A reminder on commenting here…

December 22nd, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

… if you haven’t had a comment approved here before, I will need to approve your first one. Then your comments should be approved automatically after that. Sometimes I get busy and won’t check for several days, but I will try to check once or twice a day.


131 Responses to “A reminder on commenting here…”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. skeptikal says:

    Merry Christmas!

    • Glenn Martin says:

      I wish to be approved because I follow you often. My background is in telecommunications, not your field of expertise, but close to that. Now that I am retired, I can enlighten myself by gaining as much knowledge as possible on climate without worrying about political suppression; sometimes, it happens truthfully. And I have personally experienced this on Facebook. I do wish to be involved in getting the truth out as you do.

  2. kevink says:

    Well, after many years of you presenting a defense of an unproven hypothesis using “computer model sleight of hand” (aka “magic”) being requested to have a comment “approved” by yourself is a bit of a waste of your time and my time.

    Funny that all of the “predictions” about “global warming” postulated over the last 20 years or so have turned to be “bunk”.

    Perhaps the “Greenhouse Gas” hypothesis, aka “Radiative Green House Effect” is nothing but a chimera that was poorly understood by way too many “smart folks”.

    Approve/Disapprove this comment at your leisure, your approval makes no difference in determining the “real truth” of Humans ability to “control the climate”.

    Happy Holidays.

    • Tim S says:

      I learned that gases all have have a unique emission spectrum in sophomore high school chemistry. In my third-year college course in Physical Chemistry, I learned that the spectrum is so precise and predictable that it can be used for both qualitative and quantitative chemical analysis (FTIR for example). Which university courses, or lack thereof, have completely convinced you that physical observation of scientific reality is not correct?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Tim,
        So let me ask you. Current GHE theory is that the Sun warms the surface, the Earth radiates black body, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and emit LWR either to space or back toward Earth, and the difference in surface and out to space, is GHE warming of the atmosphere? Is that correct

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            So, G=Isurf-Iout isn’t correct?

          • Tim S says:

            No, this is not the correct topic for that discussion, and no, a simple statement of a complex topic is not correct. My comment in reply to kevink was intended to express that the underlying science is correct and well understood for individual gases. The application of that simple concept is very complex because each atmospheric gas, and each surface feature on earth, has a different characteristic. The climate system of the earth is not simple or well understood.

            Merry Christmas!

          • stephen p. anderson says:

            Glad to see you say that. I concur.

        • DMackenzie says:

          Yes. Although such a simple answer will be mightily nit-picked.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…”I learned that gases all have have a unique emission spectrum…”

        ***

        Unique, but not continuous. Most gases absorb and emit at very specific frequencies, at a specified temperature.

        The basis of that fact was discovered by Bohr, in 1913, long after the basis of the GHE was formed. It was Bohr who proved why hydrogen emits and absorbs only at certain discrete frequencies and he likened it to the action of electrons in atoms which absorb and emit EM only at discrete frequencies.

        When greenhouse theory originated, it was believed that heat could be transmitted through space as heat rays. That anachronism is still in use today by climate alarmists who try to bypass the 2nd law of thermodynamics using a sleight of hand based on that archaic heat ray theory. They refuse to differentiate between electromagnetic energy and heat, a serious mistake that has lead to the current GHE and AGW theories.

        Studying gas theory is not enough. You need to get into the quantum theory of atoms started by Bohr in 1913. Only then does it make sense as to why heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by its own means. Bohr’s theory explains exactly why.

        • Tim S says:

          Gordon, You have provided a perfect statement that you do not understand the very basic science of heat transfer by thermal radiation. It is real. I do not know what else I can do except to suggest that you do some research and educate yourself.

    • phi says:

      The problem is not in radiative physics, Manabe demonstrated it quite well with his 1964 paper. No, the big hole in the theory is the impossibility of thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect because convection is not calculable.

      Consequently, models uses an absurd trick (empirical lapse rate) to circumvent thermodynamics and therefore the results obtained are absolutely meaningless.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      “Funny that all of the “predictions” about “global warming” postulated over the last 20 years or so have turned to be “bunk”.”

      You have obviously not seen these predictions that turned out to be very accurate.

      https://youtu.be/fM34UMEr6L4

      https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

      Good science in unforgiving.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        maguff…all you are showing in your linked data is an implied correlation between CO2 levels and warming. There is no proof in the implications that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.

      • barry says:

        MdGuffin is showing that the predictions turned out well, contrary to what was stated.

        Do you have trouble staying on topic?

  3. lewis guignard says:

    Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

  4. Eben says:

    I’m surprised Bindidong isn’t sucking up in here trying to become a moderator

  5. Mike Henderson says:

    Enjoy the blog.
    Learning more everyday.
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  6. angech says:

    Thank you for approving of my commentating in the past and of the many and varied denizens that habitually frequent your pages.

    The gracious approach to us said commentators may not be reflected in our mumblings but the fact that you get so many comments over the course of a month is a testament to the interest in the subjects you raise and the keenness of most of us to have an outlet for our frustrations over the state of play in the climate discussions on both sides.

  7. Bindidon says:

    Joyeux Noёl
    Frohe Weihnachten
    Merry Xmas

    from Germoney

  8. So, this new policy means the first comment must be polite, stick to the subject of the article, and intelligent?

    I assume that means the second comment can be hostile, off topic and claim another poster is a climate science dingbat, from a family of climate science dingbats?

    This is an excellent policy, in my opinion.

    If I was the Big Shot Moderator here, I would just delete about one of twenty comments, at random, just to show commenters who is boss.

    Will it be acceptable for an argument between commenters to continue endlessly, until one commenter compares the other to H i t l e r?

    (This comment is satire intended to be funny.
    It may not be funny, but that was intended.)

    • Clint R says:

      I did chuckle at this sentence, RG:

      “If I was the Big Shot Moderator here, I would just delete about one of twenty comments, at random, just to show commenters who is boss.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      richard…”I assume that means the second comment can be hostile, off topic and claim another poster is a climate science dingbat, from a family of climate science dingbats?”

      ***

      You are missing the forest because there are trees in the way. There are many sites, mostly run by climate alarmists, where people are censored based on their views.

      Whereas Roy’s site may feature people becoming frustrated and lashing out, for the most part, the discussions involve in-depth physics.

