elections”.
***
You are saying that anyone involved in running an election is honest. That’s a blatant appeal to authority. That’s the way the Democrats regarded the 2020 election, it must be good because election officials said it was good.
Here we are, more than halfway through the following day and still nowhere near a decision. As it stands, NBC news has the the Republicans at 222 projected seats and the Democrats at 213 (218 needed for a majority). Last night, when I signed off the Rep had 199 and the Dems 173. It should have been settled by then with the counting completed.
The Dems are slowly narrowing a 27 vote gap and no election I have ever seen in the past, except 2020, has ever featured turn around like that when one party lead by 27 seatsso late on election night. I would not be surprised if the Dems pull ahead soon.
The Dems need the extra time to manufacture votes and please stop kidding yourself that election officials are apolitical.
As I foretold, you wrote off this evidence without considering it – the lazy option. So your gathering of evidence is one-sided. No surprises.
“You are saying that anyone involved in running an election is honest. Thats a blatant appeal to authority.”
No, I said here is evidence to gather to help form an opinion. Evidence that you’ve summarily dismissed.
As neither you nor I are in a position to gauge the honesty of anyone putting forth evidence we are left to sum an overview with what we can learn, holding the validity of the evidence to be provisional. You don’t want to learn about anything that is contrary to your view.
My evidence for appraising the matter also includes the 60 court cases filed for the 2020 court election – which you have also completely ignored. No doubt were you to address them you would write them off, too. Despite the fact that many of these were decided by Republican-appointed and Trump-appointed judges.
In short, the track record of the election deniers regarding evidence of fraud is worse than abysmal. Whereas the results given by the election officials have been upheld in multiple court cases – and importantly, multiple recounts.
Arizona is a perfect example, where 3 recounts were not enough. A pro-Trump consortium (Cyber Ninjas) performed a fourth recount and gave a few hundred more voted to Biden.
Of course, they accompanied that result with the usual murky speculation that also lacks evidence.
The big lie is indeed a big lie.
Do you hold that Republican-run elections and their explanations could be as dishonest as Dem-run elections, or do you appeal to Republican authority without question?
You spoke of evidence in your earlier post. And have provided none for election fraud. Wither now your vaunted respect for it?
swannie…carrying on with your arrogant reply re sat AMU units…
I did not look closely at the weighting curves in figure 2 and made the same mistake as you. The curves are for the MSU unit, not the AMSU unit, and they represent the footprints marked in the diagram for the MSU.
You can see from the lower limbs that the curves extend to the surface. They are an indication of a vertical profile for altitude versus O2 emissions for each footprint.
If you look at the drawing, there is an arrow pointing into the page representing North. So, the sat is moving north and sweeping east-west. Due to the curvature of the Earth, there is an altitude difference between footprints from about 7 km for 1,11 down to about 4km for the nadir (red curve).
Those are the centre altitudes for the weighting curves but claiming that is the altitude from which the LT is derived is nonsense. The curves have lower limbs extending to the surface, although for reasons explained by Roy, the lower altitudes are not used.
Going back to Roy’s earlier statement…
“The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p.tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions.
Specifically…”…the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions”.
There’s your relationship between the O2 emissions, altitude, and temperature.
typo…AMU units should be AMSU units.
-7C this AM in Campbell River (Vancouver Island).
Latitude:4957’07.000″ N
Longitude:12516’23.000″ W
Elevation:108.80 m
Previous record Min was -4.1C in 2003. (Goes back to ~ 1965)
The average Min is 1.3C
A climate crisis is upon us.
Temperatures will drop sharply in Vancouver overnight.
https://i.ibb.co/6Zd0ZYY/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-11-09-180041.png
I hope 4u that you won’t have soon a reedition of 1985:
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 26 -20.4
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 23 -19.8
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 24 -18.3
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 29 -17.0
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 22 -16.8
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 27 -16.8
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 28 -14.8
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 25 -14.2
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 30 -13.2
CA001021261 55-21 1985 11 21 -11.0
Ken…I went out for a 40 minute walk last night south of Vancouver around 10 pm and it felt a lot colder than the indicated -1C. Took ten minutes of walking to get feeling toasty.
Mind you, I was dressed for it…double everything with a toque and my hoodie pulled over it. Heavy jacket, thermal long johns and sweat pants. By the 3/4 mark I was beginning to feel overheated.
Yep…this climate change is wreaking havoc on us.
It actually feels warmer at -5C when all the moisture is frozen out of the air.
If the colder weather is a trend it really is a climate crisis. Shorter growing season is worst possible climate outcome.
Please accept the fact that during the winter in the southern hemisphere the average temperature anomaly was negative and is still so.
https://i.ibb.co/rd10Tzh/gfs-world-ced2-t2anom-1-day.png
Braindead dimms vote in guy that died a month ago.
Pennsylvania state representative re-elected despite being dead
“We are proud to see the voters to continue to show their confidence in him and his commitment to Democratic values by re-electing him posthumously,” Pennsylvania House Democrats said.
Dead people voting for a dead candidate?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/09/pennsylvania-dead-democrat-tony-deluca-victory
Democrat re-elected by a landslide in Pennsylvania even though hes dead
Win by longtime state representative Tony DeLuca, who died last month, triggers special election that will be held on a later date
*
” A longtime Pennsylvania state representative was re-elected in a landslide – even though he died last month.
Democrat Anthony “Tony” DeLuca, Pennsylvania’s longest-serving state representative, was the choice in more than 85% of votes cast.
DeLuca, 85, died on 9 October from lymphoma, a disease he had twice previously fended off.
By the time of his death it was too late to change the ballot or put forth another candidate for his seat. While his opponent, Green candidate Queonia “Zarah” Livingston, accounted for more than 14% of the vote, DeLuca’s victory has triggered a special election that will be held on a later date.
“While we’re incredibly saddened by the loss of Representative Tony DeLuca, we are proud to see the voters continue to show their confidence in him and his commitment to Democratic values by re-electing him posthumously,” the Pennsylvania House Democratic campaign committee said in a tweet.
A special election will follow soon.
There is no excuse for this. The electoral system in Pennsylvania is corrupt. It was one of the states that had a massive turn-around in favour of Biden when the night before, Trump was up something like 600,000 votes.
They probably couldn’t change the ballot in time.
Too, it could be a message from the people stating we’d prefer that politicians were all dead and wouldn’t be able to screw up our lives.
Pennsylvania swung the next day because there were 1 million votes counted on election day and 1.5 million votes to go, which were largely mail-in ballots from strongly blue districts, and early mail-in ballots generally favour Democrats. It was why Trump sued prior to the election to ban mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, and why he called for the counting to stop after day 1, when he was ahead. He knew what was coming.
Another baseless conspiracy theory you have heard the talking point and ignored the explanation. Because you only accept information that supports your one-eyed view, Gordon.
The majority of mail-in votes counted over the days following the 2020 election came from Philadelphia, with by far the largest population in Pennsylvania. Obama won there in 2008 and 2012 with over 80% of the vote. Biden carried it slightly less, but still North of 80%.
Large population centres in Pennsylvania are usually blue, often strongly. Those mail-ins also contributed to Biden’s gains over the the days to November 6, when he took the lead from Trump.
Check out the usual percentages for Philly and other large towns in Pennsylvania.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#By_county
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#By_county
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#Results_by_county
And in the years when a Republican won the presidency?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#By_county
Philadelphia never goes below 80% Democrat in those years, too. The larger towns also generally swing Democrat, though there are more exceptions in the Bush years.
It’s not a conspiracy. The count played out as expected – early lead for red on election day, mail-ins narrowing the gap over the next few days as they’re counted, because Democrats mail-in much more than Republicans, the larger towns take longer to count and favour blue anyway, and the COVID pandemic saw record numbers of mail-in votes across the country.
To beat Trump with a 600,000 vote lead on the night of the election, Biden had to win 72% of the remaining votes, which works out mathematically when you take into consideration the percentage split in the large cities from previous elections. Biden ended up winning those blue strongholds by similar margins to previous elections, which was why Pennsylvania was called well before the full count was done. Everyone knew when the mail-ins started coming in that it was going to swing strongly enough to blue. Trump also knew mail-ins would swing strongly Democrat, which is why he tried to get them banned prior to the election, and why he didn’t want them counted post-election day.
Trump Nov 6 2020: “Stop the count!”
Trump claimed fraud because he didn’t want all votes counted.
Except for Arizona, where he was narrowly behind. there, he wanted voting to continue.
Trump’s naked BS should have been obvious to anyone 50% astute. His self-serving claptrap led many Republicans to wonder why votes should ever be counted after election day finished. Moronic.
test123
Another instance of ‘duplicate comment’ with no post showing up.
barry…”and channels 7 and 9 are weighted in the tropopause and lower stratosphere respectively.
Channel 5 is weighted at 3km altitude
Channel 7 is weighted at 9km
Channel 9 is weighted at 16km”
***
Barry, we have to be careful to distinguish between a ‘weighting’ and the actual physical instrumentation. I am still trying to grasp the meaning of weighting function although Roy seems to define it as…
See Fig. 7 at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
“Fig.7.MSU/AMSU weighting functions which define the sensitivity of the various channels to temperature at different altitudes”.
I am trying to distinguish the actual physical reality of the channel receivers from the pre-defined weighting functions. I am not excluding weighting function, just trying to see how they relate to O2 emission as seen by the AMSU telemetry.
Earlier in the same article…
“We were careful to match the MSU and AMSU weighting function altitudes based upon radiative transfer theory, and are reasonably confident that the remaining land-vs-ocean effects in the above map are real, that is, the land areas have warmed faster than the ocean regions”.
earlier still…
“We want to emphasize that the land vs. ocean trends are very sensitive to how the difference in atmospheric weighting function height is handled between MSU channel 2 early in the record, and AMSU channel 5 later in the record (starting August, 1998). In brief, the lower in altitude the weighting function senses, the greater the brightness temperature difference between land and ocean, mostly because land microwave emissivity is approximately 0.90-0.95, while the ocean emissivity is only about 0.50”.
***
Note…I had missed the reference to ‘land microwave emissivity’. I had missed the microwave reference and took the emissivity to be purely land and ocean based. Somehow, the land is emitting microwave emissions and I wonder if it may be stray radiation from microwave and cell towers.
***
Even earlier…
“The MSU and AMSU instruments measure the thermal microwave emission from atmospheric oxygen in the 50-60 GHz oxygen absor.p.tion complex, and the resulting calibrated brightness temperatures (Tb) are nearly equivalent to thermometric temperature, specifically a vertically-weighted average of atmospheric temperature with the vertical weighting represented by weighting functions”.
Given the other references cited, I think this last statement neatly ties in the relationship between weighting functions and the physical AMSU channel receivers.
Your claim that each channel is ‘weighted’ at a centre frequency is too general. The weighting refers to the entire curve, right to the surface with channel 5.
Repeating from above…
“”Fig.7.MSU/AMSU weighting functions which define the sensitivity of the various channels to temperature at different altitudes”.
Although channel 5 is centred at 3 or 4 km, the curves lower limb gives weights to near the surface.
Granted, it’s never as easy as that. As Roy pointed out, there is interference between the O2 microwave frequencies and microwave frequencies from the surface, so some kind of inter.polation is likely required.
As I understand it the ‘weighting functions’ refer to the degrees of sensitivity of the instrument to O2 brightness at different altitudes. The ‘bulge’ in the curves is the altitude at which the instruments are most sensitive to O2 radiance measurements.
It’s not possible to separate the readings at various altitudes, so we only know that there is more sensitivity in the ‘bulge’ area and less in the altitudes above and below. As has been said here many times, the channels, and the combined channels, measure a swath of atmosphere, most weighted at certain altitudes.
“Your claim that each channel is ‘weighted’ at a centre frequency is too general.”
The notion of weighting infers tails, not a single vector. I just assumed everybody understood it was a curve, not the least because I have provided the graphs of these curves in commentary on the matter. As I have done here in our discussion.
The microwave emissions are not from constructs. Roy explains that the effect is most keenly felt at high elevations in mountainous regions.
“Note that trends are noisy over Greenland, Antarctica, and the Tibetan Plateau, likely due to greater sensitivity of the satellite measurements to surface emission and thus to emissivity changes over high altitude terrain…”
This is a land surface measurement, not an infrastructure measurement (or this interference would be greatest in cities).
“Although channel 5 is centred at 3 or 4 km, the curves lower limb gives weights to near the surface.”
… that can’t be distinguished in the data from other altitudes. The LT product is of a broad swath of atmosphere, weighted at about 4km altitude, but including measurements nearer the surface and from the stratosphere. It is not possible to infer temperature from more discrete layers than this.
Back to the point, the old method used much less data from higher in the atmosphere/stratosphere. It was more tightly constrained to the lower troposphere. I think that’s what Bin meant.
barry…”Its not possible to separate the readings at various altitudes, so we only know that there is more sensitivity in the bulge area and less in the altitudes above and below”.
***
Don’t know what’s going on. I have received several ‘duplicate post’ messages but the post never shows up.
****
I can’t see that being the case. The AMSU instrument will be able to offer fairly distinct separation of O2 radiation frequencies on any channel.
They AMSU channel electronics takes in a range of RF (microwave frequency signals) and subjects them to a local oscillator (LO). This is called heterodyning. An RF input frequency is ‘beat’ with the LO, producing a sum and difference frequency. Only one is used, the other discarded.
The resultant frequency is called the Intermediate Frequency (IF). It goes through a bandpass (BP) filter set to the mid-frequency of the channel. That passes and rejects only RF frequencies in a certain bandwidth, such as the channel 5 bandwidth.
Those frequencies are then subjected to a detector, which converts the high frequency signal to a varying D.C signal. The resultant varying D.C voltage will be proportional to the frequencies gathered at the channel antenna.
Now we have a relative level of signals from the atmosphere gathered by each channel from O2 emissions. If there was no range of frequencies, as represented by the weighting function curves, the AMSU circuitry would not work as described.
I need to do more research on this but I have a block diagram of the AMSU unit and test curves for the bandpass filter which corroborate what I am saying.
Gordo, You wrote:
Your assumptions are not correct. Your failure to read the literature results in you continued inability to understand the MSU/AMSU instruments. Only one precisely measured frequency is used for each channel.
Please remember that the first MSU was launched in 1978 and the electronics and theory were established before that time. The theoretical foundation is the physics of the emission and absorp_tion of thermal radiation from those O2 molecules and is the same theoretical foundation as that for the thermal emissions from the molecules of the Greenhouse gasses. As a result, if you insist that the theory is correct for those O2 emissions measured by the MSU/AMSU instruments, then it’s correct for CO2 molecules.
We can only hope that you finish catching up on your reading before you pontificate more wildly incorrect guesses about the LT before you post again.
“By way of review, the three basic layers we compute average temperatures from the satellites are, in increasing altitude, the mid-troposphere (MT), tropopause region (TP), and lower stratosphere (LS). From these three deep layer temperatures, we compute the lower tropospheric (LT) product using a linear combination of the three main channels, LT = 1.548MT 0.538TP +0.01LS.”
The LT product is a single result based on the difference in deep layers plus the lower stratosphere. It doesn’t and can’t isolate discrete layers of atmosphere, because the source readings are of significant depth (10-20 km). The numerical figures do not represent discrete layers, but the average temperature, weighted at a certain altitude, of those deep layers. Why do I keep mentioning deep layers? That’s the term Dr Spencer uses.
“The only direct comparisons to satellite-based deep-layer temperatures are from radiosondes and global reanalysis datasets”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
Nowhere is Spencer and Christy’s work over the years is any publication or even mention of discrete layer temperature measurements by satellite. That’s all in your head.
The following video explains the recent floods in Australia and is very informative about ENSO effects, the SAM and other large-scale climate/weather phenomenon, focussing particularly on the Tongan eruption early this year. Worth a look for understanding these systems in the deep South of the planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZtRKbTdQVw
14 minutes.
PS – for those who post video links without comment, or without substantive comment, this is how you do it. Do the rest of us a favour, willya?
barry…the problem with their inference re the volcanic aerosols is that the world has not cooled significantly as a result. I have seen no commentary in Canadian weather circles although Environment Canada are now propagandists. They claim everything related to severe weather is a product of climate change, not aerosols or ENSO.
We are still learning about ocean oscillations like ENSO and this recent 3 year+ La Nina has not produced the cooling we might have expected. Rather, it has produced droughts, flooding, and heat waves.
The summer of 2021 here in the Pacific NW of North America featured a lengthy heat dome parked over the area. On the southern edge of the heat dome, temperatures slightly inland from Portland, Oregon were 40C+ while on the coast, just outside the dome area, temps were around 20C.
Alarmists raved about that as an example of what was to come with climate change yet not one of them could explain how CO2 could cause a 20C differential in temperatures in locations a few miles apart.
That heat dome was claimed by NOAA to be the product of La Nina. That makes infinitely more sense when you look at the weather patterns emanating from the southern Pacific produced by La Nina. It affects the jet stream and the jet stream far better explains the parked, highly localized heat dome than climate change.
We don’t have a problem with climate change, the problem is in the minds of people with limited lifespans who have simply not experience such variations in weather over the long term.
As Steve Goddard keeps pointing out, the 1930s in North America were by far the hottest decade of the last several centuries. Furthermore, the 30s had by far the greater number of heat waves.
“the problem with their inference re the volcanic aerosols is that the world has not cooled significantly as a result.”
This is covered in the video. Again, you don’t check the material before spouting.
As it was an underwater eruption comparatively little aerosol made it into the stratosphere. The vast bulk of the ejecta reaching the stratosphere was water vapour. A fact repeated many times on this board, so you shouldn’t have missed it.
I can’t be bothered reading the rest of your post when you wade in with this kind of inanity at the head.
barry…”This is covered in the video. Again, you dont check the material before spouting”.
***
You need to get off those nasty pills. I watched the video up to and past the La Nina reference. Got a phone call and missed the rest. My point was that the WV claimed to reach the stratosphere does not seem to have caused cooling. The other ejecta only reach about 4 km.
If you look at the nearly back to back sine waves (red curve) on the UAH graph, it seems business as usual since about 2016.
ps. there did not seem to be significant Tsunami action from the eruption, although any Tsunami action is significant if it hits you.
During the Krakatoa eruption in the 1800s, there were Tsunamis exceeding 100 feet in height. One in the area was about 45 metres, nearly 150 feet.
“My point was that the WV claimed to reach the stratosphere does not seem to have caused cooling”
No, you said:
“the problem with their inference re the volcanic aerosols is that the world has not cooled significantly as a result”
As the video makes clear, and has been made clear here many times, the aerosol loading wasn’t nearly enough to cause cooling, and much of the aerosols remained beneath the surface of the water.
The large amount of WV shot into the stratosphere was predicted to cause WARMING of the surface, not cooling.
https://www.space.com/tonga-eruption-water-vapor-warm-earth
You seem to have things ass-backwards.
La Nina operates in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/VLsj90z/pme1to8.png
Theoretically, during La Nina there should be a strong accumulation of heat under the surface of the western Pacific, but during this La Nina the accumulation is weaker and will be so until there is a strong increase in solar activity. Until that happens, no El Nino can form.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2022&month=11
The very low temperature of the Peruvian Current. Yes, as I wrote earlier, in November the Peruvian Current is fed by water from melting sea ice.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
How much of that cooling is due to Tonga Hunga?
Unknown. It may have some influence, but difficult to determine.
Ken
Probably 0% because Hunga Tonga didn’t blow any aerosols that warm the stratosphere and vice versa give us cool times, but water vapor that should do the opposite.
ken…I don’t think a lot of people know much of the explosion was under water. There seems to have been a lot of water vapour blown into the atmosphere but as far as I can see, it caused no significant warming.
The Krakatoa explosion was violent because a vent was blown in the side of the mountain and ocean water poured in. That caused a huge amount of steam, which blew big time.
Tonga-Hunga was a record-setting underwater explosion that sent water all the way to the upper stratosphere. The timing coincides almost exactly with the anomalous warming seen in UAH since January. The exact physics of how that warming resulted is being debated, but the coincident timing is clear.
” but the coincident timing is clear.”
So correlation does prove causation???
And that is the reason why MEI’s index shows lower values than NOAA NCEP’s.
barry
” I think that’s what Bin meant. ”
No.
I meant exactly what we all can read in Roy Spencer’s 2015 post, namely that using LT observation data, only broad LT averages were possible, while local grid points had shown irregularities.
For people like Robertson, who only smalltalk all the time but never use the UAH data (let alone in grid form), this is not relevant at all.
But for those who e.g. generate time series out of grid points (e.g. the ENSO or MEI areas, or any land/sea mixtures they need to obtain data of, it is very disturbing not to obtain reliable LT data everywhere.
*
Let us speak the numbers…
Here is for example a comparison of LT data for the Nino 3+4 area (5S-5N — 170W-120W)
– blue out of the LT grid data
and
– red (dashed, to make blue visible behind it) out of the linear combination of MT/TP/LS grid data according to the known formula:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
{ The blue grid data for 2022 is absent, it was destroyed by the browser (!!!) due to a HTTP 403 access exception. }
The linear 1978-2021 estimates for blue vs. red differ by 0.0004 C/decade, and the monthly means by on average 0.002 C.
Please believe me: had the LT data been made out of observation processing, so you never could obtain such a perfect correlation for such a small area.
*
Sources for LT/MT/TP/LS grid data
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
binny…”I meant exactly what we all can read in Roy Spencers 2015 post, namely that using LT observation data, only broad LT averages were possible, while local grid points had shown irregularities”.
***
What you take from Roy’s words is far different than what a sane person would take. Where in Roy’s article does it say anything about broad LT averages being possible? Where does it say anything about synthesizing data or errors in the data?
As I have noted several times, you are an idiot and an alarmist who is trolling here to discredit Roy’s work, yet you have the temerity, in another post, to offer best greetings to Roy Spencer, John Christy, and team.
You are a phoney SOB who offers trash in lieu of science.
bin laughing stock…”Please believe me: had the LT data been made out of observation processing, so you never could obtain such a perfect correlation for such a small area”.
***
Do you have the least understanding of how the AMSU unit scans in footprints, picking up humungous amounts of O2 microwave radiation per footprint? Roy explains how the footprint data is converted to grid cells, yet here you are asking people to believe you and your pseudo-science.
This process is far more accurate than 1 thermometer every 1200 miles as per surface data acquisition.
The point is, and the point you fail to grasp, is that AMSU receiver are receiving real temperature data from O2 molecules over most of the atmosphere. What you call synthesis, is a legitimate scientific technique to convert the O2 emission data to temperature per altitude.
As I have tried to explain to you twice, a synthesizer creates pseudo-data from within. A synthesizer has no inputs!!!
barry #2
As a definite proof, we send best greetings from Germoney to Roy Spencer, John Christy & team, with a comparison of original LT data with the usual MT/TP/LS mix, this time for a single UAH 2.5 degree grid cell
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view
namely that encompassing a corner (3443’28.3″N, 8638’23.2″W) they’ll sure know a little bit about:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B043'28.3%22N+86%C2%B038'23.2%22W/@34.724521,-86.6544976,6369m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m6!3m5!1s0x88626bf4d43d52b5:0x7bfb2dd5d27d92e7!2sThe+University+of+Alabama+in+Huntsville!8m2!3d34.7251606!4d-86.6404712!3m5!1s0x0:0x38e9a1a39b83741c!7e2!8m2!3d34.7245213!4d-86.6397738?hl=en
*
The plots show much more deviations than usual: this is because time series for only one grid cell are shown here.
*
I hope that the Ignoramus de service has now definitely understood that, as always, he was wrong.
No, Robertson still did not understand the evidence.
But he doesn’t understand time dilation, relativity anyway, to name a few things only.
Robertson is a 360 degree denier, a gullible follower of single voices – provided they support his contrarian brain.
So what.
Tournons la page!
binny the time traveler…”But he doesnt understand time dilation, relativity anyway, to name a few things only”.
***
I understand relativity well. We studied Newtonian relativity where an observer is moving on one body and observing someone moving on another body relative to the first.
The only difference between Newtonian relativity and Einsteinian relativity is that Einstein introduced an untested and unproved multiplier for time. As Louis Essen claimed, and he invented the atomic clock and had to know a thing or two about time, Einstein’s theory of relativity is not even a theory. He claimed it is a collection of thought experiments that have never been proved.
Essen also claimed Einstein did not understand measurement. That is painfully obvious with E’s definition of time…’the hands on a clock’. Someone like you would fall for that bs, but intelligent thinkers understand that a clock measures the periodic motion of the Earth’s rotation, not time.
A clock is nothing more than a calibrated sun dial. What does a sundial measure? Come on, Binny, even you can do this. It casts the Sun’s shadow as the day progresses. And please don’t tell me it is measuring the rotation of the Sun around the Earth.
It is also painfully obvious that time has no physical existence. Therefore, it cannot dilate or do anything else a mirage or fantasy would do.
There is obviously a better explanation for what Einstein was trying to convey re time.
Do tell us Gordon,
“What does a sundial measure?”
What does it measure on Earth, and then what would it measure on the Moon if we put one there.
That’s too easy, Bob, even though Binny would fail to understand the logic.
On the Earth, the sundial measures the rotation of the Earth. Now…you think you have me cornered with a gotcha. But, no. On the Moon, the sundial would indicated the relative position of the Moon in its orbit, but only for half the orbital period.
Let’s set up the sundial on one face so it always points toward the Earth. When that face is facing the Sun dead on, the shadow is cast straight back behind the sundial pointer. On either side of dead on, the sundial casts a shadow on the opposite side of the pointer from the Sun.
Pay attention, Bob, this is where it gets good. The shadow will only be cast for 14 days, while that side faces the Sun. So, the shadow indicates the position of the Moon in its orbit during that 14 days. For the other 14 days of the orbit, the sundial will be on the far side of the Moon and casts no shadow since it sees no sunlight.
Thanks, Bob, for supplying yet another proof that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis.
I realize there are obtuse alarmist spinners out there who will insist the Moon must rotate on a local axis in order for the sundial to re-orient so it faces away from the Sun for 14 days. However, the explanation for that lies in it curvilinear translation, which requires one face to always face the Earth.
Like a ball on a string, a car driving around an oval, a locomotive traversing an circular track, an airliner flying at 35,000 feet above the Equator, or a wooden horse bolted to a carousel, the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while one face always points to the Earth.
Until you alarmists can understand that basic truth, you will never understand why catastrophic warming/climate change is an illusion perpetuated by nothing more than consensus. The theory that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit is based on the same illusion and consensus.
Gordon,
“On the Earth, the sundial measures the rotation of the Earth. Nowyou think you have me cornered with a gotcha. But, no. On the Moon, the sundial would indicated the relative position of the Moon in its orbit, but only for half the orbital period.”
If a sundial measures rotation on the Earth, then it would measure rotation of the Moon on the Moon.
Since the shadow of the gnomon moves like the hands of a clock, it is definitely rotating, which proves the Moon is rotating.
Yet again, another proof the Moon rotates, that you reject because either you don’t understand it or are willfully ignorant.
“Like a ball on a string, a car driving around an oval, a locomotive traversing an circular track, an airliner flying at 35,000 feet above the Equator, or a wooden horse bolted to a carousel, the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while one face always points to the Earth.”
All those objects are rotating on their local axes.
Good thing that 90% of new electrical energy production is now renewable.
“All those objects are rotating on their local axes.”
Poor braindead bob doesn’t know the difference between “revolving” (orbiting) and “rotating”. And, he can’t learn.
He’s braindead.
Braindead Clint R doesn’t know the difference between orbiting and rotating on an axis.
The Moon is doing both.
More proof Clint R didn’t pass any science past eighth grade.
And he’s not learning.
bob…”If a sundial measures rotation on the Earth, then it would measure rotation of the Moon on the Moon.
Since the shadow of the gnomon moves like the hands of a clock, it is definitely rotating, which proves the Moon is rotating”.
***
No, Bob, you are not paying attention.
If the sundial is located on the face of the Moon that always faces the Earth (opposition), and it is pointed for an instant at the Sun, it’s shadow points straight back from the pointer.
Now let the Moon continue along its orbital path AROUND THE EARTH. The Sun was shining on the Moon’s near face when the Earth was between the Moon and the Sun. By the time the Moon reaches 1/4 way around its orbit from that position, the sundial pointer will be at right angles to the Sun and it will cast a triangle shaped pointer behind it.
When the Moon passes that 1/4 point, the near face begins to move into the shadow region where it will receive no light for 12 days. When it re-emerges at the 3/4 point it will once again emit a triangular shaped shadow. As it moves back around to the opposition point, the shadow will lessen in area until it is a fine line directly behind the pointer at opposition.
That is all done by orbital mechanisms, nothing to do with rotation. Curvilinear translation accounts for the pointer phenomena.
With regard to a ball rotating about its local axis while attached to a string, you still have not explained how that is possible.
How about a locomotive traveling around a circular track? To rotate about its COG, it would have to leave the track somehow and rotate through 360 degrees, carrying its boxcars behind it.
Sorry braindead bob, but mimicry and false accusations don’t make up for your immaturity and ignorance.
Moon only has one motion, orbiting.
We know the ball is not rotating because if it were the string would wrap around it.
You can’t understand any of this. You’re braindead.
Gordon and Clint R,
You are both too stupid for school, perhaps if you begged, some school might let you back in.
Gordon,
“Curvilinear translation accounts for the pointer phenomena.”
You still have curvilinear translation wrong, because you still haven’t looked it up.
bob, a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating about its own internal axis. In other words, you can describe the ball on a string as having only one axis of rotation, which does not go through the center of the ball itself, but instead goes through your hand holding the end of the string as you swing it around in a circle.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_illustration2.svg
Cult Leader grammie pup, your cartoon is irrelevant because it does not describe the motion or the physics of the Moon.
It is relevant to the motion of a ball on a string, however. Which is what I was talking about.
DR EMTPY,
The center of the shape rotates around its center, you can tell because it doesn’t point in the same direction from one to the next.
You too are too stupid for school.
The object can be described as rotating about point O, not on its own axis. It can be described as having only one axis of rotation, at point O.
DR EMPTY,
It’s also rotating about a point on the shape.
You are too stupid to see that.
It can be described as having only one axis of rotation, bob. It can not be described as having two axes of rotation.
DR EMTPY,
Bolding words doesn’t make them any truer.
You are arguing by assertion again.
Doesn’t look good.
Those that understand rotation know I’m correct. That’s good enough for me.
DR EMPTY,
This accurate diagram, not to scale, shows two axes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.svg
The moon does not have two axes of rotation. Most "Spinners" would agree with me on that, bob. The "Spinner" position is that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis. I’ll just make you aware of what your own position should be…
Sorry DR EMPTY,
But it’s your argument that there is an axis for the orbit.
But then you gas light me, telling me what my argument should be.
I am just adding the axis for the rotation of the Moon, as shown on the diagram.
Your argument is that the Moon is rotating around an external axis, I really don’t agree with that, but I’ll allow your sloppy thinking. Because it’s actually just the path, and not a rotation because it’s an ellipse.
bob, it’s not my problem that in astronomy there is such a thing as an orbital axis, and that “revolution” is just another word for a rotation about an external axis – that is a problem for the “Spinners”…because I’m not gaslighting you, the “Spinners” argument is that the moon is translating in an ellipse, whilst rotating on its own axis.
DR EMPTY,
Maybe you can take a crack at defining axial rotation.
Your moron mate Clint R has refused.
Maybe you could do better.
When in trouble, change the subject, eh, bob?
For the twentieth time, "axial rotation" = rotation of an object about its own internal axis. This must be kept separate from "orbital motion". "Orbital motion" is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout, so "axial rotation" must be kept separate from that motion. For example, the moon just exhibits "orbital motion", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion" plus "axial rotation".
DR EMPTY,
This is how you define “Orbital Motion”
“Orbital motion” is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout,”
So you are using an incorrect definition of orbital motion, by your definition, all the planets are not orbiting the Sun.
Then what are they doing?
This is the correct definition of orbital motion
“the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.”
You have been wrong from the start and are still wrong.
"So you are using an incorrect definition of orbital motion, by your definition, all the planets are not orbiting the Sun."
Wrong, bob. Here’s the definition again:
"“Orbital motion” is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout"
So "all the planets" are doing that motion, plus rotating on their own axes.
DR EMPTY,
Like I said, that’s the wrong definition of orbital motion.
Tell the truth, you made that definition up.
Or maybe you can provide a verifiable source.
Us incorrect definitions, win stupid internet prizes.
bob, you said it was an incorrect definition because "by your definition, all the planets are not orbiting the Sun."
I just showed that to be false.
As to whether or not I made the definition up – I did not. "Revolution" is a rotation about an external axis. A rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the ball on a string. One side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit. Just like I said.
Just Google "revolution rotation about an external axis" for evidence that "revolution" is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
DR EMPTY
“bob, you said it was an incorrect definition because “by your definition, all the planets are not orbiting the Sun.”
I just showed that to be false.”
Nope, you did not, you claimed all the planets were orbiting with one face always orientated to the Sun, plus rotating on an axis.
That is clearly false.
“As to whether or not I made the definition up I did not.”
Yes you did, unless you can provide a source for your definition, clearly you have not done so!
“Revolution” is a rotation about an external axis.”
Just stop there, the part you add is the part about the face pointing to the axis.
“A rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the ball on a string. One side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit. Just like I said.”
Clearly this is the part you have made up, by adding the part about the side always facing the inside of the orbit.
“Just Google “revolution rotation about an external axis” for evidence that “revolution” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.”
I just fucking did, and this is what I got.
It contradicts you!
” When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
It’s defined as a revolution, not a rotation.
The ball on the string has been proven to be rotating on its axis by the astronaut in the video.
Fucking moron!
"Nope, you did not, you claimed all the planets were orbiting with one face always orientated to the Sun, plus rotating on an axis. That is clearly false."
No, it’s clearly the "Non-Spinner" position, bob. As opposed to all the planets orbiting with one face always orientated towards a distant star, plus rotating on their own internal axes. That would be the "Spinner" position. You probably won’t understand. Oh well.
As to the rest of your bizarre diatribe, rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the ball on a string. Until you can accept that, you’ll forever be wrong. I’m happy that anybody who correctly understands rotation agrees that I’m correct on that.
If you agree that revolution is a rotation about an external axis, you’ve already lost the argument.
DR EMPTY,
“That is clearly false.”
No, its clearly the “Non-Spinner” position,”
Yes, it’s clearly the “Non-spinner” position and it’s clearly false.
What about looking up “revolution rotation about an external axis?”
So does it support the loony Non-spinner position or were you lying about that?
No, I wasn’t lying, bob. As you found yourself:
"When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution."
A revolution is a rotation about an external axis. As those who understand rotation agree, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like a ball on a string.
There are some "Spinners" who accept that a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like a ball on a string. They just disagree that revolution is a rotation about an external axis.
You, on the other hand, seem to accept that revolution is a rotation about an external axis. You just disagree that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like a ball on a string.
From my point of view, it’s quite funny watching the various "Spinners" always arguing with me, when they disagree so much amongst themselves, but never have the integrity to argue with someone from their own team.
“Orbital motion” is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout”
There has been NO DEFINITION of ‘orbital motion’ or ‘orbit’ presented here by anyone that agrees with this.
On the contrary, easily found definitions of ORBIT contradict this. Orbit simply means following a path thru space around a center, while mentioning ZILCH about ‘orbiting keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit’
Some people here who cannot win on the facts, have shamelessly decided to go ALL IN on making up their own facts.
…there are some "Spinners" who accept that a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like a ball on a string. They just disagree that revolution is a rotation about an external axis.
You, on the other hand, seem to accept that revolution is a rotation about an external axis. You just disagree that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like a ball on a string.
From my point of view, it’s quite funny watching the various "Spinners" always arguing with me, when they disagree so much amongst themselves, but never have the integrity to argue with someone from their own team.
Is Mercury in orbital motion around the Sun?
“So "all the planets" are doing that motion, plus rotating on their own axes.”
What does Graham mean by *plus* here?
What is the name for the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution?
“Plus” means “in addition to”. So Mercury is orbiting as well as rotating on its own axis. Your definition of “orbit/revolution” does not include orientation of the object, so can not be used to settle the issue of whether or not the moon rotates on its own axis. “Spinners” need a definition that mentions “translation in a circle or ellipse”.
What is the name for the motion of one body relative to another, as an ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola, which forms a two-dimensional orbital plane in three-dimensional space?
Also, if motion M1 is independent from another motion M2, why should we infer that M2 needs to be absent for M1 to apply?
Still no mention of "translation". Little Willy loses another one.
And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face.
He wont find any because an orbital motion is independent from the orientation of the orbiting object.
Almost all celestial bodies spin anyway, including the Moon.
“And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face [oriented towards the inside of the orbit]”.
Wrong. Any definition mentioning “rotation about an external axis” does that job nicely. The “Spinners” need a definition mentioning “translation in a circle or ellipse”. Good luck with that.
And so Graham still fails to get that a rotation around an external axis does not imply anything regarding the body doing the rotating.
I am correct on rotation. It is not up for discussion.
Graham owns the rotation point so much he still falls for Flop’s trick.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Einstein introduced an untested and unproved multiplier for time.”
Time dilation and special relativity have been tested and confirmed countless times in the last century.
I don’t understand why Gordon insists on posting patently false anti-science diatribes like this.
Credibility seems unimportant to him, as would be expected of a troll.
nate…”Time dilation and special relativity have been tested and confirmed countless times in the last century”.
***
Problem is, none of the experiments can prove they were measuring time dilation. They all presumed that to be the case and last time I looked, presumption is not part of the scientific method.
One example offered is the bending of light by the Sun. What that has to do with time I cannot imagine. The Sun is a massive ball of electromagnetic energy, complete with electric and magnetic fields and so is light. There is bound to be a slight interaction between such fields.
However, the believers who worship Einstein, think a mysterious space-time force is at work. No one has ever measured space-time because there is nothing to measure. Time cannot be measured because it is an invention of the human mind based on the rotation of the Earth. Space can only be measured using other human inventions like metres.
What you are saying in essence is that time, a human invention, can dilate. That means obviously that the period of the Earth’s rotation must change.
Another example offered uses atomic clock flown in aircraft. The claim is that the atomic clock lost time. That is a major DUH!!!! Or in Homer Simpson-speak…DOH!!!
CLOCKS DO NOT MEASURE TIME!!!! Clocks are machines that are synchronized with the Earth’s rotation. You might claim they are measuring the period of the Earth’s rotation. One Earth rotation is one day (24 hours) and we sub-divided one day into hours, minutes, and seconds.
Einstein failed to grasp that when he declared that time is the hands on a clock. Yes…the great Albert Einstein made a mistake. Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, noticed his mistakes, but the groupies who worship Einstein found it more convenient to slam Essen than question Einstein.
An atomic clock does not measure time. It is based on the transitions of electrons in the cesium atom. We use the regularity of those transition to establish a regular pulse rate but those pulses are way too short for us to use so they have to multiplied millions of time to produce a second.
Guess which second we still use? You got it, the second derived from the rotation of the Earth. When you hear someone claim the second is derived from an atomic clock, tell him/her to beggar off.
The basis of the second is still 1/84,400th of one Earth rotation. It may differ an insignificant amount to use it with an atomic clock but the length is still pretty much the same. If it had changed significantly, every digital clock or watch sold would have to be re-manufactured.
Why??? Because digital watches and clock are based on the natural frequency of vibration of a quartz crystal. Quartz crystals vibrate at a specific frequency and that frequency is divided down by internal electronics to produce a second. Had the second changed significantly with an atomic clock, every digital watch and clock would have needed to be scrapped.
Cesium atoms do not generate seconds.
nate…”I dont understand why Gordon insists on posting patently false anti-science diatribes like this.
Credibility seems unimportant to him…”
***
Speaking of credibility, I have never seen an explanation from you as to what time is. Or even an explanation of Einstein’s theories. It appears you are satisfied with an appeal to authority rather than thinking things through for yourself.
“An atomic clock does not measure time. It is based on the transitions of electrons in the cesium atom. We use the regularity of those transition to establish a regular pulse rate but those pulses are way too short for us to use so they have to multiplied millions of time to produce a second.”
Yep, it measures time, just as any pendulum clock, as we all, except it seems you, understand.
“Guess which second we still use? You got it, the second derived from the rotation of the Earth.”
So? That is just a definition of the unit, a second, it is not a universal definition of time itself.
In relativity, time dilation causes the time separation between events, any events, whether heartbeats, pendulum swings, or atomic oscillations to become longer.
“One example offered is the bending of light by the Sun. What that has to do with time I cannot imagine.”
Strawman. This is not a time dilation experiment.
There are plenty of direct time-dilation experiments, especially in particle physics.
Here is one I have observed myself.
Cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere ~ 10 Km up, and produce a shower of Muons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They can be detected and counted in a lab, and their lifetime measured. It is 2.2 microseconds. Standard experiment with photomultipliers.
Even if travelling near the speed of light, they can only travel 2.2e-6 s * 3e8 m/s = 660 m in their lifetime before expiring.
Yet most of them hit the Earth surface, 10,000 m below.
It is time dilation that causes this. At near the speed of light their clock runs slowly, and their lifetime is extended to enable them to travel the full 10 Km.
But if they are stopped, which happens in the experiment, they die in 2.2 microseconds.
There are many such experiments that have been done. Most of particle physics would fail to work without it.
It is as thoroughly tested as any law in physics.
Solar wind
speed: 403.1 km/sec
density: 2.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Nov 22
Sunspot number: 57
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 138 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.99×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.9% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.4%
The spots are crowded in a spot,
I thought it would pick up by mid Nov.
No sign of this happening, if it instead drops a
lot, it would be more like cycle 24.
Or what would say, was commonly expected that it would be like.
But it seems weird to me- but, then again, I haven’t spent much time looking at it.
25 is going in lockstep with 24, or as Bindiclown sez – way ahead of the predictions
https://i.postimg.cc/5jWYY8QG/solar-cycle.jpg
You must enjoy watching paint dry..
Why does this matter so much to you, Eben?
barry…”The LT product is a single result based on the difference in deep layers plus the lower stratosphere. It doesnt and cant isolate discrete layers of atmosphere, because the source readings are of significant depth (10-20 km)”.
***
I just finished explaining to you, based on a block diagram of an AMSU receiver, that it uses heterodyning, a reference to a broad band of input frequencies being beat with a local oscillator at a single frequency to produce intermediate frequencies. Why would they go to all that trouble if they could not isolate individual frequencies representing individual layers of the atmosphere.
Each channel has it own heterodyning mixer, therefore it has the ability to measure individual O2 frequencies in each channel. Furthermore, there is a bandpass filter following the mixer that has a band pass of several megahertz. That means each channel is processing O2 emission per channel over several megahertz.
To clarify Ghz versus Mhz, the O2 emissions are measured in Ghz and the channel mixer converts the high frequency O2 frequencies to an intermediate frequency several Mhz wide.
After the bandpass filter, there is a detector which converts the AC O2 emission frequencies to a D.C voltage, which gives a relative output per channel of received O2 emissions per unit altitude. The D.C voltage is then converted to a digitized voltage and transmitted to Earth.
Why would they go to all that trouble if they don’t intend to measure a broad band of frequencies per channel?
Gathering a broad band of frequencies per channel only tells you the relative level of O2 emissions per channel. UAH receives that data as a digitized voltage and it is up to them to make sense of it. That’s where the weighting curves come in, which give a normalized vertical relationship between expected O2 emissions per unit of altitude.
Getting back to my point to Binny. He claimed the data is synthesized, which is nonsense. Why fly seriously expensive AMSU units if you have no intention of using the real data gathered?
Your argument seems to be that the LT is calculated. I have no problem with that as long as you understand that the channel 5,7, and 9 data used comes from real datameasured by AMSU units.
I am still trying to understand what is meant by LT. What altitude does that reference? With the surface varying from below sea level to nearly 30,000 feet, what does it mean?
4 kilometers is a bit over 13,000 feet and 8 kilometres is a bit over 26,000 feet. Everest is nearly 30,000 feet, a bit over 9 km. 4 km does not even reach the base of Everest.
You are making a fuss over sats measuring at 4 km, which is well within the surface areas of the planet. The peak of Everest is nearly at the stratosphere. Therefore, the lower limbs of channels 5,7 and 9 are easily capable of measuring to the surface, depending on how you define surface.
barry…the town or city of El Alto, Bolivia is at an altitude of about 4 km. Therefore, channel 5 should be able to measure O2 emission from that altitude directly.
You trying to tell me the AMSU channel 5 cannot measure down to at least 1 km? That’s lower than Denver, Colorado.
I know UAH does not measure right to the surface due to microwave emissions from the surface that interfere with O2 emissions. The point is, they could if they wanted to. So, what is the problem with using verified calculations in lieu of direct measurement? If you can measure accurately at the altitude of Bolivia, what’s the problem with interpolating the rest, as long as it can be verified by radiosonde?
The surface record doesn’t even bother to put a station in Bolivia. Instead, they interpolate a temperature for Bolivia using climate models, based on measurements from thermometers outside Bolivia up to 1200 miles away.
Why don’t you have a problem with that?
Gordon, the instrument reads the same band of frequency through the depth of the atmosphere. It cannot distinguish WHERE the individual photons come from it just collects them at that frequency.
If UAH could measure a horizontal plane of atmosphere at 4km – don’t you think they would have done it?
Nowhere in Spencer and Christie’s publications do they publish any such results, or even talk about them. That’s because it is not possible to do that. You are conjecturing based on your own experience, and ignoring what Roy tells us, and what he and John Christie publish.
“You trying to tell me the AMSU channel 5 cannot measure down to at least 1 km?”
I’m saying it measures from just above sea level to just beyond the tropopause, and is most sensitive to readings at around the 3km altitude.
What I’m also saying is that the instrument cannot pick out just the O2 readings at 4km and tell us what the temperature is at that thin layer. It can only measure the full depth, and the readings are most sensitive at about 3km. That’s what those curves represent – deep-layer measurements.
barry…”the instrument reads the same band of frequency through the depth of the atmosphere. It cannot distinguish WHERE the individual photons come from it just collects them at that frequency”.
***
The AMSU cannot tell which altitude the O2 radiation came from but it can tell the relative O2 frequency amplitudes compared to the mid-frequency of each channel. That information is converted to a varying D.C voltage and digitized before being transmitted back to the surface.
Knowing the relative frequency intensities, UAH can use weighting curves to tell where those frequencies originated in the atmosphere. For example, if channel 5 receives a frequency corresponding to it’s centre frequency it is known it came from somewhere around 4 km. Frequencies farther down the lower limb would have to come from correspondingly lower altitudes.
I may be wrong about the limb. At this point I don’t know how O2 emissions work. Obviously the atmosphere gets progressively warmer with descending altitude. I would think O2 radiation frequencies would increase with lower altitudes. If so, my explanation is likely backwards.
Same with channel 9 (or 7). A frequency corresponding to its centre frequency would be located somewhere in the stratosphere altitudes. Frequencies below that centre frequency would indicate altitudes below that altitude in the stratosphere.
This is not hit and miss as you seem to think. The circuitry in the AMSU is sophisticated and capable of supplying accurate data to help identify various altitudes in the atmosphere and the corresponding frequencies, hence temperatures, of the emitted O2 molecules.
How the data is used and deciphered, I don’t know. I am going strictly with my experience in electronics with communication equipment similar to what is in the AMSU units.
In a communications receiver, a super-heterodyne system is used. A broad band of communication channels is received at the antenna, gets amplified then mixed with a local oscillator, as in the AMSU channels. The main difference is that the comm equipment uses a tuner that changes the frequency of the oscillator and allows specific receiver frequencies to be isolated.
On an FM receiver I can tune to 101.1 Mhz and that station is isolated and fed through the intermediate frequency stage at a 10.8 Mhz IF bandpass centre frequency. Unlike the AMSU unit, however, that signal has frequency modulated information on it and requires a different kind of detector to extract the info from the signal.
The point I am trying to make is the AMSU receiver has to be expecting a broad bandwidth of RF data from O2 emissions per channel, otherwise it would not use a heterodyning mixer. Also, it requires a broadband filter behind the mixer to amplify the hetrodyned IF signals at much lower frequencies.
You can’t determine altitude by frequency. O2 molecules can give off the same frequency at various depths of the atmosphere. The air is turbulent, not static.
There is a reason why UAH don’t give temperatures for discrete layers. They are unable. The weighting curve on the LT measurements shows the fineness they can achieve.
barry…there’s no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with obtuse people like you. I have given you scientific evidence based on a block diagram of an AMSU unit and you continue to through out uncorroborated opinions without offering science to back your arguments.
It’s your opinion that O2 gives off the same frequency at different altitudes. You have offered no scientific basis for your argument.
The lapse rate shows a linear relationship between temperature and pressure throughout the troposphere. Pressure is altitude. It doesn’t matter if you have transient conditions due to variations in weather, the AMSU units scan an average of the atmosphere around the globe.
According to your reasoning we should scrap the AMSU units because they measure nothing meaningful. Of course, that’s why you are on this blog, to discredit UAH.
Even temperature in the real atmosphere does not conform to the lapse rate perfectly. Convection pushes warm packets up through cooler columns. The atmosphere is dynamic, not static, and lapse rate represents an average, not a static, reliable gauge for what the temp will be 1km above the surface (for example). Many other factors are at play.
O2 molecules can give off radiance at various wavelengths throughout the atmosphere. They are simply not tied to giving off a certain frequency at a certain altitude. The instrument measuring these wavelengths cannot pinpoint the layer the radiance comes from, because frequency is not dependent on altitude. It’s as simple as that.
That’s why you will find nowhere in the UAH, RSS or remote sensing literature anything that backs up your notion that they can determine the temperature of the atmospheric layer at exactly 4km. If they could they definitely would, because it would make calibration with radiosondes much easier than it currently is.
The instruments measuring these frequencies is particularly sensitive to O2 readings at various altitudes. Each channel measures using a particular bandwidth.
Channel 5 = 53.56 GHz
Channel 7 = 54.94 GHz
Channel 9 = 57.29 GHz
The curves you see for each channel show the instrument measurement depth, and the curve shows the weighting at various altitudes. So, channel 5 reads O2 molecules emitting 53.56 GHz from near the surface to just above the tropopause, and is most sensitive to readings at the 3km mark (hence the bulge).
These curves are not post-processed weightings, they are representing the sensitivity of the instrument to the readings through the atmosphere. Spencer and Christy do not construct those curves, that’s the raw weighting they have to work with.
barry…”The instrument measuring these wavelengths cannot pinpoint the layer the radiance comes from, because frequency is not dependent on altitude. Its as simple as that”.
***
Altitude and pressure are synonymous and both are proportional to temperature. The dynamic systems to which you refer would affect thermometer readings equally. However, the weather over a day or two is irrelevant to the long-term averages. Roy made reference to that re grid points. The readings can vary but average over a month.
Here it is from one of your alarmist friends, UCAR.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/change-atmosphere-altitude
“As you climb a mountain, you can expect the air temperature to decrease by 6.5 degrees C for every 1000 meters you gain. This is called the standard (average) lapse rate”.
Temperature is proportional to height (on a very broad average – convection makes it a dynamic, rather than a static gradient), but frequency is not fixed at one temperature.
An object at a certain temperature emits in a range of frequencies, not just one.
The channels on the AMSU units measure at discrete frequencies.
If they only measure at one frequency, and frequency is determined by altitude, then those weighting functions, those curves we are looking at, are impossible.
Each channel measures one frequency, and that frequency is measured throughout the atmosphere to many kilometres deep.
Channel 5 = 53.56 GHz
Channel 7 = 54.94 GHz
Channel 9 = 57.29 GHz
How can each of these channels have a weighting function over many kilometres altitude if their single frequency readings are limited to a thin layer of the atmosphere where you seem to think such frequencies can only be emitted by O2?
You’ve got this all wrong, Gordon.
The University of Colorado is the primary retrieving station for AMSU/MSU data. Here are the weighting functions they give to UAH.
https://web.archive.org/web/20000902201742fw_/http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/weights.html
If you select channel 5 at the link below you can see what the AMSU instrument ‘sees’ for that channel.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/icvs/status_MetOPC_AMSUA.php
It’s a top-down view with no discrete measurements at various altitudes. The colour temperature map is derived from all the measurements through the column being scanned.
I posed a question recently…what is meant by the lower troposphere (LT)?
I live near Vancouver Canada which ranges in altitude from sea level to about 183 metres (600 feet). The neighbouring city, Burnaby ranges from sea level to 370 metres (likely Burnaby Mountain).
Mountains within 10 miles of downtown Vancouver, like Grouse Mt. and Seymour Mt. have altitudes of 1231 m and 1449 m respectively. It can be safely claimed that the topography in the Vancouver region varies in altitude from sea level to 1441 metres, within a 10 mile radius.
On the Canadian prairies we have Calgary at 1045 metres, Edmonton at 645 m, Regina at 577 m, Saskatoon at 482 m, and Winnipeg at 239 m.
Between Vancouver and Edmonton is Mt. Robson at 3954 metres. That’s about the altitude measured by channel 5 on an AMSU unit on a satellite.
Just south of Vancouver is Mt. Baker in the US, at 3288 metres. We can see it on a clear day from just south of Vancouver. Nearby is Mt. Rainier at 4392 metres. It gets so cold up there they have year round glaciers but you won’t find a NOAA or NASA GISS thermometer reading from that mountain top.
The main temperature data source for Vancouver is at the airport, which is actually in the city of Richmond, just south of Van. I wrote to Environment Canada to ask why they don’t have thermometers on top of our local mountains. They supplied no answer.
In California, NOAA uses temperatures from 3 locations near the coast at sea level. They give no readings from the Sierra Nevada mountains which range in altitude up to Mt. Whitney at 4421 metres. No thermometers up there.
So are none of these higher altitudes not included in the LT? The sats surely include them in the averaging but the surface thermometers do not.
I want to emphasize my reference to Mt. Robson at 3954 metres. That’s obviously above sea level, the mountain itself from the base being 2829 metres (prominence).
You can see the mountain up close from a highway parking lot on the Yellowhead Highway, so when I look up at the peak on a clear day, I am looking at the level scanned by channel 5 in a satellite AMSU unit.
A view can be seen at this link from the parking lot.
https://accessiblebc.ca/parks/mt-robson-visitors-centre/
When I look at the top of that photo I am looking at the area of the atmosphere scanned by channel 5 on the AMSU at its centre frequency. It is roughly 4 km above sea level.
Is anyone going to try telling me the same channel 5 is not capable of scanning the air where I am standing? Of course, it is not used like that due to microwave emissions from the surface causing interference with the oxygen emissions at my level.
Still, the instruments have that capability and they should be able to distinguish O2 emissions from each level above my position to the peak of Robson where the layers change temperature.
It’s too bad they do not have circuitry on the sats, controlled from the surface, that can filter out the surface microwave radiation. Then we could see a true picture right to the solid surface. That is, if the surface microwave energy is not broadband.
bob…”You still have curvilinear translation wrong, because you still havent looked it up”.
***
I don’t need to look it up, I studied this stuff directly as part of my engineering physics classes. Everyone understands rectilinear translation, which is motion along a straight line between two points A and B.
That’s not to be confused with the translation of axes. An entire plane representing an x-y plane can move in a linear direction or along a curve. As it moves, it can also rotate about the 0,0 point. We are talking about a particle or a rigid body moving within a stationary x-y plane.
Now bend the straight line into a curve. You have curvilinear motion. With A on the curve and B further along the curve, the motion from A to B is called curvilinear translation.
WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE!!!!!!!!!!!
The dweebs who write text books offering convoluted explanations for curvilinear translation have the problem, not me.
If that curve forms a circle, and you move around the circle, you must always have the same side pointing to the centre of the circle UNLESS you are rotating about your COG at the same time. In the latter case, it is not possible to keep your same side pointing toward the centre of the circle.
You are having serious trouble understanding rotation of a rigid body about an axis. If you have a car moving in a straight line, is it rotating about its COG? No. Even you have to agree with that. If the car reaches the end of the straight road and enters a curve, does it start to rotate about its COG. No, not unless it is out of control.
If you are driving on an icy road along the straight stretch, and you are going too fast, when you enter the curve you may spin out. In that case, you start to rotate around the COG and the car no longer points along the road.
The only way you can rotate about a COG in a car is for the rear end and the front end to rotate around the COG. For a car driving around a circular track, that means it must not have the same side pointing to the inside of the track. It’s as simple as that.
Here we see another example of Gordo’s delusional physics as he wrote:
.
Wrong. The car’s rate of rotation changes from a local zero to a rate which matches the curvature of the road. In civil engineering, such as railroad design, there is a section of the road called a “spiral” which allows the transition from straight to curve (and back again). That portion of the road causes the car’s rate of rotation to accelerate to the appropriate rate while the car is in the curve portion of the road, then “de-rotate” when exiting the curve.
swannie…”The cars rate of rotation changes from a local zero to a rate which matches the curvature of the road”.
***
Read my lips, a car driven along a road is not rotating about its COG, whether on a straight portion of road or on a curve. The COG for a rigid body like a car, moving along a road, is always translating and the curve represents a change from rectilinear translation to curvilinear translation WITHOUT ROTATION.
If the car rotates at any time about its COG, it would have skidded out of control.
Really, you shouldn’t try to discuss physics you don’t understand. You have already made a fool of yourself by claiming heat can be transferred in both directions between bodies of different temperatures in contradiction of the 2nd law.
“Its as simple as that.”
Well, yes, it is simple, the rotation rate matches the rate that the car on a circular track does laps.
One rotation around its center of gravity for each lap.
That is the only solution that keeps the same side facing the inside of the track.
Curvilinear translation, as well as rectilinear translation do not allow for changes in orientation.
I know you are not smarter than all the dweebs writing the textbooks.
bob d…”…the rotation rate matches the rate that the car on a circular track does laps.
One rotation around its center of gravity for each lap”.
***
A car being driven on an oval has zero rotation about its COG. We have all seen during a NASCAR event how a car does rotate about its COG when th driver loses control.
Bob…they put special tires on the race cars to help prevent them spinning out on curves and rotating about their COGs. They bank the curve portion with a fairly steep incline to prevent the cars from spinning off the track. A car that spins out and rotates on its COG is often seen facing backwards down the track. Sometimes they do a full 360, or more.
Your understanding of rotation is faulty, but so is your understanding of global warming/climate change. The more I encounter you alarmists in discussion the more I realize how lacking in science you are.
Gordon,
If the cars didn’t rotate on their axes, the result would be a Dale Earnhardt failure to turn and the resultant inelastic collision with the wall.
Nascar cars have steering wheels, so they can turn, or rotate about their axes.
“The more I encounter you alarmists in discussion the more I realize how lacking in science you are.”
Sez the dude who claimed the phases of the Moon are due to Earth’s shadow.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Where have you been moron?
I’ve missed you.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Braindead bob confirms again that he doesn’t understand the difference between “rotating” (spinning) and “orbiting” (revolving). It’s been explained to him numerous times, but it’s over his head.
And poor Swanson Puppy throws some more slop against the wall. I’ll add it to the growing list:
Elliptical orbit
Sidereal/Synodic
“I built satellites”
Misquoting Newton
Inertial (Idiot) space
Inner ear
Moon day/night mystery
Libration
Confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”
Tesla had hotel bills and was feeding pigeons
Where are physics courses taught?
Occupants would surely complain
Facts are “neglect and revisionism”
“Smart” phone says bolted horse has axial rotation
Toilet paper tube
Smaller radius
Foucault’s Pendulum
Passenger jets fly backwards and sideways
Perverting Newton’s 1st Law of Motion
Moon has an infinite number of velocities
Railroads “spiral”
In the immortal words of Rutherford, Clint R demonstrates that all he knows is “stamp collecting”
‘That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting’
Braindead, the reason you have nothing to contribute is because you have nothing to contribute.
You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R,
You and your argument are rotating around an axis.
You have a circular argument, rotating like a ball on a string.
Plus you are too stupid for school.
He’s right, you’re wrong, bob.
Fixed that for you DREMPTY,
“Hes wrong, youre right, bob.”
Nah, that’s wrong, bob.
DREMPTY,
The Moon rotates on its very own axis, which runs through the Moon.
I am right as always.
You science and math challenged morons need to go back to school.
Your betters know better, bob.
DR EMPTY,
Can you quote a PhD astronomer that doesn’t agree with me?
You morons three are not my betters.
Your betters know better.
DR EMPTY
Here is a PhD that agrees with me and not you.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moon_spin.html
Braindead bob, your cult idiot “PhD” believes Moon rotates because you have to rotate a model to keep the same side facing the inside of its orbit. He doesn’t understand orbital motion. Gravity does the work of steering Moon. There’s only one motion involved.
As usual, you don’t understand any of this.
bob…”Here is a PhD that agrees with me and not you.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/moon_spin.html”
***
The Ph. D made a crucial error in his analysis of lunar motion. We covered it a while back using coins instead of oranges.
He advised using two oranges, two baseball, whatever. One orange becomes the Earth and the other the Moon. He advised drawing an ‘x’ on the Moon orange to represent the near face then moving it in a circle around the Earth orange.
His reasoning, that having to twist the orange to keep the ‘x’ pointed at the Earth orange is evidence that the Moon rotates. What he fails to understand is that twisting the orange is an attempt to replicate the actual motion of the Moon and has nothing to do with the way the Moon actually moves.
The real Moon requires no twisting motion to keep the same face pointed at the Earth. It is always, at each instant, moving in a straight line. Earth’s gravitational field serves to re-orient the Moon’s linear path, instant by instant, into a curved path.
There is really no way to replicate the motion of the Moon because we cannot reproduce the conditions on Earth with its atmosphere. The Moon moves above the atmosphere with a linear momentum. That is the only reason it can maintain its momentum. So, the Moon moves in a space with no resistance to its motion under the influence of a gravitational field.
The closest we can come to that motion is that of a satellite. However, an airliner moving in the atmosphere at say 35,000 feet, around the Equator, while overcoming wind resistance using engine power can come close. At the same time, it uses air surfaces to give it lift against the same air resistance.
The airliner always keeps the same side pointed to the surface and it cannot rotate about its COG or it will crash.
An aircraft following the Earth’s curving surface at a constant altitude requires no intervention by the pilot to keep it the same altitude. Of course, the pilot must adjust for uplifting and down-dwelling natural forces, but the gravitational field under static conditions, will keep tho aircraft at the same altitude provided the plane’s momentum remains the same.
For the Moon, or a satellite, the linear speed is critical. The speed must be such that the distance traveled horizontally per unit of vertical gravitational movement keeps both at the same altitude. In other words, the distance either falls due to gravity must match the distance covered by orbital speed. If the tangential distance covered is more than or less than a critical value, either body will leave orbit to escape or to spiral downward into Earth.
Clint R,
“Gravity does the work of steering Moon.”
I thought you used to claim gravity can not put a torque on an object, yet now you claim it can.
Steering means changing direction, or orientation which also means you are claiming gravity causes the Moon to rotate.
Well played spinner.
Gordon,
“It is always, at each instant, moving in a straight line. Earths gravitational field serves to re-orient the Moons linear path, instant by instant, into a curved path.”
So make up your mind, which is it, the Moon moves in a straight line or does it follow a curved path.
“For the Moon, or a satellite, the linear speed is critical. The speed must be such that the distance traveled horizontally per unit of vertical gravitational movement keeps both at the same altitude. In other words, the distance either falls due to gravity must match the distance covered by orbital speed.”
Yep I noticed that orientation plays no role in the direction of movement. Makes sense.
That is quite different from the terrestrial vehicles mentioned, for which orientation must match the direction of motion.
This is the key difference.
Wrong again, bob.
Changing directions is due to the resultant of vectors. The vectors here all act on center of mass. The net torque is zero. That’s why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
You’re braindead.
What slop will you throw against the wall next?
Clint R,
“Changing directions is due to the resultant of vectors.”
We are discussing the changing orientation of the Moon, not the changing direction. Which vectors? The changing velocity vector? The changing acceleration vector? The changing orientation vector?
“The net torque is zero.”
So fucking what?
Gravity torques the Moon one way, then torques it the other way.
You are too stupid for school.
Mixing your confusion with your juvenile profanity just results in more slop, bob.
Did I predict it, or what?
Clint R,
Did you respond to what I said or did you just throw up?
Go ahead, continue to display your ignorance of science.
Stamp collecting indeed.
Braindead bob, you can’t understand any of this. And, you can’t even understand that. You keep trying to argue, but you always end up just making a fool of yourself. And, that makes you frustrated and angry.
If you’re sincerely wanting to learn, start with the easy stuff. Learn about the ball-on-a-strng. It’s a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That’s all you need to know to realize Moon is not rotating on its axis.
Baby steps….
Clint R,
First you said gravity can not put a torque on a body, now you have changed your tune, saying gravity can not put a net torque on a body.
Which is it?
You know when you make up shit, it’s hard to keep your lies straight.
That’s why this is so much fun, to point out your errors in science.
Remember the ball on a string rotates on its axis, we know this because it is connected to something that is rotating, the string, and also because it doesn’t point in the same direction all the time, meaning it is rotating.
You don’t understand any of this.
Cause you are too stupid for school.
Wrong again, bob.
The ball is NOT rotating. If it were, the string would wrap about it. You’re not making any progress, but keep trying.
Learn first about the ball-on-a-string, then I can teach you that “zero net torque” and “no torque” are the same.
Keep it simple — baby steps….
Clint R,
I can take this down to your level!
Liar liar pants on fire!
“Changing directions is due to the resultant of vectors. The vectors here all act on center of mass. The net torque is zero. Thats why the ball-on-a-string is such a good model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation”
Yep, thru the COM. But its not like a ball on a string because planets can spin at various rates as they orbit. Gravity pulls on a planet or moon’s COM, but it is free to rotate wrt to the gravity vector.
A better model is a spinning yo-yo on a string. The string attaches loosely to the center and pulls the COM of the yo-yo into motion (such as an orbit), but it allows the yo-yo to freely rotate wrt the string.
Nate, the ball-on-a-string ia a model of “orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation”.
And braindead bob resorts to taunts he learned in 4th grade.
The braindead cult idiots have NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
“The ball is NOT rotating. If it were, the string would wrap about it.”
Not true liar, the string is rotating at the same rate as the ball is rotating, so no wrapping.
Still too stupid for school.
Wrong again, bob.
You STILL don’t understand the difference between “revolving (orbiting)” and “rotating (spinning)”. Both the ball and the string are REVOLVING, NOT rotating about their axes.
You can’t learn because you’re braindead. I’m glad I had enough time yesterday to babysit you. This subthread will serve as a reminder of how immature and incompetent you are.
I won’t respond to any more of your nonsense here.
“Nate, the ball-on-a-string is a model of ‘orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation’.
The point is the attachment of the ‘gravity string’ to the outside of the ball on a string is not physically useful analogy, and is very misleading. It inaccurately constrains the orientation of the Moon to point at the Earth, when the reality is that it wobbles significantly.
We know that the Moon has an independent spin because its axis is tilted to point at FIXED stars throughout its orbit, and as its orbital speed varies its spin rotation does not. Both of these features are required to understand the complete motion of the Moon.
The non-spinning Moon model will always fail to explain these observable facts.
For the second time, troll Nate, the ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion WITHOUT axial rotation”. It is NOT an exact model of Moon’s orbit.
You cult idiots can’t understand any of this. And, you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Want to give us a third example?
“It is NOT an exact model of Moons orbit.”
Ok then if a model that includes axial rotation works MUCH BETTER to account for the Moon’s motion, then what is the point of arguing that the Moon has no axial rotation?
Nate, there is no workable model that accounts for Moon’s exact motion. You’re dreaming again.
The point of the argument is to show how the braindead cult idiots believe anything espoused by the cult headquarters. They accept it without question, and are ready to even make up crap to defend it.
Lunar rotation has been debunked, completely, yet here you are. Like the rest of your cult, you won’t drop it until NASA admits Moon is not rotating about its center of mass. Then you will just walk away, pretending you never believed it.
grammie pups wrote:
Well, it should be obvious that your “model” of the Moon rotating around an external point is bogus and it does not include the trajectory.
NASA has a model for the Moon’s orbit which is, as we used to say, Close Enough for Government Work. They use the same math to hit the surface of Mars with pinpoint accuracy. NASA is about to launch a rocket to the Moon which is expected to send an unmanned capsule around the Moon and back to Earth. You clowns can watch it live, if all goes as planned.
Swanson, the ball on a string is not a model of moon’s motion. It’s just a model of "orbital motion without axial rotation". The ball on a string can be described as rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not rotating on its own internal axis.
If "orbit/revolution" was not a rotation about an external axis, then why would it be defined as such?
“If ‘orbit/revolution’ was not a rotation about an external axis, then why would it be defined as such”
because it isnt defined as such!
“orbit-
The gravitationally curved trajectory of an object, such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_astronomy#O
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object takes around another object or center of gravity.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
and many many more… And you know that very well.
That is how we recognize very dishonest trolling.
…if "orbit/revolution" was not a rotation about an external axis, then why would it be defined as such?
Repeating the lie, when shown it is a lie, makes is thoroughly pathetic trolling.
…"orbit/revolution" was not a rotation about an external axis, then why would it be defined as such?
DR EMPTY,
Here is a definition of an orbit.
“the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.”
Note the lack of the words rotation and axis in that definition.
Now for your homework.
Give us a definition of axial rotation.
Already done it, bob. Just scroll up-thread to where you already asked me the same question, and I answered.
"Here is a definition of an orbit.
“the curved path, usually elliptical, described by a planet, satellite, spaceship, etc., around a celestial body, as the sun.”
Note the lack of the words rotation and axis in that definition."
Note the lack of the word "translation" in that definition, though, as well, bob. It doesn’t support the "Spinners" any more than it supports the "Non-Spinners". The "Spinners" need a definition of "orbit/revolution" that describes an orbit as a translation in a circle, or an ellipse. It’s just as important for the "Spinners" to have that orientation of the body confirmed for them in their definition, as it is for the "Non-Spinners". That’s what you lot don’t ever get.
"Non-Spinners" need to see rotation about an external axis in their definition, and as you saw yourself, also up-thread, they got it. "Non-Spinners" have a definition of "orbit/revolution" where it’s described as a rotation about an external axis.
"Spinners" try to claim these vague definitions referring to an orbit as a path, or trajectory, back up their claims, but that just doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid. They don’t just need it to be a path, or trajectory. They need orientation in their definition, as well. Their orientation is "one side always facing towards a fixed star". "Translation in a circle/ellipse" would also cover it. I’ve never seen a "Spinner" come up with anything close to that.
Wow DR EMPTY,
You worked really hard on that diversion.
We don’t need no stinking definition of rotation on an external axis or translation when we want to determine if the Moon is rotating on an internal axis or not.
Also we don’t need a definition of orbit to determine whether or not the Moon rotates.
And still refuse to define axial rotation for the case where the axis is through the body.
That’s been my position all along, that the Moon rotates around an internal axis.
Since you refuse to define that case…
You got nothing but a Big non-sequitur.
bob, your brain just doesn’t work properly. It’s as simple as that. You don’t even understand your own side’s position, let alone mine.
You have to keep “rotating on its own axis” separate from “orbital motion”. You can’t do that unless you define “orbital motion” correctly. Everyone knows what “rotating on its own axis” means. So the important distinction is “what is orbital motion?” Is it like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You’ll never get it as long as you live.
“doesnt cut it, Im afraid. They dont just need it to be a path, or trajectory. They need orientation in their definition, as well. Their orientation is “one side always facing towards a fixed star'”
How delusional is that! Nothing about orientation, rotation rate, or rotational axis, is in the definition. These are all independent parameters.
Yet in the mind of some weird people here, the orientation, rotation rate, and axis IS SPECIFIED, just without any words! It must be communicated to them by a deity.
OK bob, pay attention now, try really hard to focus on what I’m saying. Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia entry on "Rotation":
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. 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."
See? "Non-Spinners" have their definition of "orbital motion" as being a rotation about an external axis, which is motion like the "moon on the left". "Spinners" do not have a definition which specifies "orbital motion" as being a translation in a circle, i.e. motion like the "moon on the right". They just seem to appeal to vague definitions like "an orbit is a path" or "an orbit is a trajectory" which do not support their viewpoint any more than they support the "Non-Spinners".
I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it, but I have the feeling I will be called upon to make it even clearer, shortly.
And yet they persist..
See? “Non-Spinners” have their definition of “orbital motion””
I don’t see a DEFINTION. Just as I didnt see any mention of specified orientation or specified rotation rate around a specified axis in the MANY DEFINITIONS of Orbit that can be found.
Yet in the mind of the non-spinners, these unspecified parameters are SPECIFIED. They are PART of the definition or ORBIT. Just not stated in words.
It is strange that they cannot accept that an unmentioned parameter is free to be whatever it is. Especially given that orbiting planets are well known to have VARIOUS rotation rates and rotational axes, and non-circular orbits, yet are still considered to be orbiting!
Its as if they think the color of the orbiting body is specified as White, even though it is not stated in the definition of ORBIT.
The reality is that planetary color and orientation and rotation rate and rotational axis are all independent parameters that need to be specified separately for an orbiting body.
That is why all astronomical tables list these parameters separately for orbiting bodies (well, maybe not color).
Its just not that complicated.
You see, bob, it’s quite simple.
“Rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”.
“Translation in a circle/ellipse” is motion like the “moon on the right”.
“Non-Spinners” have the aforementioned definition of “orbit/revolution” as being a “rotation about an external axis”, and that is where they get their orientation specified…because “rotation about an external axis” is motion like the “moon on the left”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. All they need is to see the words “rotation about an external axis” and they have their orientation specified.
“Spinners” need to find a definition of “orbit/revolution” where they get their orientation specified. They need it to mention “translation in a circle/ellipse” so that they know “orbit/revolution” means motion like the “moon on the right”, in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star, throughout. They cannot find such a definition, however.
Definitions that just say an orbit is a path, or trajectory, do not specify anything about orientation, and thus cannot settle the issue. Such definitions can be ignored.
DR EMPTY,
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the bodys own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole.”
The part you bolded is irrelevant.
Now apply this definition to the Moon.
The rotation axis being observed to be tilted to the plane of the orbit.
The Moon is auto rotating, and we know this because it does not remain oriented in the same direction as it orbits.
Two axes and they are not parallel.
Now, what part of this do you not understand?
Poor, clueless bob. bob, if you agree that the moon has an orbital axis, i.e. that "orbit/revolution" is a rotation about an external axis, then you have conceded the argument. Thank you for your concession.
DR EMPTY,
That’s not the argument you were looking for.
It’s about rotation, not orbiting or revolving or rotating about an external axis.
You lose if you don’t engage.
You are not engaging.
You are losing.
While the Moon is rotating.
No, it was definitely the argument I was looking for. By agreeing the moon rotates about an external axis, you concede the entire thing. Thank you for your concession.
DR EMPTY,
Then I will have to take that back.
I was only doing that for your benefit, as that is not the hill I am defending.
The Moon is not rotating on an external axis because its orbit is an ellipse, not a rotation. Since its orbit is not circular, its not a rotation.
I was being nice, not stupid.
So you will never again, for the rest of your life, claim that the moon has two rotational axes, which are not parallel. I guess we’re making progress then.
Cult Leader grammie pups continues his delusional rants, citing various definitions incorrectly to bolster his case, even though he has no math to back it all up. For example, there’s his favorite “orbital axis”, which is just a line or vector perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. It may be placed at any point in a 2-D graph of the orbit.
As an example, the tilt of the Earth’s rotational is measured as the angle relative to an “orbital axis” placed at the center of the Earth. A similar measure for the Moon would place the orbital axis at the Moon’s CM. But, the Moon does not rotate about that “orbital axis”, it rotates around it’s internal axis once an orbit. The Moon does not rotate around a fixed external axis, as is easy to prove.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hi3hxn5r9p
So Swanson also disagrees with bob, but chooses to argue with me, instead. Interesting how all these "Spinners" disagree amongst themselves, but always choose to argue with me.
DR EMPTY,
I was agreeing with you on a trivial point, that being that the Moon can be considered to be rotating around the Earth around an external axis.
I am officially retracting that position because you are a dickhead.
The Moon’s orbit is an ellipse and therefore not a rotation around an external axis.
So now my position on this trivial point is aligned with Swanson.
So my position is that the Moon rotates on its axis, which happens to be not perpendicular to the plane of the Moon’s orbit.
Your position does not align with Swanson’s. Swanson agrees that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis without rotating on its own internal axis. Until you agree on that, you are completely at odds with each other.
Also, Ftop_t has already used Desmos to prove that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. If it was the case that a rotation about an external axis could only occur in a circular pattern, you would not be able to find “orbit/revolution” defined as a rotation about an external axis – but you can, as proven a dozen times already.
Finally, Swanson is wrong about “orbital axis”, which is generally used to denote the axis an object revolves around.
Cult Leader grammie, don’t take my comments out of context. Your “ball-on-a-string” crap does not describe the dynamics of the Moon, since the ball is not free to rotate freely. Your “string” acts like a solid bar, which does not match the Moon’s true dynamics. You think I’m wrong about the definition of orbital axis while presenting a definition which supports the fact that the Moon rotates around it’s CM while “revolving” around it’s orbit. And, grammie makes no attempt to provide a scientific definition of “orbital axis” to support his repeated use of the term.
Lastly, the Desmos animation by Ftop_t is in error, since his radial line is not locked to the body of his “Moon”. Here’s a corrected version with the necessary fixed radial line:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cc15obp1sm
"Cult Leader grammie"
Either call me DREMT, or don’t respond to me at all.
"don’t take my comments out of context."
I’m not. Regardless of context, bob simply does not agree with us that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. He is wrong. We are correct. It matters.
"Your “ball-on-a-string” crap does not describe the dynamics of the Moon"
Nor is it meant to. It just describes "orbital motion without axial rotation".
"You think I’m wrong about the definition of orbital axis while presenting a definition which supports the fact that the Moon rotates around it’s CM while “revolving” around it’s orbit."
No, what I presented does not support that. "Revolving" means "rotating about an external axis".
"grammie makes no attempt to provide a scientific definition of “orbital axis” to support his repeated use of the term."
Google "what is an orbital axis", and look at the Quora entry with the same question. Ignore the first answer, which is about the eye. All the other answers relate to astronomy. You made no attempt to provide a scientific definition of "orbital axis" either, by the way.
"Lastly, the Desmos animation by Ftop_t is in error, since his radial line is not locked to the body of his “Moon”."
You misunderstand the point of Ftop_t’s Desmos animation. The fact is, Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. It has that function. That’s the point. Anything else is irrelevant. You completely ignored this:
"If it was the case that a rotation about an external axis could only occur in a circular pattern, you would not be able to find “orbit/revolution” defined as a rotation about an external axis – but you can, as proven a dozen times already."
Cult Leader grammie pups continues to play with semantics, writing:
.
Rotation of a free body is not the same as revolving around an orbit where the distance from the Moon’s CM and any fixed point is constantly changing.
He will note from the replies to the Quora post that none of them say that the Earth is rotating around the Sun. similarly, the Moon does not rotate around the center of Earth or the barycenter between the two. It does rotate around it’s CM, a point of view supported by centuries or measurements and math. grammie, however, has no mathematical description of the motions of the Moon, only empty phrases thrown up at the wall to confuse folks.
BTW, I did provide a scientific description of an “orbital axis” as a line (or vector) which is perpendicular to the orbit plane. There is no reason to place it at one focus or at the intersection of the major and minor axes of the ellipse, except as it may be useful to provide a mathematical description of the orbit to predict the orbital motion.
"Cult Leader grammie pups"
Either refer to me as DREMT, or do not respond (or I’ll call you "Pathetic Failure Swannie River" from now on).
"continues to play with semantics, writing"
Well, that’s how "revolving" is defined. Deal with it.
"Rotation of a free body is not the same as revolving around an orbit where the distance from the Moon’s CM and any fixed point is constantly changing. He will note from the replies to the Quora post that none of them say that the Earth is rotating around the Sun."
…and Swanson will note from the Wikipedia quote in my comment of 5:28 PM that it is claimed that the Earth is rotating around the Sun. The point of the Quora post is to corroborate what I said about an "orbital axis", which it does.
"…only empty phrases thrown up at the wall to confuse folks."
I’m honest, and have no intention to deceive anyone.
grammie pups, Your Quora reference does not include anything from an astronomer and your Wiki reference begins with:
The article also points out:
Again, grammie pups, the Moon can not be rotating around an external axis because there is no such fixed axis around which it moves.
Desperate stuff from Pathetic Failure Swannie River.
More importantly, PFSR, the Wiki article says this:
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. 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"…
…and it is far from the only source to say so. Deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Astronomy
I repeat my previous comment.
grammie repeats himself over and over while ignoring the implications of his references, thereby proving he’s a complete idiot. The Moon rotates around an axis thru it’s CM and it’s CM orbits around the Earth-Moon barycenter. It does not ROTATE around an external axis.
Pathetic Failure Swannie River repeats himself over and over while ignoring the implications of my references, thereby proving he’s a complete idiot.
https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/septemberoctober-2001/iron-and-asphalt-evolution-spiral-curve-railroads-and-parkways
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-319c3ccc3a1ca776b58d1180e7e13718-c
I rest my case.
Swanson puppy, your case is not only resting, it’s dead.
Spiral railroads have NOTHING to do with orbital motion.
The motions of cars, trains, aircraft, satellites, asteroids, moons and planets all follow the same physical laws. Too bad you math challenged morons can’t figure that out.
Yes objects obey the Laws of Physics, Swanson Puppy. But the simple ball-on-a-string doesn’t require any special knowledge of physics or math. It’s easy to understand. Yet you cult idiots can’t understand it.
That’s why we know you’re all braindead.
Clint R,
Yes the ball on a string
” Its easy to understand. ”
How come you don’t understand it?
He does. You don’t.
So you clowns agree that “Yes objects obey the Laws of Physics”. So the physics which describes rotational motion requires angular orientation and rotation be referenced to a non-rotating coordinate system, an inertial reference frame.
As a result, it’s obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit. The Moon does not rotate around a fixed point in space external to it.
How about this animation?
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mhtphs5ich
Wrong again, Puppy.
What’s obvious is that Moon only has one motion — orbiting. It is NOT rotating about its axis. You STILL don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.
You keep making the same mistake over and over, hoping for a different result. Einstein called that “insanity”. I call it “braindead”. There may not be much difference….
swannie…”…the physics which describes rotational motion requires angular orientation and rotation be referenced to a non-rotating coordinate system, an inertial reference frame”.
***
I studied a full semester of dynamics in engineering, which covered all aspects of rotation and not once was the rotation referenced to a reference frame. We did use a coordinate system, (x,y) or polar, but that was on a sheet of paper to help visualize the rotation. We did not care if the rotation was on Earth, on the Moon, or elsewhere in the universe. As long as relative motion was not of concern there was not need to use reference frames.
You can apply equations of rotation with no reference to a coordinate system or a reference frame. A coordinate system is used purely for convenience. If I centre a circle on x = 0, y = 0 of an x-y coordinate system, and I extend a radial line to the circumference from 0,0 along the x-axis, and keep it there, the angular velocity of the radial line is 0 radians/sec.