  9. Eben says:

    This place got overrun by a small handful of trolls who will argue endlessly round and round about anything and everything
    3000 posts off chaff and fluff, nonsense and girl talk per month, and totally off topic

  10. Peter Paulson says:

    This is exactly the kind of study that we seek. It helps to keep the awareness of the truth evolving as we broaden the inputs considered in predicting and back-casting climate change.

  11. WizGeek says:

    Dr. Spencer, I offer my services to redesign your website such that anyone can mute anyone (on their PC only, of course) for a specific thread or for all threads. This will alleviate your diligent maintenance of ne’er-do-wells, nincompoops, hijackers, aberrants, spammers, and Illuminati. Oh my!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Any other butt-kissing services you have to offer? You seem to have expertise in such area.

      • wizgeek says:

        Your envy is unbecoming and evidence of feelings of inadequacy. Professional help only is a phone call away, Gordon. We’re here for you.

  12. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim f…”Gordon, You have provided a perfect statement that you do not understand the very basic science of heat transfer by thermal radiation. It is real. I do not know what else I can do except to suggest that you do some research and educate yourself”.

    ***

    Till you are able to explain heat transfer by radiation I suggest you take your own advice and educate yourself on the subject.

    It is impossible for heat to be transferred by radiation for the simple fact that heat cannot be transmitted through space. Heat is a property of atoms, it is the kinetic energy of atoms. If there are no atom, as in space, it is impossible for heat to move through space.

    Where there is abundant matter in space such as in our lower atmosphere, heat can be transferred molecule to molecule, but the molecules are so far apart the amount transferred is negligible. Furthermore, the transfer is not by radiation but via conduction and convection.

    You have obviously not taken the time to read on Bohr’s work, which explains it all beautifully. Bohr’s insight turned the scientific world on its head because it revealed at the atomic level that otherwise unknown processes are at work.

    Basically, the unknown processes are the interactions of electrons in atoms and electromagnetic radiation. Until you understand that action, you will never understand why heat cannot flow through space or why heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.

    Heat is not transferred by EM, there is a conversion involved where heat is converted to EM, then back to heat at the target. Heat is lost at the source and re-created at the target. There is no such thing as thermal radiation, that is an anachronism dating back to the 1800s when scientists believed heat flowed through space as heat rays.

    This may come across to you as insignificant but it has immense implications for the GHE and AGW theories. Basically, it eliminates the transfer of heat from colder regions to warmer regions, a major mistake involved in both theories.

    Furthermore, the GHE theory gives properties to infrared radiation it does not have. It confuses electromagnetic energy with thermal energy and implies that trapped IR can warm a greenhouse. I have yet to see an explanation for ho that is supposed to work. Obviously, a greenhouse warms because heated atoms/molecules are trapped by glass in the greenhouse, not IR radiation.

    However, that notion persists among climate alarmists who believe that the trapping of a tiny amount of surface radiation by so-called greenhouse gases represents a trapping of heat in the same way glass in a greenhouse traps heated molecules of air.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      sorry tim f, this should have been directed at tim s.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        I did find a video for you.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM9S4QiEHEY

        After viewing this I can now understand your thought process.

        Hopefully other posters take the time to view it and then they will understand how your mind works and where you are coming from.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman,

          Nobody needs to watch a video to understand your lack of though processes.

          Do you also support calling Insulation “GHE” because you want to sound clever? Maybe you could explain why the same insulation that allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years or so, is supposed to make the Earth hotter (but only in the future, it seems).

          Of course not. All you can do is duck, weave, bob, and keep avoiding the reality that you are not real bright.

          Here’s a thought – maybe you could appeal to the authority of a noted fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann, or a pretend “climate scientist” called Gavin Schmidt. You certainly can’t think for yourself, can you?

          Carry on.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            I ask you this but you never answer. Where is your evidence that the Earth’s Surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years? You make these unsupported claims than go on to attack other posters on points you can’t understand.

            Evidence shows that the Earth’s surface is currently warming not cooling. Where is you evidence that this is not the case?

            As “they” say, “Put up or shut up!”

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            The surface was once molten (according to real scientists). It is not molten now. If you think that the surface has not cooled, you must be a delusional SkyDragon.

            Maybe you believe in some magical SkyDragon “insulation” which, after allowing the temperature to fall for four and a half billion years or so, suddenly starts to heat the planet! Are you a lunatic, o4 do you really believe the SkyDragon cult nonsense?

            You can just refuse to believe the surface was once molten – if that helps you to accept fantas6 over fact.

            Otherwise, you are stuck with the evidence that the surface has cooled – considerably.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            Just because the surface was once molten does not confirm your unsupported assertion that it has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years! What is the rate of cooling? The surface cooled rapidly and then reached an approximate steady state temperature heated by solar input. It shows no sign of continuous cooling. We have had liquid water for billions of years. You need to rethink this claim. It is wrong!

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            Wriggle and squirm, Warmist worm!

            You wrote –

            “Just because the surface was once molten does not confirm your unsupported assertion that it has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years!”

            As I said, the surface was once molten. You agree.

            Now it is not. You agree.

            A drop in temperature from “molten” to “not molten” is called “cooling”.

            Slow cooling is also called “cooling”. Not heating! Hopefully (but I’m not sure) you agree.

            The rate of cooling is irrelevant, but because you asked so nicely, it’s currently about one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum. You can look up the peer reviewed research, by real scientists, in prestigious journals, yourself. No SkyDragon fantasies needed.

            Off you go Norman, try to figure out how a mostly glowing ball of rock, suspended in a vastly colder environment, can do anything other than cool. Yes, Norman, the laws of thermodynamics apply to the Earth, whether idiot SkyDragons accept it or not.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            You basically are not intelligent enough to discuss things with. What you state is based upon the interior of the Earth not the surface!! This point has been addressed to you more than once.

            Here:
            https://scitechdaily.com/earths-interior-is-cooling-much-faster-than-expected/

            The surface is NOT cooling. It is solar heated and reaches some average. Cooler some years warmer others. Until you can understand the difference between the Earth’s surface and its core or interior you will forever spout nonsense. I suggest you play on your phone games like find the difference. It has two images similar but with differences. If you play these games you might be able to understand the difference between interior of Earth (which is slowly cooling) and the surface which is heated by the Sun and not currently cooling nor does it show any signs of any long term cooling.

          • Swenson says:

            Norman Nitwit,

            I know in your SkyDragon fantasy that reality has no impact on your cultist beliefs.

            For example, you offer the following nonsense as fact – “The surface is NOT cooling. It is solar heated and reaches some average.” Well, no. As you agreed before, the surface has demonstrably cooled (whether you like it or not)!