The x-y coordinate system is not a requirement, we could have drawn a circle anywhere and referenced the zero point anywhere. The reference point has no significance and the rotation takes place anyway.
As I allow the radial line to sweep around the circumference, it carves out an angle, theta. We know that a radius can be divided into the circumference 2pi times (~6.28), therefore if we lay the radial line along the circumference from the x-axis, its length along the surface is 0.159 radians. Since the circumference equals 360 degrees, then 1 radian represents 0.159 x 360 degrees = 57.24 degrees.
We define radial rotations as the number of degrees/radians traced out by the rotating line per second. We call that value ‘w’ = omega. To find the distance covered per second we use s = wt.
That’s all you need to define rotation, no reference frames required. You are claiming such a radial line from the Moon’s centre to it circumference must rotate 360 degrees through each lunar orbit.
If you are an anal mathematician who cannot talk in generalities in the universe without covering every possible situation to which rotation applies, then you can specify reference frames. A simple discussion of the lunar orbit does not require such detail unless your intention is obfuscation while creating a red herring argument.
Still it does not matter how you define rotation, the simple matter is that a radial line within a rotating body must actually rotate about an internal axis. That’s not the case with the Moon. As proof, go back to radial lines.
Presume a circular orbit for simplicity and imagine a radial line drawn from Earth’s centre through the Moon. The portion of the radial line contained within the Moon must then rotate through 360 degrees per orbit. It obviously can’t if the near side always faces the Earth.
The reasoning is simple. If the near side always faces the Earth, a line drawn perpendicular to the radial line at the near side, and attached to it, like a tangent line, must always remain in that position in order for the near side to always face the Earth. That means the radial line portion within the Moon cannot rotate. It certainly changes orientation regularly wrt the stars but that is not rotating about the internal lunar axis.
The same applies to perpendicular lines touching the far side, the COG and any point in the Moon touching the radial line within the Moon. If the Moon is rotating, all of those lines must move from a perpendicular position since they are also tangential lines to the orbital path, and rotate about the COG. They can’t since they are locked in position due to the restriction that the near side must always face the Earth.
Swanson is still “lost in reference frames”. Poor guy.
Gordo’s delusional physics claims that a radial line from the Moon to the Earth at any point in time will always point to the Earth. That would be true for a tidally locked Moon in a circular orbit, but the orbit is an ellipse. We know for a fact that a fixed radial line does not always point to the Earth, which is proven by the E-W librations seen from Earth. Gordo’s conjecture is false.
The animation I presented demonstrated that. Here’s another with slightly different constants:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hi3hxn5r9p
Gordon,
“I studied a full semester of dynamics in engineering, which covered all aspects of rotation and not once was the rotation referenced to a reference frame. We did use a coordinate system, (x,y) or polar, but that was on a sheet of paper to help visualize the rotation.”
You say in the first sentence that you didn’t use a reference frame, yet in the second sentence you say you did.
You can’t keep your shit straight from one sentence to the next.
A radial line from the center of the Moon to its surface sweeps out 2 pi radians per orbit, indicating that yes the Moon rotates on its axis.
bob…”You say in the first sentence that you didnt use a reference frame, yet in the second sentence you say you did”.
***
You are being obtuse…again!!! I explained that an x-y coordinate system on a piece of paper is not a reference frame but a convenience to help visualize the problem. I added that the coordinate system was not required, that I could have drawn a circle anywhere with an arbitrary starting point.
A frame of reference is a physical reality like standing on the Earth and observing the Moon. If I am standing in the centre of a track, watching a car lap the track, at no time do I see the car rotate about its centre of gravity unless it spins out and the driver loses control. As long as the driver is in control and driving straight ahead, even on a curve, the car is not rotating on its COG.
For me, at centre of the track, that is my reference frame for observing the car. The car is essentially orbiting me and I can see only the driver’s side if the car is going CCW. If I relocate to the stands, I now have a different frame of reference, I am now observing the car orbiting the track and I can see all sides of the car.
If I apply that to the Moon, and I am observing from Earth as my reference frame, I can only see one side of the Moon as it crosses the sky. Anyone standing anywhere on Earth at my latitude would see only the same side.
If I now took a spacecraft outside the orbital plane, from that reference frame I would now see the Moon as I saw the car from the stands. The same side would always be pointed at the Earth but sunlight would strike the Moon in accordance to its position in its orbit. When the Moon was on the far side of the Earth from the Sun the near side (from an Earth observer’s perspective) would be lit. When the Moon was located between the Earth and the Sun, the near side would be dark and the far side (from Earth) would be lit.
In neither reference frame is the Moon rotating about its COG.
swannie…”That would be true for a tidally locked Moon in a circular orbit, but the orbit is an ellipse”.
***
I have already covered that in great detail. You must have been absent from class that day.
In a circular orbit, the radial line always points to Earth’s centre. As the circle becomes eccentric we need to find another way to determine the radial line.
Note that the radial line to a curve can be found by taking the 1st derivative of the curve equation to get the tangent line, then drawing a line perpendicular to the tangent line. What we are really doing to find the the base of the radial line is fitting a circle with the same arc as the curve and using the radius of that circle as the radius of the curve.
I won’t go into that method again, there is a far easier method with an ellipse. You draw lines from each focal point of the ellipse to a point on the ellipse. When you bisect the angle obtained you have the radial line to the ellipse AT THAT POINT. Of course, a line perpendicular to the radial line at that point is the tangent line.
If you have an exact scaled drawing of the lunar orbit, with the focal points to scale, the Earth is located at the principal focal point. There are two location in the orbit where the radial line still points directly at the Earth’s centre: the points at either end of the major axis.
If you draw a line from Earth’s centre to the lunar centre, and you use the radial line just determined, you can form a right angled triangle to show the components of Earth’s gravity acting on the Moon’s near face.
It should be noted that the components vary with the Moon’s motion, therefore the Moon’s momentum has a greater impact at certain points of the orbit. That causes the elongation for the elliptical orbit. The Moon is not following an orbital path, it is creating one due to its motion.
At all other points, the radial line ‘of the curve’ points away from the Earth’s centre. That means, as we look at the Moon’s longitudinal lines, we can see a few degrees around the edge of the Moon, a phenomenon called libration.
It should be noted that the angle of deviation of the curve radial line from the Earth’s centre is very small (a few degrees). It is so small that it can be ignored for our discussion.
Binny still thinks libration is rotation even though nothing is moving about the axis.
It should be noted further that we cannot view libration 24/7 since the Earth rotates each day. Due to its rotation, we also view the Moon’s lines of longitude from different angles on Earth. That enhances libration.
Gordon,
“For me, at centre of the track, that is my reference frame for observing the car. The car is essentially orbiting me and I can see only the drivers side if the car is going CCW.”
They put steering wheels on cars so they drive around the track in circles or ovals or whatever.
Turning means rotating on axes.
Can I get some o’ dat vancouver thunderfuck you must be smokin?
I’ve heard they grow good weed in those parts.
bob…”They put steering wheels on cars so they drive around the track in circles or ovals or whatever”.
***
If you are driving in a car and you suddenly whip the steering wheel off on an angle, what happens? The car tries to turn abruptly and the rear end spins out, trying to rotate around the COG. That is, if the car doesn’t roll.
Do you understand, Bob? You need to drastically interfere with the normal operation of the steering wheel to get the car to rotate about its COG. Or, if you are driving on ice, a very slight alteration of the steering wheel will produce a spin out.
Under normal conditions, on a straight-away or a curve, the car does not rotate about its COG.
Re the MJ. We don’t need to grow it anymore, not that I ever did grow it. It is now legally purchased in an MJ store.
Actually, I don’t like the new law. Having experienced the effect of MJ on space and time distortion, I don’t want stoned people driving in cars. I’d much rather have people pleasantly drunk (not totally inebriated) behind the wheel of a car than some idiot stoned on MJ.
Gordon,
A slow turn is still a rotation about an axis, as you drive around a curve in control of the car, you are still rotating around an axis.
Gordo wrote:
So you now agree that the Moon does not rotate around a fixed external point.
Even though the librations are small, best seen over a year at each full Moon, this is proof that the Moon rotates and can not be ignored. Thus the Moon does rotate around it’s CM while it follows an elliptical trajectory around the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Braindead bob, a change in direction is NOT axial rotation.
Swanson Puppy, lunar libration is evidence Moon is NOT rotating.
Cult idiots don’t understand orbital motion.
Clint R,
You are wrong again.
I said a turn was a rotation.
A turn is an axial rotation.
“move in a circular direction wholly or partly around an axis or point.”
That’s the definition.
“Braindead bob, a change in direction is NOT axial rotation.”
That’s not what I said, please be more careful when referring to my arguments.
Unless your goal is to look like a moron.
Seems to me, that’s your plan, to look like a moron.
Also, none of you nitwits have ever defined what you mean by “axial rotation.”
Want to take a crack at defining axial rotation.
No, I didn’t think you would.
And I predict you never will.
You’re trying to pervert reality again, bob. These definitions have been explained over and over. You have to twist, distort, confuse them to keep your false religion alive.
“Axial rotation” is easy to understand for planets and moons. Earth has axial rotation, as it orbits Sun. It is spinning about its center of mass. It has TWO motions. Moon only has ONE motion — orbiting. If Moon were rotating, we would see all sides of it, just as Sun “sees” all sides of Earth. It’s just that simple.
The fact that you have to constantly pervert reality, insult, falsely accuse, and resort to profanity, is evidence you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R,
There’s no definition of axial rotation in your lame ass response.
Want to try again?
You just don’t get what science is all about.
“The fact that you have to constantly pervert reality, insult, falsely accuse, and resort to profanity, is evidence youve got NOTHING.”
I learned all of that from you.
You constantly insult people with your braindead accusations.
All caps don’t get you there either.
bob, it’s not my problem if you’re insulted by reality.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1396554
Clint R,
You whiny little bitch.
Still no definition of axial rotation.
What’s the matter.
Can’t define the simple terms you use in your arguments?
That’s because you are too fucking stupid for school.
Yes bob, reality is a bitch. You can’t win because you’re braindead and you’ve got NOTHING. The simple ball-on-a-string has you so flummoxed you don’t know what to do.
That’s why I’m enjoying your meltdown so much.
Clint R,
Yes the ball on a string is simple, yet it is not an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, because the ball is actually rotating on its axis.
The reasons three that you do not see that are:
You have no working model of axial rotation.
You are a whiney little bitch.
You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Sorry braindead bob, but that’s all wrong.
Get back to me when you understand the difference between “revolving” and “rotating”.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R,
revolve: move in a circular orbit around.
rotate: move or cause to move in a circle around an axis or center.
It has already been shown that both the ball on a string and the Moon are doing both.
Subtle differences continue to stump your feeble little mind.
bob, a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis. Until you can accept that, you will forever be wrong. That’s fine with me.
bob, your definition of “rotate” likely confuses you. With our discussion here, Moon and a ball-on-a-string, axial rotation refers to center of mass. Finding defintions is one thing. Understanding them is another. Let’s see how you do on understanding:
Earth has both motions — orbiting and rotating. Suppose we could stop it from orbiting. It would still be rotating.
Moon only has one motion — orbiting. If it stopped orbiting, it would have no motion.
If you can’t understand that simple explanation, you just weren’t cut out for such subjects.
Clint R,
Those aren’t “my” definitions, they are straight out of a dictionary.
That’s probably where we diverge, I use conventional definitions, you make up your own definitions.
That’s where your confusion lies.
You might try learning science instead of making shit up.
I guess he wasn’t cut out for such subjects, Clint R.
Yeah DREMT, poor braindead bob finally admits he knows nothing about the issue. He gets his definition “straight out of a dictionary”!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
Good then, there’s another one to add to your stamp collection.
“Where can I find a dictionary, so I can look things up?”
Yes, bob just can’t stop conceding the entire argument.
Yeah, you two continue to fail to grasp topics taught in eighth grade.
Perhaps watching some reruns of “Are you smarter than a fifth grader” would help.
Thank you for your concession.
It’s you two clowns that keep trying to put rotation into orbital motion.
Please stop looking foolish.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
You’re the one that can’t understand the difference between orbiting and rotating.
Earth has both motions — orbiting and rotating. Suppose we could stop it from orbiting. It would still be rotating.
Moon only has one motion — orbiting. If it stopped orbiting, it would have no motion.
If you can’t understand that simple explanation, you just weren’t cut out for such subjects.
You’re not explaining anything, jiggly Pup, and it’s those who define an orbit as having no spin who are confused.
An orbit is INDEPENDENT from spin.
And it’s SPIN, not rotation.
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
“Moon only has one motion orbiting.”
If that were true, you could model the motion of the Moon with one motor, exactly like the ball on a string.
However, it would take at least 4 motors to model the Moon’s motion, so no, it’s not one motion.
Try again Sherlock.
Nobody said it was a simple motion, bob. Nevertheless, the moon is just orbiting.
Braindead bob and the worthless pup used to be funny, as they attempted to understand Moon’s motion. But now, they’re only repeating their same crap over and over. They’re boring.
They lost.
Clint R,
Obviously you are not bored, you keep responding with your bullshit.
Claiming we don’t understand eighth grade science, when you are the one failing school, cause you are too stupid for school.
While the Moon rotates on its axis.
So how many motors does it take to model the Moon’s motion?
You can just say “I don’t know”
That’s the best answer.
[GRAHAM] Nobody said it was a simple motion.
[PUP] Theres only one motion involved.
Yes, Little Willy, one motion, but not a simple one.
This issue — “4 motors needed to model Moon” — has been discussed before, but I forgot to add it to the list.
Braindead bob claims “it would take at least 4 motors to model the Moon’s motion”. Then, he asks “So how many motors does it take to model the Moon’s motion?”
Braindead bob does not understand any of this, especially “lunar libration”. He believes lunar libration is an actual motion. That’s why we know he’s braindead.
It would only take ONE motor to model Moon’s orbit. One motor in a car on an elliptical transparent track, slightly slanted. An observer inside the track would see slightly more than one side of the car, just like we see slightly more than one side of Moon.
Braindead cult idiots won’t understand any of this.
I’ve now added it to the list.
The issue is your ball on string does not model the motion of the Moon very well, Pup.
First, the orbit is not circular. Second, it fails to model the physical libration that is caused by the axis of the Moon not being perpendicular to the Earth.
So Bob is right and you got NOTHING.
Either the motion of the Moon can be modelled with a simple ball on string or it is not simple, BTW. Cant be both.
Willard Pup, the ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
But thanks for verifying for the 147th time that you don’t understand ANY of this.
(No, I don’t have time to babysit you today.)
Jiggly Pup,
If the ball on string is a model of an orbit without spin, it ought to apply to a Moon that orbits without spinning. ANY pure rotation can be modelled by a ball on a string,
The Moon CANNOT be described with a pure rotation around an external axis unless we abstract away that it follows an elliptical path and that its physical libration makes it wobble a bit.
And PHYSICAL libration is not illusory, dummy.
Clint R,
“He believes lunar libration is an actual motion. Thats why we know hes braindead.”
Well, yes it is an actual motion, you are just too stupid for school and can’t figure out that one kind of libration is caused by the difference between the rate the Moon rotates on its axis, and the rate the Moon revolves around the Earth.
There’s another form of libration that takes three motors to model.
You just can’t figure that out, you are too stupid for school, namely eighth grade.
The first type of libration bob refers to is libration of longitude. The second type of libration bob refers to is libration of latitude. Both are apparent motions, not actual motions. Physical librations, which are supposedly actual motions, are tiny, as seen from Earth amounting to less than one second of arc.
Graham forgets one type of libration, the only one truly optical. So of course he forgets to mention that longitudinal libration is due to a Keplerian law and that latitudinal libration is due to the physical fact that the axes of the Earth and the Moon are not parallel.
DR EMPTY,
You don’t get to tag in with the same argument your partner just used when I pinned him to the mat.
Furthermore, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word apparent.
Here let me google a definition for you.
“clearly visible or understood; obvious.”
Is that what you meant, that libration is clearly visible or understood?
Neither libration in longitude, or latitude, are actual motions. Everything I said was correct (as usual).
DR EMPTY,
They are relative motions, thus motion of one thing relative to another thing.
The difference between the two motions of the Moon for one, rotating against revolving, the fact that those two motions occur at different speeds.
The other being the motion of the Moon above and below the ecliptic plane.
So yes they are actual motions, you are wrong again.
They’re not actual motions, bob. Libration of longitude is a result of the elliptical orbit (more precisely the eccentricity of the orbit), and libration of latitude is mostly due to the fact that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted with respect to the ecliptic.
Nothing Graham said regarding libration was relevant and it is disputable that it was correct.
There is a big difference between the libration he clumsily describes and the one he still omits. The eccentricity of the Moon orbit is a real thing. The inclination of its axis of spin compared to the plane of its orbit is a real thing too.
Bob wins the point again, for he is right to say that one does not simply ignore this eccentricity and this inclination and pretend to have captured faithfully the motion of the Moon.
I’m not ignoring anything – the moon moves as it does. Nobody is arguing otherwise. Sure, the eccentricity of the orbit is real. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The inclination of its axis of spin compared to the plane of its orbit is only a real thing if you believe the moon is rotating on its own axis in the first place. If you don’t, then it’s just a product of the way the moon remains oriented whilst it orbits.
Moon Dragon cranks hold the secret to the theory of everything:
Things do what they do.
What comfort it should bring!
Repellent trolls that have devoted their entire lives to attempting to irritate their betters hold the secret to the theory of dishonest debate – focus in on one sentence, misconstrue it, and ignore the rest.
Scientists have a satellite orbiting the Moon:
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Graham trolls like Graham did over his 74 months of trolling on this website.
Not at all, in other words.
DR even emptier than before EMPTY,
“The inclination of its axis of spin compared to the plane of its orbit is only a real thing if you believe the moon is rotating on its own axis in the first place.”
So something is real, only if you believe its real.
Man, that’s cray cray, koo-koo for cocoa puffs!
Things do what they do
If you believe so.
A new Dragon Crank motto.
OK, bob, just add scare quotes around “real thing”. Then re-read in its original context.
Braindead twins bob and willard puppy continue to desperately throw crap at the wall. Now they’re convinced they’ve got something with their confusion about libration. They’re so uneducated they don’t realize even NASA admits lunar libration is not a real motion. They’re so confused.
Without a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, they will continue to have NOTHING.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
“Theyre so uneducated they dont realize even NASA admits lunar libration is not a real motion.”
Here is what NASA actually says
” When a month is compressed into 24 seconds, as it is in this animation, our changing view of the Moon makes it look like it’s wobbling.”
The Moon is not wobbling, but libration is real.
You are too bat-shit crazy to understand that.
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/477/moon-phase-and-libration-2022/
Thanks for proving us right, bob.
Moon is not wobbling, and libration is NOT a real motion.
Keep it up.
Clint R,
Since you are the crazy boy, you got it wrong.
Try the Moon is not wobbling but libration is real, that’s what NASA is saying.
That’s another example of you being braindead, bob. You can’t understand your own sources.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
…but bob, libration (in longitude/latitude) is the perceived wobbling of the moon, from Earth. So, if you agree that the wobbling is not real, then you agree that libration is not real.
I think what you are trying to say is, libration has a real cause.
Graham and Pup still fail to realize that there is only ONE type of libration that is PURELY optical. And they have yet to mention it. Heck, they still have to acknowledge its existence.
The Moon says yes and it says no. Both behaviour is real and can be explained using ordinary models of the Moon-Earth system. They cannot be explained by a non-spinning Moon that would orbit following a PURE rotation. This is known since Poisson and Lagrange.
Pity that our Moon Dragon cranks cannot read French.
grammie pup wrote:
The Moon’s apparent wobble as seen from the Earth is the result of the varying view angle from the Earth as the Moon orbits around the Earth. This effect does not represent a true change in the Moon’s rotation rate, which is a constant around an internal axis. As Willard noted, libration is an optical illusion which is mistaken for a real wobble, but this is not real motion. That said, the optical illusion when combined with the math of the orbit proves that the Moon rotates around an internal axis.
Little Willy has no idea what he’s talking about, as usual. Yes, there is a fourth type of libration, which is completely irrelevant to the issue, which is why it has not been mentioned. Libration in longitude and libration in latitude are not actual motions.
DR EMPTY,
“I think what you are trying to say is, libration has a real cause.”
Do ya think?
Is the cause real?
But you don’t believe the Moon is rotating, so you got that working against you.
"As Willard noted, libration is an optical illusion which is mistaken for a real wobble, but this is not real motion."
No, Little Willy did not note that. That’s what Clint R and I have been saying, and Little Willy and bob have been arguing against.
"That said, the optical illusion when combined with the math of the orbit proves that the Moon rotates around an internal axis."
Everything, to you, proves that the moon rotates around an internal axis. In reality, it doesn’t.
Graham still misrepresents my position.
The fact to be explained is that we see more than half of the Moon surface. Almost sixty percent of it. This fact is as real as any other observation can be,
As Binny keeps reminding Moon Dragon cranks, this fact has been explained by Meyer, Laplace, Lagrange, and many others.
There are four types of libration: longitudinal, latitudinal, parallactic, and vibrational. The fourth type cannot be observed from the Earth, at least not for the naked eye.
Graham simply tries to exploit how we classify these various librations. The only things that matter here is that Pup tries to dismiss librations as unreal while forgetting that there are physical librations and that only one of them is purely optical.
Latitudinal libration is real, of course:
http://archive.numdam.org/article/ASENS_1866_1_3__253_0.pdf
It is highly problematic for someone who denies that the Moon does not spin.
[SWANSON] As Willard noted, libration is an optical illusion which is mistaken for a real wobble, but this is not real motion.
[LITTLE WILLY] Latitudinal libration is real, of course.
————————————–
Little Willy, as I already said, the main cause of libration in latitude is that the moon’s orbital plane is tilted with respect to the ecliptic. The small part of it that is supposedly due to the moon’s so-called "axial tilt" is just a result of the way the moon remains oriented whilst it orbits.
Eric is of course right to underline that I am the only one who correctly emphasizes that there is one purely optical libration. It just so happens it is NOT the ones Graham and Pup keep dismissing as illusory.
Notice how Graham tries to armwave his way out:
(Grahams Armwaving) The small part of it that is supposedly due to the moons so-called “axial tilt” is just a result of the way the moon remains oriented whilst it orbits.
That armwaving implies two peculiar things. First, there is no real axial tilt if there is no axis. Second, the Moon remains oriented on a nonexistent axis.
It would be interesting to know how Moon Dragon cranks can explain why the Moon keeps its orientation on a nonexistent axis.
DR EMPTY,
Let me fix that for you.
“Everything, to you, proves that the moon rotates around an internal axis. In reality, I believe it doesnt.
Neither the Moon nor I care what you believe or don’t believe.
Facts matter, and they are against you.
So stop pounding the table.
"Eric is of course right to underline that I am the only one who correctly emphasizes that there is one purely optical libration."
He wasn’t saying that at all, because you’re wrong. Libration of longitude/latitude are not real motions. The moon is not actually nodding up and down and shaking from side to side. You are one stubborn idiot though, so I’ll just let it go.
"It would be interesting to know how Moon Dragon cranks can explain why the Moon keeps its orientation on a nonexistent axis."
The same way you guys explain it. What is the actual reason that there is supposedly an "axial tilt" of the moon? Look that up, and get back to me.
DR EMPTY,
“The moon is not actually nodding up and down and shaking from side to side. You are one stubborn idiot though, so Ill just let it go.”
That’s correct, of course.
But if the Moon wasn’t rotating then it would have to be nodding up and down and shaking side to side.
Since you agree that it isn’t, therefore you also agree the Moon is rotating on its axis.
"But if the Moon wasn’t rotating then it would have to be nodding up and down and shaking side to side."
Erm…no, bob.
Graham once again misrepresents my position.
Here is the paper I cited again:
http://archive.numdam.org/article/ASENS_1866_1_3__253_0.pdf
The title is ** Memoire sur la rotation de la Lune et sur la libration reelle en latitude** So there is at least one guy who disputes that latitudinal libration is unreal. And that guy certainly does not rely on a ball on a string to model Moon motions.
The reality of that kind of libration does not imply it is a specific motion. It only implies something that is not purely optical. Nutation is not a mere optical phenomenon. But since they deny that the Moon spins, of course Moon Dragon cranks will deny that the Moon nutates.
Oh, well.
What is the actual reason that there is supposedly an "axial tilt" of the moon? Look that up, and get back to me.
The braindead twins are joined by Swanson, aka “Pup Jr”. Pup Jr accepts NASA’s position on libration, then tries to pervert it. That’s why this is so much fun.
I don’t recall ever seeing willard pup dream up more nonsense. He’s making things up like there is no tomorrow. In his desparation, he’s even using “binny” as a source. Thats almost as funny as using Norman!
All their efforts fail because they have no workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. If they understood what orbital motion without axial rotation looked like, they would have to abandon their cult belief in lunar rotation. And, we know that won’t happen….
Graham plays riddles again. Sadly for him, we asked first. He is misrepresenting what we said along he way, but is there a comment where he does not?
Here is something that does not look like a mere ball on string:
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/nccsdoc/slalib/sun67.htx/node203.html
Still amazing that the Greeks could accept what Moon Dragon cranks still fail to do.
I’ve misrepresented nobody.
What is the actual reason that there is supposedly an "axial tilt" of the moon? Look that up, and get back to me.
Graham of course misrepresents the question I asked, among many other things.
Is it possible to observe free core nutation of the Moon? Looks like a yes:
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/newviews2018/pdf/6023.pdf
There is a mention of Chandler motion. Perhaps Graham could tell us about that?
I’ve misrepresented nothing and nobody. Too many false accusations, and no co-operation (as usual) means Little Willy goes onto "ignore/automatic PST" for the rest of the thread.
Graham continues to misrepresent what I asked and now that he would have to explain nutation on a non-spinning body, he folds.
Oh well. Another win for the Dragon Trolls Slayers!
Got a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” yet, willard pup?
Without something, you’ve got NOTHING.
You are right, Pup –
Without a workable model of the Moon-Earth system, Sky Dragon cranks like you got NOTHING.
When will you offer one?
Of course I’m right, Pup.
A workable model of Moon is easy, as I presented above. You just can’t understand it:
A model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” is even easier — it’s a ball-on-a-string. That simple model makes all your blah-blah worthless. You STILL can’t understand it.
Maybe that’s why you’re such a worthless troll.
(Sorry, I don’t have time to babysit you any more today.)
So you admit not having a model, Pup.
Hand waving to arm waving means you have NOTHING.
at-least-you-tried.png
I like your meltdown, Pup. You’re not even trying to fake some science now, just going with your ignorance and immaturity.
Keep it up.
The meltdown is all yours, Pup.
Have you worked out how to explain nutation for a non-spinning Moon yet?
Just for any curious readers – as I have explained before, precession and nutation are a “gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body’s rotational axis”. Since the moon is not rotating on its own axis, the explanation for the moon becomes: a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body. Pretty straightforward.
Readers will note that so far Graham has redefined:
– orbit
– tidal locking
– nutation
The life of a Moon Dragon crank is full of adventure!
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Say you had the pipe which was 200 meters [656.168 feet] long
and diameter of 20 meter with wall thickness of .006 meter [0.2362205″] thick.
And one end was .012 meters thick and had “floor” 20 meter below
it which was also .012 meters thick. And was made of aluminum [2700 kg per cubic meter].
It’s mass in aluminum:
20 times pi times 200 meter long is about 12566.36 square meters times wall thickness of .006 = 75.39816 cubic meter of aluminum or
times 2700 kg = 203575.032 kg.
and disk 20 diameter is 314.159 square meter times .012 = 3.769908 cubic meters times 2700 kg = 10178.7516 kg
and top and floor is times 2 = 20357.5032 and 203575.032 kg =
223932.5352 kg of aluminum or about 224 metric tons.
And say this was in 800 km high zero inclination [at equator] orbit.
And you fill the 20 meter tall space at one with water.
Which is cross section of about 314 square meter times 20 meter tall
is 6280 cubic meter of water, which 1000 kg per cubic meter, so
6280 metric tons of water- at one end.
And you left in orbit for a year.
Is one end going to pointed at earth? Or going have chaotic random movement in terms it’s ends facing anything?
If one end is facing Earth, and can’t easily move away from facing Earth, could say it’s tidally locked with Earth.
And if it’s tidally locked, is it spinning on it’s axis?
Yep.
For somebody whose statements on what “orbital motion” is, kinematically, make him a “Non-Spinner”, Little Willy spends an awful lot of time trying to argue the opposite. Strange fellow.
Graham just *cannot* follow an exchange.
Sure I can. You spend a whole lot of time trying to argue as a “Spinner”, but you said before that “orbital motion” involves rotation and translation. If “orbital motion” involves rotation, then it involves the orbiting object changing orientation whilst it moves. That makes you a “Non-Spinner”. Whereas a “Spinner” should argue that “orbital motion” is strictly just translation, involving no change in orientation whilst it moves. “Rotating on its own axis” is then separate to that motion, in either case.
[GB] And if its tidally locked, is it spinning on its axis?
[W] Yep.
[GRAHAM] That makes W a non-spinner.
Make that what you will.
Little Willy distorts what was said, as usual.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team and Willard thinks the Moon is tidally locked.
Or the pipe with one end, always facing Earth is also tidally locked.
And if large enough, it remains locked. Provide some force, and it then go back to be tidally locked.
Moon could hit by a large space rock and it could effect it, but it will back to being tidally lock.
No, gb. Graham believes that the Moon does not spin, whereas a 1:1 spin-orbit lock means that there is one spin per orbit.
gbaikie is correct. The moon is tidally-locked, which to a “Non-Spinner” just means “not rotating on its own axis”.
See, gb?
**That** is a silly semantic game!
Graham has little left, in fairness.
Little Willy continues to parade his ignorance of the basics.
gb, “tidal locking” is just more nonsense to support the lunar spin nonsense. It is easily debunked:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
You call that a refutation, Pup?
That is just a silly thought experiment.
Here is a refutation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742161
Pup got NOTHING except trolling.
Folkerts gets confused easily. He’s the one that makes up the nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water.
Here I clear up his confusion about orbital motion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742186
Since reality is not on your side, Pup, you always turn to silly thought experiments.
Here is reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-738679
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar Cycle 25 Update
https://youtu.be/nDYsM3uM7pE?t=443
We’ll see you when you return, TM.
Please stop trolling, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 325.0 km/sec
density: 3.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Nov 22
Sunspot number: 85
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 134 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.96×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +3.8% Elevated
https://www.spaceweather.com/
A lot spots [in northern] are going to farside,
and with left with a larger spot in southern and 2 small
sunspots.
Or sunspot number lower a lot. and northern will be close to
spotless, again. And seems to flip back and forth South and North
being active or near spotless.
Not a very active solar max, yet. More sideways, maybe sideway and down.
https://i.postimg.cc/JncGFDRJ/EISNcurrent.png
Solar wind
speed: 354.3 km/sec
density: 16.39 protons/cm3
[Fairly heavy- and there is fairly large hole:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2022/18nov22/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg ]
Sunspot number: 64
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 119 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 16.00×10^10 W Neutral
{climbing back up slightly}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.1% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.4%
{not good for going to Mars}
In terms of spots we got them in both hemispheres,
but seems it could weaken further, but spots could
grow and spots could appear, but can assume bigger
one: 3147 will last for another week.
Or big spot don’t seem to appear quickly nor fade
quickly whereas small one seem to appear or fade within days.
And anyhow next month is coming- more or less, active?
If like 24 it seems it has good chance of becoming less
active. Or could get spotless days in Dec, but also will then
get more active, again in later months.
But just because more active in Dec, doesn’t mean not like 24,
or so far it’s been like 24, and one month doesn’t change it.
Not that understand it much, but difference of 24 and 25 is reversal
pf polarity, And it seems possible one polarity could have characteristic of “building more” and other doesn’t build- or maybe depends Jupiter?? or something?
So, 25 is more [or less] bumpy, same power engine, but bad timing.
Solar wind
speed: 318.2 km/sec
density: 2.52 protons/cm3
{weak}
Daily Sun: 19 Nov 22
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 116 sfu
Sunspot number: 59
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 16.00×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +4.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
3147 is growing
I thinking that getting somewhat closer to our perihelion,
so Sun should appear to spin faster. And seemed 3147 was crossing
sun, faster. So, probably because we moving a bit faster- at least a little bit, because.
Solar wind
speed: 302.1 km/sec
density: 13.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Nov 22
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 116 sfu
Sunspot number: 61
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.98×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.5% Elevated
–BIG FARSIDE SUNSPOT: You might suppose that the farside of the sun is hidden from view. Not so. Researchers using a technique called “helioseismology” can make crude maps of the sun’s hidden hemisphere. Their latest map reveals a huge farside active region:–
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/timed/
Seems will take awhile to arrive the nearside in
meantime it seems going get quieter over next days.
Though some smaller spots [3151] have been growing a bit.
Grand solar minimum maximum
https://youtu.be/zk_eli_ko9k
Climate Change Motivates a Reevaluation of Nuclear Energy
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/politics/2022/11/17/climate-change-motivates-a-reevaluation-of-nuclear-energy/
**Ironically, the people who profess to care most about climate change have been those who most vociferously reject the technology that can solve it. But this is changing
Michael Puttr November 17, 2022 **
Link from: https://instapundit.com/
“As world leaders and activists gather in Egypt this week to ruminate about global warming, there are signs that many are willing to look beyond doctrinaireand heretofore less than fruitfulpolicies founded on renewable generation sources, such as wind and solar. Whatever the merits of climate change arguments, it is clear that the issue is causing many inveterate opponents of nuclear energy to embrace the technology as the one available that can do something about it.
The influential American Climate Perspectives survey, published in 2021 with addenda out this year by environmental nonprofit ecoAmerica, pointed out that American attitudes about nuclear power are shifting decidedly into the positive column, with the movement most profound on the left. A summary released by the organization along with the report noted that support for nuclear power among Americans grew by 10 points between 2018 and 2021, from 49% to 59%. And while support among Republicans held steady during that time (hovering around 65%), support among Democrats increased sizably over the same periodfrom 37% in 2018 to 60% in 2021. And this shift seems to be indicative of a worldwide movement of opinion.”
Some people deserve an applause.
Such as Shellenberger
And others:
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1119904819/nuclear-power-environmentalists-california-germany-japan
“The article below links to another one which appears to contradict it. In The threshold between natural Atlantic current system fluctuations and a climate change-driven evolution were told natural variations are still dominant in the AMOC or Gulf Stream System. Then the key part:
According to the researchers, part of the North Atlantic is coolinga striking contrast to the majority of ocean regions. All evaluations indicate that since the beginning of the 20th century, natural fluctuations have been the primary reason for this cooling. Nonetheless, the studies indicate that the AMOC has started to slow down in recent decades. If the slowdown occurred under cooling, why should future warming be likely to cause more of it?
For decades, oceanographers have been measuring the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a large system of ocean currents that greatly influence Earths climate, says Phys.org.
In recent years, the data show it is weakening. But what does this mean?”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/11/17/experts-explain-slowing-atlantic-ocean-currents-or-do-they/
What does it mean?
It means cooling, but way I see it, not global cooling.
Or we will have colder weather.
Colder weather is problem [obviously] as is hotter and dryer weather.
But drier [cold weather] will cause hotter and drier weather.
Global warming is about increases global water vapor- and this will not increase global water vapor, but not really global cooling.
Another way to say this, is I agree with NASA and NOAA when they say:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
But I would say it’s not just past 50 years, rather this has always the case. Or some number more than 90% of global warming is warming the entire ocean average temperature [which is currently about 3.5 C] and weaken of AMOC could be said to be more global warming than compared to global cooling. But result is less warming of region near Arctic- or colder weather, particularly in winter.
It seems the question is does anyone disagree that:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.”
And does anyone have idea about how much more than 90%.
Or another question is, if ocean average ocean were to warm from about 3.5 C to 4 C is there any argument that this is “vast” amount of global warming AND it would have a huge effect upon global air temperature?
And obviously it causes some sea level rise.
And that that higher and lower sea level “works” as crude way to measure global air temperature.
Or if it’s true [and I think it is] that sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher in early part of Holocene, than it was warmer in early part of Holocene. Or at least that should the assumption unless proven “not to be the case”. But it seems everyone assumes it was warming, and no one has reasonable argument or data which opposes it.
Boots on Mars: Artemis 1 launch and heat shield test take NASA closer
By Mike Wall
published about 17 hours ago
NASA hardware cleared two big hurdles in a six-day span.
“Last week, on Nov. 10, NASA tested hardware that could help these crewed Mars missions land safely an inflatable heat shield called LOFTID, which launched to Earth orbit with the JPSS-2 weather satellite and then came barreling back to Earth. LOFTID survived its fiery return trip in great shape, suggesting that the tech has great potential to help land heavy hardware on Mars, team members said.”
https://www.space.com/artemis-1-launch-loftid-heat-shield-success-mars-missions
So two way to possibly land heavy payload on Mars surface- I like two more than only one way.
Anyways, Dec is coming, any prediction about global temperature?
Sideway? Up or down?
down
It appears the Tonga-Hunga effect is fading. We’re due for a significant drop in UAH, maybe into the teens, for November.
After more coffee, I see that needs clarification. “Teens” refers to “decimal teens”, as in UAH Global for Nov. may even be below +0.19C.
I will revise that loose prediction as we get closer to the end of November.
Yeah, it seems to me, it will below +.20C
And I want snow for Xmas.
bob d …”It has already been shown that both the ball on a string and the Moon are doing both [revolving and rotating on an axis].
***
I don’t recall seeing that proved.
A ball on a string is performing curvilinear translation. All points on the ball are moving along instantaneous parallel tangential paths and the angular velocity of each point is the same.
Note the difference between angular velocity and tangential velocity. Each point in the ball along a radial line has a different tangential velocity but every part must orbit the axis at the other end of the string in the same time. Therefore the angular velocity of each point is the same as the angular velocity of the entire string in radians per second.
That fulfills the requirement of curvilinear translation.
Same for the Moon, as you claim.
Did you miss that class at UBC?
C’mon, Gordo.
Please heed Pup:
[PUP] Spiral railroads have NOTHING to do with orbital motion.
bob and Little Willy continue their trolling tag team.
Yeah it’s a competition.
We are trying to out troll the trolls DR EMPTY and Clint R.
Ah, good, you agree that you’re trolls.
I’m not a troll, and nor is Clint R, but I’m glad you’ve agreed that you and Little Willy are trolls.
Well then it follows that if you are not a troll, then I am not a troll.
If you are not a troll, how about ceasing this endless discussion about whether or not the Moon is rotating on a site devoted to the measurement of the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.
No, bob, that doesn’t follow.
If others are already talking about the moon, I will probably join in. If you want the moon discussions to cease, the main person you need to get onto is Bindidon.
No DREMPTY,
It’s you and Clint R who started it, trying to prove alarmists are wrong about x so they are wrong about y.
If you and Clint R drop it, it will go away.
Try it you might like it.
But you are a troll and will keep discussing it, even when every fact is against you.
I didn’t start it, but I’ll be happy to stop talking about the moon when you have agreed that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis; and when Ball4 agrees that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. If you both publicly make those concessions, and never take it back, I’ll stop talking about the moon for good. If you go back on it, at any point, I reserve the right to start talking about the moon again.
Slaying trolls is not exactly trolling tho, Bob.
These are not symmetrical roles!
You’re not slaying trolls, though, Little Willy. You’re the troll. The worst we’ve had on this site since Fatvid App.ell.
Graham is a Sky Dragon crank. He is also a Moon Dragon crank. For more than 74 months he has been trolling this site. Under this or that other sock. An earlier one served to misrepresent Eli.
Pup has had to change his sock, for Roy banned him. Many times. Something Graham does not dispute. In fact he still defends Pup.
One day he will grow out of it.
Little Willy has no understanding of what sock puppetry even is, apparently.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
"I never started".
Otters Make Graham Troll.
Like I said, “I never started”.
For his 75th month, Graham once again is on the lookout.
Just in case anyone mentions any Dragon crap. Once someone puts the foot on the door (Gordo, Pup) on in the mouth (Binny), he smiles to himself.
His month of trolling begins.
Little Willy is once again is on the lookout.
As soon as he sees DREMT or Clint R or Swenson or Gordon has posted something, somewhere, he smiles to himself.
His month of trolling begins.
I can not speak for others, but if you can provide sources for your arguments, I will consider your requirements.
“you have agreed that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis; and when Ball4 agrees that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.”
We already have the astronaut video showing that the ball on a string is rotating on its axis, do you have a reputable source that says it isn’t?
Reference frames always matter, and using the correct reference frame indicates the Moon is rotating on its axis.
You are wrong, but if you still want to discuss your wrongness, I’ll be happy to correct you.
But we could move on to more relevant topics, like how fossil fuels are no longer cheap and reliable.
Coal fired power plants on the Mississippi river are useless if the Mississippi river dries up and you can’t get the coal barges to the power plants.
Sorry bob, since you can’t accept what many of your fellow "Spinners" already accept – that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, then I am forced to continue to discuss the moon issue indefinitely.
"Reference frames always matter…"
…I’m not saying they don’t, I’m saying they do not resolve the moon issue…and I’ve explained exactly why a dozen times already.
Heard it on Odd Lots, Bob.
They are dredging the river during the night to make the boats pass the shallowest legs.
DR EMPTY,
So you refuse to provide a source that shows the ball on a string is not rotating on its axis.
So the judge rules against you for failing to provide a witness, case dismissed. The judge rules the ball on a string is rotating on its axis.
“Ive explained exactly why a dozen times already.”
Not exactly, as I recall, all you explained was your inability to understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames, which is why you believe that reference frames do not resolve the Moon rotation issue, when they clearly do, when applied correctly, which you fail to do.
I’ve provided all the references and evidence you could possibly need to understand that the ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating on its own internal axis, many, many times before, bob. For you to pretend otherwise is pretty disgraceful, really.
"…all you explained was your inability to understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames"
Absolutely wrong, bob. Once again, pretty disgraceful.
“To avoid having to deal with fictitious forces, clever people choose to measure rotations relative to non-rotating axes.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-742271
Who’s the clever one – Bob or Graham?
My money’s on Bob!
Little Willy has of course already agreed that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.
I’m happy that I’ve explained why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue, and that I’m correct on that. So, there’s really nothing left to discuss here.
To preserve face, Graham plays semantical games by redefining how concepts are used in astronomy. He also plays silly you-and-him fight games without any inkling as to what Bob keeps telling him. He prefers to quiz Pup about tidal force instead of studying the subject trolling about on this website for his 75th month.
Meanwhile, here is the full rotation of the Moon as seen by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVriF4-z3cE
"To preserve face, Graham plays semantical games by redefining how concepts are used in astronomy."
No, he doesn’t. "Spinners" really do think "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the right". Even Wikipedia says so (look at the article on tidal locking).
"He also plays silly you-and-him fight games without any inkling as to what Bob keeps telling him."
You’re a clown. bob does not accept that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own internal axis. There’s no "deep and meaningful" subtext to what he’s saying. He’s just wrong.
"He prefers to quiz Pup about tidal force instead of studying the subject trolling about on this website for his 75th month."
When did I quiz Clint R about tidal force!?
"Meanwhile, here is the full rotation of the Moon as seen by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter"
Little Willy never learns.
> No, he doesn’t.
Here is how Graham redefines nutation:
He simple erased “rotational axis” after “body.”
Here is how Graham redefines what it is to orbit:
In this case he adds “the same face.”
And here is where he redefines tidal locking:
An absolute disgrace of a troll.
I don’t expect you to understand the point I was making re "nutation", so I’ll leave that one. It will always be over your head.
You may have a shot at understanding what I meant re "orbital motion" however. As I said, "Spinners" really do think "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the right". Even Wikipedia says so (look at the article on tidal locking). I’m not "redefining orbital motion", I’m just pointing out what your position dictates on the subject.
What I meant re "tidal locking", you’re probably not going to get, either. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible: a "tidally-locked body" just moves like the "moon on the left". The tidal locking mechanism acts to make it end up moving that way. Since the "moon on the left" can be described in one of two ways, depending on whether you look at from a "Spinner" point of view or a "Non-Spinner" point of view, I was just noting that "the moon is tidally-locked, which to a “Non-Spinner” just means “not rotating on its own axis”".
Graham gets caught lying about not redefining words, so of course Graham returns to his pet GIF, which he still fails to understand.
The legend ought to be simple to understand:
That does not imply that the Moon would only show its near and far sides to Earth if it did not spin. Any other ratio than a 1:1 spin-orbit lock would do.
An utter disgrace of a troll.
Yes, that quote proves my point, Little Willy. Thank you.
According to Wikipedia (which is, of course, bound to represent the "Spinner" viewpoint on the subject of the moon):
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
In other words:
"Spinners" think "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the right", motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some distant star.
And so my basic point went above Graham’s head.
“If the Moon were not rotating at all” does not say anything about what happens if the Moon were rotating in another ratio as the 1:1 the Earth currently has with the Moon. In other words, the Moon on the right describes an infinity of configuration.
What a pathetic troll.
No, Little Willy, the “moon on the right” has only two possible configurations.
It could be “orbital motion” with no “rotating on its own axis”. That is how the “Spinners” would see it. “Orbital motion” alone, in other words.
Or it could be “orbital motion” as well as “rotating on its own axis”, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the “orbital motion”. That is how the “Non-Spinners” would see it.
I understood what you were saying at the end of your 5:14 PM comment, it just had nothing to do with the fact that the Wiki quote proves my point. Thank you for quoting it. Your assistance in making my points for me is always welcomed.
What a dishonorable troll.
A 1:1 spin-orbit lock makes the Moon spin at the same rate it orbits the Earth. What that happens, the same “side” (abstracting away librations) is showed to Earth observers.
Any other ratio would make the Earth observers see all of the Moon. So no, the Moon on the right does not equate to an orbit “alone,” whatever Dragon Cranks might mean by that.
Graham’s point is refuted by the logic offered in the legend of his pet GIF.
Little Willy, the “Spinners” see the “moon on the right” as being “orbital motion” with no “rotating on its own axis”. In other words, “orbital motion” alone.
There are an infinite number of rates of “rotating on its own axis” in which Earth observers would see all of the moon, yes.
I’m not sure how to help you out of your current confusion. It’s quite funny for me though, if it’s any consolation.
Lying Graham is lying again.
The GIF was meant to illustrate what 1:1 spin-orbit lock implies.
The logical complement of a 1:1 spin-orbit lock is not only the case where the Moon would not spin, but any case where the Moon would spin at any other ratio than 1:1.
And let’s repeat the inconvenient fact that Moon Dragon cranks keep ignoring – all celestial bodies we know spin.
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
The right figure (“moon on the right”) shows the situation where the “Spinners” see the “Moon…not rotating at all”. Not rotating at all, but still “moving around Earth in orbit”.
So the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
Lying Graham still fails to get his all-time favorite GIF. Let’s illustrate his logical blunder:
(COW) If cow had wings, we would carry bigger umbrellas.
COW does not say what we’d do if cows had gliders or if pigs had wings. That we started to carry bigger umbrellas would not imply that cow has wings. Heck, COW does not forbid us to carry bigger umbrellas if cows did not have wings!
Graham is a lamentably confused troll.
So the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
(I can’t believe it’s been probably nearly two years and Little Willy still doesn’t even understand this)
Compare and contrast.
The Moon on the right:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_synchrone#/media/Fichier:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Mercury:
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/ltsn/ljm/JAVA/MERCURY/MercAnim.gif
Lying Graham is an atrociously lying of a troll.
…so the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
(I can’t believe it’s been probably nearly two years and Little Willy still doesn’t even understand this)
Gaslighting Graham has been shown that Mercury has the same behaviour as the Moon on the right. Mercury has a 3:2 spin-orbit lock. Any other ratio than 1:1 would do.
Yet Gaslighting Graham continues to gaslight about something any reader can see.
Lol, is Little Willy blind? Mercury does not move anything like the "moon on the right"! The "moon on the right" keeps one face always oriented towards a fixed, distant point. You could describe it as purely translating. Mercury’s orientation clearly changes throughout the orbit!
He’s really lost the plot this time…
Gaslighting Graham has no idea what behaviour means.
The relevant description here is **shows all of its faces to observers**.
Any other ratio than 1:1 satisfies that descriptor. Gaslighting Graham tries to imply that only a non-spinning object would satisfy it. Hence why he keeps confusing his personal definition of an orbit.
Filthy liar of a troll.
OMG, are you confused. Wow.
Once again:
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
The right figure (“moon on the right”) shows the situation where the “Spinners” see the “Moon…not rotating at all”. Not rotating at all, but still “moving around Earth in orbit”.
So the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
"The relevant description here is **shows all of its faces to observers**.
Any other ratio than 1:1 satisfies that descriptor. Gaslighting Graham tries to imply that only a non-spinning object would satisfy it."
As for this…as far as the "Spinners" are concerned, there are an infinite number of ratios besides 1:1 where all of its faces would be shown to Earth-bound observers, yes. Despite what you say, I am not suggesting otherwise.
According to "Spinners", only motion exactly like the "moon on the right" is "orbital motion" with no "rotating on its own axis"…or "orbital motion" alone.
Gaslighting Graham still goes for gaslighting.
If Graham was correct about to define an orbit as showing the same face, he would not have needed to emphasize his alone so many times. And he would not have to change his definition for the orbit of Mercury. He might even be able to recognize that **any** other spin-orbit lock ratio than 1:1 would make the Moon reveal all of its sides to external observers.
A celestial body orbits. All those known to mankind spin. Only the Moon would not if we are to believe Moon Dragon cranks.
Grahams gaslighting task is as gigantic as it is gross.
You are rapidly losing the plot.
"And he would not have to change his definition for the orbit of Mercury."
I don’t. Lol.
"He might even be able to recognize that **any** other spin-orbit lock ratio than 1:1 would make the Moon reveal all of its sides to external observers."
I do recognize that the "Spinners" think this, as I just said.
Once again:
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
The right figure (“moon on the right”) shows the situation where the “Spinners” see the “Moon…not rotating at all”. Not rotating at all, but still “moving around Earth in orbit”.
So the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
Gaslighting Graham forgets how it started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1396864
That is not the correct definition of orbital motion. It would not apply to Mercury. In fact it would not apply to any celestial body known to mankind.
Graham lies and lies and lies and lies.
Ah, Little Willy is changing the subject. This is usually an indication that he has worked out that I’m correct on the main point of contention (in this case, whether or not "Spinners" see "orbital motion" only as motion like the "moon on the right"), and instead of apologizing and acknowledging that he was wrong, he tries to just shift the discussion onto something else.
This:
"“Orbital motion” is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout"
Is just the same thing as saying that the "Non-Spinners" see "orbital motion" only as motion like the "moon on the left". It works for every celestial body. Mercury exhibits "orbital motion" like the "moon on the left" as well as "rotating on its own axis" 0.5 times per orbit. The moon exhibits "orbital motion" like the "moon on the left" with no "rotating on its own axis". The Earth exhibits "orbital motion" like the "moon on the left" as well as "rotating on its own axis" 365.25 times per orbit.
Gaslighting Graham lies again, this time feigning to get that the point of contention is and has always been about his erroneous definition of an orbital motion. Instead of owning that he fabricated that definition, he lied about his fabrication.
His fabrication might very well be at the root of his misunderstanding of the legend from his pet GIF. That would explain why he keeps misrepresenting the mainstream view, which is that the only way for the Moon not to show all its side is to be at 1:1 spin-orbit lock.
Once that fact admitted, then Gaslighting Graham can proceed to the next step – to finally accept that the GIF is indeterminate. It’s physics that helps us solve the question if the Moon spins, not geometry. Which is what we said in our first comment on that subject some months ago.
Alas, Graham can’t learn. He’s just braindead.
A lying, braindead troll.
"Gaslighting Graham lies again, this time feigning to get that the point of contention is and has always been about his erroneous definition of an orbital motion. Instead of owning that he fabricated that definition, he lied about his fabrication."
I fabricated nothing, as I’ve already shown the definition several times that mentions "rotation about an external axis" (which is motion like the "moon on the left").
"His fabrication might very well be at the root of his misunderstanding of the legend from his pet GIF. That would explain why he keeps misrepresenting the mainstream view, which is that the only way for the Moon not to show all its side is to be at 1:1 spin-orbit lock."
I have no misunderstanding of the legend from that GIF. It is written from the "Spinner" point of view, and states the following:
"If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure."
The right figure (“moon on the right”) shows the situation where the “Spinners” see the “Moon…not rotating at all”. Not rotating at all, but still “moving around Earth in orbit”.
So the “moon on the right” is the “Spinners” idea of “orbital motion” without any “rotating on its own axis”. “Orbital motion” only.
Any other reading comprehension issues I can help you with today?
Here is Gaslighting Graham again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1396864
That is false.
Lying liar pants on fire.
This:
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. 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."
says it’s not false. It’s not the only definition you can find which mentions rotation about an external axis, either.
And so Graham gaslights a little more. At this point, a little bit of more gaslighting can’t hurt, can it?
The usual definitions of an orbit says nothing about spin. Graham has no business of adding that “the orbiting object keeps the same face.”
In a sane world, that would be the end of it.
"The usual definitions of an orbit says nothing about spin. Graham has no business of adding that “the orbiting object keeps the same face [oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout].”"
…but that’s what "rotation about an external axis" adds to the definition…and no, it’s nothing to do with "spin". "Rotating on its own axis" has to be kept separate from the "orbital motion".
Little Willy, you just don’t understand. This frustrates you. You get frustrated, and then you start lashing out, calling me names, continuously falsely accusing me of lying and gaslighting. It’s all just getting a bit silly now.
For about the hundreth time:
An orbit does not imply anything regarding the spin of the orbiting object.
An orbit implies more than a rotation unless it’s a circle, which it seldom is.
Gaslighting Graham will spychologize instead of owning his anything.
“An orbit does not imply anything regarding the spin of the orbiting object.”
You have to keep “orbital motion” and “rotating on its own axis” separate, as I just said.
“An orbit implies more than a rotation unless it’s a circle, which it seldom is.”
The Earth’s orbit around the Sun isn’t a circle, and yet it was used as an example of rotation about an external axis in the definition of “orbit” I referred to.
Any more false accusations of gaslighting, and you will be on “automatic PST” for the rest of the thread.
Gaslighting Graham strikes out again:
It’s easy to see an orbit as involving a rotation about an external axis… easier than to reduce that motion to a pure rotation.
And no – “the orbiting object keeps the same face” does not add anything regarding an orbit defined as involving an external rotation… except that it excludes almost
EVERY.
CELESTIAL.
BODY.
KNOWN.
TO.
MANKIND.
All celestial bodies spin, including those who are in a 1:1 spin-orbit lock.
In other words:
🤦
“It’s easy to see an orbit as involving a rotation about an external axis…”
Yes, we all know about how you are secretly a “Non-Spinner”. I mentioned that already:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1399091
“And no – “the orbiting object keeps the same face” does not add anything regarding an orbit defined as involving an external rotation… except that it excludes almost…”
Yes, we all know that you still don’t understand, and never will:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1400264
“Gaslighting Graham strikes out again”
I warned you. OK then, you are on “automatic PST” for the rest of the thread.
[W] All celestial bodies known to mankind spin.
[GG] You are a secret non spinner.