            After four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled.

            As a matter of fact, according to the average idiot SkyDragon, the Sun is unable to maintain the Earth at an average of any more than 255 K or so. Certainly not molten (you agree it has cooled, or have you already forgotten), and not even now – even foolish SkyDragons acknowledge that the present average temperature is 288 K or so. So, no. The Earth continues to cool.

            You assert that miracles occur on a regular basis, and as the interior continues to cool, the surface periodically heats up, cools down, heats up – something like the surface of a cooling cup of coffee would spontaneously heat up, cool down . . . , I suppose.

            Unfortunately, Nature does not vary the laws of thermodynamics from day to day, just to make you appear intelligent. You are so dumb, you cannot even suggest a mechanism for the Earth miraculously heating and cooling, can you? GHE, do you think? Insulation, perhaps?

            You can’t even justify the surface cooling at night, let alone over four and a half billion years or so – that’s because you don’t understand physical laws – not the SkyDragon nonsense claiming that CO2 controls the surface temperature – but real physical laws.

            Carry on wriggling.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            You can make all types of unsupported ignorant claims. Still won’t make you right. What evidence do you present that the Earth’s Surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years. If you do any real research instead of endless nonsense you will see the SURFACE cooled rapidly for a few million years then stopped cooling completely being warmed by the Sun maintaining a steady temperature for billions of years within a small range (warm enough to keep water liquid but not hot enough to kill off life).

            Now go learn how stupid your comments are. They are wrong even if you repeat them 10,000 times. Get over yourself and you bloated ego and do some real reading.

          • Norman says:

            Swenson

            Maybe you are a lazy person so I will help.

            Here:

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

            This has best estimates for Earth Surface Temp. Has been warmer in the past but also cooler. It shows some cycling pattern. There is no steady surface cooling as you suggest.

          • Swenson says:

            Nutty Norman,

            No, Norman. When you write -“will see the SURFACE cooled rapidly for a few million years then stopped cooling completely being warmed by the Sun maintaining a steady temperature for billions of years within a small range (warm enough to keep water liquid but not hot enough to kill off life).”, you are just shooting the SkyDragon GHE belief stone cold dead, aren’t you?

            You see, you have removed any possible role for the GHE, haven’t you – even if you are only admitting that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature! You don’t seem to realise that hotter things cool faster (the fourth power of absolute temperature applies), nor do you realise that the vast radiogenic heat reserves have caused the cooling to be far slower than was originally thought.

            As to your “liquid water”, maybe you don’t realise that vast quantities of water is actually frozen, these days, due to the progressive cooling of the planet. The fossil record indicates that Antarctica was once completely ice free. So was the rest of the planet before the first liquid water formed!

            So stick with your deranged belief that a slowly cooling object like the Earth can magically heat up, cool down, and heat up again, without any particular reason. Maybe some dim-witted journalism at NOAA will agree with you. Here’s a sample of the sort of journalistic claptrap that SkyDragon cultists like you believe “Our 4.54-billion-year-old planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris (planetesimals) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, . . . ”

            John Tyndall believed that meteoric collisions accounted for the heat of the Sun. He knew nothing about atomic nuclear processes. Obviously, some dimwits at NASA are stuck back in the world of 19th century physics, and are studiously ignoring anything that contradicts SkyDragon teachings.

    • gbaikie says:

      Most of Earth’s surface is ocean, most sunlight reaching the Earth surface pass thru the top surface of the ocean.
      Being warmer and being most of Earth surface, the ocean surface controls global air temperature.

      Most of the sunlight reaching Earth is entering near the regions near equator and tropical ocean heat engine warms the entire world.
      The tropical ocean transfers atmospheric heat via convectional heat transfer, and warmed tropical water flow poleward and ocean water near polar region fall, allowing warmer tropical water to flow towards the poles.

      Earth is in an ice house global climate and a ice house global climate has cold ocean. If the ocean warmer it transport more heat to polar region and causing a more uniform global air temperature.

      Our average ocean temperature has average temperature of about 3.5 C and warmest times during interglacial period the average temperature of the ocean is 4 C or more. A ocean with average temperature of 4 C, is still a fairly cold ocean, but an Ocean with average temperature
      of 4 C causes more heat to transported to polar region which cause a more uniform global temperature, thereby increasing the global average air temperature.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Earth’s ocean is a large thermal storage unit.

      • Swenson says:

        gb,

        And why would water warmed by the Sun do anything except sit on the surface?

        Gravity acts towards the center of the Earth, not the poles.

        And so it is with water cooled at the surface. It falls – towards the centre of the Earth. “Experts” at NOAA and other places believe their own brightly coloured cartoon graphics, which look wonderful but are fantasies. Unfortunately for SkyDragon physics, water from the poles (well, the North Pole) has no compulsion to flow towards the equatorial regions. That’s just silly – the Earth is more or less spherical – why would warmer (or colder) water move anywhere, except to ascend or descend depending on its density? Of course, convection occurs, chaos intervenes, and water motion becomes very complicated very quickly!

        The lads and lassies at NOAA don’t seem to want to accept a couple of realities – the shape of the ocean basins changes continuously, hence so do perceived sea levels, and the water in the oceans sits only a few kilometers away from thousands of kilometers depth of glowing hot rock!

        Oh, and at the mid-ocean ridges encircling the Earth, the glowing interior actually continuously contacts the deep waters.

        Feynman said that science was belief in the ignorance of experts. He may have been talking about NOAA.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Swenson,
          I do know the Gulf Stream flows North. Been through it many times.

          • Swenson says:

            spa,

            Indeed, ocean currents flow where they will, and often enough in opposite directions at different depths. Nothing to do with NOAA’s bizarre ideas.

            “The three-equation system that gives rise to the Lorenz attractor is often referred to as a simple model of atmospheric convection, yet amongst the atmospheric science community, attention is rarely paid to the original fluid flow that the Lorenz equations describe. Consisting of a fluid layer heated from below and cooled from above, Rayleigh-Bnard convection (Fig. 2) is a hallmark flow beloved by fluid dynamicists and mathematicians alike for its analytical tractability, yet rich behaviour.” – EGU

            The key is “heated from below, and cooled from above”. Otherwise, no convection.

            Chaos in action, whether the atmosphere, the ocean, the “solid” crust. Chaos everywhere.

            If you don’t like chaos, quantum physics and the uncertainty principle lead to precisely the same practical outcomes – unpredictability. Chaos theory certainly seems to be borne out by observation and experiment.

            Still no GHE, and the alleged future warming seems at odds with observed past cooling.

            Colour me sceptical.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gb,

            And why would water warmed by the Sun do anything except sit on the surface?–

            Interesting question.
            It’s because cold ocean water falls.
            Cold, freshwater lake water, also falls.
            But there is difference between freshwater and sea water.

            And because ocean water falls, the largest waterfall in world
            is under the ocean surface.

          • gbaikie says:

            Google: “the largest waterfall in world is under the ocean surface”

            –Indeed, the world’s largest waterfall lies beneath the Denmark Strait, which separates Iceland and Greenland. At the bottom of the strait are a series of cataracts that begin 2,000 feet under the strait’s surface and plunge to a depth of 10,000 feet at the southern tip of Greenlandnearly a two-mile drop. Feb 26, 2021

            Where is Earth’s Largest Waterfall?
            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov facts largest-waterfall —

          • gbaikie says:

            Can also use:
            duckduckgo.com
            Or
            Bing
            Or
            swisscows.com

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            “When the water from the Denmark Strait cataract reaches the ocean floor, it forms a massive current traveling south, replacing warmer surface water thats flowing north.”

            As I say, why would it flow south? To replace warm surface water flowing north – once again for no particular reason?

            NOAA might be confused, do you think? Without heat from below, cold water just sits on the bottom. And of course, solar heated water generally just floats on top. If you want to get clever, you can form a solar pond, where hot dense water sits on the bottom, heating to maybe 90 C. Fairly quickly, you realise why using solar ponds as a power source is generally impractical.

            NOAA love brightly coloured but physically impossible diagrams, as does NASA.

            Here’s some more misleading nonsense from NOAA – “Large-scale surface ocean currents are driven by global wind systems that are fueled by energy from the sun. These currents transfer heat from the tropics to the polar regions, influencing local and global climate”

            NOAA just promotes this sort of rubbish, and nobody queries it, because it makes no difference. Currents are currents, and no one at all can influence them in any predictable way. Just chaos at work.

            NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – under the aegis of the US Department of Commerce. Go figure.

            “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” – Feynman. I choose Nature over the Department of Commerce.

          • gbaikie says:

            “As I say, why would it flow south? To replace warm surface water flowing north once again for no particular reason?”

            Because it has heavier weight and cold water falls. Fills up bottom water with denser water and denser water over flows [and falls].
            Some warmer surface waters flows back to towards Equator also.
            There are tidal forces and wind forces and the Earth spins.

            But on the topic of global climate, cold water falls in polar regions, tropical water surface in Atlantic ocean flow pole-ward, this called the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream makes Europe about 10 C warmer than without tropical waters warming UK and Europe.
            The average temperature of Europe is about 9 C because of Gulf Stream- without it, it would be more Canada which has average temperature of about -3 C.

          • gbaikie says:

            Cold water also “upwells”. La Nina has a lot upwelling colder water, and warmer Pacific waters, pushed westward towards Asia.
            But the tropical ocean heat engine is not the only way to cause upwelling of colder water.
            And polar waters are not the only surface waters fall, warm salty waters, can be denser, and also fall- this occurs a fair amount in regions of middle east.
            But as I have said, our ocean has not really been explored much.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            You wrote –

            “But on the topic of global climate, cold water falls in polar regions, tropical water surface in Atlantic ocean flow pole-ward, this called the Gulf Stream.”

            Cold water “falls” everywhere – not just at the poles. Towards the centre of the Earth.

            The NOAA diagram to which you linked shows surface water apparently cooling and “falling” on one side of the graphic, but on the other side, the surface water does not cool, and merrily flows North, for no reason at all. Look at the graphic, and see how many “this can’t be” items you can identify.

            This whole “water gets hot at the Equator, flows to the North Pole, gets very cold, and then decides to flow South” is quite nonsensical. Deep ocean currents flow in all directions. At present, some large currents, such as the Gulf Stream, have been named, and their impact fairly well known.

            As far as I know, ARGO floats are unable to sense and record accurate positional information while submerged (no inertial guidance system) meaning that salinity and temperature data cannot be accurately located to a position.

            All in all, pretty much collecting information for the sake of it – unless you happen to be operating submarines, in which case the information might be exceptionally valuable for evading detection.

            The ocean, like the atmosphere, is in constant chaotic motion. Measuring things like temperature without a specific aim in mind, is quite useless, as you can guarantee that the measurement will be different in the future. Measurement to establish whether your hypothesis about something is false, is a different thing.

            Any measurements connected to “climate science” are pretty much guaranteed to be both pointless and useless. Even SkyDragon cultists claim that the GHE causes hotter, colder, wetter, drier, and more variable weather. In other words, measurements will tell you nothing, because weather is always hotter, colder, wetter or drier than it was before! Never steady, never constant, always changing.

            No GHE. Just the universe unfolding as it should.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Cold water falls everywhere not just at the poles. Towards the centre of the Earth.”

            Cooled water does fall everywhere, it’s the reason ocean surface temperature doesn’t change much in 24 hour period, surface water cools and replaced by warmer water below it. And wind and wave also mixes the top few meters a lot- and also does mix tens of meters in depth.
            Also top surface of ocean is not warmed much by sunlight instead top couple meters of ocean is warmed the most by the sunlight.
            As compared to land surface in which top inch absorbs all sunlight- though a day of sunlight can heat up about the top 8″ -though over weeks time below this, it slowly heat up- or it can take many days to heat up the soil enough to be warm enough so seeds can planted.

            “But how can there be waterfalls in the ocean? Its because cold water is denser than warm water, and in the Denmark Strait, southward-flowing frigid water from the Nordic Seas meets warmer water from the Irminger Sea. The cold, dense water quickly sinks below the warmer water and flows over the huge drop in the ocean floor, creating a downward flow estimated at well over 123 million cubic feet per second.”
            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/largest-waterfall.html

            So 123 million cubic feet = 3.48297 million cubic meter per second
            or about 3.48297 million tonnes per second
            A cubic km of water is 1 billion cubic meter or in 1000 seconds
            3.48297 cubic km water is flowing down waterfall.
            And in a day, it’s a lot. And more per year.
            But ocean is big- a trickle of water compared to vast amount of ocean waters. But if think of in terms of heat, many, many nuclear bombs of heat- but vs ocean, again, a tiny amount of heat.
            And roughly going on journey which is said, takes about 10,000 years.