Gaslighting Graham strikes again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham and Gordo are two Moon Dragon cranks.
They hold opposite views on geometry, but they are Moon Dragon cranks all the same.
Well, kind of opposite views, yes. We both agree that "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the left", but Gordon describes that motion as "curvilinear translation" and I describe it as "rotation about an external axis". We’ve discussed our differences before, unlike the "Spinners", who never do.
Both Graham and Gordo are wrong, of course.
An orbit alone says NOTHING about spin.
Spin and orbit are not geometrical concepts anyway.
"An orbit alone says NOTHING about spin"
Agreed. There are two separate motions:
1) "Orbital motion".
2) "Rotating on its own axis".
You have to keep them separated.
[HOW IT STARTED] Orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face.
[HOW IT IS GOING] You got to keep orbit and spin separated,
Every. Single. Time.
No contradiction, Little Willy. You’ll never get it as long as you live, so this is just for those with a functioning brain:
There are two groups, the "Spinners" and the "Non-Spinners". There are two separate motions:
1) "Orbital motion".
2) "Rotating on its own axis".
The most important thing is to keep the two motions separate.
"Spinners" think "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards some distant star, throughout the orbit. Motion like the "moon on the right", in other words.
"Non-Spinners" think "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. Motion like the "moon on the left", in other words.
"Rotating on its own axis" then has to be kept separate from "orbital motion", in each case ("Spinners" or "Non-Spinners").
So, for the "Spinners", motion like the MOTL is "orbital motion" as well as "rotating on its own axis", once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit. For the "Spinners", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion" as well as "rotating on its own axis" 366.25 times per orbit.
For the "Non-Spinners", motion like the MOTR is "orbital motion" as well as "rotating on its own axis", once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit. For the "Non-Spinners", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion" as well as "rotating on its own axis" 365.25 times per orbit.
Notice how there is one less "rotating on its own axis" per orbit for the Earth for the "Non-Spinners" than the "Spinners". The really bright should understand why.
Graham goes for misrepresentation once more.
Orbit alone does NOT determine how the object spins. We got to keep orbit and spin separated. If spin and orbit were dependent, there would be no need to speak of spin-orbit lock. Mercury is in a 3:2 spin-orbit lock. The Moon is in a 1:1 spin-orbit lock. All celestial bodies known to mankind spins.
Graham could spend his days learning about reality, e.g. :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/?sh=288ff1827ec2
Instead he trolls this website on futile topics and silly semantic games.
Almost 75 months like that. He should stop. He cannot.
As I said, Little Willy, nobody expects you to understand. You simply aren’t intelligent, or open-minded enough.
And so Graham soldiers on, incapable of distinguishing independence from negation.
Misrepresenting the established viewpoint along the way.
…I said, Little Willy, nobody expects you to understand. You simply aren’t intelligent, or open-minded enough.
Graham soldiers on, now returning to his fixed point, as if he could speak for everyone here.
Gordo was the first to peddle Moon Dragon crap in this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1392065
Graham simply exploited his peddling.
…said, Little Willy, nobody expects you to understand. You simply aren’t intelligent, or open-minded enough.
Why don’t all you ridiculous wanna-be-scientists go start your own website about the moon and all that orbits around it.
You can have your stupid and pointless ‘how many angels dance on the head of a pin’ sort of arguments there instead of here.
Perhaps you should take it up with the management, Kennui.
I hope you donated to Roy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
From the secret dark web source – welcome to Grand Solar Minimum
You Are Here
https://i.postimg.cc/y8bGPLbG/184-n.jpg
Nov.29 Falcon 9 ispace Mission 1
Launch time: 0842 GMT (3:42 a.m. EST)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the first commercial lunar lander for ispace, a Japan-based company that competed for the Google Lunar XPRIZE and is now developing a series of robotic lunar landers. The first lunar lander, called ispace Mission 1, was assembled in partnership with ArianeGroup and carries a package of international and commercial payloads, including two small lunar rovers from the United Arab Emirates and Japan. The mission will target a landing in the Lacus Somniorum region of the moon. NASAs Lunar Flashlight CubeSat will be a rideshare payload on this launch. The Falcon 9s first stage booster will return to Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Delayed from mid-November and Nov. 22.
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Other than orbiting NASAs Lunar Flashlight CubeSat, these small landers, not going Lunar polar region and as it say it was related
to google Lunar XPRIZE which was prize for a very cheap lunar lander.
The other lunar landers have been push into next year:
1st Quarter Vulcan Centaur Peregrine
2023:
March Falcon 9 IM-1
A question for my fellow "Non-Spinners" (only, not interested in hearing from any "Spinners")…
…I’ve been thinking about Uranus (no pun intended). Uranus has an axial tilt of 97.77 degrees, so it appears to be rotating "on its side". It also has a "pole star", meaning that its rotational axis remains oriented towards the same fixed star whilst it orbits.
As we know, "Spinners" believe "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit (like the "moon on the right"). "Non-Spinners" think "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout (like the "moon on the left").
Could the "Spinners" not claim that the fact Uranus has a "pole star" is evidence that "orbital motion" alone is like the "moon on the right"?
Good question, DREMT. It shows you are thinking, even to the point of challenging your own beliefs. THAT is science. Such thinking is the opposite of “braindead”.
A rotational pole is produced by rotation. The rotation also produces rotational inertia, which keeps the rotational axis aimed at the same point in space, or distant star. The inertia is maintained as the planet orbits. You can observe this with a toy gyroscope. That is why Earth has a “North Star”. It’s also another reason we know Moon is NOT rotating. Moon’s so-called axis changes direction with Moon’s orbit.
OK, that deals with my point about Uranus (no pun intended)…but it raises another point…it is claimed that the moon also has "pole stars" – the north pole star being Omicron Draconis, and its south pole star Delta Doradus. Is this wrong, then?
In a word, “yes”. It appears they’ve just picked out two stars in the general directions. Moon’s imaginary rotational axis would have a variance of about 13 degrees! They’ve got plenty of stars to choose from….
Can’t find anything online yet about how they’ve chosen these particular stars.
Clint R,
“Moons imaginary rotational axis would have a variance of about 13 degrees!”
Uhm, no!
Guess again!
Just another braindead comment from bob, as usual….
DR EMPTY,
“They” plotted the axis and determined where it points to using maths.
OK, bob, if you say so.
DR EMPTY,
“Cant find anything online yet about how theyve chosen these particular stars.”
I am concerned that you are an incompetent researcher.
…and yet bob hasn’t presented any links…
DREMPTY,
Why should I?
That would be like showing a globe to a flat-earther.
bob has nothing.
DREMPTY,
I already explained it to you, no need for links, it is an easy enough concept to understand.
But it is like representing the Earth as a globe to a flat-earther.
I am sure you understand the analogy.
Unfortunately you don’t think you are a flat-earther.
” the north pole star being Omicron Draconis, and its south pole star Delta Doradus. Is this wrong, then?”
No it’s correct and why do you need any more links?
As for Uranus
Eta Ophiuchi is the north pole star of Uranus, and 15 Orionis is its south pole star.
bob really has nothing.
DR EMPTY,
Here let me help you.
Bob really really has nothing.
But you are a lying sack of shit.
But I do have wikepedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star#:~:text=The%20lunar%20south%20pole%20star,north%20celestial%20pole%20of%20Mars.
and Sir Patrick Moore, obviously one of your betters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore
As I said, bob:
“it is claimed that the moon also has "pole stars" – the north pole star being Omicron Draconis, and its south pole star Delta Doradus.”
What I asked was how they’ve chosen these particular stars…
…and you still have nothing.
DR EMPTY,
Yeah, Right, I have nothing.
I have provided a proof that the Moon is rotating on its axis, which you have failed to debunk.
I have every PhD Astronomer in the world on my side.
I have the late Sir Patrick Moore on my side.
Yet again, you ask for something that has already been answered.
“What I asked was how theyve chosen these particular stars”
Here it is again.
“Pole stars of other planets are defined analogously: they are stars (brighter than 6th magnitude, i.e., visible to the naked eye under ideal conditions) that most closely coincide with the projection of the planet’s axis of rotation onto the celestial sphere.”
Apply it to the Moon, or any other Moon, they are all rotating on their axes.
Or check Wiki
Synodic rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
All you have an incorrect definition.
“Pole stars of other planets are defined analogously: they are stars (brighter than 6th magnitude, i.e., visible to the naked eye under ideal conditions) that most closely coincide with the projection of the planet’s axis of rotation onto the celestial sphere.”
OK, so how is it done? How is the moon’s so-called “axis of rotation” projected onto the celestial sphere? If you don’t know, it’s OK to say so.
DR EMPTY,
You use a reference frame, or a coordinate system, and you plot the equation for the line that coincides with the axis of rotation of the Moon, and determine where that line intersects with a sphere representing the directions the stars are observed.
Like I said before, using maths.
Rhetorical question.
Are you stupid?
Because you don’t seem to understand I already answered your question twice.
See, reference frames do resolve the issue, not in your favor.
DR EMPTY,
Would you like a pocket star map?
Yes, bob, but how do you determine that the moon’s so-called "axis of rotation" always points in the same direction throughout the orbit?
DR EMPTY,
“Yes, bob, but how do you determine that the moons so-called “axis of rotation” always points in the same direction throughout the orbit?”
By plotting the axis at different times, through out the month.
Through careful observations, it’s what Astronomers do.
…and how exactly do you observe an axis, which is only an imaginary line? You are just making it all up as you go along, bob.
DR EMPTY,
now you are just being deliberately obtuse.
“and how exactly do you observe an axis, which is only an imaginary line?”
By observing the Moon, you illiterate lying sack of shit.
It’s all just hand-waving, bob. No links, no real explanations, just you declaring it’s somehow obvious. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.
DR EMPTY,
Do you also have a problem with Earth’s axis being an imaginary line, thus being impossible to plot?
“No links, no real explanations, just you declaring its somehow obvious.”
Sorry, I provided links, now you are lying about that.
Axis definition for you
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axis
It’s a line, which has only one dimension, so of course its not real.
Did you ever take any science courses?
Yes, bob, as I said, an axis is only an imaginary line.
"Do you also have a problem with Earth’s axis being an imaginary line, thus being impossible to plot?"
We’re on the Earth, bob. So observing that Polaris is our "North Pole star" is a doddle. It’s not quite the same thing with deducing what’s the "pole star" for the moon. Especially since the moon is not rotating on its own axis, and thus does not even have an axis in the first place.
"Sorry, I provided links, now you are lying about that."
You jump to accusations of lying almost instantly…they’re never correct. In this case, I was referring to the fact that you had not provided any links since your 8:42 PM comment from two days ago. I meant, "you have not provided any links to back up any of the explanations you have given since then". Which aren’t really explanations in any case, and are just empty hand-waving.
DR EMPTY,
Here’s a video about your speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-_Uzzqgkk&t=6s
Very funny, bob.
DR EMPTY,
Well I could try and find out what Oscar, Big Bird, and the Cookie Monster have to say about it.
OK, bob.
DR EMPTY,
Since I don’t think I am either a spinner nor a non-spinner…
“As we know, “Spinners” believe “orbital motion” alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit (like the “moon on the right”).”
Orbital motion has nothing to do with orientation.
More straw, you need to feed your horses.
…but bob, I’ve already asked you the question, "how does an object remain oriented which is orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis?"
…and you (eventually, grudgingly) replied that it would remain oriented like the "moon on the right".
Thus, whether you like it or not, you do believe "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit (like the "moon on the right").
DR EMPTY,
Good God, man, not only no, but fuck no.
Orbital motion alone is orbital motion alone, and has nothing to do with orientation.
Axial rotation is axial rotation alone, and has nothing to do with orbital motion, there are millions of things that are rotating but not orbiting.
Sure, there are millions of things that are rotating but not orbiting…
…now, back to my point:
I’ve already asked you the question, "how does an object remain oriented which is orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis?"
…and you (eventually, grudgingly) replied that it would remain oriented like the "moon on the right".
Thus, whether you like it or not, you do believe "orbital motion" alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit (like the "moon on the right").
[GRAHAM] “Spinners” believe “orbital motion” alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit.
[BOB] Orbital motion has nothing to do with orientation.
[ME] Orbital motion is independent from the orientation of the orbiting object.
[TIM] The two motions are independent.
Graham seems to have a hard time to keep up!
Yet if I asked any of you "Spinners" how an object would remain oriented which is orbiting whilst not rotating on its own axis, you would reply that it would remain oriented like the "moon on the right".
bob has already given me that answer, in the past.
Tim has said enough in the past to indicate he would say the same thing, if asked.
Any other "Spinner" I have ever asked has indicated, "moon on the right".
It’s really as simple as that. There is no other answer you could give that would make any sense, given what you believe.
Even better:
[GRAHAM] “Spinners” believe “orbital motion” alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Any definition mentioning “rotation about an external axis” does that job nicely [to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face.].
Spinners and non-Spinners, united at long last!
Little Willy is hopelessly confused again.
Your second out-of-context paraphrase should be:
Any definition mentioning “rotation about an external axis” does that job nicely [to find a source where "orbital motion" alone is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit].
Note that keeping the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit is motion like the "moon on the left".
Again:
"Non-Spinners" – "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the left".
"Spinners" – "orbital motion" alone is motion like the "moon on the right".
Look who’s confused again:
[W] And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face.
[G] Any definition mentioning “rotation about an external axis” does
that job nicely.
We should also add to the earlier list:
[NATE] There has been NO DEFINITION of “orbital motion” or “orbit” presented here by anyone that agrees with this.
“This” being “Orbital motion is motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.”
You’re pretty thick, very relentless, and very, very boring, Little Willy.
Any definition mentioning "rotation about an external axis" does do the job nicely, for the "Non-Spinners". Here’s one:
"If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. 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."
Graham is a completely incompetent troll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation#Astronomy
An orbital revolution is when a celestial body moves around another.
That’s it.
No “the orbiting object keeps the same face” shenanigans. Which is pretty normal since Stars, planets and similar bodies all spin around on their axes, as Graham’s own source state.
The only interesting aspect of that trolling is that reading that page reveals why Graham took an interest in Uranus out of a sudden:
Op. cit.
No, that’s not why I took an interest in Uranus (no pun intended).
Little Willy, none of you guys can change the fact that it says this:
“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.”
A rotation around an external axis, with no rotation around an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”…where the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout. A rotation around an external axis, with 365.25 rotations about an internal axis per orbit, would be motion like the Earth.
I expect I’ll be wasting my breath again.
[GRAHAM READS] A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting
[GRAHAM SAYS] A rotation around an external axis, with no rotation around an internal axis.
The bolded part has been added by our ignominious troll.
Au contraire, Little Willy. I read “a rotation around a completely external axis” and I visualize motion like the “moon on the left”, because that is “rotation around an external axis”. I simply added the “with no rotation around an internal axis” for clarity. Of course, the Earth is not just rotating around an external axis. It is also rotating around its own internal axis, 365.25 times per orbit.
Whereas a “Spinner” would say it was translating in an ellipse, whilst also rotating around its own internal axis, 366.25 times per orbit.
Of course, “Spinners” cannot find a definition specifying “orbital motion” as being a translation in a circle or an ellipse.
Graham is a hopelessly lying troll.
He has been challenged to find a source where “orbital motion” is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
When he adds “with no rotation around an internal axis,” he is not adding clarity. He is distorting the usual definition to meet that request. Yet the ordinary definition of orbiting has nothing to do with the object’s spin. Hence why me, Tim, Bob, and Nate keep telling him that spin and orbit are independent motions.
Oh dear, more false accusations of lying.
Little Willy, this exists:
“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.”
It supports the “Non-Spinners”.
The “Spinners” need a definition that supports them. Their view is that “orbital motion” only is motion like the “moon on the right”, where the orbiting body keeps the same face always oriented towards some distant star. You could describe that as “translation in a circle or ellipse”. So their definition needs to mention translation, at least.
Definitions that just refer to “orbital motion” as a path, or trajectory, simply don’t settle the issue either way.
Lying Graham is lying again.
Here he was:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1396864
The emphasized part is false, interestingly because of the last part.
What an awful troll!
More false accusations of lying, followed by a vague comment where Little Willy makes no actual point, just tries to insinuate something negative. It might be time to put Little Willy on “ignore/automatic PST” again.
Lying Graham can’t even recognize the comment that started it all.
An “Orbital motion” is not motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.
If he had any honor, he’d admit that he dropped the ball there.
But no, he has to troll.
The most despicable troll there is.
Rotation about an external axis is motion in which the rotating object keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout…
…and I have shown an example definition where “revolution” or “orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis.
It is definitely time to put you on “ignore/automatic PST”.
The concept under dispute was orbital motion, not rotation about an external axis. Not that it changes anything. External rotation is independent from internal rotation.
And so Graham keeps lying through his teeth.
What a despicable troll!
“The concept under dispute was orbital motion, not rotation about an external axis…”
…and I have shown an example definition where “revolution” or “orbit” is defined as a rotation about an external axis. Gosh you are slow, aren’t you?
“External rotation is independent from internal rotation.”
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the left”. Rotation about an external axis, with 365.25 internal rotations per external rotation, is motion like the Earth.
“And so Graham keeps lying through his teeth.
What a despicable troll!”
…and you are now officially on “ignore/automatic PST” for the rest of the thread.
Gaslighting Graham filled a page with lies about the definition of orbital motion.
He then put that definition into the mind of his opponents.
A filthy manipulative liar.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Waste your breath all you want, but which of these two statements are correct?
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.
A rotation around an external axis, with no rotation around an internal axis, is motion like the moon on the leftwhere the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout.
One you have sourced and one is your own.
Guess which one is wrong!
DREMPTY,
You are gaslighting me again.
“Thus, whether you like it or not, you do believe “orbital motion” alone is motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards some fixed star throughout the orbit (like the “moon on the right”).
Not true,
Orbital motion alone, can be like the Earth around the Sun, the Moon around the Earth, or the fictitious Moon on the right.
Orientation has nothing to do with orbital motion.
Re your 5:41 PM comment, both statements are correct – and I have provided countless references and other evidence in the past to support the second statement. I have no interest in debating it with you any more – it is proven correct, and that’s the end of it.
Re your 5:47 PM comment, once again: I asked you in the past how an object that was orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis, would remain oriented, and you eventually said it would move like the “moon on the right”. Thus, according to you, “orbital motion” alone is like the “moon on the right”. “Orbital motion” alone is just another way of expressing “orbit without spin” or “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
DR EMPTY,
“Thus, according to you, orbital motion alone is like the moon on the right.
Nope, this is not my position, I have told you this several times, stop gaslighting me.
Orbital motion has nothing to do with axial rotation about an internal axis.
I have been saying this all along.
You have some reading comprehension problems.
So stop telling me what my position is, I’ll tell you what my position is.
Thank you very much.
…once again: I asked you in the past how an object that was orbiting, whilst not rotating on its own axis, would remain oriented, and you eventually said it would move like the “moon on the right”. Thus, according to you, “orbital motion” alone is like the “moon on the right”. “Orbital motion” alone is just another way of expressing “orbit without spin” or “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
DREMPTY,
I never said orbital motion alone is like the Moon on the right,
You are a lying sack of shit.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-623192
This is the case with the Moon on the right, which is orbiting but not rotating
– bobdroege
DR EMPTY,
Read it again, you lying sack of shit.
The word “alone” does not appear in that post of mine.
You were supposed to be debunking my proof that the Moon rotates on its axis.
You failed miserably, you miserable failure.
As I said, bob:
“Orbital motion” alone is just another way of expressing “orbit without spin” or “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You said:
“This is the case with the Moon on the right, which is orbiting but not rotating”
So you think that the “moon on the right” shows “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Or “orbital motion” alone. Orbiting but not rotating.
I’ve never seen you this desperate, but thanks for the chuckles.
DR EMPTY,
Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it means what you think it means, English doesn’t work that way.
“Orbital motion alone is just another way of expressing orbit without spin or orbital motion without axial rotation.”
No it’s not, Orbital Motion alone, just means an object is orbiting, without reference to the status of the objects rotation.
You said:
“This is the case with the Moon on the right, which is orbiting but not rotating”
So you think that the “moon on the right” shows an object that is "orbiting but not rotating". That means "orbital motion without axial rotation".
I’ve never seen you this desperate, but thanks for the chuckles.
DR EMPTY,
I am not desperate, I don’t think you understand what that word means.
You are always avoiding the question and making personal attacks.
How about addressing the questions and laying off of the personal attacks.
At least I do the first, if you were honest I wouldn’t have to call you a liar, which is a truth, not a personal attack.
I’m not a liar, bob, I just proved that you said you thought the “moon on the right” was orbiting but not rotating, which settles this particular issue in my favour. Bit of a joke for you to be complaining about personal attacks! Thanks for the chuckles.
DR EMPTY,
Now you are lying about being a liar.
You set the tone with personal attacks way back when.
Sorry, but I treat others as they treat me, you treat me like shit, then the gloves are off.
I demonstrated I wasn’t lying by proving that you said the “moon on the right” was orbiting and not rotating. Try to keep up, bob.
DR EMPTY,
This is where you lied.
“Thus, according to you, orbital motion alone is like the moon on the right.
I have tried to correct you, that that was not my position, yet you insist.
Orbital motion alone is the Earth’s path around the Sun, or the Moon’s path around the Earth, etc.
That’s my position.
Your position is that the "moon on the right" is orbiting but not rotating…and "orbiting but not rotating" is precisely what I meant when I used the term "orbital motion" alone…what’s more, I think you knew that from the start.
Yes, you keep trying to stress that "orbital motion alone is the Earth’s path around the Sun, or the Moon’s path around the Earth, etc", yet that is utterly worthless. It supports the "Spinners" no more than it supports the "Non-Spinners". It’s just a dodge of the whole issue, basically.
I can’t seem to get you people to think clearly.
There are two separate motions.
1) "Orbital motion" alone (meaning "orbital motion without axial rotation").
2) "Rotating on its own axis".
The two motions have to be kept separate from each other. If you don’t have orientation specified in 1), you effectively have nothing. It’s just meaningless. How can you keep 2) separate from a motion which has no orientation specified!? Your logic just doesn’t work. Mine does.
DR EMPTY,
“1) “Orbital motion” alone (meaning “orbital motion without axial rotation”).
2) “Rotating on its own axis”.
The two motions have to be kept separate from each other”
Now let me explain the contradiction in the above statements.
Well 1) has the contradiction, if orbital motion alone is referring only to orbital motion, why add the proviso that in orbital motion alone, a separate variable is inserted, that being axial rotation.
Then you say you have to keep them separated.
Are we keeping axial rotation and orbital motion separated?
If they are two different things, how does alone, which means by itself, apply to two different things.
And yet this
” Its just a dodge of the whole issue, basically.”
No, it’s an attempt to keep the focus on the question at hand, which is whether or not the Moon rotates on its own internal axis.
Here is another cite for you to deny I ever provide cites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession
"…if orbital motion alone is referring only to orbital motion, why add the proviso that in orbital motion alone, a separate variable is inserted, that being axial rotation."
I’m not adding another variable, bob. It’s "orbital motion without axial rotation". The "without axial rotation" should go without saying, but apparently you people will find any way you can to confuse the issue, so I’m left with no choice but to add those words.
I’ve tried just referring to 1) as simply "orbital motion", or just adding the word "alone" to make it clear that I mean "orbital motion" alone (i.e. no axial rotation) but you refuse to co-operate in any way. You simply refuse to understand. You do absolutely everything in your power not to get the point.
So, if we did it your current way, you would leave "orbital motion" as being orientation-unspecified, then you would declare that "axial rotation" is defined as being measured relative to an inertial reference frame…which would only then effectively mean you were arguing "orbital motion without axial rotation" was like the "moon on the right", anyway…and that’s the wrong definition of "orbital motion without axial rotation"! That’s why the moon issue transcends reference frames, by the way.
You won’t understand, because you don’t have the capacity to.
DR EMPTY,
“You do absolutely everything in your power not to get the point.”
Nope, I get the point. Your point is wrong.
That’s all there is to it, the Moon rotates on its axis.
Have you found a cite that says it doesn’t, by a reputable PhD Astronomer?
“Im not adding another variable, bob. Its “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The “without axial rotation” should go without saying, but apparently you people will find any way you can to confuse the issue, so Im left with no choice but to add those words.”
That’s two variables, orbital motion and axial rotation.
“So, if we did it your current way, you would leave “orbital motion” as being orientation-unspecified,”
That’s correct, and then you can apply that to all orbiting bodies.
“then you would declare that “axial rotation” is defined as being measured relative to an inertial reference frame”
That’s one way axial rotation is defined.
“which would only then effectively mean you were arguing “orbital motion without axial rotation” was like the “moon on the right”, anywayand thats the wrong definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation”!
Let’s see if you can come up with a cite that defines orbital motion without axial rotation, you know a cite that supports your case?
” Thats why the moon issue transcends reference frames, by the way.”
Nothing transcends reference frames by the way.
As I said, bob, you won’t understand, because you don’t have the capacity to.
"Orbital motion without axial rotation" does not mean two variables, because it’s "without axial rotation", so that’s "axial rotation" at zero and no other amount. So, it doesn’t vary, so it’s not a "variable".
"That’s correct, and then you can apply that to all orbiting bodies."
You don’t seem to understand that the two different definitions of "orbital motion without axial rotation" ("moon on the left" or "moon on the right") can be applied to all orbiting bodies. For example, as I said before:
To a "Spinner", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion without axial rotation" like the "moon on the right", as well as "rotating on its own axis" 366.25 times per orbit.
To a "Non-Spinner", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion without axial rotation" like the "moon on the left", as well as "rotating on its own axis" 365.25 times per orbit.
DR EMPTY,
“You dont seem to understand that the two different definitions of “orbital motion without axial rotation” (“moon on the left” or “moon on the right”) can be applied to all orbiting bodies. For example, as I said before:”
No such definitions exist, I even googled it and this is what I got.
“The Moon rotates once on its axis every time it completes one orbit. As you can see, the Moon seems to rock back and forth on its axis.”
The way I understand it, is that you are making things up to fit your own fantasy of proving Alarmists wrong.
You are not doing very well.
Any observatories near you?
Maybe you could ask someone there to help you figure things out.
"Orbital motion without axial rotation" is either like the "moon on the left", or the "moon on the right". No other possibilities exist. That’s what makes the moon issue so simple. Those that don’t understand, will continue not to do so. Probably for the rest of their lives. Oh well.
DREMT,
Interesting discussion. I was satisfied on the whole moon rotation discussion when everyone agreed a bicycle tire was reading zero rotations on its tachometer when the bicycle was held upside down and was carried across the equator. Even though an observer from a distant star would swear it was rotating. However, this question of axis of the moon vs. the Earth brought up a question for you.
The Earth axis (assuming everyone believes the Earth is rotating) has to be in a specific location. It remains in the orbital path as the surface rotates around it. Move the axis and because of Earths rotation, the axis would move back and forth relative to the orbital path.
For the moon, the axis can be anywhere and except for libration would remain on an orbital path with only slight movement. So put the axis on the moon surface and a distant observer would still think the moon was rotating. To visualize, put an identical moon in same orbit next to our existing moon and from Earth they both show the same half, but from a distant observer they appear to be rotating around each other with an axis at their tangent.
For Earth, if you did that, the only way it could work if is the second Earth rotated counter to the first. Otherwise the friction of the 2 surfaces would eventually cause the earth to stop rotating.
So my question is, is this what you mean by the moon is revolving without axial rotation? Because there is no specific axis?
Thanks
Yes, the moon is "orbiting" only, and not "rotating on its own axis". So that means the moon technically doesn’t actually even have an axis of rotation passing through its body.
Appreciate that. Puts things in perspective.
DR EMPTY,
Time to seek professional help.
Everyone, except a few posters on this site, knows the Moon rotates on its axis.