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            You quoted –

            “. . . and in the Denmark Strait, southward-flowing frigid water from the Nordic Seas meets warmer water from the Irminger Sea.”

            As I said, why does the frigid water flow south? Magic?

            Is the warmer water flowing north? More magic? Even NOAA seems to portray the warm water and the cold water as sharing the same sea level, with no particular reason that one part of this surface is flowing north, another portion flowing opposite, with the only difference that north and south of an invisible demarcation line, the surface water varies in temperature.

            Not cold water upwelling, according to NOAA. Maybe the warmer water has come north from the tropics, not cooling as it continues its magical northward progress! Now, as it is displaced by the colder water travelling south, what happens to the warmer water? Does it hump up like a mountain on the cold water, but continue its northern push? Not according to NOAA, the sea level doesn’t change, and the warm northern-bound water obviously doesn’t cool, otherwise it would also sink, leaving a big hole on the surface!

            All nonsense. Abyssal depths are about the same temperature regardless of where on the globe they are located. Deep currents are due to convection, which involves heat from below. No basal heating, no convection at all. The cold water just sits on the bottom. The warm water sits on the top.

            NOAA, like NASA, the NSF, and many others, has its fair share of nitwits. Big on fantasy and wishful thinking, short on experimental support and accepting reality.

          • gbaikie says:

            –gb,

            You quoted

            . . . and in the Denmark Strait, southward-flowing frigid water from the Nordic Seas meets warmer water from the Irminger Sea.

            As I said, why does the frigid water flow south? Magic?–

            It’s similar to how cold air of north can flow south.
            But assuming that is magic, also. Let’s make a big box and have filled with water. The box is level. The water has a uniform temperature of say 10 C. Now it corner of box, you put some ice.
            When ice melts in makes cold water which is denser than 10 C, and it
            falls. Will not the cold water pool over the entire bottom of box?

            A problem could be related to how big the box of water is, if it’s big enough, it will pool along the entire bottom of box.
            Or when dealing large scale, tides will effect the box of water, and will have a less measurable effect on a smaller box of water.

            Or with large enough scale slight difference in water densities can have a more measurable effect.
            It seems the largest waterfall in world- proves a point or I have to ask, do you doubt the largest waterfall, exist?
            And if it does exist, how do explain it?

          • Swenson says:

            gb,

            You wrote –

            “Lets make a big box and have filled with water. The box is level. The water has a uniform temperature of say 10 C. Now it corner of box, you put some ice.
            When ice melts in makes cold water which is denser than 10 C, and it
            falls. Will not the cold water pool over the entire bottom of box?”

            Ah, but the water in the abyssal depths is around 2 C for starters – regardless of surface temperature. So put your ice anywhere you like – say in the centre. Holding the bottom at 2 C, and the surface at whatever you like, which direction is your ice cooled water going to go? South? North? East? West? You need a better analogy. What about if you imitate Nature, and put a couple of red hot heating elements on the bottom? How about barriers reaching nearly to the surface of the water, from side to side?

            As to undersea “waterfalls”, if a phenomenon can be reproducibly measured, it exists. However, SkyDragons claim to measure all sorts of things – “global” temperatures to 0.01 C – but they can’t tell you what this temperature was yesterday! “Global sea level” to 0.04 mm. Water varies in composition, temperature, pressure. That’s why it moves! It’s not surprising that someone can measure the movement. The reasons for the movement are rarely simple – involving intractable fluid dynamics and chaos. NOAA’s fairytale begs more questions than it answers.

            NOAA seem to be unaware that ocean currents (moving water) occur in three dimensions, including the vertical. One might as well ascribe every frigid downdraft from a cumulonimbus to cold air originating at the Poles! No? Blame it on CO2?

            Water movements obey the same physical laws as air movements – Lorenz’s investigations into chaos were originally initiated by trying to understand convection in – water!

            If you choose, believe NOAA, NASA, the NSF, GISS and all the rest. It’s a free world, so it’s said. Only joking.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Ah, but the water in the abyssal depths is around 2 C for starters regardless of surface temperature. So put your ice anywhere you like say in the centre.”

            Put insulate huge jar in middle, have colder than cold water from ice above it.

            The Arctic ocean is basin of cold water flowing out of it, the height of colder ocean is at higher elevation than the rest of the ocean.
            Arctic ocean is suppose to be the coldest ocean in the world- though I don’t claim they have measured it very well.

            Anyhow, with center in box with huge jar, warmer surface water should flow to center.

  13. stephen p. anderson says:

    Pretty hilarious from Heller:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3NWICM6sNA

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Another great one from Heller. He’s on fire.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D12nUf83Ep0

      • Norman says:

        stephen p anderson

        I do find the same things Heller does. I think the Media is very bad with Climate Science but if you want to grab attention you need to come up with information that produces emotion. Media is why our Nation is so divided. It is not just the left, the right is just as bad creating fanatics on both sides willing to do anything for the cause.

        When any bad weather event takes place somewhere on the Globe they attribute it to Climate Change. Very little evidence or support. It is quite bad and I happy Heller is addressing this. Cliff Mass also does this. I do understand the Media has to do this to generate profit. Like Sea Level rise is accelerating. Sounds awful people imagine a large amount. It is really quite a small acceleration.

        https://www.science.org/content/article/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought

        ” the study found that sea level rise accelerated by an additional 0.04 millimeters per year, although the acceleration is not statistically significant.”

        Most media does not give he actual number so it sounds “scary” and they can get people’s attention and sell more Ads for higher profit.

        • Swenson says:

          Norman, you gullible little baby,

          You quoted –

          ” . . . the study found that sea level rise accelerated by an additional 0.04 millimeters per year, although the acceleration is not statistically significant.”

          You do realise that measuring sea level to 0.04 mm is quite impossible, don’t you? Applying averages won’t help, the changes in ocean basin volumes due to tectonic plate movements, isostatic rebound, ground water extraction – and all the rest – make such statements look about as ridiculous as they are.

          Come on Norman, you can run, but you surely cannot hide. What’s your miracle explanation for the Earth’s surface getting hotter, then colder, then hotter etc etc, well before humans appeared on the scene? GHE variability? A vengeful God?

          Keep on with the gullible idiocy – it suits you.

        • stephen p. anderson says:

          Norman,
          It’s the media propaganda that politicians use to justify their idiotic legislation. Government is always the last bad actor.