Only if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”, bob…but there’s no evidence it’s defined that way. Whereas the mention of “rotation about an external axis” in some definitions you can find suggests that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”.
Bobdroege,
It is all about perspective. If a moon is rotating counterclockwise and another moon is placed in same orbit in contact at the surface to the first, the friction between the surfaces would cause the second moon to rotate clockwise. But then we would eventually have to see the other side of the moon, correct? Thus the moons are only orbiting and not rotating on a specific axis. Pretty simple.
A rocket scientist only need to know the position in orbit to land on the moon. Rotation is irrelevant because the surfaces on both moons will all be in a position as determined by the orbital motion. If the moons were rotating, it would add an additional variable since now the surface would have an orbital position and a rotational position.
BillyBob,
Yep, it’s all about perspective,
Since you have managed to land on the Moon, point a camera at the stars and take a long exposure photo.
If the stars are circles, the Moon is rotating on its axis.
If the stars are points, the Moon is not rotating.
Bobdroege says – If the stars are circles, the Moon is rotating on its axis. If the stars are points, the Moon is not rotating.
Fortunately, we live here on Earth. Or at least most of us.
Bobdroege – Would not the stars be streaks in a long exposure due to the orbital motion of the moon around Earth?
Billy Bob,
That depends on whether or not you are a flat earther.
But no, the parallax is too small, the stars are too far away.
Since “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, the stars would not be points in the long exposure photo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
bob’s “long exposure photo trick” settles nothing, as usual.
DR EMPTY,
Stars would be points if the Moon is not rotating, since you claim that they would not be points for the Moon on the left,
that means the Moon on the left is rotating.
Bobdoege – Flat Earther? I am unfamiliar with their specific dogma. It is hard me to understand people so narrow minded in the beliefs that are incapable of thinking outside of the box. I would think the concept of orbital motion would be too difficult of a concept for a flat Earther.
As far as time lapse photography though, I would think if a camera was pointing toward the Earth (assuming on earth side) it would appear to be a fuzzy ball due to libration. The sun/stars in background would be long streaks. If pointed directly away from the Earth but on the opposite side of the moon, the stars/sun would again be streaks.
No, bob. Stars would be points if the moon was moving like the “moon on the right”. So stars being points would only be a signifier of “no axial rotation” if “orbital motion without axial rotation” was motion like the “moon on the right”.
Which it isn’t.
DR EMPTY
I google “orbital motion without axial rotation”
I got this
“The Moon rotates once on its axis every time it completes one orbit. As you can see, the Moon seems to rock back and forth on its axis. This is because the …”
That’s too funny.
Billy Bob,
“The sun/stars in background would be long streaks. If pointed directly away from the Earth but on the opposite side of the moon, the stars/sun would again be streaks.”
Yes streaks that curve in a circular fashion.
Because the Moon is rotating.
Do you agree with that or not?
"Orbital motion without axial rotation" just means "orbital motion", bob. I add the words "without axial rotation" for clarity, because unless I do that, you play games.
Bobdroege – Yes streaks that curve in a circular fashion.
The Sun would appear to be mostly straight except for the effects of the tilt in the moons orbit as the moons orbits around the Earth in a 28 day time lapse. For half of that time, the Sun would not be in the picture. If picture is taken towards Earth, the Earth would appear stationary except for libration which would make it a bit fuzzy. You would still see the sun in the background as a linear streak for 14 days.
If the moon were rotating the Earth would appear as a line and depending on the rotation speed, would only be in the picture for part of the time. The combination of the moons orbiting and rotation would impact how long the sun remained in the picture during the 28 day exposure.
As an experiment, hold your camera out way from your body and rotate your body in one place. Your camera is now orbiting you, without rotating the camera, take a time lapse photo of a fixed object in the room. It will appear to move linearly. Now try keeping the camera focused on that object, the only way that can be done is by rotating the camera. However, if you do not rotate it fast enough (or too fast) the object will still appear to be moving linearly.
Billy Bob,
OK lets do this experiment
“As an experiment, hold your camera out way from your body and rotate your body in one place. Your camera is now orbiting you, without rotating the camera, take a time lapse photo of a fixed object in the room. It will appear to move linearly. Now try keeping the camera focused on that object, the only way that can be done is by rotating the camera. However, if you do not rotate it fast enough (or too fast) the object will still appear to be moving linearly.”
So if your body is rotating and you are holding a camera, then the camera is also rotating.
Now if you want to focus on a fixed object, obviously you have to rotate the camera exactly opposite to your rotation.
That proves the orbiting object is rotating, if it keeps facing the center of rotation.
"So if your body is rotating and you are holding a camera, then the camera is also rotating…"
…about you, and not on its own internal axis. In other words, the camera is orbiting you, without rotating on its own internal axis.
"Now if you want to focus on a fixed object, obviously you have to rotate the camera exactly opposite to your rotation."
So then the camera is orbiting and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions, at the same rate. Motion like the "moon on the right". Congratulations, bob, welcome to the "Non-Spinners".
Your logic is very special Bobdroege, I suppose you would say that a bicycle held out from my body as I spin around would have rotating tires. But the tachometer would respectfully disagree with you. I think I will go with the tachometer. Sorry
DR EMPTY
“”So if your body is rotating and you are holding a camera, then the camera is also rotating”
about you, and not on its own internal axis. In other words, the camera is orbiting you, without rotating on its own internal axis.”
No, the camera is not orbiting, it is attached and rotating with you.
“Now if you want to focus on a fixed object, obviously you have to rotate the camera exactly opposite to your rotation.”
So then the camera is orbiting and rotating on its own axis, in opposite directions, at the same rate. Motion like the “moon on the right”. Congratulations, bob, welcome to the “Non-Spinners”.
Like I said, not orbiting, but rotating in one direction, you have to rotate it in the other direction to take a still photo.
So like the Moon on the right, but you explanation is wrong, as usual.
You could re-read the caption under the Moons for clarification.
Billy Bob,
“Your logic is very special Bobdroege, I suppose you would say that a bicycle held out from my body as I spin around would have rotating tires. But the tachometer would respectfully disagree with you. I think I will go with the tachometer. Sorry”
You want my logic, I’ll tell you what that is, don’t tell me what I think, that’s DR EMPTY’s habit of gas-lighting me.
Your bicycle example, yes the tires would be rotating, but rotating with the rest of the bicycle, so no, the tachometer would not disagree with me, it would read 0, because the tachometer measures the relative motion of the tire with the frame, which are both rotating together.
Nice try though, but you have to figure out what axis the parts are rotating about.
bob, you have admitted that you have to rotate the camera about its own axis to get motion like the “moon on the right”. That’s enough to make you a “Non-Spinner”. Welcome to the club.
Bobdroege – Nice try though, but you have to figure out what axis the parts are rotating about.
Sokath, his eyes uncovered
Congratulation you have now embraced 2 of the 3 principle of this workshop. 1) A rotational variable is not required to land on the moon, all surface locations are a function of orbit. 2) the tachometer reads 0. The final principle, and if you can understanding this, will provide you with full enlightenment.
Simple mechanical engineering principal. Hold 2 identical gears together and rotate 1 clockwise, the other gear must turn counter clockwise. If you dont have 2 gears, grab 2 tennis balls or even eggs out of the fridge. Same thing, when 2 object are touching at their surface, if you rotate 1, the least amount of friction will be for the other to rotate the opposite direction. This is where the paradox lies for those who believe the moon rotates from our perspective. You can not have a moon rotating counterclockwise with a second moon adjacent also rotating counterclockwise to show the same side. It simply would breakdown, the surfaces would resist the movement.
The reality is from the perspective from the stars, these moons would appear to rotate around each other. They would believe that the axis of rotation is at the tangent point between the 2 moons. In fact there is no unique axis of rotation on the moon.
You can apply these 3 principles to the Earth and the conclusion is the Earth does have an unique axis of rotation and does rotate.
Here endeth the lesson, you may come get your certificate signed.
> as determined by the orbital motion
Here is the thimble where you hid the rotation, Billy Bob.
But wait – Graham defined an orbit has not having no rotation at all.
Perhaps you two need to work on a common definition?
DR EMPTY<
"bob, you have admitted that you have to rotate the camera about its own axis to get motion like the moon on the right. Thats enough to make you a Non-Spinner. Welcome to the club."
When the camera is being held to a rotating object, you have to counter rotate it to make it not rotate.
That has nothing to do with whether the Moon is rotating or not.
What's the caption underneath the Moon on the left and Moon on the right say about the rotation of the Moon?
You already gave me an OK Bob, so you admitted you lost the argument yet again.
Billy Bob,
“Simple mechanical engineering principal”
You seem to be in the wrong building, this is the Astronomy building, the mechanical engineering building is on the other side of the quad.
Once again: bob, you have admitted that you have to rotate the camera about its own axis to get motion like the “moon on the right”. That’s enough to make you a “Non-Spinner”. Welcome to the club.
The non spinning club includes almost all those who believe that the Moon spins, Bob.
Gaslighting Graham has a Very Intelligent way to make categories.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
If you use the Moon on the left, Moon on the right gif, you have to take what it says in the caption.
That makes you a spinner.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner
Welcome to the spinner club, note that I am not a member.
I am not a member of the non-spinner club either.
"If you use the Moon on the left, Moon on the right gif, you have to take what it says in the caption."
Incorrect.
You seem to be in the wrong building, this is the Astronomy building, the mechanical engineering building is on the other side of the quad.
I take it from this response that your not currently capable of thinking beyond astronomy. So be it. For me, physics transcends all areas of study, astronomy, engineering even biology. I am just happy to have educated you on several principles. They say knowledge is power, what you do with this power is entirely up to you. But wisdom can only come from experience and only time can help you there.
But I enjoyed the discussion up until you started talking about gaslighting and now this comment. You come off as a bit insecure in your beliefs. Perhaps when you mature a bit you can respond with something more meaningful.
For now think about the principles and perhaps eventually you will comprehend. You seem to have agreed they are all essentially correct, just have not put it all together. And that’s OK.
If knowledge is power, Billy Bob, France is bacon.
Meanwhile, here is what your tachometer would measure:
https://youtu.be/XVriF4-z3cE
It has been 12 months since you last saw that video. You should be able to work it out this time.
Best of luck.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DR EMTPY,
True or False:
Does the Earth exhibit orbital motion?
Is it like the Moon on the left or the Moon on the right?
To a "Spinner", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion" like the "moon on the right", as well as "rotating on its own axis" 366.25 times per orbit.
To a "Non-Spinner", the Earth exhibits "orbital motion" like the "moon on the left", as well as "rotating on its own axis" 365.25 times per orbit.
You won’t understand, because you aren’t intelligent enough to.
You got the maths wrong.
I added the s because you’re a limey bastard.
What I said is correct.
bobdroege – May I suggest watching “Around the World in 80 days”. It may help in the Math.
— Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 23, 2022 at 9:11 AM
A question for my fellow “Non-Spinners” (only, not interested in hearing from any “Spinners”)
Ive been thinking about Uranus (no pun intended). Uranus has an axial tilt of 97.77 degrees, so it appears to be rotating “on its side”. It also has a “pole star”, meaning that its rotational axis remains oriented towards the same fixed star whilst it orbits.”
Let’s say Earth north pole was pointing at the Sun then Earth’s north star is the Sun. And the question is, does it have southern polar star?
It’s doesn’t seem it would.
But at mid-nite or I guess what is Midnight?
It depends how fast the spin is, say 24 hours to spin, a star will be at zenith at midnight. So you would have clock in 1/2 planet in darkness, one have star when at zenith at midnight or noon and an unusual notable at zenith some hour of day, depending where were [what longitude you are at].
Hmm, oh, if always facing sun it’s tidally locked, and of course it’s possible it’s not tidally locked.
And so, only pointed at sun one time in a year and directly away from Sun one other time in a year, and instead be pointing at star which would be behind the sun one time of year and be directly away from sun, one time of year.
Though stars move, but on human timescales they are fixed and are all around us, so one could find a star or something, which the spinning axis is pointing at.
Fortunately, we going explore the south polar region, soon.
I had no idea this endless discussion was really about the enormous excitement of exploring the Moon.
The Lunatics denying the lunar spin about its polar axis now have a new ‘astrologer’: Johannes Kepler.
Yes yes: Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the astronomer who has brought up a few fundamental laws of planetary motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
and whose work developed that initiated by ‘astrologer’ Copernicus, and was the basement of Newton’s, yet another ‘astrologer’.
*
Why did Kepler suddenly become an ‘astrologer’ as well?
Simply because I suddenly discovered that the historian Ludwig Günther (1846 – 1910) has written a beautiful description of a book written by Kepler in 1609: Somnium.
‘Somnium’ is an artful interweaving of autobiographical and scientific facts as well as fictional and fantastic elements.
In this book, Kepler explains among many other things how the Moon rotates on its own axis.
*
Günther’s treatise is of course only available in German,
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/15537/1/traum.pdf
but the clever Lunatics know how to use Google Translator.
Kepler’s description of Moon’s motion is on page 52.
Amazing is on page 54 (Fig. 7) a couple of charts showing that Kepler not only understood the lunar spin; he was also aware of the inclination of the spin’s axis.
In 1675, Newton explained in a letter to the German ‘astrologer’ Mercator (~1620-1687) how Cassini had developed Kepler’s ideas into concrete calculations. Mercator then published Newton’s description as part of a very extensive treatise.
*
Yes, yes: a long, long line of ‘astrologers’: Copernicus, Kepler, Cassin, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler etc etc etc!
I tell you: all ‘astrologers’. What a plague!
Did Kepler have any thoughts on whether the moon’s so-called “axial tilt” remained oriented towards a specific “pole star”? Or whether the “axial tilt” changed orientation throughout the orbit?
Pseudomod
Do you know what axial tilt really is, and above all: how long is period is e.g. for Earth?
41,000 years.
Are you as usual trying to invent something helping you to work around the lunar spin?
*
When will you finally have the courage to visit an observatory, where patient people would explain why you are wrong.
My guess: never, because that would break down your fixed view of many, many things.
Did Kepler have any thoughts on whether the moon’s so-called “axial tilt” remained oriented towards a specific “pole star”? Or whether the “axial tilt” changed orientation throughout the orbit?
Your question makes no sense at all. You might repeat it 1,000 times, but this won’t make it more meaningful.
A second reply hence isn’t useful.
You manifestly don’t understand what axial tilt really is.
Earth’s rotational axis remains oriented towards a specific "pole star", whilst the Earth orbits. The Earth’s rotational axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the line perpendicular to its orbital plane. The moon’s so-called "axis" is tilted 6.7 degrees.
Did Kepler have any thoughts on whether the moon’s so-called "axis" remained oriented towards a specific "pole star"? Or whether the "axis" changed orientation throughout the orbit?
Dr Roys so-called ‘Emergency Moderation Team’, please stop trolling.
If I try and question what I think about the moon issue, I get accused of trolling. Unbelievable.
Graham riddles Binny with my riddle in an unrelated context and he denies that he’s trolling.
Gaslighting Graham strikes again!
I’m not riddling anything. I’m genuinely asking the question.
Kepler was a math teacher who worked for an astronomer, Tycho Brahe. Brahe wrote down his observations and Kepler put them together using math. It was left to Newton to explain what Kepler’s work meant.
As usual, the Ignoramus nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ spews his discrediting and denigrating bullshit.
It’s incredible – and disgusting – how such an ignorant and arrogant person can continuously lie.
Freedom of speech? I would rather say: Freedom of vileny!
(Continued)
From the English Wikipedia (which for Robertson is a load of bs unless it fits his personal narrative) we read at the beginning:
” Johannes Kepler (27 December 1571 15 November 1630) was a German astronomer, mathematician, astrologer, natural philosopher and writer on music.
…
These works also provided one of the foundations for Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.
(Continued)
I switch to the better informed German source, translated via Google Translator:
” From March 1600, Kepler began a difficult collaboration with the imperial court astronomer Tycho Brahe in Prague, until Brahe died in October 1601. Succeeding Brahe, Kepler became imperial mathematician and court astronomer, a position he held until 1627. ”
Further:
” Johannes Kepler discovered the laws according to which planets move around the sun. They are called Kepler’s laws after him.
He made optics the subject of scientific investigation and confirmed the discoveries made by his contemporary Galileo Galilei with the telescope. Kepler is one of the founders of modern science.
With his introduction to arithmetic with logarithms, Kepler contributed to the spread of this type of arithmetic. In mathematics, a numerical method for calculating integrals was named Kepler’s barrel rule after him. (Simpson’s rule in English) ”
*
Here is a good place for Robertson’s gullible followers to see how he permanently misinforms, distorts and misrepresent nearly anything.
Poor Bindidon! He found another source he can’t understand. He’s now moved even lower than astrologers. Now, he’s worshipping historians!
His historian believes Moon is rotating, and on page 53, explains it this way:
Yup, if you stab an apple with a fork, that “proves” Moon is rotating. That’s the kind of “science” poor Bindidon goes for. (Note also how the historian confuses “revolving” with “rotating”.)
The historian then goes on to use a Ferris wheel as more “proof”, not realizing the chairs are rotating. Like the bicycle pedal, which has already been discussed, for an orbiting object to always face the same point in space, TWO motions must be involved — orbiting AND rotating.
That’s why this is so much fun.
To prove that the Moon does not spin sometimes you fill it with hammers, Pup.
And the best you got so far for model is a ball on string.
Stop trolling,
"Like the bicycle pedal, which has already been discussed, for an orbiting object to always face the same point in space, TWO motions must be involved — orbiting AND rotating."
Exactly…yet the "Spinners", as we know, think that an object orbiting whilst always facing the same point in space (motion like the "moon on the right") is "orbital motion" alone!
They just can’t get their heads around the difference between "orbital motion" and "rotating on its own axis".
The bicycle pedal has an axle so that it can rotate on its own axis…if the axle was fixed so that the bicycle pedal could not rotate on its own axis, it would move like the "moon on the left"…
No idea why Kepler wrote that strange paragraph.
Sounds like when NASA tries popular, and writes nonsense a la ” CO2 traps heat “.
Fact is that unlike Clint R, who never thinks above the ball-on-a-string level, he understood the lunar spin:
” The 4 small circles indicate the moon orbiting the earth in the center; a is a point on the hemisphere of the moon facing us, and the moon moves around the earth in the direction of the arrow.
When it has now covered the fourth part of its orbit, the point a is in a1, because according to the assumption the moon has rotated exactly 1/4 around itself during this time, so it has covered half the orbit – it is in a2 , i.e. opposite to a; because first it was down, now up, so it made half a turn.
At 3/4 of its way the point is at a3 and when the moon has finally completed its orbit around the earth the point has also completed its rotation and is again at a.
So you can see that it has stayed the same, so to speak, and yet it has turned, and you can also see that the moon always points to the same side as it moves around the earth [as also shown by the smooth hatching] .
Because if the moon had not rotated, then at its orbit point a would go first to b, then to b1, on to b2, and finally back to a too, but we would always see different sides of the moon [as the dotted hatching suggests] get to see.
But since this is not the case, it follows that the moon rotates, namely that it completes its rotation only once in its true orbit around the earth, and it does so in such a way that the times of both movements coincide exactly.
Herein lies the solution to the apparent contradiction. ”
Of course, this is far removed from a proof of the rotation of the moon, as Gnther wrongly assumed; it’s just proof that he got it.
Kepler’s thoughts were just another brick in a wall.
But people like Clint R never understand such things because they fundamentally reject them without being able to explain why – except with the BALL-ON-A-STRING theory of course 🙂
Sorry Bin, but more blan-blah is just more blah-blah. You’ve got NOTHING. And nothing plus nothing is still NOTHING.
Go with the ball-on-a-string. It’s a workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Learn some science and accept reality. It’s not too late….
Perhaps you can answer Graham’s riddle, Pup.
You’re so good at quieting his gaslighting mind.
Oh, Clint R already gave his answer. He said the moon’s so-called "axis" changes its orientation throughout the orbit. I was just looking to see if Kepler had any opinion on the subject.
And of course Graham likes Pup’s non answer.
Let’s put our Moon Dragon Cranks out of their misery:
https://earthsky.org/space/why-is-the-moons-orbit-tilted-collisionless-encounters/
Balls on strings and other thought experiments are so much better.
…but that doesn’t answer the question, Little Willy.
First of all, it’s a potential explanation of why the moon’s orbit is tilted, and not why the moon’s so-called axis is tilted.
Second of all, what I’m actually looking for is any opinion on whether the moon’s so-called "axis" remains tilted in the same direction throughout the orbit, or whether the orientation changes throughout the orbit. In other words, does the "moon" have "pole stars", or does the orientation of its so-called "axis" vary throughout the orbit.
Now I know that the various fact sheets claim the moon’s north pole star is Omicron Draconis, and its south pole star Delta Doradus…but I was wondering how they actually worked that out, and whether or not it’s correct.
[GRAHAM, WHEN PUP GIVES HIM AN EMPTY RESPONSE] Pup already gave his answer.
[GRAHAM, WHEN READING ABOUT A 2015 PAPER WITH A MODEL AS TO HOW THE MOON CAME TO BE TILTED] But that doesn’t answer the question!
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a bit more.
Clint R didn’t give any explanation for why he thinks the moon’s so-called "axis" changes its orientation throughout the orbit, as in he didn’t share where he got that information from, true.
Your reference does not answer the question for the reasons I explained. Instead of falsely accusing me of gaslighting, you could actually try to understand what you own reference is stating, and how it differs from what I want to know.
[GRAHAM] A question for my fellow “Non-Spinners” (only, not interested in hearing from any “Spinners”)
[GRAHAM, TO BINNY] Did Kepler have any thoughts on whether the moons so-called “axis” remained oriented towards a specific “pole star”?
Filthy gaslighting liar.
I opened up the question to the "Non-Spinners", then when I didn’t get much feedback on that (and only lots of random abusive nonsense from the "Spinners"), I decided I’d ask Bindidon too.
Is that your way of acknowledging you were wrong with your reference, and apologizing?
[GRAHAM] when I didn’t get much feedback on that
[ALSO GRAHAM] Clint R already gave his answer
Graham is a lousy liar.
Lol, I got some feedback from Clint R, yes. As I said, though, he didn’t share where he got that information from. I thought Bindidon might have some insight, as he seems to usually know (or be able to find out) lots of obscure references from times past (I’m assuming this information, if it’s out there, would be fairly old news…but perhaps not).
I love how "set on attack" you are today.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
There are three Moon Dragon cranks active these days: him, Pup, and Gordo. In his response, Pup reminds Graham that his question makes little sense for a satellite. In his response, Binny reminds him the same.
Since Binny is more blunt, Graham plays dumb. And he keeps repeating his irrelevant question for the point Binny was making, which is that we know about the counterfactual Graham still can’t get since at least Kepler.
Graham is just a disingenuous troll.
I’m sure you’re right, Little Willy. Silly question. Of course the moon does not have "pole stars". What was I thinking?
🤦
You really have no idea what this is about, do you?
🤦 🤦
Obviously not.
🤦 🤦 🤦
Jesus is that boring.
Si t’es trop con pour comprendre que la plupart du temps c’est ta faute, alors tant pis pour toi, grand.
Mais Willard, où allons-nous?
Bien sûr que je le comprends. Ce qui néanmoins ne m'empêche nullement de m'énerver de temps à autre à propos de l'ignorance et du déni persistants de certains.
T'as pigé?
Alors c’est bon.
Tu m’en passes une belle,
Bindidon, Little Willy, s’il vous plait arrêtez de troller.
🤦
Little Willy, s’il vous plait arrêtez de troller.
Perhaps one or two Lunatics try to understand that the orientation of the polar axis does not change on either the Earth or the Moon during their orbit, independently of whether or not the two spin.
The orientation of the polar axis changes on Earth in a period of 23000 years. During this time, an eternally living Earthling has the impression that the sky rotates 360° above him.
Calculated 11,500 years from now, he would no longer see the polar star (α Ursae Minoris) at the same point in the sky, but Vega.
This wobbling has nothing to do with axial tilt changes, but is what is known as precession.
I suppose that if Moon’s wobbling (if it has any) were so high in frequency that it was noticeable during its orbit, the Earth’s motion would be so unsteady that we wouldn’t even exist.
Yes, Bindidon. As I said:
“Earth’s rotational axis remains oriented towards a specific “pole star” whilst the Earth orbits.”
The question was about the moon. It came about as a result of this conversation, further upthread, which you must have missed:
CLINT R: A rotational pole is produced by rotation. The rotation also produces rotational inertia, which keeps the rotational axis aimed at the same point in space, or distant star. The inertia is maintained as the planet orbits. You can observe this with a toy gyroscope. That is why Earth has a “North Star”. It’s also another reason we know Moon is NOT rotating. Moon’s so-called axis changes direction with Moon’s orbit.
DREMT: OK, that deals with my point about Uranus (no pun intended)…but it raises another point…it is claimed that the moon also has "pole stars" – the north pole star being Omicron Draconis, and its south pole star Delta Doradus. Is this wrong, then?
CLINT R: In a word, “yes”. It appears they’ve just picked out two stars in the general directions. Moon’s imaginary rotational axis would have a variance of about 13 degrees! They’ve got plenty of stars to choose from….
DREMT: Can’t find anything online yet about how they’ve chosen these particular stars.
Gaslighting Graham does not always want to know if the “Spinners” not claim that the fact Uranus has a “pole star” (pun unintended) is evidence that “orbital motion” alone is like the Moon on the right, but when he does he’s not really interested in hearing from any “Spinners”…
Yes, Pseudomod.
As usual, you rely on unproven claims, like this one:
” Moons so-called axis changes direction with Moons orbit. ”
Any really valuable source i.e. something more valuable than Clint R’s personal ‘opinion’, or than some trash a la
– ” since Moon shows always the same face to us, its so-called axis must change direction while orbiting ” ?
No, I am not “relying on” unproven claims. I am “questioning” them, actually. That’s kind of the entire point, but your bias won’t let you see that.
As long as you don’t deliver any source, no reason to discuss.
” … but your bias wont let you see that. ”
Ha ha.
And why do you think the bias being on my side?
“As long as you don’t deliver any source, no reason to discuss.”
Exactly. No sources yet to support either claim – that the moon’s axis changes direction with its orbit, or that it doesn’t.
Yada Yada Yada,
If you were competent you would be able to find the answer to your questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession
bob, there’s been no link that you’ve found so far that I haven’t already seen myself, many, many times. You really need to try harder.
Bindidon, if you understood vectors you could easily understand a fictitious axis of rotation would point in different directions during orbit. But, I can even make it easier.
If you agree to not comment here for 90 days, I will give you a simple experiment you can do yourself, with simple household items. That would prove you’re interested in learning, instead of only trolling.
Do you agree?
Alright, let’s be sport:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85235949.pdf
It takes two clicks to get to this, so Graham still gets:
🤦
Anything relevant, anyone?
🤦
Little Willy, your links rarely (if ever) have anything much to do with what is being discussed.
Apparently I can’t even challenge my “Non-Spinner” ideas without you still trying to argue with me. In other words, even if I agree with you, you still argue with me. It’s quite comical.
Poor Graham. Incapable to realize that this is the reference on which rests his own research.
If he has not been trolling this website for 75 months, it would be sad.
Now, it is just facepalm-worthy.
Well, apart from the fact that your reference has nothing to do with what I’m asking, and that it doesn’t even mention the moon…
Here is the abstract:
The report only provides a way to calculate the North Pole for all the planets, after all.
How would Graham be able to troll with that information?
Playing dumb is the most obvious answer.
…oh, wait…there is a section on the moon. I didn’t really look at it, as I’ve come to expect your references not to have anything to do with my point.
The section on the moon contributes NOTHING: This equation comes from Cassinis second and third laws of the lunar rotation.