  14. Bindidon says:

    I read above, without being surprised:

    ” You do realise that measuring sea level to 0.04 mm is quite impossible, dont you? ”

    *
    Once more, the arrogant twat nicknamed Swenson (formerly Amazed, earlier Mike Flynn) repeats his usual sea level nonsense which perfectly unveils the level of his ignorance.

    The Flynnson guy isn’t even able to correctly read the texts he tries to reply to, let alone would he be able to make a difference between measurements and linear estimates over them.

    Let’s shed some light on his mental obscurity with a table showing how many millimeters the monthly average of daily sea level measurements can vary from their mean for a single gauge:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qMOZs7PXMgFemzIOyvHU69-s0zGmyiiI/view

    When we now compute the linear estimate for the blue data plot from 1916 till 2021, we obtain -7.85 mm/year, what of course never could be measured. Trends are not measured, they are computed, as are accelerations within trends.

    But that doesn’t matter to arrogant persons like Flynnson.

    *
    And here you see the genial, hyperexperienced Flynnson at work:

    ” Applying averages wont help, the changes in ocean basin volumes due to tectonic plate movements, isostatic rebound, ground water extraction and all the rest make such statements look about as ridiculous as they are. ”

    When you look at such a pompous sentence, you immediately understand that Flynnson never has read any paper about sea levels, let alone would he ever have performed any valuable data evaluation in that domain.

    The glacial isostatic rebound measured nearest to the Furuogrund tide gauge is 10 mm/year.

    But Flynnson ignores such microscopic details, and prefers to remain condescending, discrediting and denigrating: like so many pseudo-skeptics of his kind.

    *
    The end of his post is wonderful:

    ” Whats your miracle explanation for the Earths surface getting hotter, then colder, then hotter etc etc, well before humans appeared on the scene? GHE variability? A vengeful God?

    Keep on with the gullible idiocy it suits you. ”

    Flynnson has no idea of how ridiculous he looks when endlessly writing such stupidities.

    • Swenson says:

      Binnny,

      The thickness of a thin human hair is 0.04 mm.

      You really believe that “climate scientists” can measure global sea levels to that accuracy?

      Maybe you really are stupid enough to deny tides, which vary from 0 per day at amphidromic points, to 4 or more in other places. Tidal range varies from day to day, and tide timing and level are actually quite unpredictable with any level of provision. And, of course the crust is in constant chaotic motion, and even measuring the altitude of the relatively solid crust to 0.04 mm accuracy is wishful thinking! So what’s the “global sea level” right now? What was it one hour ago?

      You still haven’t managed to say whether you actually believe that the Earth cooled, then heated, then cooled, then heated . . . , or how this miracle occurred!

      Give it a try – maybe you could ask a fake “scientist” like Gavin Schmidt for help? Or what about a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann, who was so stupid he didn’t even know whether he got a Nobel Prize or not!

      You wrote –

      “Flynnson has no idea of how ridiculous he looks when endlessly writing such stupidities.”

      Am I supposed to value your opinion? Why form of mental disturbance leads you to imagine that I should? All very strange, Binny. You can’t even describe the GHE, nor even bring yourself to say whether you believe the Earth has cooled to its present temperature (which would seem to confirm the complete irrelevance of the “GHE”, wouldn’t it?).

      Off you go Binny, draw some more graphs showing the amazing heating power of CO2! When do the seas start boiling?

      You really are delusional, aren’t you?

      • Bindidon says:

        Flynnson

        As predicted, you can’t post anything else than your absolutely stupid, irrelevant and brainless stuff.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          You are confused – that’s assumption, not prediction, and your assumptions are piled on other assumptions.

          Don’t blame me if your SkyDragon cultist response has been reduced to “absolutely stupid, irrelevant and brainless stuff.”.

          You can’t say why, and you hope nobody will notice that you can’t even state what you believe – is that because you realise that all your GHE nonsense cannot be supported by facts?

          Oh well, Binny, a wasted life shows how irrelevant you are.

          Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson

            As predicted, you cant post anything else than your absolutely stupid, irrelevant and brainless stuff.

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You are confused thats assumption, not prediction, and your assumptions are piled on other assumptions.

            Dont blame me if your SkyDragon cultist response has been reduced to absolutely stupid, irrelevant and brainless stuff..

            You cant say why, and you hope nobody will notice that you cant even state what you believe is that because you realise that all your GHE nonsense cannot be supported by facts?

            Oh well, Binny, a wasted life shows how irrelevant you are.

            Carry on.

    • RLH says:

      Tell me if you believe that an orbit (of a satellite) can be accurately measured to with 0.4mm above the geoid. Or that the geoid can be measured with that accuracy for that matter.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Tell me if you believe that an orbit (of a satellite) can be accurately measured to with 0.4mm above the geoid. ”

        You behave exactly as dumb and ignorant as Flynnson.

        Can’t you read what I wrote above, Linsley Hood?

        • RLH says:

          So what uncertainty do you have for satellite orbits above the geoid?

          • RLH says:

            Don’t forget to add in the accurate orbits of all of the other major bodies of the solar system in order to do the above calculation.

      • Swenson says:

        RLH,

        You are being far too tolerant with your 0.4 mm accuracy.

        Norman claimed 0.04 mm accuracy.

        These donkeys will believe anything.

      • Bindidon says:

        Linsley Hood

        What does your stupid question have to do with the fact that Flynnson does not understand the difference between measurements and trends?

        Can you explain why you ask this nonsense?

        • RLH says:

          Any measurement from a satellite requires that the orbit of that satellite is known at least that well. Do you not agree?

          • Swenson says:

            RLH,

            Binny lives in a fantasy world, where chaos does not exist (some in NASA deny chaos as well), and satellites fly in perfectly predictable Keplerian orbits. Ho ho, how delusional is that?

            Binny also batters on about “trends” in chaotic systems like the atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere. He simply refuses to accept the reality of the constantly changing “strange attractors” of such systems, let alone the fact that for a deterministic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour, there is no minimum change to input conditions which may result in a change of state. No minimum.

            There are no “reversions to the mean”, and no predictability better than a naive prediction based on extrapolating the past.

            But hey, Bindidon is not the sharpest tool in the shed – thinking that unsupported invective will overcome fact. His firmly held belief that “experts” can predict the future by “dissecting” the past shows the depth of his fantasy.

            Without experimental support, speculation remains just that, no matter the intellect of the speculator or the seductive appeal of his apparent logic. Binny’s speculation that he can predict the future is a fairly common one, and completely useless. Any 6 year old child can “predict” just as well.

          • RLH says:

            “satellites fly in perfectly predictable Keplerian orbits”

            They do. Sort of. The only problem is that an accurate Keplerian orbit requires that you know and deal with the position and mass of all other major bodies in the solar system.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          You seem less than keen about answering RLH’s question about accuracy.

          Maybe you could just accuse the questioner of stupity, irrelevancy, and brainlessness! You might be so well respected by the world at large that others might value your opinions.

          On the other hand, you might be seen as just another witless SkyDragon cultist, who can’t actually describe what you believe in, let alone say why.

          Maybe you could claim that trends continue forever? Or aren’t you quite that silly?

          All pretty mysterious – you seem to be avoiding committing yourself to anything in particular. Why is that? Don’t you even believe what you tell yourself?

          That’s a bit sad. Maybe you could keep avoiding reality, and just whine and complain that everybody else is stupid, irrelevant and brainless. Somebody might believe you, I suppose.

      • Bindidon says:

        Linsley Hood

        Stop diverting with your geoid stuff, and first answer whether or not you understood what I wrote here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/a-reminder-on-commenting-here/#comment-1420589

        As you cans see here:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/a-reminder-on-commenting-here/#comment-1421289

        Flynnson still doesn’t understand it.

  15. RLH says:

    Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.

  16. stephen p. anderson says:

    This Idaho murder case is interesting because they caught the guy partly with the geotracking of his cell phone, not necessarily the night of the crime but the weeks leading up to the murders.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      First they had to ID who might have done it. Apparently they got that from someone IDing his car and with DNA left at the scene.

  17. Happy new year Roy, and thank you for your excellent web.

    (Just a quick note if I am not already approved).

    Best regards,
    Agust

  18. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    You are confusing accuracy and resolution.

    • RLH says:

      So tell me accurately what the orbit of a satellite is. How it is determined and what causes it to vary.

      • Entropic man says:

        Resolution is the minimum difference between two measurements that a measuring instrument can detect. Accuracy is the uncertainty in a single measurement or the uncertainty of the mean of a number of measurements.

        Which is your 0.4mm?

      • Entropic man says:

        This should help. You can download the PDF here.

        https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/121/2/321/658818

        • Swenson says:

          EM,

          From your link –

          “The rms of the height differences is approximately 5cm, indicating remarkable agreement.”

          Do you think you might be better served appealing to an authority which supports you?

          0.04 mm is quite a bit smaller than 5 cm.

          Anyone who claims that global sea level can be “measured” at all is dreaming. Basin volume, volume of liquid contents, and the reference geoid are constantly changing. Averaging is pointless, as the changes are chaotic in nature.

          None of this diversionary nonsense shores up the existence of any GHE. Weather, climate, sea-levels, the crust itself, change continuously. Measure away. See how much good it will do you.

  19. wizgeek says:

    Well, this pre-approval mechanism worked well! /snark

    • Tim S says:

      They wait a few days for the legitimate commenters to have their say, and then the trolls descend. It seems they want to be trolled. A good troll needs someone that wants to be trolled as if it is some kind of challenge.

  20. Christos Vournas says:

    Happy New 2023 Year to you Dr. Roy Spencer!
    Also the best wishes to your wonderful Blog!

  21. Bindidon says:

    ” So Blinny’s conclusion is that orbits are not determined by the geoid over which they fly and not knowing that geoid accurately makes calculating that orbit with any accuracy challenging at best. ”

    As usual, when Linsley Hood aka RLH does not (want to) understand what he is told, he switches to his preferred technique: to insinuate that somebody ‘concludes’ something, even though s/he never did.

    This perversion of the discussion makes Linsley Hood a liar like many others on this blog.

    *
    What he did not (want to) understand is that you can’t compare a sea level TREND (let alone a trend’s STANDARD ERROR, or a sea level trend DIFFERENCE computed out of a second level polynomial) to the uncertainty of a satellite’s orbit.

    That’s sheer nonsense, and Linsley Hood should perfectly know that.

    What is comparable to the uncertainty of a satellite’s orbit is NOT a trend let alone an acceleration, but the MEASUREMENTS performed by the satellite’s onboard devices.

    *
    Here is NOAA’s altimetry data since 1993:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o-Oj6k1iKsG4GakwIhLySFiKLsKBt2_F/view

    It shows a linear trend of 3.1 +- 0.03 mm/yr for 1993-2022 (for 1993-2015, the trend was 2.7 mm/yr).

    If we now detrend this altimetry time series, we see

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/15We0K5N9pHXyQKIK6oYw26W3KBxaftUr/view

    and we see also what we can compare to the orbit’s uncertainty, namely the mean of the measurements.

    But… this is the altimetry data global mean!

    I don’t have access to altimetry grid data which would show what a nonsense Linsley Hood is telling us.

    But to have an idea about local grid data looks like, we can have a look at the detrended data of a tide gauge:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HS2jhBNoI88fUnNifl-KbO8heYDlF5tU/view

    And THAT is what you need to compare with a satellite’s orbit.

    *
    What is absolutely amazing is that people like Linsley Hood really think that no one at NOAA would have taken that into consideration during altimetry data processing.

    Warmistas aren’t good for us all, but Coolistas are even worse.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      From NOAA (referring to land based tide gauges – fixed to the crust) –

      “Observed and predicted times of low water are within 0.12 hours on average. On average, the heights of observed and predicted high waters are within 0.147m (0.48 ft.); low waters are within 0.135m (0.44ft.); and hourly heights are within 0.143m (0.47ft.).”

      Feel free to look up the accuracy claimed by NOAA for measuring local sea level with specially designed instruments in contact with the water – not from hundreds of kilometers away.

      No amount of averaging will help – chaos reigns. Look at NOAA acknowledgements of the discrepancies between observation and prediction for something as “simple” as tide times and heights!

      By the way, when you use “trend”, do you really mean “average”?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” By the way, when you use ‘trend’, do you really mean ‘average’? ”

        Anyone asking such a fundamentally stupid question can’t tell the difference between the two.

        And so everything he writes here in his smug 5 o’clock tea English is 100% rubbish that no one needs to read.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…from Swenson…” By the way, when you use trend, do you really mean average? ”

          ***

          Swenson is asking because your use of the words in your post make no sense.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          You really dont have a clue, do you?