Those ain’t “laws”. They’re from astrology where someone looks up, sees something, and claims what he imagines is real. That’s why they have bears, lions, and scorpions in the sky. It’s all imagination and beliefs.
willard Pup just finds nonsense like this and throws it against the wall, hoping it will stick. He’s just another braindead cult idiot posing as a worthless troll.
You got that right, Pup.
Coordinate systems are not laws.
They are mere conventions.
And we all know that laws are not conventions.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
You do know Cassini used telescopes?
Maybe not.
Clint R will be long gone, I expect.
Interested readers might want to know where I got it. It is cited in this paper:
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2873&context=jaas
This paper comes from the Wiki page on Omicron Draconis, which is the star mentioned on the wiki entry on pole stars.
Since then I found more contemporary conventions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
Interested readers might also like to toy with Stellarium, which is one of the greatest softwares created by humans. There is even an online viewer online:
https://stellarium-web.org/
As for our trolling cranks:
🤦
Yes, I had come across that paper too. No real help there, either.
Interested readers might also like the page on the International Celestial Reference System:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
We emphasize this bit to make sure we will get the frames-do-not-resolve line in response.
Well, Little Willy has nothing, but will be trolling all day with irrelevant links if I continue to respond. Best just to put him on “ignore/automatic PST” again, for the rest of the thread.
willard Pup believes finding irrelevant nonsense on the Internet is “science”. It’s the same with the other cult idiots. Here’s a quote from Pup’s wiki link: “The Moon’s poles are particularly mobile.”
Yeah, that’s because Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It has NO rotational poles. It has poles due to its orbit, which result in axes perpendicular to its orbital plane. And those poles would be fairly stable.
Let’s see, Pup.
Once upon a time, the poles of the Earth flipped a few times, so that means the Earth is not spinning, right?
Right?
🤦
No Pup. What it means is that you don’t understand any of this.
Find some more links you can’t understand. That’s why this is so much fun.
Yes, Pup. The Moon wandered, therefore it does not spin.
🤦
Have you finally realized why Cassini’s laws have been mentioned in the document you spat on?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure”.
***
According to you, an airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet keeps the same side pointed at Earth, yet all people on Earth viewing the plane would see all sides of it, even the top. I have never seen the top side of a plane from the ground unless it was at an air show and the pilot was doing stunts. That’s the only way the plane could rotate about any axis.
The only way what you are claiming could be true re the airliner is if the observer was on the Moon. We could do the same thing on Earth. If a car is driving CCW around a track, and the observer is inside the track, he will see only the driver’s side of the car. If he moves into the stands, he will be able to see all sides of the car.
The point is, the car driving the track keeps the same side pointing to the inside of the track and at no time does it rotate about its COG. Therefore the side facing the inside of the track has nothing to do with perspective re rotation.
Come on, Gordo.
Not the airliner again. It has nothing to do with what I was saying. And once again you cannot distinguish a quote from my own words.
The Moon is not powered from the inside. It is more like a glider. And the glider has no string attached, like the infamous ball on string.
Mixing the two, we can get a batter analogy. The Moon is like a baseball than has been hit by the Earth so hard if went into orbit. As you may well know, baseballs usually spin when they are thrown, and when they are hit. Once in orbit, that spin got slowed down by its own shape, which is created by the pull of the Earth. It did not stop, for there is no break in space. It simply entered a spin-orbit lock.
This is a physics problem, not a geometry one.
Think, then try to answer Grahams riddle.
“The Moon is not powered from the inside. It is more like a glider. And the glider has no string attached, like the infamous ball on string”.
***
A glider??? What’s it gliding on? If it had something to glide on the air resistance would slow it down and it would fall to Earth as glider does eventually.
No Willard, the Moon is exactly life the airliner, the only difference being the mode of propulsion. The Moon is propelled by momentum and it keeps going because there is no opposing force to slow it down. Gravity constantly bends its momentum into an orbital path.
Same with the airliner. It is propelled by engines which causes a lift on its airfoils. As long as it keeps going at the same velocity, gravity will do the rest.
You still have not explained how the airliner keeps the same face pointed at Earth but is different than the Moon.
Come on, Gordo.
No, the Moon is not exactly like an airliner. It has no wings. It has no nose. It has no pilot. It is not meant to land somewhere else. Besides, do you really think gliders stop to float once they reach orbit?
As the Son of Lobster would say, think again, sunshine!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think we have new entry for “made-up nonsense”. Peruse willard Pup’s effort:
Immediately after throwing that crap against the wall, willard Pup claims: “This is a physics problem, not a geometry one.”
Yeah, it’s a “problem” alright — a problem arising from willard Pup’s ignorance and immaturity.
Poor Pup.
He word so many words. He said so little.
All these years on this website is taking its toll.
If only he did the Pole Dance Experiment from time to time for more energy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Communists are using weather as a vehicle in an attempt to take over the world.
Theres no emergency
https://youtu.be/YBdmppcfixM
Les than a week to go sun spots now at only 75 average (according to my secret source)
Prepare for another step sideways
https://i.postimg.cc/kM8STPjR/EISNcurrent.png
Solar wind
speed: 502.6 km/sec
density: 10.54 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 55
Updated 25 Nov 2022
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 110 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.58×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.7% Elevated
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Calm before the storm??
This Max is treading water
It’s slightly above freezing tonite and will be near freezing for
next week, if trend holds could snow for Christmas.
Ukraine, Kiev Colder nights than me, and Kiev doesn’t warm up much during the day, going to snow a little bit for 4 days, and then get some sunlight and get even colder with the clearer skies over another 4 days, coldest night, 19 F on last forecasted night of week.
gb…there is a good deal of hot air coming out of Zelensky. Don’t know if that can be regarded as a UHI effect.
It seems it’s unlikely it’s snowing in Canada, now.
What does it say
vancouver canada:
https://tinyurl.com/mtc77fkr
Not quite, but getting some in few days
Milestone for JWST exoplanet observations: atmosphere properties in more detail than ever before
by Staff Writers
Heidelberg, Germany (SPX) Nov 23, 2022
“Observations of the exoplanet WASP-39b with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have yielded a wealth of information about the planet’s atmosphere – a whole new level of observational data, and a harbinger of how JWST will shape the study of exoplanet atmospheres in the future. The detailed infrared spectra taken with three of JWST’s four instruments contain information about atmospheric chemistry of unprecedented accuracy, allow deductions about the planet’s cloud cover, and include the first signs of photochemistry in exoplanet atmospheres. Data about the chemical composition is so accurate as to allow for deductions about the planet’s formation.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Milestone_for_JWST_exoplanet_observations_atmosphere_properties_in_more_detail_than_ever_before_999.html
Wiki:
“WASP-39b has a mass of about 0.28 times that of Jupiter and a radius about 1.27 times that of Jupiter (91,000 km). It is a hot gas giant planet with a high temperature of 900 C. The exoplanet orbits very close (7 million km) to WASP-39, its host star, every 4 days.
WASP-39b is also notable for having an extremely low density, near that of WASP-17b. While WASP-17b has a density of 0.130.06 g/cm3, WASP-39b has a slightly higher density of 0.180.04 g/cm3. “
I am going to re-post something posted elsewhere:
–gbaikie 3 hours ago edited
Roughly it’s at best 6 hours. rather 12 hour. Improving to 10 hours
would be a huge improvement.
Mars has 12 hours average, and because this, Mars is better than Earth to harvest solar energy {despite getting a lot less sunlight due to being further from the Sun].
Plus similar to Moon, topographical condition could allow more than 12 hours on average per day- this like Moon is largely related to being near polar region. And near polar region there is shorter distance to span a couple of time zone- or 16 hours per day is possible if include a grid of couple time zones.
{16 hours per day when sun is at zenith at equator- when in winter, it’s less and in summer it’s more- winter on Mars is a lot better than winter on Earth- Germany and UK are bad places to get solar energy on Earth- same locations in Mars are not bad places to get solar energy- but further poleward can be better places on Mars}.
[So, spots on Mars can get more than 50% per year in sunlight, spots in lunar polar region get 80% or more per year. And with grids both can get near 100% per year.]–
This is from:
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4485/1
I was replying to someone who said solar panels on Earth get 12 hours of sunlight and if batteries add 4 hours this was not much.
But Earth solar panels only at best get 6 hours a day, which is called “peak solar hours”.
To which I said:
“Roughly its at best 6 hours. rather 12 hour. Improving to 10 hours
would be a huge improvement.”
But I wanted to re-post, because could edit my post, and so less errors. And because I think explained how Mars solar energy is better than Earth solar.
Which I don’t think many are aware of this.
This does not make me want to live on Mars- I would prefer, Venus orbit which a lot better.
I will probably die from old age before Venus becomes option.
I was looking for something and found something, else:
Earth Loses 50,000 Metric Tons of Mass Every Year
“According to some calculations, the Earth is losing 50,000 metric tons of mass every single year. Even though an extra 40,000 metric tons of space dust converge onto the Earths gravity well, its still losing weight.”
https://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/
I thought we were just gaining weight, and some figure we losing weight. Before clicked on it, I thought it was going to be about mass lost from radioactive decay- some say there a lot radon [and it’s problem].
Also another story:
Man Keeps Rock For Years, Hoping It’s Gold. It Turns Out to Be Far More Valuable
https://www.sciencealert.com/man-keeps-rock-for-years-hoping-its-gold-it-turns-out-to-be-far-more-valuable
From: https://instapundit.com/
Unexpected things.
Sea Ice Mysteries
2 hours ago
Willis Eschenbach
20 Comments
Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/27/sea-ice-mysteries/
“Since around 1990, people have been talking about how human-emitted CO2 is busily reducing the amount of Arctic sea ice. When it started dropping very fast around 2015, there was talk that wed passed a tipping point from which the Arctic ice would never recover. And over this entire time, predictions of an ice-free Arctic ocean abounded.
But then around 2018, the Arctic sea ice rebounded.
Why did it suddenly start dropping so fast post-2015?
Nobody knows. Not one scientist on the planet can tell you.
Why the quick turnaround and rebound starting in 2018?
Nobody knows. Not one scientist on the planet can tell you.”
Broadly, it’s natural variability.
Everyone accepts natural variability, otherwise we know and it would accepted, how warming is caused by increasing global CO2 levels.
But saying it’s natural variability is similar to saying it’s a Mystery. Or lots of thing fall lower heading of natural variability.
How important is the amount of polar sea ice?
I would say, it’s everything- it’s very important.
Because it’s another measuring stick, just as rising sea levels is a measuring stick of average temperature of the ocean- which averages around 3.5 C.
But also it’s not very important measuring stick because we have only been measuring it for comparatively short time period.
But as I said, our cold ocean of an average of 3.5 C is the global climate temperature and the ocean of 3.5 C doesn’t change much over any 1 century of time.
And as others have said, more than 90% of all “global warming” has warmed this ocean by a small amount.
Our ocean is not measured accurately, it’s about 3.5 C, and it’s warmed by about .1 C.
An Ocean warming by .1 C or cooling by about .1 C is important.
But ocean warming by .5 C is the end of world in terms the belief of the cargo cult of global warming.
A ocean with average temperature of about 4 C has polar sea ice free during the summer.
The only way to have polar sea ice free during winter is ocean 4 C or warmer.
Past interglacial periods had a ocean which was 4 C or warmer and might have had [probably had] polar sea ice free during the winter.
We wide range in terms of high sea levels were during last interglacial period, the range is 4 to 9 meter higher than present sea level.
Likewise early in the Holocene it thought sea levels were 1 to 2 meter higher than the are now. This also isn’t accurate consider we measure sea level in terms mm and sea level has risen during our measuring it by about 7″.
But, since Holocene only had sea level rise of 1 to 2 meter and it’s thought earlier interglacial rose by 4 to 9 meter, one state the obvious that Holocene has been quite a cool interglacial period.
Regarding the spinning Moon.
There could many things to argue about regarding the Moon.
But I am wondering if could be some things in which there is
general agreement- and reason is we went to Moon.
Some might disagree about that happening, therefore can’t have
any agreement about the matter.
But assuming we did some exploring of the Moon, it seems the lunar
surface is quite ancient, though the top meters of lunar is mixed up or called gardened, by impactors over the millions and billions of years. So if surface is +100 meters depth, this surface in ancient; and most impactors are small, and we will call a space rock larger than 100 meter in diameter, not small.
We see small impactors hitting moon monthly, but we have not seen space rock as large as +50 meter diameter hit the Moon, instead we seeing rocks say 10 meter in diameter or smaller impacting lunar surface on monthly basis and if there are too small, it’s unlikely they would be detected from Earth. And of what is impacting the Moon and has been impacting the Moon is dust or rocks too small to see from Earth distance.
Earth gets about 40,000 tons of “dust” which could been small pebbles before becoming dust from hitting our atmosphere- or all those shooting stars are massive enough burn up from hitting our atmosphere
and causing enough light to be seen at distance of about 50 km.
Or darker skies and telescopes can see smaller “shooting stars”.
So rather than 40,000 tons, Moon might getting 10,000 tons per year- for million and billions of years.
So, Lunar surface is about 3 billion years and has endless small craters, and small craters erase small craters and tiny rocks, smooth the small craters, small crater erase/smooth larger craters. But small crater make holes about 10 to 20 meter deep and what calling the ancient surface is 100 meter or so in depth- which larger impactor go deeper than 100 or more than 1 km but these smaller portion of the ancient surface. You choose to call the lunar surface 10 or 20 km deep, but due to lack of lunar surface exploration, we can’t say much about 10 km or 5 km below the surface.
Anyhow, finally we could agree lunar surface is +1 billion years old and the surface of farside looks different than nearside.
And we suppose that +1 billion year different is related to
the Moon’s nearside facing Earth.
Also due to Apollo placed reflectors put on lunar surface, the Moon is getting further from Earth.
And so over +1 billion years, the Moon’s day has become longer.
So, it is thought both Earth’s day is getting longer because it’s rate spin is getting slower, and Moon’s day is getting longer because
it’s getting further from the Earth
And over a billion year period, longer days are quite significantly longer.
Though I suppose if talking about 1 billion years, you run across a lot things to disagree about [expanding universe and other things].
The End of Snow Again
31 mins ago
News brief by Kip Hansen 28 November 2022
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/28/the-end-of-snow-again/
–Readers should note that : highest in 56 years doesnt mean it was higher in some year before 1966. It means that our first satellite measurements are from 56 years ago.so, it really means, highest ever measured.–
The end of snow was another silly prediction which was only about how stupid news reporters are.
It may seems counter intuitive, but I am optimistic that news reporting will improve in future {though one ask how could it possibly get worse, but, I mean get better than it’s ever been}.
Solar wind
speed: 558.4 km/sec
density: 12.00 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 52
Updated 28 Nov 2022
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 107 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.59×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.5% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.2%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH: A high-speed stream of solar wind is approaching Earth. ETA: Dec. 1st or 2nd. The gaseous material is flowing from a canyon-like hole in the sun’s atmosphere.”
Weekly Highlights and 27-Day Forecast
Issued: 2022 Nov 28 0527 UTC
“Solar activity was at very low levels on 24, 26, and 27 Nov. Low
levels were reached on 21-23 and 25 Nov.”…
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
28 November – 24 December 2022
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels. M-class
(R1-R2, Minor-Moderate) flares are possible on 29 Nov-12 Dec with
the return of old Regions 3140 (N25, L=326) and 3141 (N14, L=318).
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 585.6 km/sec
density: 11.88 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 25
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 108 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.73×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.6% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.1%
Well lots of solar wind has something to
do low Neutron Counts but there is also
going to be a large active region entering nearside
fairly soon, so that might have something to do with
lower Neutron Counts {or not}.
Otherwise, low activity for solar max.
Building on the moon: NASA awards Texas company $57 million for lunar construction system
By Mike Wall
published about 20 hours ago
Project Olympus just got a significant cash infusion.
https://www.space.com/icon-moon-construction-project-olympus-nasa-funding
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
A problem with this, is electrical power on Moon and Mars during exploration period, will be quite expensive.
Expensive being, $200 per kw hour would be cheaper than I would expect.
But to mine lunar water and make rocket fuel, one will need it to be
$100 per kW hour or less.
Solar wind
speed: 608.0 km/sec
density: 3.88 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 12
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 108 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.76×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
There is big spot in southern hemisphere coming from
farside. No chance of spotless.
Seems to going as 27 day forecast by NOAA {above}.
Solar wind
speed: 551.0 km/sec
density: 8.92 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 49
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 119 sfu
Updated 02 Dec 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.81×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
It seems we have both hemispheres going and doubt is
creeping in, about the 27 day forecast.
Everything seems strong other low Sunspot number, and it seems
the spot number got good chance of increasing quickly [within few days].
Solar wind
speed: 562.8 km/sec
density: 11.14 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 66
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Updated 03 Dec 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.93×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.1%
It’s increasing a bit, not as fast as imagined
it might have.
But I think Neutron Counts going to go down- say as much
as +0 in few days.
But in terms of spots say up to 80+ in few days is my guess.
Solar wind
speed: 513.3 km/sec
density: 10.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 68
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Updated 04 Dec 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.79×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.5% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.4%
It went down a bit, but guessing Neutron counts to go
lower.
The small spots 3155 grew a bit and other small one might also
grow a bit.
But it probably going sideway but back up sideways for Dec and
I think it will probably month or so before it break up [rather
than just sideways [or down].
Solar wind
speed: 526.5 km/sec
density: 9.57 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 93
Updated 05 Dec 2022
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.68×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.0%
Bounced back up, but I still it’s going down around +0
soon. The little spots grew into being numbered 3158
“IS SOLAR CYCLE 25 ABOUT TO WAKE UP? For the past few months, solar activity has been sluggish with few strong solar flares and no CMEs able to land a direct hit on Earth. Now the sun may be waking up. This picture taken by Eduardo Schaberger Poupeau of Rafaela, Argentina, shows why:”
Well seemed good chance Earth is going to get some significant solar storm activity.
Solar wind
speed: 327.1 km/sec
density: 5.03 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 89
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 150 sfu
Updated 06 Dec 2022
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.63×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.2% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.7%
Neutron count went up a bit, and I thought
it go down a lot.
The main thing I am interested in is somehow being
able to predict Neutron count. And I missing something,
Solar wind was stronger, though weaken a lot briefly, and
now back up about normal.
Still think going down soon [I think more spots and stronger wind
and “10.7 cm flux: 150 sfu” is fairly high
They changed it shortly after posted above:
Solar wind
speed: 334.1 km/sec
density: 17.45 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 123
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Updated 07 Dec 2022
{sunspot number much higher, rather
being lower in comparison to 10.7 cm flux}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.63×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.3% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
Wind slow but dense- it will lower neutral counts
more, I am guessing.
Also:
“NOAA forecasters have lowered the odds of an M-class solar flare today to 30%. This decrease is motivated by the persistent quiet of big sunspot AR3153. ”
Also:
“SOLAR WIND, INCOMING (UPDATED): A high speed stream of solar wind is approaching Earth. ETA: Dec. 9th. The gaseous material is flowing from a canyon-shaped hole in the sun’s atmosphere.”
gb…you’re on a roll here, drinking a lot of good coffee these days????
Always.
It’s usually in mornings when I have not had enough, yet.
Did you get much snow?
No snow here, yet. I just want snow near Christmas.
But nites are cold, but up coming 4 day will be well above freezing
at night.
Starship did static fire of 11 engine, today. And it did an earlier static fire of 12 engines which apparently chewed some concrete.
So they fixed the concrete with something better, and I guess they wanted to see what 11 engines would do to it.
Anyhow, not going as fast as I would have liked, tomorrow isn’t very bad weather, but next says going to be lightening, weather not is not helping
I predict Eboy will love that one:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/11/serious-mistakes-found-in-recent-paper-by-connolly-et-al/
Spacecraft Makes Progress on Solar Heating Mystery
October 14, 2022 Physics 15, 157
Data from the Parker Solar Probe confirms a long-suspected heat source for the Suns surprisingly hot corona, but there may be others.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/157
“Burning questions. Million-degree plasma cools and falls to the surface, resulting in a phenomenon known as coronal rain. Experts are not sure why the solar corona and the solar wind are hundreds of times hotter than the surface of the Sun, but they have several theories. Researchers have now confirmed one suspected source of heating.”
F___ David Mamet
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/fuck-david-mamet
linked: https://instapundit.com/
“None of Mamets plays are works of prophecy, of course. They are dramatic fictions. Mamets prophets mantle is The Secret Knowledge. I dont remember when I first came to read it, sometime last year, only that in reading it I was struck by the near-constant prescience of his observations.
Toward the end of the book, Mamet opens a chapter by quoting Christopher Hollis from Foreigners Arent Fools, The Left is atheist, and, simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than any of the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, been restrained by the memory that God is Truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. That was written in 1936, and quoted by Mamet in 2012.”
Well, China.
And no other religion has murdered as many people.
How does Left/atheism compared to Cargo Cult of global warming?
Well hard separate them. And Cargo cult is also about the fear of over population.
So, again we living in an Ice Age. And the world’s problem is not over population [which essentially a racist driven thing] but rather our problem is under population.
India if doesn’t have problem of under population in next few decades, will probably be a super power [if you don’t think it is right now].
China has under population problem right now and one aspect of it, is Chinese people favored male babies over female babies.
SpaceX Is Preparing to Launch The World’s First Private Lunar Lander
Space
30 November 2022
https://www.sciencealert.com/spacex-is-preparing-to-launch-the-worlds-first-private-lunar-lander
Again from https://instapundit.com/
“SpaceX is set Wednesday to launch the first private and Japanese lander to the Moon.
A Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled to blast off at 3:39 am (0839 GMT) from Cape Canaveral, Florida, with a backup date on Thursday.”
Hmm, did it launch?
“SpaceX delays Falcon 9 launch carrying private Japanese moon lander”
SpaceX is readying to use its reliable Falcon 9 rocket to send a privately funded mission to the surface of the moon. However, HAKUTO-R Mission 1, slated to lift off from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), is now awaiting a new launch date.
An initial launch window on the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 30 was forgone to allow for additional pre-flight checkouts. A backup opportunity on Dec. 1 was called off after further inspections of the launch vehicle and data review.
Oh well. Don’t know when.
gb….”Did you get much snow?”
***
Depends where you are located. Here in Ditchmond, we got about 4″ but it was melting pretty fast after it fell. I was out walking in it and hit sections of slushy snow.
In Burnaby, around 600′ altitude, they had about a foot. It was enough to cause a horror show for drivers. Some took more than 6 hours to go 10 km.
Most people are not prepared for snow and they use All-season tires, which are useless on a slight grade. Most tires are useless on grades because in heavy traffic, the exhaust and heat from the cars melt the snow slightly then it freezes. So you are trying to move up a hill in a long line of traffic on ice. All it takes is one person with inadequate tires and/or experience to stall an entire line of cars.
Buses get caught in it and rapid transit shuts down if there’s too much snow. Still, I could walk 10 km in snow in 2 hours….3 max…and I don’t understand why it took some over 6 hours to go 10 km.
Europas Patchy Plate Tectonics
by Paul Gilster on December 2, 2022
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
“I keep an eye on recent findings about Europa because fine-tuning procedures for the science that missions like Europa Clipper and JUICE (Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer) will perform at the Jovian moon is an ongoing process that doesnt stop at launch. The more we learn now the more anomalies we uncover or processes we begin to glimpse the better able well be to adjust spacecraft observing strategies to go after the answers to these phenomena. A new study teaches us a bit more about Europas plate tectonics, the only solid evidence of tectonics we know of other than Earths. And it will take new high-resolution imagery to confirm the theories put forth within it.”
—…
I find it interesting to consider than Europa has plate tectonic- or it’s interesting theory.
Though Mercury sort of, has plate tectonic, or plates move. That ice plates move Europa is not what I would count as plate tectonic, but it’s rocky surface effecting icy crust, I count that as plate tectonic. And wonder how tall can volcano get in that low gravity ocean world.
Earth’s Oxygen Came From an Unexpectedly Deep And Hot Source, Study Suggests
Nature
03 December 2022
By David Mole et al., The Conversation
https://www.sciencealert.com/earths-oxygen-came-from-an-unexpectedly-deep-and-hot-source-study-suggests
from: https://instapundit.com/
…
“While the exact mechanism is unclear, the occurrence of these magmas suggests that the process of subduction, where ocean water is taken hundreds of kilometers into our planet, generates free oxygen. This then oxidizes the overlying mantle.”
…
“As far as we know, the Earth is the only place in the solar system past or present with plate tectonics and active subduction. This suggests that this study could partly explain the lack of oxygen and, ultimately, life on the other rocky planets in the future as well.”
Climate ugliness – Green Blob- Intermittent Wind and Solar
Green Energy Cabal Blind to Africas Medical Horror Show
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/02/green-energy-cabal-blind-to-africas-medical-horror-show/
I hate our government. I hate globalism.
I hate fascism.
None of the older Italian governments, were much better.
Aussie Road Block Climate Protestor Sentenced to Actual Jail Time
5 hours ago
Eric Worrall
31 Comments
Essay by Eric Worrall
Only 8 months but it is a start.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/03/aussie-road-disrupting-climate-protestor-sentenced-to-actual-jail-time/
The United Nations is alarmed that a climate protestor who set up an illegal roadblock is going to jail.
“#Australia – I am alarmed at #NSW court’s prison term against #ClimateProtester 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗰𝗼 and refusal to grant bail until a March 2023 appeal hearing. Peaceful protesters should never be criminalised or imprisoned.”
I think we need a way to fine such useless employees of UN- as they are too dumb and they support harassment of citizens of all nations.
Hi,
I have a question regarding the temperature trend in the lower stratoshpere. I realize tha this might be basic, bu what is the cause of the change in the declining trend that occurs around -95 to -00? The time series initial trend is at about 0.4 degrees of cooling per decade to change to about 0.1 degrees cooling per decade in the later part of the series, also with reduced variations. This is a quite radical change, so I am wondering whether id is established from where it comes?
Between 1995 and 2000 was large El Nino event.
??
Hi in turn
The current stratospheric cooling is said to be due to the huge amount of H2O thrown into the stratosphere by the Honga Tonga eruption in last January.
H2O intrusion into the LS is said to have the inverse behavior to SO2: it cools the LS instead of warming it.
*
When you process UAH’s lower stratosphere 2.5 degree grid data, you see this:
August 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n6rXv2cSP0mRCE2nJ4DHeflLVmvF0jmD/view
September 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cr2RYXTwO4nGOFCT-oWxecqU5JG8Opr-/view
October 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kut91328oJEKMjXNwTCBavpxP64x3G9z/view
We will see how it looks in November when the grid data for this month is available.
Any way, the extreme cooling of LS in the South Pole region is evident.
*
The same happened in 1991 in the inverse direction (huge LS warming in the South Pole region) after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
No idea why the South Pole attracts such anomalies.
Hi Bindidon,
Thank you very much for your thourough reply to my question, that is certainly interesting and have also observed the cooling in relation to volcanic eruptions and that is certainly the reason for the larger variations in the time series.
However I was also wondering about the long term trend, lets say over a 5 year period. Comparing the current trend to how it was before 2000 the cooling trend is significantly lower, and what is behind that?
David
” … the cooling in relation to volcanic eruptions … ”
If you still are talking about LS, then this can’t be correct because volcanic eruptions with huge SO2 output into LS aren’t a cause of cooling there.
Here is a chart comparing LS and LT anomalies till Oct 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view
where it is visible that El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 were responsible for warming in LS coupled with (in comparison weaker) cooling in LT.
What is the cause for the negative slope in LS from 1979 till 1998, and why since then the slope became weaker: no se!
Sorry my mistake, I was meaning *warming here: the cooling in relation to volcanic eruptions
Ok, interesting to know that there is no apparent explanation for the weaker slope after 1998!
Thank you for your charts and answers!
Btw, I am reading about the “winter gatekeeper” hypothesis which is about solar indirect effects on climate. Can recommend it: https://clintel.org/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-i-the-search-for-a-solar-signal/