          You wrote –

          “And so everything he writes here in his smug 5 oclock tea English is 100% rubbish that no one needs to read.”

          I’m sure that you think that someone might value your opinion, for some strange reason. As it stands, all you seem to do is to think that “trends” can determine the future, that a constantly changing chaotic system such as the ocean, can be meaningfully measured to ridiculous levels of precision like 0.04 mm!

          On the other hand, you can’t even describe the GHE, let alone propose the miraculous mechanism which would alternately cool, heat, cool, and reheat the planet over the last four and a half billion years or so.

          Keep telling people what they need to read. Maybe if you provide the general public with your contact details, they can consult you on what they should believe or not believe. I doubt that an endlessly whining, gutless, complaining, sauerkraut like you would have the backbone to do such a thing, but you might prove me wrong.

          [laughs at SkyDragon idiot]

      • Bindidon says:

        It is evident that both Robertson and Flynnson not only both did understand how dumb Flynnson’s answer to Norman was, but also are similarly ignorant of what are ‘trend’ and ‘average’.

        The very best is Robertson’s dumb statement

        ” Swenson is asking because your use of the words in your post make no sense. ”

        because I did not use the word ‘average’ in my posts. Only Flynnson did.

        • Swenson says:

          Binny,

          Trend : a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

          You wrote earlier –

          “What he did not (want to) understand is that you cant compare a sea level TREND (let alone a trends STANDARD ERROR, or a sea level trend DIFFERENCE computed out of a second level polynomial) to the uncertainty of a satellites orbit.”

          So the “trend” based on a ridiculously impossibly 0.04 mm measurement of global sea level is not based on an “average” because you didn’t use the word “average”?

          As to a sea level trend “difference” – which trends are you talking about? Are these “trends” heading in different directions? If you claim the “trends” are based on measurements of distance from a satellite – but you don’t know how far distant the satellite is, then you are making stuff up – hoping that if you SHOUT LOUDLY nobody will realise how stupid you are.

          The sound you hear is people laughing in your direction – not applause for your intellectual brilliance.

          Carry on.

          • Bindidon says:

            Flynnson didn’t understand anything of what Norman and I talked about, but desperately tries to hide it by boasting his arrogant and ignorant blathering.

            Flynnson telling other people how stupid they are: that is definitely the very best on this blog.

            Carry on, you arrogant twat!

          • Swenson says:

            Binny,

            You wrote –

            “Flynnson didnt understand anything of what Norman and I talked about, . . .”, and of course you have absolutely no intention of being helpful to anybody, have you?

            Oh dear, Binny, got nothing in the way of fact to contribute?

            You might as well keep on being a sour Kraut.

            Have you figured out the role of the GHE in the Earth’s supposed cooling, heating, cooling, and heating again? Too hard?

    • RLH says:

      If you want to compute a trend, first you have to compute values. If the error is those values has a significant ‘chaotic’ component any value you calculate will then be in error also. No amount of calculation from that point will remove that. Fact.

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    from Binny post, a quote, I think, from rlh…

    ” So Blinnys conclusion is that orbits are not determined by the geoid over which they fly and not knowing that geoid accurately makes calculating that orbit with any accuracy challenging at best.

    ***

    I think rlh is getting too deeply into this. A satellite or planet does not care about the shape of a geoid, only the gravitational field it encounters. I am not disputing that the field can vary in strength due to surface anomalies but the variations would be far too small to significantly affect the orbit of a satellite.

    For example, the difference between equatorial oblateness and polar flatness is about 43 kilometres. That’s 23 kilometres per Pole which is a spit in the ocean compared to the 12,714 diameter pole to pole. The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 12,756 km average.

    Considered the speed at which satellites must fly, about 8 km/second, their momentum would carry them over any serious anomalies in the gravitational field.

    • RLH says:

      “I think rlh is getting too deeply into this. A satellite or planet does not care about the shape of a geoid, only the gravitational field it encounters.”

      What determines the orbital position vertically? The geoid over which it flies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

      “The geoid is the shape that the ocean surface would take under the influence of the gravity of Earth, including gravitational attraction and Earth’s rotation, if other influences such as winds and tides were absent

      Actually air pressure has a significant component too. Ask any sailor how accurate tide tables are day to day. Close but never precise.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”What determines the orbital position vertically? The geoid over which it flies”.

        ***

        Nice try, Richard. The altitude is determined solely by the effect of the gravitational field on the satellite or planet. The gravitational field simply does not vary significantly due to geoid shape to to affect its altitude.

        Maybe if the geoid was a cube, or a very irregular shape, it might make a difference.

        You need to stop reading Wiki and get out a pencil and paper along with a good book on satellite orbits.

  23. Swenson says:

    From The Atlantic –

    “Planet Earth used to be something like a cross between a deep freeze and a car crusher. During vast stretches of the planets history, oceans from pole to pole were covered with a blanket of ice a kilometer or so thick. Scientists call this “snowball Earth.””

    Oh well, if “scientists” say so, it must be true!

    Obviously due a severe lack of CO2, but at least the oceans underneath the ice must have been storing a few billion years of heat from the Sun, in order to stay liquid.

    Of course, the ice was special climatological ice, which refused to melt when exposed to the heat of the tropical sun.

    And of course, no explanation at all for the cause of the cooling, heating, cooling again, and supposedly heating again! Maybe it’s a conspiracy, and “scientists” are hiding the truth because non-scientists can’t handle the truth.

    So when is the next “snowball Earth” coming?

  24. David Stone says:

    A couple of things; questions really…
    First, My partner looking over my shoulder as I looked at the graph above asked ” Why does the graph go up and down like that?
    It is a good question , and my assumption is that if the record is supposed to be a realistic net record of the whole earth’s temperature at the point in time , or points aggregated for the month, then it is assuming that the whole earth is sometimes increasing and decreasing in temperature by more in the course of a couple of months than it is over the average is over the course of ten years. Obviously this is not what is happening, and the ups and downs of the graph in the short term must be a reflection of the imperfection of the collection of comprehensive enough data to truly give a reading of the net global temperature at any one point in time. And this in turn must reflect the unreliability of , or at least the imprecision of the overall trends within the parameters of the tiny amount of warming over decades or centuries that is under discussion . Is this correct?
    The second is from the above discussion about radiant heat and whether heat can travel in a vacuum . Surely that is how the heat from the sun reaches us; It comes through millions of miles of space doesn’t it?
    Cheers and Happy new year folks.
    D J S

Leave a Reply